User talk:SamEV/Archive 5

• Archive 1 7/2004 – 10/11/2007
• Archive 2 10/11/2007 – 12/31/2009
• Archive 3 2010
• Archive 4 2011

Happy New Year

Hi Sam! Sorry for the wayyy delayed response to your Merry Xmas. I was happy to get your note on my discussion page. I hope you have a wonderful 2012. I took a break from Wiki for a while because I was getting sucked in. You don't need a shrink... somehow editing and sparring is pretty addictive. Don't ask me why. :p See ya around. Jasonasosa (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited Desert of Paran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exodus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. When you recently edited Ashdod, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dogmatic non universty reliable othographic positions

Unfortunately, the pathetic and arrogant character you constitute proves me once again that wikipedia can become everything except an encyclopedia because of such narrow-minded people. I owe you the deletion of a reliable orthograph (found in encyclopedia brittanica) of the concerned title, which was the original orthograph of its before a dogmatic change from a christian apologist-like troll, without any justification, and a provocative message. It would be so upsetting to enter in an edit warring with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosef.sonnenfeld (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wassup?

How you been man? Haven't seen you around much... just noticed you on Tetragrammaton‎. I enjoy your edits. Cya around.   — Jasonasosa 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Spanish Haiti

The article Spanish Haiti has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Was not linked with Captaincy General of Santo Domingo or with Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo. The page Republic of Spanish Haiti, has existed for quite some time, yet was redirected to Haitian Occupation of Santo Domingo. When I saw that the material for Republic of Spanish Haiti was deleted from Captaincy General of Santo Domingo (where it previously was because, alone it may not merit a page) I moved it to a proper page. Then I saw this page, and well its a duplicate. One has to be deleted and I thought this one because it would have to be renamed anyway to Republic of Haiti Espanol.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. El Mayimbe (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gibeon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be kosher, or not to be... that is the question

I loved your pun about ham not being kosher in your edit at Curse of Ham: Difference between revisions! I laughed my ass off.   — Jason Sosa 06:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haran (biblical place), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends

		The Friendship Barnstar
		This nifty little barnstar box happened my way, and I thought of you. You are a great Wikipedia editor. I've always enjoyed your edits. I appreciate the humour you bring when it so deserves, as well as the seriousness of your edits on controversial articles.  — Jason Sosa 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arrapha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SamEV. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 21:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SamEV. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 18:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ammon, and others

Hi Sam. We still need a resolution to this issue. If I start a discussion on the talk page, will you join me? causa sui (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenicia article

Hi. It is not recommended to adulterate quoted content. You replaced the quoted content with "Syro-Phoenicians", as in the Gospel of Mark 7:26: "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation". The actual wording is "Syro-Phoenician", as in the Gospel of Mark 7:26: "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth..." And what was your reason for removing this content, The Greeks called it Byblos because it was through Gebal that bublos (Bύβλος ["Egyptian papyrus"]) was imported into Greece.? ProfessionalScholar (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a matter of choice, sir or madam. I treated the first instance of "Syro-Phoenician" as part of an editorial statement, not of the subsequent Biblical quotation necessarily; and as a noun, as in fact it is in the Biblical verse, which required that it match "natives" in number (plural with plural). If you wish to treat Syro-Phoenician as an adjective (contrary to the verse), that's your choice. And btw, the actual text in the article was "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by..." — sic, with elipsis and without the word "birth"; I supplied "nation", from my bible. See the diff again.

I removed "The Greeks called it Byblos ..." because it's uncited, unbalanced, and not all that relevant, while, nevertheless, being present in the source I cited, but with more balance. SamEV (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC) and 19:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand that users choose words differently in making their edits, however when you are dealing with a quote in an article, the wording should not be altered, hence the definition of a "quote". You had altered the words in a quote. Also, the diff you presented here was not the actual quote that was in the article. A previous user to your edit had removed "birth". In the verse of the bible it states "birth" not "nation". This was also in the article initially before that user had removed it. You can see for yourself. There are plenty of online sources that contain this same verse from the bible to back this up as well. And as for the last part you had removed, I'm not sure I see how the removal and your insertion make it more balanced. Can you explain this to me? Also, the grammar in your edit is incorrect. ProfessionalScholar (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that another user had removed the word "birth", probably accidentally. But I didn't restore it, since it didn't have a source and when I verified it in the bible I had at hand the verse read "nation". I don't doubt that "birth" is in some versions, but I went with what I actually verified.

If you think you can improve on the grammar, give it a shot.

All in all, do as you wish. I explained my edit completely already and I'm really not that interested in this minor matter. SamEV (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SamEV. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]