Jump to content

User talk:81.103.121.144

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.103.121.144 (talk) at 13:13, 26 June 2011 (→Please do not reformat talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (81.103.121.144) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anak

I have protected Anak for a week in lieu of blocking people for edit warring. Please work out your dispute on the article's talk a page in a civil manner. Random personal attacks are not acceptable. Do not edit the article until the two of your have reached an agreement; if this happens before the week is up, let me know and I'll unlock the article. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice Kuru. I think there is a rule about too many reverts in a 24 hour period right? I have a mental disability, would sure appreciate an admin to hold my hand through getting used to this Wiki stuff. Is there a buddy scheme?

Use the Sandbox

Hello 81 103 121 144,

Instead of editing the article like Knanaya a number of times continueously, please learn how to use the sandbox.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do my best.81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Salome Alexandra worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Remingtonhill1 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Thank you for the news, why was it removed? I told the truth. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was poorly sourced (what part of Toledoth Yeshu?), and a bit POV (it would be better to state "In the Toledoth Yeshu, she is mentioned as being duped by Yeshu Ha-Notzri before ordering his execution." Toledoth Yeshu isn't universally agreed upon to be an accurate history.) Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Toledoth Yeshu is only oner page of A4 and she is mentioned in most of it. So which part of the article should it go in?81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a user-generated source, and so does not meet it's own reliable source guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a wikipedia article it is a medieval Jewish story. Here is a translation for you. http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html It is not a great translation (Yeshu means Joshua and Nazerenes should say "watchers", and Queen Helene should be "the Hellenized Queen" Goldstein's version has Salome Alexandra) but generally very good. You can see it is very short. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am responding to your message on my talk page. I believed your edit was in good faith, but like Mr. Thomson said, it wasn't sourced, and I didn't really understand the term "duped" in the context you used. You should create and an account for yourself here. I believe it's important if you want to be a contributer (but not necessary.) Remingtonhill1 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Remingtonhill1, by "Duped" I tried to surmise her role in the Toledoth Yeshu in a word (like beguiled?), rather than explain the whole story in detail which is mainly about her and Yeshu. Is the version published in Goldstein's, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, pp. 148-154 good enough for a source? 81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - If you think the information is appropriate to the article, feel free to edit again, but it would be wise to find an acceptable source to site. Remingtonhill1 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Goldstein's version is pretty universally accepted. Just feel a bit intimidated sometimes so I wanted to check with you first. I would feel happier if you put it in the appropriate place for me now, in case I make a pig's-ear again. Best wishes. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use the reference?!!!!

Dear User 202.88.237.74, Thank you for your recent contribution to the Knanaya page which was very interesting. Unfortunately it accidentally removed important referenced material in the process. While inquisitions did not usually get involved in raping its victims, it is not impossible so it would be very nice if you could find a way to include the report in an appropriate section and provide verifiable reference for it. Perhaps the best way would be to insert into the article a photo of blue-eyed Nasrani and add a caption explaining this phenomena. Best wishes. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello 81 103 121 144, Is there any evidence of knanaya endogamy.it is not been tested via neotechnological means of genetics. so you are the one who specifies illegal assumations and bluffs others.I guess this dialogue will make you hunt for a blueish knanaya and put a reference there to. Also my cousin married a knanaya and her sister married a hindu.is this a case of knanaya endogamy? if knanayas are purely selected by jesus christ, then you are totally mentally disabled since he cannot select criminals like Sr.Stephy.Otherwise you should say that there is a criminal gene amoung knanaya.(may be true since knanayas are not jewish rather they are arabic bidayeens) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.237.74 (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to see a connection between what I wrote and your reply but I can not quite understand all your meanings. Are you suggesting that Knanaya do not claim to be an endogamous community? Knanaya are simply descendants of the 72 Hawariyun, it does not mean they all still live as Hawariyun (especially after the Caliphist and Portuguese Inquisitions). It means of course there can be criminals among them. I am very interested in your comment that Kananaya are Arabic (bidayeen= Bedouin?) in origin. Can you give me more info on this please?81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Liturgical Calendar of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Hazard-SJ  ±  01:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HazardSJ, I have put it back in with the correct Edit summary. :)81.103.121.144 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notzrim

Hi, sorry but had to revert those edits as they muddled unrelated uses of the name. Can you please discuss the Jeremiah source on talk page? It's not generally thought that these groups are in any way connected. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously can't read Hebrew.81.103.121.144 (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits to Notzrim are increasingly problematic. You should be able to source/explain your views. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am just trying to prevent you from making the mistakes of Synthesis, POV and Original Research.81.103.121.144 (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the edits I am making are sourced. You just deleted 5 sources saying that Nazarene/Notzrim were the same, for example. I will proceed to ask for page protection against unregistered IP edits if this continues. Or you could explain your views and give sources on talk page In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Timothy

Can I ask, what was the intention of this edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mariolaters"

Okay, this edit is getting into religious slanging of Catholics. There's evidently a problem with the edits from this IP. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my great disappointment it is extremely clear that you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Do some reading please. Ever heart of Collyridianism?81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salome Alexandra

I've reverted that as well. It seems someone at this IP is going round wikipedia spreading Toledoth Yeshu as fact into articles on Christianity and Judaism. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying is not good for your soul.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
81.103.121.144, neither is WP:Vandalism or WP:fringe. I understand that you are very attached to this medieval Jewish source, and it may well be that some scholarly sources for the views expressed in Toledoth Yeshu may be relevant, but simply adding theories with no sources does not cut it. Please explain your sources on Talk:Notzrim before making other destructive edits. Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism???? Please paste here the exact edit you are accusing this IP of vandalism. As for Fringe, you are the Fringe and POV, and Synthesis, and Original Research advocate here, not us.81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Talk:Notzrim and present your ideas using a source giving author, title, year and page number. In the meantime academic sources in those articles should not be removed and unsourced material should not be added. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Notzrim with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mephtalk 13:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest creating an account

For what it might be worth, I notice on the user page for this IP that someone says that it is being used by multiple people. That can create problems, particularly if one of the editors using the IP might, for whatever reason, be seen as saying something in support of another editor using that IP. In cases like that, it might very easily be possible for someone to think that there were some form of sockpuppetry as per WP:SOCK. I hope such a situation never arises, but have found, in general, that if a situation like this continues long enough, sooner or later, such an unaddressed matter winds up creating problems. On that basis, I really think that it might be best for the editor who "pays the bills" for this IP to create a separate account for himself, and maybe for the other editors using this IP to do so as well. That would very definitely help eliminate the possibility of possibly troulesome accusations of sockpuppetry in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thanks for the concern but don't worry. I only ever edit using this account. I always root for the underdog and it is interesting to see how limited the IP users' rights are becoming over time. True I am not in control of who else uses this account (IP), but it does not really matter much as those of them who wiki probably do have wiki accounts. It would be a bit totalitarian for wikipedia to insist everyone gets an account before editing, and that may yet happen (then REAL sock-puppetry gets going as I have seen on many occasion in my past wiki experience) but thank god not yet. Thankk you again for the care to suggest this for me, you are very kind. Best wishes.81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Notzrim and Talk:Syrian Malabar Nasrani

I have asked on the talkpage of both articles for some help clarifying the background to your recent edits. You seem to come every day to Notzrim, delete the academic references and restore in the lede the statements to the effect that "Notzrim didn't always mean Christians." You have been asked over a dozen times to provide a WP:source for this beyond the medieval polemic tract Toledoth Yeshu. Can you explain why you should not have to provide a source for this and other edits? Is the idea of the ethnic origins of Christians in the Toledoth Yeshu shared by the Syrian Malabar Nasrani church ideas about the ethnic origins of Knanaya Messianic Christians in India? If not, what is the reason for these edits? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in the Talmud primary source additions to Notzrim

81.103.121.144 You are again making block revert + edits saying "see discussion" but refusing to discuss. How do want to discuss this? I don't have an objection but there is already an article Jesus in the Talmud, what translation is this:

  • Sanhedrin 107b: What of R. Joshua b. Perahjah? — When King Jannai (104-78 B.C.) slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (with his student Yeshu) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him: 'From me, the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt (my sister). My husband (the Rabbis) dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.' He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him. 'How beautiful is this Acsania!' (can mean inn or female innkeeper) Thereupon (Yeshu) observed, 'Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.' 'Wretch,' he rebuked him, 'dost thou thus engage thyself.' He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He came before him many times pleading, 'Receive me!' But he would pay no heed to him. One day he was reciting the Shema', when Yeshu came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. 'Repent,' said he to him. He replied, 'I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.' And a Master has said, 'Yeshu the Notzri practised magic and led Israel astray.'

Does this need to be in the Notzrim article at this length. Do you have any academic WP:source? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not mine. It is enough to cite Sanhedrin 107b as proof that Jews once considered Notzrim to be around during the time of [Jannaeus Alexander]].81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second 3RR

Hi, you may have noticed that "WP:3RR" was mentioned before 2 days ago when you went over the 3 revert rule on Notzrim. But it wasn't made clear to you what "3RR" meant, and now you've done it again. Please click the link -> WP:3RR and read up on how 3RR works and why it is there. I'm not going to report you, but you should, for your own sake, revert your recent edit back to the most recent edit by Editor2020 before someone else does, or an admin sees it without it being reported. (NB: I imagine reverting it back to one of your own edits will only magnify the risk of a temporary IP block). Please take this as a friendly olive branch rather than anything else. And remember, no one objects to your views being included in articles provided you can provide a WP:source. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the olive branch. You know very well that you are the one who is faking sources about נוצרים‎ not me. I am only removing fantasy fiction. Either build up from the stub offered, or turn it into a redirect page to Nazarene, or accept you are wrong.81.103.121.144 (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reformat talk page

Minor adjustments can be helpful. But there is no need to indulge in a major reformat. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bury the current most important issue until Pico and the other users have had time to comment.81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are not allowed to reformat the talk page in this manner. PiCo and others are quite capable of reading up the page. Please undo your reformat of the Talk:Notzrim talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone is capable it is very difficult for people with my disability for example. Now please take heed, everything is one rule for you but another set of rules for everyone else. Since you are a Catholic, then please trying to be a little more christian (with a small c) in your attitude certainly won't hurt your soul. Your attempts to confuse and bury the issues is too serious to ignore. Once the New lead-in section has been agreed upon by all the editors involved then we can bring up a new issue.81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm very sorry that you have a disability, but many other wikipedia editors have disabilities and still abide by Wikipedia standards as regards not reformatting Talk pages or 3RR or verbal abuse for example. This is going to sound hard, but is there anything particular about your disability which makes it difficult for you to give WP:sources for your edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you also know that your tactic worked. Apparently PiCo was not able to find the answers and questions I left for him. So he quit. As for your other comment, you are so cruel. First you delete my answers from talk pages now you stoop this low too. But I knew you were a bully so it shouldn't have surprised me. It really is none of your business. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for Stephen Hawkings to use Wikipedia? A logical mind is not trapped, even if library access is restricted to what digital reader software can do. But to be trapped in an illogical mind like yours, that is the real prison. Kindly don't harass me any more. Not that you know the meaning of the word kind. It always astounds me how people with no challenges can lack kindness despite all the advantages they have, while I am yet to meet lifelong disabled people who are not kind.81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.103.121.144&oldid=436329740"