User talk:Oh My Volcano

Welcome!

Hello, Oh My Volcano, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fire and brimstone, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Fire and brimstone was changed by Oh My Volcano (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.928282 on 2012-01-02T19:48:40+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Oh My Volcano, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Oh My Volcano (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made a contribution to the Yahweh article without any personal opinion. All I did was list papers/books/authors...about five of them....that stated Yahweh was a volcano god or Mount Sinai was a volcano. I entitled the section 'Yahweh as a volcano god'. My section was more than halved, it was moved to the bottom of the part I had put it into, the title was changed to 'Alternative Theories' and the only pro point left was preceded by a new con. My only dispute was with the inaccurate title and the uncommon and illogical order of the points. I was told in my talk page to discuss the issue on the article talk page, which I did. I did not make any new edits to the article. My disputes were stated clearly yet no-one mentioned them and instead insisted on challenging the ideas. That was not what I was trying to do. I was simply trying to get the section correctly titled at 'Yahweh as a volcano god' and the pro put before the con. I repeatedly asked if that was fair but no-one said a thing. Instead I was pushed to prove it was not an unknown subject by posting a list of books that had mentioned it. The list was not meant as a potential list of edits for the article. I just wanted people to see that people were talking about it. Users twisted this into me not know what classed as suitable material for the article. I feel I've been treated unfairly and my contribution has been censored almost to the point of removal. I would like the section to be titled correctly and the order of points to be put in the normally expected way...with the pro before the con. I would like my ban to be lifted only so that if I do find suitable material in the future I am able to add it to the article. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not get to determine the title of a section, or even it's content: the community does. Your "theory" is just that - a very poorly-supported wP:FRINGE theory. It deserves very little coverages as per most of Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, you seem hell-bent on making that rarely-accepted theory as visible as possible. You were advised to stop, and refused, and your edits became disruptive the panda ₯’ 12:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

August 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Yahweh, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Yahweh, you may be blocked from editing. Also, quit signing in article space, it's just plain trashy. Your contributions will be noted in the article history. And finally, you've been reverted by multiple editors, please justify your differences on the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My Volcano, pattern continuing on this last Talk edit you seem not to be listening to any of the experienced editors asking you to provide sources for what is apparently WP:FRINGE. Mainly you should not now be editing the Yahweh article. Present reliable printed WP:RS on the Talk page and let others add if seemed needed. Given the considerable timesink here, I imagine if you edit the article again without first doing so, someone (probably me if I see it) will consult an admin e.g. @Dougweller: whether a block is required. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read the talk page at Yahweh you will know my issue is with the incorrect title of the section and the twisting of the points to put the con before the pro. This is censorship. I am happy to put to you any new content but these issues need to be addressed as they are very unfair. The section should be titled 'Yahweh as a volcano god' and the pros should come before the cons. Do you agree? I am not asking a lot. If you agree then please edit the section and then I will see what new content I can put to you. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You have mentioned one reliable source, The Oxford Companion, I'm guessing it's a passing reference to Freud-era speculation, but it may not be, please give the page number at the Talk page. I still think however that you are heading for a block, you don't appear to have the necessary competence to distinguish between a modern scholar with university tenure and a fringe source. But give the page number and we'll see. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed right. The ideas of Freud are being laughed at in this source. It's relevant for Freud's book, but that's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Single purpose account dedicated to pushing one particular religious idea. Thank you.

Please drop the censorship talk. Disagreeing with you is not censorship, we change section headings all the time. Censorship is about people deleting workds such as 'fuck' from articles where the word is appropriate, or pictures of nudes. And you seriously need to use and read WP:Edit summaries. Beke clearly abandoned his volcano idea, and if you don't know that then your research skills worry me, and if you do, then not mentioning it is a violation of WP:NPOV and not particularly honest. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Yahweh. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you.
Unician ∇ 06:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello — I've noticed your (many) edits to the article “Yahweh”, and would like to ask you to consider two simple, universal, and uncontroversial aspects of editing:

Please use the edit preview button.

You have sometimes published edits to the public, visible encyclopedia which contained simple and obvious errors, which you then fixed with further edits. If you preview your words before you commit each change, you may be able to find and fix those simple issues before they become parts of the permanent record.

Please enter a thoughtful and specific edit summary for each change.

Let everyone know what you're trying to achieve with each contribution. The edit summaries can give other helpful editors the information they need to advise or assist you, which is especially important if you're having some trouble reaching your goals, as may be the case with this article.

Good luck with these convenient built-in features.
Unician ∇ 06:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Oh My Volcano (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is a list of academic sources.....please pass them on seeing as I am silenced.....

Thomas Mann, “The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative,” JBL 90 (1971)

G. Hort, "Musil, Madian and the Mountain of the Law" in Jewish Studies: Essays in Honour of the Very Reverend Dr. Gustav Sicher, Chief Rabbi of Prague (Prague, 1955)

Foster, Ritner and Foster, "Texts, Storms, and the Thera Eruption," JNES 55 (1996)

K. Polinger Foster, “Volcanic Landscapes in Lugal-e” in L. Milano et al., eds., Landscapes: Territories, Frontiers, and Horizons in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique, vol. III (Padua, 1999), pp. 23-29.

the volume Cultural Responses to the Volcanic Landscape: the Mediterranean and Beyond (esp. papers like "Volcanic Echoes in Ancient Near Eastern Texts")

Barbara Sivertsen, The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of Exodus (Princeton Univ. Press 2009)

P. D. Miller, Jr., “Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel,” CBQ 27 (1965), 256-61

Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request; please do not abuse this template. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Could you say what those abbreviations are for? JNES, JBL, and CBQ particularly. Thanks. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Journal of Biblical Literature, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 88.104.23.102 (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've looked at the first article (JSTOR 3262982, published by Yale author Thomas W. Mann in 1971, not the Nobel Laureate Thomas Mann who died in 1955). It does mention the volcano theory briefly, attributing it to Martin Noth's book about Exodus. It mostly discusses cloud and flame imagery from a bunch of other angles. I haven't looked at the other articles yet but might try. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Forster/Ritner/Foster article JSTOR 545376 mostly tries to connect the Thera explosion to Egyptian mythology rather than biblical texts. Its conclusions are contested by JSTOR 545324. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent JOT article[1] whose abstract you pasted into Yahweh is actually on point and may be usable somewhere in Wikipedia. This is still a niche theory though, so per NPOV it can't really get a lot of space in the main articles like Yahweh. It might be possible to neutrally pull the info together in a subsidiary article (maybe a new one) and add a brief mention with a wikilink to the main article. Look, the main principles to follow here are to edit neutrally, don't be obviously pushing an agenda, be careful not to claim anything in an article that isn't explicitly claimed by sources, and don't put more weight on any point in an article than is justified by that point's representation in the totality of sourcing about the subject. See WP:UNDUE for further explanation the last issue just mentioned. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]