Talk:Beherit

message: In case there anybody watching this article besides this MrMoustacheMM, they may have noticed the latest edits. Besides the article history, there was a discussion which I think should be read to better understand the context (of course this requires reading the whole discussion and not just parts of it). To keep this on one page, I copied it here (see following section).--185.42.112.78 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Is there anybody watching this article besides this MrMoustacheMM who dares to falsely claim my changes were “generally unfounded” (which is obviously wrong although I might add further information on the Compendious Syriac Dictionary and the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) and to write some ridiculous assumptions on what they (although the user name suggest a male user I can’t know that and I don’t care either) believe to be my own opinion about which they don’t know anything, but fails to see that they are rude by doing so and that any uncivil remark of mine is merely a reply to such behaviour and does not come out of the void (see User talk:185.42.112.78#Beherit and then please read the whole discussion and not just parts of it)?
Well, I don’t feel particularly motivated to still offer some insight, not even to restore the parts that allegedly posed no problems for the aforementioned user (the addition of tags and italicising of album titles). What I did was add some information on the name and Syriac. I edited the German article though, in two steps (adding data from the aforementioned works and others refering to the name Beherit and information from the dictionary usually abbreviated as Gesenius); if anyone cares they are free to copy from there as long as they state that in their summary (except the Gesenius and some of LaVey’s works [I used German and French translations that could be found online], all sources are written in English, and you still have access to the article’s history and my explanation on the other talk page), but I don’t know if I’m going to help, for reasons stated above and on the aforementioned talk page. --185.42.112.78 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future changes? 

message: Dude, what a discussion. Some comments, please read the whole thing before this becomes a dispute like the one above:
* MrMoustacheMM, you do not know shit about the user′s opinion (just as they don′t know about yours, nor do I about any Wikipedian′s), so don′t be surprised by certain reactions. (And don′t even think of reporting me for using the s-word, which also applies to me in this same sentence and is nothing personal against you or any other user. If I had written ″anything″ insttead, it would still be the same sentence except for one word you might find offensive.)
* Anybody with some knowledge about these things can tell you that the scene back then was far more international than the article suggests, so the comment about the edit making perfect sense is justified. The older version was not more justified than 185.42.112.78′s since there is no reference for a Norwegian majority.
* The changes were more supported and less original research than you claim (and than the rest of the article was). 185.42.112.78 did, unlike anybody else, add a reference for the claim that the band′s name was Syriac (the 1991 the interview from Liquid of Life), though the dictionary references (″See e. g. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary or the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon″) may have been insufficient. Claiming the edit was "generally unsourced changes" and restore unreferenced stuff at the same time, you should not be surprised if a contributor who did bring reference (though sometimes not precise enough) is pissed off and reacts as pissed off people do, nor if people react to your ″read WP:CIVIL″ comment by ″read that yourself″, ″not exactly the epitome of civility. You are in no good position to tell anybody about civility or insults″, ″unfounded assumptions (which definitely are insulting/uncivil)″ or ″work on your way of editing/communicating though, for any uncivil remark of mine is merely a reply to such behaviour and does not come out of the void″ (quoted because you admit you stopped reading before the end of the last post). Especially if you undo whole edits (also including improvement of typography) and depict their version as a disimprovement or worsening (which the impression you may leave, but not the truth).
* I am not a Syriacist or whatever, but I did a quick online search for A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. It was written by Robert Payne Smith, the German article calls the Latin version his magnum opus. The English version was done by his daughter. So this is a dictionary by a notable scholar. Its age does not pose a problem, does it? You can find it on Google Books, and also lots of books quoting it.
* I also did a quick online search for Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. This is a dictionary project (info) with several books published (list), several of these authors are obviously notable: Joseph Fitzmyer, Michael Sokoloff, so are other contributors: Ze'ev Ben-Haim, Menaḥem Cohen (must be this guy), some others for sure, I did not check every name. Again, Google Books has lots of results. Theres is a book called Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic Setting which features quite a few of this project′s contributors (including one about the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) but also other authors (I trust you can find the table of content yourself), by Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, a scholar publisher.
* I may add that hardly anybody speaks or understands Syriac (or generally Aramaic), and it is pretty unlikely that they listen to black metal and contribute to this project, so we should appreciate this rather than shoo them away.
* Thus, we may assume none of these dictionaries name the band, but they are references when it comes to Syriac. This is valuable (and, by the way, was not reverted in the German Beherit article [edits linked to by 185.42.112.78 in the post below your last one], where it is better referenced than here). By the way, it was mentioned that these are ″dictionaries used by scholars versed in Aramaic″.
* You wrote you ″got partway through your second paragraph″, so apparently you didn′t read the whole of their last answer. I suggest you do. Certain other changes (style) were explained in a reflecting way (″A mistake of mine, obviously″, ″The point about the need for sources is valid though″, ″I acknowledge that at least you are not unfair on that point″, ″Thanks for the links (no sarcasm here [really])″). but according to your last comment you stopped reading before reaching those paragraphs.
* The sentence about Hitler, Mario and Nirvana is ″just an intentionally absurd example″ showing how short of knowledge we are when assuming anything about another user (you on their alleged opinion, they [in this ″intentionally absurd example″] on your name). But you stopped reading before anyway.
I think it was better to open a new section for these comments. --Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg, formerly active using the static IP adress 132.187.3.26. 00:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehash 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beherit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813184705/http://www.musicmight.com/artist/finland/rovaniemi/beherit to http://www.musicmight.com/artist/finland/rovaniemi/beherit
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130101224/http://www.anus.com/metal/about/interviews/beherit/ to http://www.anus.com/metal/about/interviews/beherit
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified