Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rktect

message: Following up on a discussion on the ANE 2 discussion list, Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible and ANE History Lists Commentary blog notes the way the place name [Jerusalem] is written in the Akkadian of Amarna tablet EA 287. 
:He even has a picture from The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool website. He correctly notes that the place name is written with the "City" determinative URU before urusalem. At least this is true in five of the seven instantiations of the place name in the Amarna tablets. 
:EA 287:25: URUú-ru-sa-lim (I believe this is the example illustrated in Yitzhak's post) 
:EA 287:46: URUú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 287:61: ú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 287:63: URUú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 289:14: URUú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 289:29: URUú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 290:15: ú-ru-sa-limKI 
The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places. 
That suggests that it was at one time the northern border of the dijadi which was moved north in the Time of Thutmosis I to the city of Kadesh in the mountains. (This was originally a Phoenician city (Gades - Cadiz, Carthage, Kodesh) which was a city of refuge on the border of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel before any of those existed as countries.
Like Kadesh Jerusalem may have had the same function as a refuge city and also as a place where people would feel safe to meet for purposes of trade. In the 18th Dynasty the border between retnu (the watershed of the Orantes) and the dijadi (the watershed of the Jordan) was at the common headwaters of the Orantes, Litani and Jordan whose mountain watersheds people still fight over today.
The Akkadian name should go first since thats the name of the place in its earliest history, even after it becomes part of an Egyptian province in the 18th and 19th Dynasty as referenced in the Amarna letters.Rktect 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cite a blog post, which holds very little weight in supporting a statement. I'm not even sure the post backs up what you're saying. Ultimately, Akkadian is already addressed in the article, with a better source. Also, please remember to post comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the middle, and with second-level headers (==), not first-level headers (=). -- tariqabjotu 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Much of what you quoted appears to be an analysis from the poster on the blog. That's original research. This segment – The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places. – does not even make sense. "More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI..."? How does one come to that conclusion? -- tariqabjotu 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  URU URU salaam KI 

message: :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=next&oldid=143482768
removed references 
::Whereas, if one looks at article history, this is the first of four consecutive edits I make trying to make Rktect's edits work. These edits corrected numerous typos and grammatical errors made by the user, and linked book references to statements made rather than listing an inordinately large, and not too specific, library at the bottom of the article. The entire effect can be seen in this diff. I tried to make Rktect's edits look good, but still wasn't impressed with the sweeping statements that weren't referenced. Subsequent editors felt it better to remove our combined work, and I agreed that they were better out than in, even after spending time reworking this nonsense. — Gareth Hughes 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Map link does not work, and is insufficient evidence to support sweeping claims made. — Gareth Hughes 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gareth Hughes AKA Garzo diffs a revert that removed only references 

message: :13:34, July 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tewfik (→Rktect) 
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tewfik&diff=prev&oldid=142494204 
:20:12, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→stalking and unwarranted reverts by beit) 
:20:12, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→stalking and unwarranted reverts by beit) 
:20:12, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→stalking and unwarranted reverts by beit) 
:20:11, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→stalking and unwarranted reverts by beit)
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beit_Or&diff=next&oldid=142073584 
:20:11, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→re:) 
:15:07, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→reverts) 
:21:21, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→reverts)
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beit_Or&diff=prev&oldid=142067576 
:21:21, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→reverts) 
:21:04, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→Warning) 
:17:56, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→re:)
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beit_Or&diff=next&oldid=141691052
17:07, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→Warning) 
17:06, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (Warning)
=== Beit Or Warning and response ===
 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.  Beit Or 21:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have violated WP:3RR on Deborah, I invite you to do a self-revert. Beit Or 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How many times must this be said? You can't invent your own theories about things; instead you have to report what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not consider cites from Bartelby's on semitic roots reliable? How about self refrencing Biblical cites? Cites on the ANE from ANET?...You replace cites from Gardiner book and page with Budge by revert? ...Where are your cites in rebuttal? With all due respect you come across as not knowing the first thing about the topics you are reverting. You don't seem to recognize that semitic Akkadian is a precursor to semitic Hebrew by several millenia, You are unfamiliar with the languages of the ANE and their literature, You apparently are unaware that Palestinians have a history in Canaan that goes back to the Peleset, you don't know the history, you don't know the archaeology or the sites, the laws, the campaigns, the kings or the religions. When sites from reputable sources are provided you don't recognize them because you haven't read them. Rktect 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must review review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. You have invented your theories, or put them together from a bunch of sources in a novel way. You have a habit of doing this. If you don't stop, I'm going to propose re-opening your case to expand it to these topics as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your stalking, groundlessly reverting well sourced pages without comment and threatening don't speak well of you as an administrator. From now on, before you revert a page, try commenting on what you don't like about the source and otherwise following Wikipedia protocol. Rktect 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty sure you should just take J's advice, he is pretty much correct. Until(1 == 2) 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is sometimes okay to cite a verse, however you can't make any inferences. I guarantee your Wikipedia experience will run far smoother if you try to thoroughly understand that policy. TewfikTalk 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position would clear up exactly what the issue is here. Until(1 == 2) 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When ignorance is no longer a viable explaination of a persons behavior, it becomes more and more likely that the person is intentionally ignoring policy. Until(1 == 2) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't jump to that conclusion but it does seem odd to remove references and then claim OR or SYN
I added a reference from Gardiner Egyptian Grammar, to the Ten Commandments page re: the meaning of the name Moses in Egyptian. I then went down to the bottom of the page to place the ISBN's went back up to the top and found the reference gone. For what its worth there was no Hebrew language in existence when the events of Exodus took place so what sense does it make to cite a Jewish Encyclopedia as to the meaning of the name in Hebrew? Lets exercise a little common sense and it will be a better encyclopedia. The following are kind of throwaway references just to show its common knowledge. The source I cited was Gardiners Egyptian Gramar.
ahmose
thutmose
Rameses
Calender mesra
Mesori also known as Mesra is the twelfth month of the Coptic calendar. It lies between August 7 and September 5 of the Gregorian calendar. The month of Mesori is also the fourth month of the Season of 'Shemu' (Harvest) in Ancient Egypt, where the Egyptians harvest their crops throughout the land of Egypt. The name of the month of Mesori comes from Mes-o-ri, an Ancient Egyptian word that mean Birth of Sun.
 
I expect you realize that archaeology, history and linguistics are useful tools to understanding the events of the past so why the insistence on pretending they don't exist?Rktect 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do any of the sources mention the name "Moses"? Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beit Or issue stalking and unwarranted reverts by beit

message: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.  Beit Or 21:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have violated WP:3RR on Deborah, I invite you to do a self-revert. Beit Or 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How many times must this be said? You can't invent your own theories about things; instead you have to report what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not consider cites from Bartelby's on semitic roots reliable? How about self refrencing Biblical cites? Cites on the ANE from ANET?...You replace cites from Gardiner book and page with Budge by revert? ...Where are your cites in rebuttal? With all due respect you come across as not knowing the first thing about the topics you are reverting. You don't seem to recognize that semitic Akkadian is a precursor to semitic Hebrew by several millenia, You are unfamiliar with the languages of the ANE and their literature, You apparently are unaware that Palestinians have a history in Canaan that goes back to the Peleset, you don't know the history, you don't know the archaeology or the sites, the laws, the campaigns, the kings or the religions. When sites from reputable sources are provided you don't recognize them because you haven't read them. Rktect 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must review review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. You have invented your theories, or put them together from a bunch of sources in a novel way. You have a habit of doing this. If you don't stop, I'm going to propose re-opening your case to expand it to these topics as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your stalking, groundlessly reverting well sourced pages without comment and threatening don't speak well of you as an administrator. From now on, before you revert a page, try commenting on what you don't like about the source and otherwise following Wikipedia protocol. Rktect 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty sure you should just take J's advice, he is pretty much correct. Until(1 == 2) 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is sometimes okay to cite a verse, however you can't make any inferences. I guarantee your Wikipedia experience will run far smoother if you try to thoroughly understand that policy. TewfikTalk 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position would clear up exactly what the issue is here. Until(1 == 2) 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When ignorance is no longer a viable explaination of a persons behavior, it becomes more and more likely that the person is intentionally ignoring policy. Until(1 == 2) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't jump to that conclusion but it does seem odd to remove references and then claim OR or SYN
I added a reference from Gardiner Egyptian Grammar, to the Ten Commandments page re: the meaning of the name Moses in Egyptian. I then went down to the bottom of the page to place the ISBN's went back up to the top and found the reference gone. For what its worth there was no Hebrew language in existence when the events of Exodus took place so what sense does it make to cite a Jewish Encyclopedia as to the meaning of the name in Hebrew? Lets exercise a little common sense and it will be a better encyclopedia. The following are kind of throwaway references just to show its common knowledge. The source I cited was Gardiners Egyptian Gramar.
ahmose
thutmose
Rameses
Calender mesra
Mesori also known as Mesra is the twelfth month of the Coptic calendar. It lies between August 7 and September 5 of the Gregorian calendar. The month of Mesori is also the fourth month of the Season of 'Shemu' (Harvest) in Ancient Egypt, where the Egyptians harvest their crops throughout the land of Egypt. The name of the month of Mesori comes from Mes-o-ri, an Ancient Egyptian word that mean Birth of Sun.
 
I expect you realize that archaeology, history and linguistics are useful tools to understanding the events of the past so why the insistence on pretending they don't exist?Rktect 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do any of the sources mention the name "Moses"? Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beit Or Warning and response 

message: :Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times must this be said? You can't invent your own theories about things; instead you have to report what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not consider cites from Bartelby's on semitic roots reliable? How about self refrencing Biblical cites? Cites on the ANE from ANET?...You replace cites from Gardiner book and page with Budge by revert? ...Where are your cites in rebuttal? With all due respect you come across as not knowing the first thing about the topics you are reverting. You don't seem to recognize that semitic Akkadian is a precursor to semitic Hebrew by several millenia, You are unfamiliar with the languages of the ANE and their literature, You apparently are unaware that Palestinians have a history in Canaan that goes back to the Peleset, you don't know the history, you don't know the archaeology or the sites, the laws, the campaigns, the kings or the religions. When sites from reputable sources are provided you don't recognize them because you haven't read them. Rktect 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must review review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. You have invented your theories, or put them together from a bunch of sources in a novel way. You have a habit of doing this. If you don't stop, I'm going to propose re-opening your case to expand it to these topics as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your stalking, groundlessly reverting well sourced pages without comment and threatening don't speak well of you as an administrator. From now on, before you revert a page, try commenting on what you don't like about the source and otherwise following Wikipedia protocol. Rktect 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty sure you should just take J's advice, he is pretty much correct. Until(1 == 2) 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jayjg warning and response 

message: As frustrating as it sometimes can be, the policy on no original research specifically prohibits such inferable information. The point is highlighted especially in controversial subject matter like biblical studies, where there are many opinions involved. OR is one of the most important policies, and unfortunately it is also among the hardest to understand. I suggest you review it carefully, and if you have any questions, feel free to approach myself or the helpdesk. TewfikTalk 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sometimes okay to cite a verse, however you can't make any inferences. I guarantee your Wikipedia experience will run far smoother if you try to thoroughly understand that policy. TewfikTalk 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tewfik claim of Original research 

message: I have blocked you for 48 hours to give everyone a rest from your behaviour.  Original research, argumentation, spurious complaints about those who oppose you, and frankly we don't need any of it. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked 

message: You have to stop inventing theories loosely based on a whole bunch of different sources; instead, you must cite someone who exactly states that theory. In your case, I recommend quoting what people say directly. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position would clear up exactly what the issue is here. Until(1 == 2) 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When ignorance is no longer a viable explaination of a persons behavior, it becomes more and more likely that the person is intentionally ignoring policy. Until(1 == 2) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't jump to that conclusion but it does seem odd to remove references and then claim OR or SYN
I added a reference from Gardiner Egyptian Grammar, to the Ten Commandments page re: the meaning of the name Moses in Egyptian. I then went down to the bottom of the page to place the ISBN's went back up to the top and found the reference gone. For what its worth there was no Hebrew language in existence when the events of Exodus took place so what sense does it make to cite a Jewish Encyclopedia as to the meaning of the name in Hebrew? Lets exercise a little common sense and it will be a better encyclopedia. The following are kind of throwaway references just to show its common knowledge. The source I cited was Gardiners Egyptian Gramar.
ahmose
thutmose
Rameses
Calender mesra
Mesori also known as Mesra is the twelfth month of the Coptic calendar. It lies between August 7 and September 5 of the Gregorian calendar. The month of Mesori is also the fourth month of the Season of 'Shemu' (Harvest) in Ancient Egypt, where the Egyptians harvest their crops throughout the land of Egypt. The name of the month of Mesori comes from Mes-o-ri, an Ancient Egyptian word that mean Birth of Sun.
 
I expect you realize that archaeology, history and linguistics are useful tools to understanding the events of the past so why the insistence on pretending they don't exist?Rktect 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do any of the sources mention the name "Moses"? Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Accusation of Original research 

message: Hi. You are welcome. It is easy for me to correct the spelling errors when using the Firefox browser. 
From looking at your edits, the discussions, and the article... I suggest you ask for help and other opinions at 
*Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics
It usually helps to get some additional WP:NPOV eyes looking at a situation. --Timeshifter 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian]]