User talk:Woscafrench - Knowledge (XXG)

1588:, the etymology of the name is a red herring, like the historicity of the Exodus. Christians and Christian-influenced Jews (they don't even realise they're influenced by Christian theology) think it matters if YHWH is derived from a verbal root meaning existence because (they believe) this demonstrates that YHWH/God is creator of the universe (although "I am that I am" isn't a statement of creation). Quite possibly they're right, quite possibly it is derived from such a root, as Frank Moore Cross first theorized (that's in our article), but it doesn't matter: what really matters is that YHWH both was and is the strength and hope of Jewish people through all their history. 1581:, for example, has a grotesquely long section about the historicity of the Exodus, because that's what interests Christian - the historical reality of the Exodus guarantees the historical reality of the Resurrection and the Christ-hood of Jesus. It's not really about that at all, it's about God's revelation of himself to Israel and his strength and faith with them. I'd like to get rid of that section, but I can't (despite what you might think, I don't always have my way on these articles). I'd like to see much more on what Exodus and the law codes and the rest tell us about God and his care for Israel, but very few Knowledge (XXG) editors share such concerns. 423:: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Knowledge (XXG)) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). 368:: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Knowledge (XXG)) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). 1716: 627:. The gist is: if you don't edit by Knowledge (XXG) rules, you will be blocked by admins. There are certain edits that are wholeheartedly allowed, while other edits are considered nefarious. Also, you have inserted your own personal opinion in the article and that's not done. I guess that for you the Bible is holy. Well, for Knowledge (XXG) the mainstream academic view is holy and it should be respected in all circumstances. 1570:

because that's what the Bible says. They're right, it does, but those who tell them they're wrong because this contradicts science are also wrong. It's wrong not because it contradicts science (or rather, is contradicted by science) but because it ignores the intention of the passage, which is about God's plans for Israel. In other words, Genesis 1-2 and the biblical chronology are statements about God, not about the world.

1467: 429:. Knowledge (XXG) is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. 2350: 2218: 1644: 1236: 273: 1911: 526: 144: 1821:

I know the guidance is that compromised accounts are *usually* not unblocked; if you want, I can remove the account creation block, and you can create a new account and use that. I also know that losing one's edit history hurts, though, so I'm open to seeing what can be done; I know it's not unprecedented for a compromised account to get unblocked, once it's recovered.

1797: 1742: 1617:, and you have responded to that here. I haven't replied for four months, since I'm still not quite able to piece together what you're saying. For example, I don't understand why you think that Christians would care about the historicity of the Exodus whereas Jews wouldn't, I also can't see how someone could argue that the origin of YHWH's name 2170: 1574:

most notably). Their essential position is a Christian one: Jesus, a man, was also God, appearing in history; the Old Testament records that history, and must therefore be accurate, or else the New Testament record of Jesus as Christ cannot be trusted. So they reserve their theology for the Resurrection, and reduce the Exodus to reportage.

1332:, that I think the answer to that question is "no". One of the reasons you cited for making your change was a suggestion that the language was editorialising, but that suggestion doesn't seem to match the text you edited. The edits in your editing spree were so similar, it made me wonder if you were running a script of some sort to do it. 2024:

their email address) is anonymous, and as an "experienced" user your probably aware of the fact that we cannot check the IP data for edits from as far back as 2018). This unblock request actually serves to convince me that Writ Keeper was correct to block this account in the first place, and as such, I am declining the appeal.

1862:

why I thought the account was compromised. Anyway, I'm happy to admit that I was wrong and apologize, and I'll unblock your account. Before I do, though, do you mind explaining a little bit about those edits? Not like an unblock request or anything, I'll unblock regardless; I'm still just wondering about the edits. Thanks,

1408:

note on your talk page as I've come round to your edit since I first saw it. The "it should be noted that" was a bit redundant considering that the sentence began "While". However, doing a quick check of a few of your other edits, I quickly found a couple which have obscured the meaning of the sentence for no gain at all,

374:. Knowledge (XXG) is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are. 1820:

Hmm, I don't think so; that address is just for if your account is globally locked, which yours isn't. If there's a current admin that you know who can vouch for you, emailing them would be good, I think. I can also ask a checkuser to check your account, though I don't know how helpful that might be.

1573:

Less extreme conservatives will allow that Genesis 1-2 can be read in ways that accommodate modern science, but still hold that the rest of Genesis and the Exodus story are real history. This is very difficult to argue these days, and only a few respectable scholars will do so (Hoffmeier and Kitchen,

1092:

I agree that this is probably a sock puppet who is not adding anything valuable, and if their accounts are banned for that reason that seems fair enough. In the case of their edit to the talk page I think chastising them there for wasting people's time with a joke no-one was laughing at would do more

2151:

for details. That post to their talk pge was too disturbing to me to allow it to slide; I don't understand what is going on (and don't want to!), but it is not going to come up here anymore. You indicated above you were OK with this (although at the time I don't think I'd raised the possibility of

2023:

Simply agreeing that these edits were "strange" is not an explanation. Looking at this with a cynical eye, your responses are pretty much exactly what one might expect from a person who had successfully compromised an old account (an offer to email ID is useless when the original account owner (and

1877:

Woscafrench has posted a comment on my talk page before, a few years ago. Tho I don't recall any other interaction, the name does seem familiar. hmmmmm... nope, I've had a think and still can't recall anything else. Possibly some ANI thread? But anyway, every rational person loves me. So that's

1407:

Your edit summary did not match, as there was no editorialising in that sentence, or at least any editorialising that was done was entirely legitimately trying to explain the subject mater, rather than pushing some POV. That being said, I think I reverted you prematurely and should have just left a

2000:

not good" is an accurate discription of this ugly situation. I can stay off that man's talk page (and stop talking about him on wikipedia) if that helps with things at all?. Sorry Floquenbeam, I felt compelled to to balance out my negativity with something positive, but I didn't put enough thought

1861:

Hmm, okay. They were pretty weird-looking edits, if you'll excuse my saying so; the one on Gråbergs Gråa Sång's talk page raised particular alarms, given that we deal with a lot of "subscribe to PewDiePie" nonsense from one-off vandals. That, plus the time gap between those and your last edits, is

1569:

Hi W. I should explain what I mean by conservative Christians (and Jews) removing God from the Old Testament/Tanakh. I mean that they turn everything into history. At the extreme (and I'm not saying this is your position), they say that God created the world 6000 years ago over a period of 6 days

1350:

Nope, not running a script. It's pretty easy to do a search for articles with that phrase, find it in the article, and reword it properly. And how does my edit not perfectly match my edit summary? Did you click on either of the links in my edit summary (one is to an essay; the other to an MOS)? I

1149:

I was reading the article, and then I suddenly thought to myself "this is an obscure article - I wonder if I've heard of anyone who's edited it?". And yes - Tomruen's name came up a lot , I went further back in the articles history to find someone other than Tomruen and I saw your username and it

473:

information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Knowledge (XXG) may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend

822:

I didn't want to cite it. You made me cite it after refusing to accept (the undeniable truth) that there is no way of knowing when the New Testament was written. Are you not even a little interested in the truth of that claim? Rather than just parroting someone else's opinions? Robinson was a

2101:, from your comment above, it seems like if I believe this is the same person, you're OK with an unblock; is that still true? *Iff* that's the case, my inclination would be to formalize their assurance that they will not mention or interact with Gråbergs Gråa Sång as an unblock condition. -- 1248:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1656:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1527:. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 622:

three times (in three places) before giving the above warning. How many times do I have to explain that to you before you get it? Let me make it very clear: in by far the most situations Knowledge (XXG) cannot be a source for Knowledge (XXG). Do also read what I wrote at

2309:

does not cover modern conceptions of God in Judaism; it does cover the ancient god of early Israel and Judah. Unless you have a source on a pagan/polytheist renaissance in Israel, we should not say that the Yahweh from the article is still worshipped today.

645:{{cite book|author=Bart D. Ehrman|title=Whose Word is It?: The Story Behind who Changed the New Testament and why|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lcrUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA143|year=2008|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-1-84706-314-4|page=143}}</ref: --> 435:. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims. 285:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

2074:- I have evidence to prove that I am Woscafrench, but I have not been able to find an administrator who is willing to look at it. Would you be willing for me to email you it? I appreciate you may be busy right now, I can wait until you get back. 803:

to show that is accepted by a large part of mainstream Bible scholars. I.e. despite Ehrman's statement about almost universal assent for the gospels being written some decades after the death of Jesus. Does Robinson's view pass the

1846:

I made those two edits. I think the IP of the first one would be the same IP for many of my edits last year if that is evidence of some sort for a checkuser? I'll try to see if there's an administrator who I can send an email to.

1205:

because I think he got quite pissy about something minor David Eppstein had done in the past? Although that particular discussion I came across completely by chance - I was looking for something else on the admin boards at the

710:

First, the cited source is too old and it is a minority view, so it should not be cited anyway. Second, yes, in general, you have to cite specific pages of a book/article, instead of linking to other Knowledge (XXG) articles.

603:

I added a verifiable source and you deleted it which was hypocritical of you. My source wasn't wikipedia, it was a former Bishop of the Church of England. Are you not worried I might report you for your aggressive behaviour?

2119:

as a general rule, so I didn't really want to go against their judgment, especiqllu when I'm not particularly confident in my own. I also trust you, though, so if you're good for an unblock once you get the email, so am I.

2395: 2261: 1684: 1276: 313: 1434:

We'll just have to agree to disagree as it doesn't look like you're comprehending it. If I happen to spot another issue as I am making those changes, I will, but OR is generally not something I'm looking for.

869:

information. Knowledge (XXG) is not meant for venting your opinion or my opinion or another editor's opinion. It is only meant to render what has been published in reliable sources, and all this according to

2379:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2245:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1668:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1260:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1163:

Just so we're all on the same page, a few days ago when I first saw what happened to Fmadd, I was so indignant I broke my fast and left a message on the talk page of the sockpuppeteer template page:

297:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1209: 67:! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the 2364: 2231: 1490: 696:

You have not explained anything to me. Is your problem with the source I provided that that I provided a link to the wikipedia page about the book, rather than a link to the book itself?

186:. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. 1054: 559:

Please don't threaten me for disagreeing with you. I linked to a prexisting wikipedia page, that is not original research and for you to claim that it is very dishonest of you.

1402: 1494: 1220:

although the fact that I've now had to edit my talk page has cost me more (percentage-wise) than I gained from that 1 mainspace edit, so perhaps it was both cheeky and foolish

740: 1113:

I apologise for reverting your reversion of my deletion of the Ipuwer papyrus, but I promise it will get a mention, along with things like the Apiru and the tempest stele.

2143:

With the OK of the blocking admin, I'm unblocking you based on the private evidence you sent me, which convinces me you are the original owner of this account.

2060:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

1150:

rang a bell and I noticed you'd reverted a good faith edit with no explanation and marked it as a minor edit. For some reason that gets under my skin - I've

112: 47: 1951: 2045: 1753: 1749: 1508: 28:

to Knowledge (XXG). Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

108: 1879: 501:

and obey it! That's what "verifiability" means for Knowledge (XXG). If you change referenced information ever again you will be reported at

2418: 2283: 1698: 1416:. That last edit completely failed to spot the sort of original research that I think the manual of style was warning you to look out for! 1290: 465:

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Knowledge (XXG) operates off of

327: 1165:

Template_talk:Sockpuppeteer#Blocked_sockmaster_page_where_the_reason_for_the_account_originally_being_blocked_has_nothing_to_do_with_CU.3F

928:

If Knowledge (XXG) had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and

1167:. My revert of you was perhaps a little cheeky as it technically counts as a mainspace edit, so it was helping me towards my 70% target. 2115:

Yessss...I'm okay with that. Honestly, I'm a bit puzzled about this whole thing; my gut (very tentatively) says unblock, but I trust

1729: 1486: 1134:

I am genuinely curious how you happened across an edit I made nine months ago on a page that has had well over 100 edits since then.

2192: 2127: 2075: 2002: 1946: 1869: 1848: 1838: 1804: 1775: 1622: 1425: 1341: 936:(who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in 252: 148: 1516: 537: 725:

In what way is it "too old"? Does being more than a decade or two old make a book ineligible to be used as a source in wikipedia?

2414: 2279: 1694: 1549:

an OK comment on your part? If so, can you please explain why do you think any of the users you mentioned "defends the Nazis"?

1499:

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

1443: 1359: 1318: 1286: 415:

A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

323: 2388: 2254: 1677: 1328:

Hello. No I do not really understand the purpose of your edit. Did you read the article before you edited it? You mass edited

1269: 306: 52: 32: 25: 1151: 105:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 853:. All we do around here is "parroting someone else's opinions". If you don't like this, leave. This whole website is a huge 2439: 2090: 2030: 1554: 1535: 585:. We have rules for editing, it's not bad that you don't know the rules, but you should be willing to learn them. More at 76: 1512: 42: 1924: 1723: 1524: 531: 57: 2400: 2266: 1689: 1281: 1164: 318: 1918: 1520: 1500: 1923:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

474:

that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf.

236:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

89:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1882:, tho. That seems like trolling, or making threats, or loonieness, or bringing off-wiki disputes on-wiki, or ... 1002: 1965: 1504: 1064: 940:'s time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a 72: 1550: 1531: 2376: 2242: 1665: 1257: 294: 64: 1372:

While this is the standard usage of the term "normalizer" in Lie algebra, this construction is actually the

194: 1791:

I am the user that created this account. I can email some ID to an administrator if that would help? Would

1473:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Knowledge (XXG). It does

879: 679: 1493:

to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is

1614:

you appeared to say at one point that you wanted to put God back into the Bible, which I asked you about

1155: 469:

information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include

2182: 2157: 2124: 2106: 1891: 1866: 1835: 1772: 1748:. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the 624: 586: 248: 199: 998: 846: 578: 397:, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable). 37: 1079: 1010: 988: 891: 813: 776: 748: 716: 687: 632: 594: 549: 510: 483: 219: 2358: 2225: 1652: 1383: 1244: 875: 785:

This view appears to be original research on your part. I could not find it in the source you cited

675: 408: 404: 281: 263: 1154:. But you needn't worry as I'm currently aiming to get my mainspace edits back up to a respectable 1047: 854: 2372: 2238: 1715: 1661: 1253: 883: 824: 805: 800: 442: 290: 1139: 2093:. Not sure what kind of evidence would prove this, but I'll take a look if you're in no rush. 1068: 871: 671: 438: 152: 741:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources (history)#What is "recent" scholarship in history?

540:

by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at

2028: 1886:

not good. GGS seems to be undistrubed by it, but that kind of post should not happen again. --

1503:

administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the

229: 183: 167: 159: 128: 2384: 2250: 2148: 1673: 1265: 949: 426: 388: 371: 344: 302: 68: 2407: 2328: 2317: 2273: 2178: 2153: 2121: 2102: 2096: 2069: 2054: 1929: 1887: 1863: 1832: 1786: 1769: 1759: 1417: 1333: 1168: 1094: 828: 786: 758: 726: 697: 605: 560: 541: 237: 224: 2387:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2380: 2253:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2246: 1676:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1669: 1268:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1261: 1158:, so I'm not planning on stirring up discontent on any more talk pages for the near future. 1093:

to defuse the situation than just deleting the comment and waiting for them to come back.

866: 858: 850: 663: 649: 619: 502: 498: 432: 414: 400: 359: 350:

with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.

305:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 298: 214: 2152:

making it a condition of your unblock). Give me a sec to dot the i's and cross the t's. --

1128: 1072: 1006: 984: 887: 809: 772: 744: 712: 683: 628: 590: 545: 506: 479: 475: 1063:

is obviously a sock of them. As such, all edits by them should be reverted on sight, per

862: 667: 653: 582: 420: 365: 1596: 1437: 1353: 1312: 1118: 204: 2147:, this unblock is contingent on a 1-way interaction ban with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. See 1466: 382: 353: 2433: 1135: 119:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2116: 2025: 933: 771:

Robinson's view did not stick in mainstream scholarship. It is therefore outdated.

454: 179: 124: 120: 2349: 2217: 1733: 1643: 1235: 272: 2312: 1611: 1208:

Edit: that is apparently not why I remember Tomruen, I've got him mixed up with

470: 458: 525: 1578: 466: 450: 383:"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required 362:. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation. 98: 1831:, made almost a year after the previous edits on this account, suggest so. 1607: 1592: 1373: 1114: 209: 90: 2422: 2336: 2321: 2287: 2200: 2186: 2161: 2130: 2110: 2083: 2035: 2010: 1895: 1872: 1856: 1841: 1812: 1778: 1702: 1630: 1600: 1558: 1539: 1447: 1429: 1363: 1345: 1322: 1294: 1176: 1143: 1122: 1102: 1086: 1067:; this includes edits to talk pages. It would also be wise for you to see 1014: 992: 895: 836: 817: 794: 780: 766: 752: 734: 720: 705: 691: 636: 613: 598: 568: 553: 514: 487: 331: 257: 132: 79: 944:

editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'.

102: 2391:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2257:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2089:

You can mail it. You may need to turn on WP email so you can do it thru

1680:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1272:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

309:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2368:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2235:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

937: 757:

You didn't quite answer my question there, could you please try again?

2306: 2298: 1585: 1577:

But the Tanakh is a Jewish book, not a Christian one. The article on

1368:

The edit you made was to remove the bracketed part of this sentence:

941: 433:

Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited

1824:

Just so I'm clear, though: this account was compromised, correct?

1621:. It may be the case you have some religious insight that I lack. 1351:

can't imagine that you did otherwise it would make perfect sense.

1059: 446: 94: 1310:

supposed to mean? Do you not understand the purpose of the edit?

2404:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2270:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1615: 1057:. I've been dealing with this person for the past few days, and 2394:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2362:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

2260:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

1683:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1275:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

857:, nothing else. Knowledge (XXG) is only interested in editors' 312:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1477:

imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

823:

lecturer at Cambridge, so I imagine his views would pass the

339:

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

1909: 1714: 670:. Got it now? Also, Robinson's view is a minority view, see 1756:), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: 443:

topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia

354:"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is 2327:

What are you talking about? It's literally the same name.

1055:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Herbert McCallum

2042:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2229:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2062:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

401:

We do not publish original thought nor original research

360:

We do not publish original thought nor original research

158:

When editing Knowledge (XXG), there is a field labeled "

2375: