Welcome to my talk page. A place for respectful discourse and discussion.
AmericanHistory.exe ( talk) 06:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, AmericanHistory.exe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 03:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to
Ten Commandments appears to be a
minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given
undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a
neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's
talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
No scholar worth his salt dates the Torah to c. 1400 BCE.
No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas ( talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Please also read WP:RGW. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Elohim, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References
As a new editor, please be patient with me as I learn. Enjoining separate discussions to make generalizations about my knowledge or intent is not productive, and invites others to doubt my sincerity rather than provide constructive criticism or engage in discussion where a compromise can be reached. Secularizing, removing bias, and correcting misinformation and disinformation permeating the world's largest online encyclopedia, need to be at the forefront of every editor's decisions. These are the reasons I decided to finally roll-up my sleeves and try to contribute to this cause.
Unfortunately, I'm seeing consensus between two individuals writing about dramatically different topics, one coming from a Bible = history perspective, and the other requesting more sources on an outdated page I tried to update. I'm even having difficulty formatting talk page replies from mobile browser, but I want to address these concerns.
For example, I offered a compromise above, but was met with pseudohistorical rhetoric that targeted a persecuted minority group, under the assumption that it would personally offend and cause me to react unprofessionally. It's also not professional that one editor has been following my edit history, reverting every edit, then proselytizing on my Talk page. This is not social media. Please keep discussions focused and respectful. As a new editor, I need help. This thread, however, is doing the opposite. How can we ever make Wikipedia worthy of it's reputation if experienced editors don't leave room for new editors bound to make mistakes under this steep learning curve and hours and hours of research, formatting, writing, editing and correcting previous contributions, while making the article as informative and readable as possible; if the OGs don't extend patience, toleration, and/or understanding? AmericanHistory.exe ( talk) 03:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Iskandar323 ( talk) 05:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within our guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
until you have 500 edits you can’t edit any articles in the topic area
— User:Doug Weller
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.
About [1]: it is true, there are fundamentalist Christians who vandalize Wikipedia in order to promote their own religion. But I act against them. You should know that the Christian right sees Wikipedia as a basically Anti-Christian encyclopedia. See e.g. why Conservapedia was established.
These being said, there is no excuse for something like The original ten commandments from Judaism, were taken into Christianity when it was created around 300CE. Not only is that original research, but it is badly made up original research. If you want to serve Judaism through Wikipedia, WP:CITE mainstream Bible scholars like Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joel S. Baden. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
You should know that the Christian right sees Wikipedia as a basically Anti-Christian encyclopedia.
— User:Tgeorgescu
Not only is that original research, but it is badly made up original research. If you want to serve Judaism through Wikipedia, WP:CITE mainstream Bible scholars like Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joel S. Baden.
— User:Tgeorgescu
Welcome to my talk page. A place for respectful discourse and discussion.
AmericanHistory.exe ( talk) 06:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, AmericanHistory.exe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 03:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to
Ten Commandments appears to be a
minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given
undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a
neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's
talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
No scholar worth his salt dates the Torah to c. 1400 BCE.
No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas ( talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Please also read WP:RGW. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Elohim, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References
As a new editor, please be patient with me as I learn. Enjoining separate discussions to make generalizations about my knowledge or intent is not productive, and invites others to doubt my sincerity rather than provide constructive criticism or engage in discussion where a compromise can be reached. Secularizing, removing bias, and correcting misinformation and disinformation permeating the world's largest online encyclopedia, need to be at the forefront of every editor's decisions. These are the reasons I decided to finally roll-up my sleeves and try to contribute to this cause.
Unfortunately, I'm seeing consensus between two individuals writing about dramatically different topics, one coming from a Bible = history perspective, and the other requesting more sources on an outdated page I tried to update. I'm even having difficulty formatting talk page replies from mobile browser, but I want to address these concerns.
For example, I offered a compromise above, but was met with pseudohistorical rhetoric that targeted a persecuted minority group, under the assumption that it would personally offend and cause me to react unprofessionally. It's also not professional that one editor has been following my edit history, reverting every edit, then proselytizing on my Talk page. This is not social media. Please keep discussions focused and respectful. As a new editor, I need help. This thread, however, is doing the opposite. How can we ever make Wikipedia worthy of it's reputation if experienced editors don't leave room for new editors bound to make mistakes under this steep learning curve and hours and hours of research, formatting, writing, editing and correcting previous contributions, while making the article as informative and readable as possible; if the OGs don't extend patience, toleration, and/or understanding? AmericanHistory.exe ( talk) 03:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Iskandar323 ( talk) 05:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within our guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
until you have 500 edits you can’t edit any articles in the topic area
— User:Doug Weller
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.
About [1]: it is true, there are fundamentalist Christians who vandalize Wikipedia in order to promote their own religion. But I act against them. You should know that the Christian right sees Wikipedia as a basically Anti-Christian encyclopedia. See e.g. why Conservapedia was established.
These being said, there is no excuse for something like The original ten commandments from Judaism, were taken into Christianity when it was created around 300CE. Not only is that original research, but it is badly made up original research. If you want to serve Judaism through Wikipedia, WP:CITE mainstream Bible scholars like Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joel S. Baden. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
You should know that the Christian right sees Wikipedia as a basically Anti-Christian encyclopedia.
— User:Tgeorgescu
Not only is that original research, but it is badly made up original research. If you want to serve Judaism through Wikipedia, WP:CITE mainstream Bible scholars like Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joel S. Baden.
— User:Tgeorgescu