User talk:Dharmalion76/Archive 3

Marry-Your-Rapist Laws

You recently reverted my edits with the justification that they were without citation. However, I provided citation the same as the content that I corrected -- biblical passages. In fact, the content I corrected itself incorrectly references the biblical text as giving the rapist (not a rapist, really) an *option* of marrying the woman, whereas the text itself obligates the man to marry the woman. If biblical citations need some sort of biblehub link or something, I'm not really versed in wikipedia, but I'll figure out how to add the citations. Let me know what's necessary to have your reversion reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.228.194 (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that not only does a simple reading of the biblical text show that the man has an obligation, but the citation given is 1) wrong (the page is actually page 64, not 62-63) and 2) states, as I've said, that the dowry and marriage are mandatory.

Personal interpretations of biblical passages are WP:OR. You would need to find some reliable secondary sources. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not personal interpretation. It is what the text plainly states. I will change the citation from NIV to NASB to remove "rape" altogether. Where is your secondary reliable source that it is about rape? None is provided.

Also, as I pointed out, the claim about the "option" of paying a dowry is 1) contradicted directly by the text itself, 2) contradicted by the citation given!, and 3) has a false citation page number given.

And yet you reverted back to the inaccurate and falsely sourced version.

Please stop reverting valud changes. At this point, it just looks like bias, and I will have to ask for intervention from someone without bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B12C:2919:A6EE:9076:4AC0:7531 (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1007:B12C:2919:A6EE:9076:4AC0:7531: Feel free to ask for a third opinion. I would recommend you take a minute to actually read WP:OR first specifically WP:PRIMARY which states: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no interpretation taking place. It is merely stating the plain statement of the text. It is the *unsourced* statement that you keep reverting to -- that a rapist has a choice about the dowry -- that is an interpretation. I will not repeat what I have already said regarding the plain statements of the text or the false citation given. If you would like to explain why I am wrong, precisely, I'll gladly listen and interact. At this point, however, you have failed to address my arguments. Biblical citation has been given (which is the same citation that was in the article before my edits). Likewise, I pointed out that both the page number and content of the citation are simply wrong. You are not acting in good faith if you continue to revert edits while providing no specific arguments as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.228.194 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit used the wording " However, the parallel passage in Exodus 22:16 indicates..." If something "indicates" then you are interpreting because it didn't outright say it. Dharmalion76 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the wording. (Actually, I already did, and you reverted it anyway! Shows how much you're paying attention.) You don't care about the wording. You're deliberately pushing a narrative against what the text explicitly states.

Also, you didn't even read the article edits, did you? STOP REVERTING. I provided better citations, and corrected false citations (which you apparently don't care about). I provided sources, including commentaries.

DO NOT REVERT if you can't actually engage in the discussion. By the way, I already changed "indicates", and you still reverted the edits, including all the citations, including the UPDATED citation which the original article had wrong. You're being deliberately obstructionist, and complaining that I used the word "Indicates" instead of just changing the word yourself demonstrates that.

You are reverting to something that lies about what it supposedly cites. That is completely indefensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.228.194 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations are given on the article talk page where this discussion belongs so others may weigh in. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alzira Peirce

I edited Alzira's page because it contained incorrect information about who her father was. Oh incorrectly said that August Abraham Boehm was her father when, in fact it was his father, Abraham. Yes, there was a 40 year difference between Abraham and Hazel, who were not married to each other. They had four children together: Dwight, Becky, Alzira, and Rachael. My grandmother, Rachael Boehm, was Alzira's younger sister so I have a direct connection to this knowledge. My mother, who is Rachael's daughter, tried to edit this but was unsuccessful for some reason. Perhaps because it was undone by someone as happened to me. She asked me to try since she is not as computer literate. This is my first edit so I'm not sure if I followed protocol. Please restore my edits. Thank you. VictoriaRG (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaRG: You were removing referenced content and replacing it with unreferenced content. Wikipedia needs to be verifiable which is why the word of an anonymous editor alone isn't enough to replace referenced content. If you can provide some sources for the changes you would like made please use the article talk page and make suggestions. Directly editing it yourself wouldn't be advisable as you have a conflict of interest. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for patrolling so diligently! OwnstheBeagles (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and gone again

hehehe. Feel free to ping me if they resume next month.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Act of correction

DaBaby birthday isn’t the 21st it’s the 22nd get your facts straight this was not a act of vandalism this was a act of correction. Dgainer94 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2019 Dgainer94 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgainer94: It was vandalism because you ignored the note which stated "DO NOT CHANGE https://www.mecklenburgpublicrecords.com/mecklenburg-records-report.php?id=33539 official public records clearly stating his date of birth as 12/21/1991, not 12/22/1991 " Dharmalion76 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Act of correction 2

Who are you ? Microsoft word ? Wiki police ? Lol Obviously not! well people like you need to put the right info on Wikipedia. Have a nice day! Dgainer94 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic neopaganism

This is Witchy Jewess. Please stop deleting my entry!!! I'm new to wikipedia. Please suggest edits or ask questions about your concerns.

The version you keep reinstating is inaccurate. To say that "The most notable contemporary Levantine Neopagan group is known as Am Ha Aretz" about a group that 1 woman elected herself to run that doesn't have a facebook page with followers, asks for money for membership and doesn't even say on the webpage or on wikipedia where on the planet (ie what city or state) meetings are held doesn't make sense because JeWitch Collective has over 1000 followers on facebook and has events regularly as documented on facebook and the organization's website. No membership fees are charged. Several newspaper articles have been written about JeWitch Collective since 2015. This needs to be included on the Semitic neopagan wikipedia page.

If you want to be helpful, please suggest specific changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WitchyJewess (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WitchyJewess: The edit I reverted was promotional in nature which is the same reason it was reverted the first time you did it. You added a paragraph with four links to the organization and spoke of how it "uses activism, ritual education and coalition building to empower ourselves and to be more effective agents of change." You were advertising your organization. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]