Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Mastanesosus, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were three infoboxes for three different kings on a one page about a single king. Why would I not remove them? Sinclairian (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your edit on the list of flags with Islamic symbolism. I didn't notice that there was another list with the same topic prior to actually getting to creating the list but i don't see a reason to make my list into a redirect of the older one considering the fact that my list actually has all of the stuff which which it doesn't, sources, quality and reliability. I think it would be a better idea to make the older list into a new redirect to my list. I did some quick research and some of the flags on this older list didn't even have any relativity to Islam at all (i.e. Singapore). For now i have reverted your edit and made the older article into a redirect instead. As for the flags which the older article mentions but i didn't, i'll get to them in a little once i find reliable sources for them. Thank you. Hjemt (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! You have made 365 edits in just 19 days! That's quite fast. Seems like you're not a stranger to Wikipedia editing, judging from your contributions. That's why I didn't use the welcome template. — Python Drink (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did I cite incorrectly? IncandescentBliss (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should try and use the actual templates, and failing that, be more explicit. Use {{cite journal}} for articles, don't just give author, title, and incomplete attribution. Get ISBNs, publishing information, etc., see if the articles have electronic hostings and then link them if they do. Run down WP:REF. Things like that. Sinclairian (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’m new. IncandescentBliss (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there websites that autogenerate citations proficiently? It’s a bit of a tedious process. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any, personally. Sinclairian (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, check out WP:CITETOOL, it has a few tools that you might find useful. Sinclairian (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

33ABGirl (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sinclairian reported by User:33ABGirl (Result: ). Thank you. 33ABGirl (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are you? I want to talk to you about the topic of Uzair page. I want you and I to agree about some edits topics that were removed from the page, such as: Two Hadiths about Uzair and the title of ''son of Allah in islam and what is the mean of Uzair son of god Hzea (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadiths themselves do not constitute reliable sources. What’s more, you often simply copy-paste their contents onto the page, which isn’t proper, and your English at times borders on incomprehensible. I’d recommend familiarizing yourself with the manual of style to figure out how to better format your additions.

Also, if other users have reverted your edits for violating the website’s copyright policy, please don’t just re-add the content without changing anything!! Sinclairian (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Sinclairian. Regarding the use of {{cns}} in Kabbalah, span tags like this are typically used when only a small portion of a sentence or paragraph needs citation, it's not usually used for entire paragraphs or sentences. For sentences, you can use one {{Citation needed}} at the end. For an entire section, you can use a single {{Citations needed|section}} at the top of a section, without applying {{Citation needed}} after every sentence. For an entire article, just one {{Citations needed}} at the top is fine. You can see Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems for more information. Thanks. – Primium (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused. I’m primarily just summarizing historicity sections and occasionally adding recent scholarship. For example, in the Adam and Eve page, every article is supposed to have its sections summarized in the lead. You deleted my summary of an important section. If it’s not relevant, delete the section too. But you’re just deleting my edits. Please work for compromises rather than deleting my hard work. I have a degree in the Hebrew Bible and am willingly giving my time to help out around here! All the best! IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've had to revert several of your edits relating to the transcription of Hieroglyphic Luwian and Neo-Assyrian Akkadian written in cuneiform because you replaced the reconstruction of several terms and names by linguists with the strict modern transliterations of the signs.

Please make yourself familiar with the transcription and reconstruction of Akkadian and Luwian in the cuneiform and hieroglyphic scripts instead of engaging in such disruptive edits again. Antiquistik (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Can you recommend any learning resources that might assist me in such an endeavor? Sinclairian (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Luwian, the Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions (volumes 1, 2 and 3 are available via the Wikipedia Library) as well as the Annotated Corpus of Luwian Texts and the Digital Philological-Etymological Dictionary of the Minor Ancient Anatolian Corpus Languages are good places to begin.

For Akkadian, the The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago is a good place to start, although you would also need to cross-reference from multiple sources by linguists and historians (such as the Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, also available via the Wikipedia Library) in the case of proper nouns such as anthroponyms and toponyms. Antiquistik (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for clearing several confusions regarding interpretation, including the qoph/ṣirar (brought up by someone else) and ayn/pay (brought up by myself) problems. INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apologies if I bothered you with the lack of consistency regarding the n/a template.

I focus mainly on putting the glyphs and connections and rely on the help of others for the formatting. After all, this is a collaboration. INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I reverted your edit because it is not, in fact, the standard romanisation of Biblical Hebrew. Standard manuals are available such as Geoffrey Khan's work on Tiberian Hebrew, which is the standard for Biblical Hebrew. Ogress 15:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your romanization standard is in direct contravention of both the accepted phonological standards for Biblical Hebrew (as was explained to you here) and the accepted MOS for Hebrew transliteration. This is plainly visible in the vast majority of transliterated Hebrew names found across the site. Sinclairian (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These pages do not say what you claim: "Generally a long hireq is indicated by hireq-yodh". You mark all i as long. Please do not post incorrect information; I find your response deeply suspect. Ogress 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not true. I recommend you read free guides, and also stop making claims that WP standards support your claims when they specifically do not. Ogress 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan's method is not the system Wikipedia employs. His model is only recently elucidated and not even wholly original – not to mention Tiberian Hebrew is not the same as Biblical Hebrew. You, on the other hand, as fairly clearly exemplified by your continued insistence on Ḥizqiyyāh and Yəḥizqiyāh, do not even account for basic Hebrew syntax. Again, clarify the system with which Wikipedia uses for transliteration. Sinclairian (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is your suggestion then to invent a new system rather than use Tiberian, which is employed by every liturgical work in Hebrew? Khan's work is merely a recent example of work done on Biblical Hebrew and is a free resource. As for your comment about mappiq, חִזְקִיָּהוּ appears alongside the form without final h, indicating a final h is likely correct here despite the text. The form Yah is standard; yā is a deeply irregular romanisation. Ogress 16:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS naming conventions are not a manual for technical transliteration, which are always in addition to, not instead of, its recommended English spellings. So the use of diacritical marks, etc. are consistently used in this context, despite being banned by WP:HE for the use-cases to which it applies.

As you both seem to claim justification in my comments on Lilith, let me weigh in to say that in this case I believe that Ogress is correct about the vowels. Both hireqs in "Hezekiah" are short, unlike the hireqs in "Lilith", which are long. The reason for this is that neither is followed by a yodh-vowel (the only yodh is a consonant).

In the discussion on Lilith I recommended the recordings produced by Jeremy Wieder, which are more accessible than the underlying syntax. Specifically, Hezekiah is mentioned in the opening verse of Isaiah, so his recording of the "Haftarah to Devarim" includes "Hezekiah" correctly pronounced in its opening seconds. This recording may be obtained through his "Haftarah: VaYavinu BaMikra" app or his "Leining Master" CDs. I also have the recording as an mp3 if you want me to send it to you directly.

I also recommend Charles Loder's transliteration tool (link). I don't know exactly what his process was but I've used it for years and the output is almost always what I'd want. You can see that it correctly distinguishes between the hireqs in outputs yǝḥizqiyyāhû and lîlît.

I haven't mentioned the final-he dispute because I don't really have anything to offer, sorry. In my own transliterations I do include it. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also https://www.alittlehebrew.com/transliterate/ , which provides a variety of outputs depending on your needs. Ogress 02:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate you incorrectly "fixing" my Tiberian romanisation. This discussion has already covered the topic, but let me reiterate: there are no minimal pairs between i and long i, o and long o, and u and long u. These are predictable phonological reflexes of underlying phonemes and the standard is not to mark them. If there is no short o, there is no need to mark o macron; if there is no short u, there is no need to mark u macron. Only a-macron and e-macron are distinct vowels, and those mark the vowel quality, not its length. If you wish to distinguish hireq from hireq-yod, it is marked as î; the feature is subphonemic. I can give you a very number of cites, including instruction books for students, analyses of the vowel system, and more. Ogress 03:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of discussion, you decided to revert against consensus? Ogress 04:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not responding, briefly this is the vowel system recorded by Tiberian Hebrew: a i u ɛ e ɔ o and ə (schwa). The romanisation system for these are a i u e ē ā o and ə. You will note that this system encodes vowel quality, not quantity ("length"). Romanising quality is inherent in the system; romanising quantity is difficult, specialist interpretation and there are arguments over some vowels and their length. For example, ɛ and e both appear lengthened, but there is no way to romanise this. It is strictly dealt with by specialists using the IPA mark for length, ꞉. The reason there are no macrons noted on letters other than ē and ā is that these do not note length, they are (for many reasons, both historical and practical) how we differentiate the sound of "short" e and o. While I freely admit there are length considerations present in both the Tiberian system and in Qimhi's description of Palestinian Hebrew (which had only a e i o u and ə), these are not marked when romanising these systems. I hope this explains the most common romanisation system of Biblical Hebrew and clears up why we do not add macrons due to spelling. Ogress 13:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, didn’t even notice you left a message. Frankly I feel like I’ve conveyed the disparity between Wikipedia’s current MOS and the scholarly system used to transliterate Hebrew enough times that if it hasn’t gotten through at this point, it’s wasted effort. Secondly, I apologize for the apparent surreptitiousness of reverting your edits, but I’ve noticed a few concerning trends with your process, namely a tendency to completely eliminate hataf vowels, as seen here with “maʿśē” and here with "Yaʿqōḇ", and the occasional complete error in transliteration altogether, such as here where you transliterated an Aleph as h. Likewise, you inconsistently enforce both the previously discussed issue of He mappiq and the macron system, as evident by the message left above and the linked examples, wherein you yourself use ī, ū and ō. Additionally, your recommendation of Khan, while indeed a useful read, also struck me as odd, considering Khan does not transliterate any Hebrew in the entirety of the work, but instead provides IPA. Ultimately I felt that further mutual communication was pointless considering the disparity between our editing styles — that, obviously, was an unsportsmanlike decision. In any event, something transliterated as Tiberian Hebrew needs to be marked as Tiberian Hebrew, otherwise its liable to be transliterated by modern or Biblical notation customs. Sinclairian (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The employment of Tiberian is only for premodern sources (i.e. not Modern Hebrew) that are not subject to further MOS rules about localised names (i.e. ashkenazi, sefardi).

I am not always consistent because i make errors. For example, my objection to your edit of [Hilqi-Yahu] was not that you objected to the hyphen, it was that you instead reverted the entire edit. I absolutely accept that I make mistakes and that other editors have good input, but if you objected to the hyphen, you should have removed the hyphen as an edit, not reverted the entire thing. I would have not objected to that, a valid criticism.

We can discuss hataf; the romanisation of it is up in the air because it represents a subphonemic feature although it is present in traditional pronunciations. these sometimes take on further phonemic value, like and ending in ua3 being reinforced to uwwa3. however, traditional pronunciations are not the Tiberian Hebrew standard. The use of hataf in these cases is akin to the Tiberian writing of schwa with vowels, which does not indicate a pronunciation, but rather the pre-reduced character of the vowel that is now a shwa for the ease of the reader's recognition of the word. For clarity's sake, I usually don't write either.

Finally, the use of Tiberian is the standard. Localised readings (almost all of which are based on Palestinian Hebrew, like the siddur I read on Shabes) are obtainable by Jews by simply reading the Hebrew text. Since these are not standardised, using the standard employed by nearly all Jewish texts in existence is the only sensible approach to generalised terms in premodern Hebrew. Ogress 14:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: Firstly, there is no MOS standard relegating Tiberian Hebrew, or any form of Hebrew, to specific eras of history. When you transliterate something as Tiberian Hebrew, you need to mark it as Tiberian Hebrew. Secondly, there is, in fact, a standardized transliteration system, but as I fear I will be repeating ad nauseam: it is not the system that Wikipedia uses. Wikipedia standardly utilizes a slightly modified (e.g. the addition of certain elements of ISO 259) form of the SBL transliteration schema, unless otherwise stated in-line, as is the case in the lede of Jews, which clearly notes that the transliteration provided is based on ISO 259-2. Secondly, your objections to reverting entire edits are noted: that being said, you should practice what you preach and not revert entire edits to uphold that standard. If fixing an error you have introduced ends up constituting the entirety of a revision, that's no one's problem. So, since for Hilqi-Yahu you have removed the doubly geminated yodh, the hireq yodh, and introduced a hyphen – correcting it will result in the form that was present in the article prior to your edit. Sinclairian (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no MOS standard relegating Tiberian Hebrew, or any form of Hebrew, to specific eras of history"

We do not write Modern Hebrew with Tiberian romanisation because MOS:HE does in fact specify a Modern Hebrew romanisation schema (well, it's sort of a schema plus a bunch of exceptions, as with most modern vernaculars). Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Consonant_table is the start of the instructions for biblical hebrew. ISO 259-2 is for modern hebrew and is based on the israeli language academy, but the suggested form for biblical hebrew is forty years old and deeply outdated. in addition, i have literally never seen a work that used that romanisation for vowels. ever. in contrast, all biblical hebrew grammars and studies use a variation of the same semiticist system that i outlined above.

"If fixing an error you have introduced ends up constituting the entirety of a revision, that's no one's problem. So, since for Hilqi-Yahu you have removed the doubly geminated yodh, the hireq yodh, and introduced a hyphen – correcting it will result in the form that was present in the article prior to your edit."

Hireq yod is not a long vowel, and you had been reverting romanisations i had been providing or updating in general by deleting them. Fixing the yodh/hyphen is a single edit and it is in the context of that series of reversions that I deleted your revert: context is for kings. Ogress 02:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why you edited the romanisation at Ziklag (צִקְלַג? You added an ī (on top of everything else, in a closed syllable) removed the lenition of g. I feel like you are now just trolling, this is not in good faith. Ogress 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because it was wrong. Who uses "ạ" to transcribe a patach?? Sinclairian (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a what now? patah is just an a? Ogress 20:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be dense. You used ạ to romanize a patach – and just when I'd thought you'd run out of ways to further worsen your transliteration track record. Sinclairian (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? i have explained the seven-vowel system. you're the one who keeps translating all hireqs as macro-i. If there was a random Vietnamese letter thrown in there I have no idea where it came from. What even is the code for typing that letter? Ogress 22:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Biblical Hebrew, 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. MOS:HE does not state what you claim. Ogress 15:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]