This image has very serious problems, since the "Proto-Canaanite" alphabet is a hypothetical speculative reconstruction (it's very loosely based on proto-Sinaitic, but unfortunately very little of proto-Sinaitic is securely understood beyond לבעלת ). AnonMoos (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some external references before just reverting my work? Also Proto-Canaanite_alphabet so IF you can find references to back up your claim, you should add it to that page before removing my image. The claims you are making are not sited in the Proto-Canaanite_alphabet which lead me to believe that your claims are original research although I could be wrong. --Teacherbrock (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really up to you to provide references, since you're the one who's adding disputed information to an article. Also, Proto-Canaanite alphabet presents a hypothetical reconstruction (a reconstruction which in fact has some problems, in my view); for you to take that speculative reconstruction and try to apply it to the Tetragrammaton would appear to be Original research on your part. AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dispute anything. You arbitrarily deleted my image, didnt even talk with me about it, didn't prove your outlandish claims and keep reverting my work without citation. You claim it is up to me to prove to you, yet you did nothing besides spew your own view out on this whole subject? hypothetical speculative reconstruction is not mentioned ever in regards to proto-canaanite.--Teacherbrock (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply asked you to prove that it is a "hypothetical speculative reconstruction", non of which is even mentioned in the Proto-Canaanite_alphabet wiki. Your statement appears to be Original research or "in your view". YHWH in Proto-Canaanite_alphabet is not speculative. Yod - Hah - Vah - Hah is exactly what the picture shows in proto-canaanite. I don't have to prove that YHWH in Proto-Canaanite_alphabet is as pictured, you simply need to look at the alphabet as discribed in the Wiki. --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Here you will find some physically exampled of El-Yah that is Elomhim and Yahweh in proto-canaanite, hardly "hypothetical speculative reconstruction" I would say. You can clearly see the snake looking Yod in the El-yaht(God-Yahweh) inscription on the Ewer along with the proto-cananite X version of the Tau. --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war to try to force your image into articles. Please see WP:BRD. It's fine for you to make a bold edit, such as adding a new image to an article. However, if an editor in good faith removes that image, it is never appropriate for you to re-insert the disputed content. The proper course of action, if you want your image in the article, is to go to the talk page and raise consensus for inclusion. We can work together, and we can reach agreements and compromises if we simply take the time to discuss things. However, edit warring is never helpful, and is a form of disruptive editing. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him politely to stop reverting my work. The reversion culpability is on him not me, as I requested to work it out before reverting in TALK. They took the drastic measures of becoming sole judge by deletion and first reversion. They didn't try in "good faith" to delete my work they tried to unilaterally remove it without discussion first. I have provided references along with my work, it is up to him to prove or disprove proto-siniatic/canaanite beyond a reasonable doubt.--Teacherbrock (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Godsname.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Andrew c ^[talk] 01:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, please stop whining about how things are allegedly "not being discussed", when I have in fact repeatedly indicated the grounds of my objection at sufficient length and in sufficient detail both here and at Talk:Proto-Canaanite alphabet. Saying things are not discussed when they in fact have been discussed does nothing to a create a congenial atmosphere for fruitful cooperation and constructive collaboration. Furthermore, as someone who is adding disputed material to an article, the burden of proof for documenting that disputed material is entirely on you. Furthermore, the site you linked to appears to be a something of a crackpot site, and the font from which Image:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet_reconstructed_23_glyphs.png was made seems to have been created and/or promulgated by a crackpot group. AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That website is byu.edu Brigham Young University, which is hardly a crackpot group. Furthermore, You didn't discuss anything with me, you simply made a baseless claim that isn't supported by anything that I can find nor is it supported in the proto-canaanite wiki that says nothing of your claim.--Teacherbrock (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more information regarding the history of language at Proto-Sinaitic:

http://www.ancientscripts.com/protosinaitic.html

All I can find are proofs and more proofs for Yod-hah-vah-hah in Proto-Sinaitic aka proto-canaanite/old canaanite. How many more sources do I need to site for proof of Yod-Hah-Vah-Hah in Proto-Sinaitic before you leave my work alone? --Teacherbrock (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the fact that a web-page is hosted on a University server means absolutely nothing whatsoever with regards to whether it's a valid, reputable, reliable, or useful source. It's obvious that your new friend at BYU (whoever he may be) really doesn't know what he's talking about already right near the top of the page, where he says "Short inscriptions are very valuable in that they leave critics with little or nothing to argue about." [sic!!!] Actually, very short inscriptions are generally rather worthless for settling a controversial or disputed point, since their shortness usually means that there is very little corroborating evidence which can be use to validate a proposed interpretation of the inscription according to accepted scientific principles. The image at http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/protosinaitic.gif is a nice summary of part of Albright's proposed decipherment, but Albright's proposed decipherment is not actually very widely accepted (in fact, almost nothing beyond לבעלת is truly widely accepted, as explained in article Middle Bronze Age alphabets). If you don't have a real understanding of the scholarship in this area, then I'm afraid that random Googling won't help you aquire one. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor will your own feeling of what is "widely" accepted. I request that you end your revert war. This gets us and wikipedia nowhere. I feel G-d himself could could show you his name in protosiniatic and it wouldn't be good enough for you because at some point you decided that you are judge of what is "pointless" "theoretical" and "useless". The of which you are not. --Teacherbrock (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is to hit the books -- to go to your local University library and peruse some the relevant literature that you will find in the Library of Congress "PJ" classification section (or the early 490's in Dewey Decimal) -- because unfortunately Google searching will simply not supply the relevant background knowledge and familiarity with scholarly context which you currently lack. AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your advice is to do my own Original Research within the Library of Congress? While I am at least able to site websites with physical evidence(no matter how much you disagree with the presented evidence it still is evidence). While I am able to cite resources for the inclusion of Yod Hah Vah Hah in proto-siniatic you are not able to provide anything beside advice to do my own OR. Instead I will continue to cite the research and evidence provided by others. This can go on as long as you want it to. You started the reversions and you continue, therefor you will always have more reversions than I leaving you culpable for and inciting these constant edits.

If you had relevant background knowledge, then you might find it much easier to critically discriminate between worthless and worthwhile information that you turn up through Google searching -- and even better, you wouldn't be dependent on random Google searching for your knowledge, but could refer to standard reference works in the field. However, the fact that you don't even know of the existence of the Library of Congress Classification system (which is fairly prominent in most English-speaking countries, and is used in the great majority of University libraries in North America) doesn't do anything to convince me of the depth of your scholarship... AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is I need to do my own original research?--Teacherbrock (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that if you had relevant background knowledge, then you might find it much easier to critically discriminate between worthless and worthwhile information that you turn up through Google searching -- and even better, you wouldn't be dependent on random Google searching for your knowledge, but could refer to standard reference works in the field. AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby request that you stop deleting my work. If you want to tag it as disputed that is one thing, however unilaterally removing it constantly will not work, as I will not back down.--Teacherbrock (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could equally hereby request that you stop deleting the work of others contained in Image:Tetragrammaton scripts.svg . However, the situation is not perfectly symmetrical, since Image:Tetragrammaton scripts.svg is undisputed, while your image is disputed... AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed by you and you alone and not even cited as such. Instead of allowing a flowing discussion you unilaterally delete. Your "opinion" overrides the evidence provided by multiple groups on the authenticity of proto-siniatic. Before deleting again... can you find some sources that "dispute" the letters Y H W H in proto-siniatic?

It's spelled "Sinaitic" (just as the divine name you misspelled above is in fact "Elohim"). What evidence do you have that anything much beyond the single word לבעלת is widely accepted as being correctly deciphered in Proto-Sinaitic (as I said in my very first message above, and is explained in detail iat Middle Bronze Age alphabets)?? Since you were the one who added disputed material to the page, the burden of proof is on you... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now following around behind me and reverting my edits? That's a way to get your account banned from Wikipedia even more quickly than might otherwise be the case. AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your original research? I have no idea what you are talking about, I go around looking at Christian articles just like you do, we are going to run into the same pages. Because you like to edit the same things as I, therefor I am "stalking"? I think not. Stick to the issues at hand. Perfection is perfection, so I let them understand. --Teacherbrock (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually none of them was a Christianity article as such -- Tetragrammaton, Elohim, and Yahweh are much more Judaism articles, while Yahshuah is about a minor aspect (or claimed aspect) of the Jewish origins of Christianity.

Let me give you a general overall word of advice -- if you suddenly sweep into a Wikipedia article and make strongly diverging changes without previously consulting anybody (as for example on the article talk page), then don't be too surprised if you're reverted, since the previous state of the article may be there due to a consensus arrived at after views similar to yours were already considered and rejected. It's OK to have strong opinions, but other people (who may know more about the details of the subject matter than you do) also may have equally strong views, differing from yours -- and allowing yourself to get all huffy and offended by reverts really accomplishes nothing (in advancing constructive and productive discussions about how to improve the article, or in getting your vision for the article realized)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add material to my user page which should be added to my user talk page. If you're having problems finding your way around Wikipedia, and figuring out the way things are done around here, that's definitely not the time to "be bold"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that, I actually meant for that to be in your talk page(I thought it was) but now that you mention it it may have been in your use page, it did seem a bit odd for a talk page. So once again I apologize.--Teacherbrock (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your recent change to Angelina Jolie has been reverted. When editing an article, please take heed of any embedded editor notes that may be placed within the text; these are usually placed where disputed wording may be changed by some editors. In this case the reason for the word "actor" being used instead of "actress" is given (Wikipedia uses gender-neutral terminology whenever possible); ignoring these notes just wastes your editing time as such edits are usually swiftly reverted by others. If you have a particular objection to this particular wording, there is a discussion thread about it on Talk:Angelina Jolie which you are welcome to contribute to. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Landon1980 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Landon1980 (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like a copy of this image if you still have it, please. I need it for an article that's worked on. Please get back to me with it, thanks.

(Don't upload it on Wikipedia because it'll probably be deleted again, use Imageshack or TinyPic, etc.) --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teacherbrock. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yes I can, if you give me an e-mail I can e-mail it to you it is at my home, I am at work atm. --Teacherbrock (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that all Christians find CE/BCE offensive? See the book An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies published by the Liturgical Press for instance [2] which uses it and calls it a practical solution. Or [3] or [4] - and there are more. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't add all I just removed the "some" christian presupposition to the more NPOV "christians" instead of a bias one way or the other. --Teacherbrock (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one outside the MJ movement believes it is Jewish, and that is what the sources brought make clear. We handle the MJ self-opinion together with the rest-of-the-world opinion in the lede. Making changes to that is a WP:NPOV violation. Please discuss any further major changes on the article's talk page prior to making them. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the Brit Chadasha make it clear that Jews that believe are still Jews should be zealous of the Torah and obverse the customs. http://www.mjaa.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6417&news_iv_ctrl=0 and I quote According to a decision of Justices Brali, Tzarfati, and Bass:

“In the world of Hebrew jurisprudence there is no force capable of changing a Jew…into a gentile. Even if the Jew were to desire this, and even if every Christian priest in the world were to baptize such Jew into Christianity, he would remain a Jew. Moreover, if a convert to Judaism wishes to deny his Judaism, he will not be able to do so and return to his previous faith. He is and will always remain a Jew, and there is no way in the world to take this away from him.” And are you honestly trying to tell me that adding the true title of MJ in its original Hebrew is NPOV? no I dont think so. --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "orginally" in Hebrew, and that statement, although possibly a quote, is just wrong theologically, and politically in Israel. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to your source, that quote was a minority view of the rabbinic court. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is like saying Talmudist Judaism isn't originally Hebrew, because it was founded on the basis of the Aramaic and even the written torah itself wasn't written in classical hebrew, it would have been semetic proto-siniatic.

This is the movement's name in Israel

יהדות משיחי

Are you honestly contesting the hebrew name? This is the title and name of the group in HEBREW. Not saying Messianic Judaism didn't start in Hebrew is like saying Ashkenazim didn't start in Hebrew because they originally spoke Yiddish...the liturgy remains and always has been in HEBREW. --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even refer to the Israeli HEBREW Messianic Judaism Wikipedia article page to see that I am correct, that this is the HEBREW name of the movement. http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%99%D7%AA

יהדות משיחי

Listen to what the Chabad Rebbe has to say on the matter: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6165272796316655916#

--Teacherbrock (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Avi's note at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Hebrew translation in the lede. I hadn't considered that when I left it in the lede in my second cleanup of your edits. Reply there, if you want to be considered seriously. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; Avi removed that section head. It's now in your section, which I'm not going to try to point to, because of RTL problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back as a subsection when I saw this, sorry Arthur. -- Avi (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to touch base to confirm that you'd be able to attend the backstage pass tomorrow at the Children's Museum. We have a fun day planned and I'm looking forward to meeting you! HstryQT (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your edit on Fixed-wing aircraft has been reverted. Do not re-arrange "aeroplane" and "airplane" to suit your personal preference. They are in alphabetical order. Thank you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

בטוח --Teacherbrock (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reply in a language other than English. This is the English Wikipedia and only English communication is acceptable. But I translated your comment and apparently you said "sure". McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! While I know that you weren't able to attend the Backstage Pass, I wanted to pass along some resources and links from the day. You can see that images from the day are being added to the Children's Museum of Indianapolis category in Commons. Note that there is a separate category of images of us from the day (rather than objects). We also received a little press on both the Children's Museum blog: The Wikipedians are Coming! and the Wikipedia Signpost had the event as their lead story last week. I will be continuing to work on organizing TCMI research content and moving forward with the content donation in the coming months. I will probably have an announcement about the content donation sometime around February, and I could certainly use your help in spreading the word at that point. In the meantime, do let me know on the project requests page if you are interested in working on a TCMI-related article and would like to be connected with a curator. Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--I wanted to be able to make it. I was honored to have been invited. I love contributing to wikipedia and will continue to do so. :) --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--that's pretty awesome! heh. I would have to say that helped cheer my afternoon up a bit. I would say SMILEY AWARDS are doing their job. Thank you. :) --Teacherbrock (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Minor edit says "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m).

By contrast, a major edit is one that should be reviewed for its acceptability to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not", which can change the meaning of a sentence, is a major edit."

You've been ticking the minor edit box while adding text that affects the meaning of the article. At Yahweh you added, with no explanation, the word 'Elohim' to cited text - if it's in the cited source, please explain on the talk page. You added a whole sentence (unsouced) at Sanctum sanctorum. None of the minor edits I've looked at have been correctly called minor (including adding tags, those are not minor edits). Please stop doing this. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--They seem minor to me, however I will try to focus it a bit. Shalom. --Teacherbrock (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful addition of (Hebrew: משיחיים) in appropriate/useful place. Just by way of explanation: Unfortunately I had to undo it as it was ontop of a large revert of referenced material by the anon IP who, (as far as I can make out at least), is rewriting the page to fit the early medieval polemic Toledoth Yeshu and/or Syrian Malabar Nasrani ideas. But I immediately restored your useful edit (Hebrew: משיחיים). Hope this is okay, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation! :) --Teacherbrock (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Please go ahead and nominate for AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teacherbrock. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]