User talk:Mkleberte

Mkleberte Question. Monte was purposely left out for two reasons. Can you tell me if either of these things are incorrect? 1. False prophecies 2. Attempted removal of the book of Hebrews from the New Testament canon.

Neither of these are tenants of Hebrew Roots as far as I know. If that is not correct, could you please send me links where I can understand more about making false prophecies and removing books from the canon being accepted as standard Hebrew Roots beliefs.

Thanks

MusicMan1008 MusicMan1008 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Tetragrammaton. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Mkleberte, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! – Joe (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea Joe Roe, thanks for that. Mkleberte: you can ask there if you're in doubt about what I answered at my talk page here. The teahouse is also an excelent place to get help by other experienced editors on how to make suggestions at article talk pages or how to source edits. It's a very helpful place that I've used myself. —Paleo Neonate – 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caution at Tetragrammaton

Tetragrammaton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Mkleberte. You are risking a block if you continue to make similar edits at Tetragrammaton. Consider posting at Talk:Tetragrammaton to see if you can persuade the other editors to support your change. Per WP:BURDEN the task of justifying your changes belongs to you; it is not up to others to refute them. The web site you use as a reference, http://nehemiahswall.com, looks to be a personal web site, not a scholarly source. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Mkleberte! You created a thread called Additions to a page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]