User talk:71.174.128.144

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

This IP address, 71.174.128.144, is registered to Verizon Business and may be shared by many users of an enterprise network, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Network administrators monitoring this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

September 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

By the definition of the word "edit" you need to change a pre-existing document in order to "edit".

The talk page is not a document!

As the saying goes

Lerna Da Engrish!71.174.128.144 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock - I was pointing out failings in the article in the talk page

I was banned for pointing out that the article on the Exodus sucks as it only shows the POV of a bunch of historians (read donkeys) who date the Exodus to around 1,250 BC, then claim that it does not exists as they can't find evidence for it in that time frame. They can't find the evidence as it happened around 1,450 BC.

The Old Testament in 1 Kings states

1 Kings 6:1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of the land of Egypt, in the month of Ziv, the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, he began to build the house of the LORD

No matter how you add (excepting some leftist new math where 1+1 = 3) 480 years to ANY year during the reign of Solomon you do NOT get 1,250 BC.71.174.128.144 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but 1450 BCE means that the Israelites were fleeing from Egypt to Egypt. Yup, Canaan was occupied then by the Egyptian Empire. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On whether Canaan was occupied by Egypt in 1450 BC, modern historians also say it was occupied by Egypt in 1,250 BC under Ramses II. So either choice is similarly bad from that prospect.

If you are dating a event in the Old Testament, should you not use the DATES indicated by that same Old Testament?71.174.128.144 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it simply AMAZING

how wikipedians wins POV arguments?

The tried and true method used by assorted dictatorships, leftists and commies worldwide. Muzzle the other POV.71.174.128.144 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony! But thanks for proving my point. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMMM! Are you implying that I was attemting to muzzle some other POV by deleting their posts?

Where and when? Show me! I dare you! 71.174.128.144 (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Since you never said anything you don't have a point! Can you prove me wrong?71.174.128.144 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Church (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant alike) has a long history of muzzling POVs (and occasionally burning the POV-pushers alive). And Yahwism (meaning the Yahweh-only party) was imposed to the people of Israel through bloodshed and civil war. Killing the infidels was an essential part of the success of monotheism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how a front man for muzzling a POV now complains about others muzzling a POV. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

Jews don't prosletize because to a Jew, you can only be a Jew by blood. All Christins must volunatry convert. If you don't believe in Christ how can you be a Christian? There are warnings about false Christians that in the Bible. Now Muslims! Muslims will slaughter whole cities in order to get forced convesions. They even ban the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

Now back to the original question. When and Where did I muzzle anyone's POV?71.174.128.144 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well answer this one, which you have been avoiding as well. If you are dating a event in the Old Testament, should you not use the DATES indicated by that same Old Testament?

Now a Bonus Question: If you claim to be an expect on the Exodus should you be able to do simple addition and add 480 to the 4th year of the reign of Solomon and get around 1,450 BC?

Extra Bonus Question: If you can't do the addition on the Bonus Question can you be considered a donkey?

1 Kings 6:1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of the land of Egypt, in the month of Ziv, the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, he began to build the house of the LORD 71.174.128.144 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jews, Christians, Muslims, they have all killed infidels just because they were infidels during their history, the only difference being when.

This is our website. We do not play by your rules. If you want to edit here, you have to obey our rules. If not, admins will show you the door. But perhaps this wasn't the first time they have shown you the door. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can't answer any of the above questions without looking like a fool, let's try an easy one

What rule did I break?71.174.128.144 (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM for general talk, you either seek to improve articles (and we define what improvement is) or you're out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen below I made a number of points where the article is sevely lacking. So severely lacking that it can be considered pathetic.

or do you think that going back 480 years from the 4th year of Solomon's reign does not give something around 1,450 BC?

EXTRA EXTRA Bonus question: Are you one of those that think Solomon is a fictional figure?23:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence about Solomon outside of the Bible. And the biblical evidence purportedly about Solomon describes the participation of Israel in the trade inside the Assyrian Empire. So, yeah, the academic consensus tends to agree that king David existed (well, not as a king, but as a hill county chieftain). It could be very well that he had a son called Solomon who is behind the biblical figure of king Solomon, but the historical Solomon is not amenable to historical investigation. Pretty much as Moses and Abraham aren't amenable to historical investigation. How could I falsify an unfalsifiable statement? I admit I can't and get over it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ever consider that digging in Jerusalem was kinda objected to (at the point of a knife) by local Muslims and that digging in and around Jerusalem for ruins and othe remains has been a bit hampered because of that?71.174.128.144 (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

You cannot make disruptive "EDITS" on the talk page as all talk page material is original material.

Unless you are fixing a typo!

Since the article is protected I am unable to make "EDITS" to the article itself so I am innocent there as well!

No repentance here!

and as mentioned above

LERNA DA ENGRISH!71.174.128.144 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article talkpages aren't fora for original research or for argument that Wikipedia policy concerning reliance on mainstream academic research should be disregarded. Talkpages are for specific suggestions for article improvement based on mainstream academic research and journalism by recognized authorities in the field. Use of talkpages as fora for speculation or for presentation of personal theories can and does result in loss of editing privileges. This is the second time you've been blocked - succeeding blocks will be for increasing terms. Stop using talkpages as fora. The last line of the post above is not funny or appropriate, and if you mock Asian speech like that again, expect an immediate block or removal of access to this page. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed talkpage access. User talkpages of blocked editors should be used for appropriate unblock requests, not as a place to keep replacing original research arguments that aren't germane to article talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.