User talk:Potatín5

Welcome!

Hello, Potatín5!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to History of ancient Israel and Judah, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please be careful not to simply replace one viewpoint with an opposing viewpoint without attempting to balance the contrasting opinions, as this goes against Wikipedia's core policies on neutrality. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how would you like then to revise the section on the Babylonian period in the History of ancient Israel and Judah article in order to include the source I quoted in my last edit, while at the same time balancing it with the other opinions? I say this because I think it is important that the article provides the most updated scholarship on the subject as possible. I will wait for your response. Potatín5 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo has demonstrated how opposing statements and sources can be contrasted in this edit. It is not a simple matter of replacing slightly older scholarship with newer scholarship, least of all when we are talking 2008 and 2012. Unless older sources can be shown to be problematic, or their information outdated, there is no reason to assume that their conclusions are any less valid. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the explanation. I hope we can continue to collaborate in the future. Potatín5 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arab–Israeli conflict discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FYI ~ Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ----Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me remember that you were the first who reverted an editing of mine [1], that I have been constantly giving arguments for my editions, and then we can discuss what kind of edition would suit us both. Potatín5 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have a consensus in editing, thanks for replying and let me know your argument. Anyway, previously you reverted this edit of mine, eliminating completely the quoting of Finkelstein [2]: "In past articles I proposed identifying Omride architecture...I therefore see no alternative to the Omride identity of Hazor X..." And regarding your new edit, I disagree with your phrase: "However, Finkelstein's Low Chronology is disputed by many other archaeologists, such as William G. Dever." because "many" is not a correct explanation, because people who disagree with Finkelstein is not a homogeneous group, they also differ among them, and the term "other" (alone) is more fit to avoid a charge of ideology. I can also quote "many" other archaeologists who agree with Finkelstein fully or in some degree. Regarding the word "However", it was another editor who disagrees to use this kind of terms in this article. I deleted "your" However due to repetion, as the word was already in a previous sentence an it was repetitive. On the other hand, I see you have the tendency to "highlight" some words in an ideological way.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Christianity. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I apologize for what I said. Mea culpa. Potatín5 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doug Weller; your comment was beyond the pale. However, you have a lot to contribute to this encyclopedia. I don't want to lose you over something so easily avoidable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		For all the work you do improving Christianity-related articles. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1 Esdras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

1. Consider doing two-phase instead of single bulk editing for non-minor edits. I find a more piecemeal style can help me feel I'm providing transparency.
2. Thank you for fixing the intro on dating on Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions. You removed my reference to Singer-Avitz's "Rejoinder"'s dating and replaced it with Meshel's from the 2012 first edition. I agree his work is prime on dating; he offers a confident and multidimensional line of thinking while Singer-Avitz's less sure-footed argument has interdependencies. Since you added a reference, I'm wondering: do you have that book? Can you send me a picture of the page where he talks most conclusively about the overall dating?
3. Thank you for the minor cleaning / editing of my reference tags. I've been using citer.toolforge.org; is there something the matter with the formatting they provide? Is there a better citer tool that won't require editors to clean up after me? Temerarius (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ok. Generally, I find redundant doing several edits when the changes can be done in just one. But if you feel better if I distribute the changes into several edits, I will respect that.

2. I actually replaced Singer-Avitz's "Rejoinder"'s article with Ahituv (2014), p 30 (although note that Ahituv was one of the contributors to the Meshel 2012 volume), which you can read online. In Meshel's 2012 book, there is a chapter titled "The Nature of the Site and its Biblical Background", pp. 65-69, which also discusses the date and context of the site and reaches the same conclusion as found in Ahituv (2014).

3. I do not know about this topic; I have never used or heard about citer.toolforge.org before. But at Wikipedia:Citing sources, you might find some useful on how to make reference tags. Potatín5 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Potatín5 I don't know why I didn't receive a notification at your reply, so please add an @.

1. As long as I'm not prevented easily seeing what was removed and connecting it to the reasoning stated. Sometimes you can't tell a removal from a replacement. Thanks.

2. I can read the 2014 source online??? The author of the 2012 book is meshel and the author of chapter 5, the inscriptions, as far as I can tell Ahituv is credited as the "main" author of that chapter, but I don't know if that means Ahituv is the main person taking responsibility for the transcriptions and translations, or the main person in charge of writing down Meshel's ideas in English. Between "main" authorial confusion, different citing styles, and different transliteration into English of their names, it seems a little murky sometimes.

3. That's where I found the tool I mentioned in the first place. And what's so special about that etymology you like so much? Temerarius (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Temerarius

2. You seem to be (mistakenly) confusing the two books. Ahituv 2014's paper was published as a chapter of the book "See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me" (Ps 40:8): Epigraphy and Daily Life from the Bible to the Talmud, which was published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in 2014. By contrast, Meshel's book Kuntillet ʻAjrud was published by Israel Exploration Society in 2012.

3. My point about the etymology is that Park's paper is a relatively recent study on the etymology of Asherah's name, and his study's conclusions were removed without explanation. Potatín5 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reported deletions to admins

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - wholesome deletions of research-based conclusions at Josiah, Ten Commandments, Omrides, etc. IncandescentBliss (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think user @Caeciliusinhorto has explained the issues succinctly. Potatín5 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s collaborate :)

I mean no ill-will. See my reply on the Josiah page. I’m still learning the ropes here.

I know the Joshua scholarship much better than the menorah scholarship, so I’ll not seek to edit the menorah page for now. IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I do not want any quarrels too. If you are interested in learning more about WP:RULES, my personal advice is to start reading WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Potatín5 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to collab?

I've had my eyes on the Census of Quirinius article for a while. I have a selection of citations (from good sources I imagine) and have had ideas about re-organising the structure of the article (without altering or omitting anything ofc), such as adding sections for literary analysis, context, etc.

You have a care for quality and seem to have a base of knowledge on this particular topic, so I thought you would like to publish edits on the above page together. Divus303 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Divus303: I would not object to the idea in principle, but we have to take into account that the view that the Census of Quirinius as described in the Gospel of Luke was a historical event is a minority position within mainstream scholarship. This means that if we edit the article so that we give the impression that the Lukan account may well be historically accurate then other editors might think that we are heading into WP:FRINGE territory.

We need very strong WP:RS if we want to assert that the Census of Quirinius may have been a historical event. Personally, I do think there are some good sources we could employ to make changes to that article. I have already provided many of them in the "Religious defenses" section (Pearson, Porter, Huebner, Giambrone), and I am also aware of this paper by Stephen Carlson which also addresses some common objections againts the Lukan Census that we even find in the Wikipedia article. What other sources do you have and how do you think we could use them to change the article while still complying with WP:DUE guidelines? Potatín5 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am mainly talking about adding sections which explore the literary devices within Luke and how they relate to the census, such as the author's theme of not writing in a chronological order. This paper by the Tyndale Bulletin (which is scholarly to my knowledge) argues strongly that the Lukan census is the census of Quirinius, but that it exists as a digression from the bulk of the narrative.

For my proposed "literary analysis" section I also thought of including excerpts from Huebner about the use of the title "governor" and its meaning within the text. I also thought of including a quote from Fitzmyer about the census simply being a literary device. Divus303 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. If the idea is that we include a reference to Armitage's theory that Luke was referring to the census of Quirinius that took place in 6 AD (plus further discussions about other literary devices), then I do not find any objections to your proposal. Potatín5 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, I appreciate your concern. Thank you for the green light! I'll start with it tomorrow. Feel free to tweak or add to it if need be! Divus303 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]