User talk:Raskolinkover

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Yahweh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-religion complaint

Your talk page is a less off-topic venue than on the Yahweh's article talk page. I would just like to remind you that Wikipedia is edited by people of many faiths as well as the irreligious. What is important is for the encyclopedia to summarize what experts on relevant topics say on the matter. We do not insert our own opinions in articles, which are not personal essays. It is also important to remember that as someone of faith, many other people have other faiths, while also believing to have the Truth.
Unlike the sciences, which often converge over time into multidisciplinary ones, ideologies and religious groups often splinter and adapts to reflect particular customs including regional ones. A converging aspect can be syncretism, which results from the continuation and adaptation of living traditions. The central tenets and holy texts may also vary, while others appear to be golden universal rules, shared by most faiths. The origin myths and fundational mythology also vary. With advances in archaeology, geology, dating methods, biology, etc, they have been found to be cultural traditions with elements which are not always historical. They also developped over time and borrowed from older traditions.
The best way to learn is to have an open mind. I strongly suggest following the inline citations of that article and to read some of them. An important thing on Wikipedia is also to follow the WP:BRD principle: tentatively editing, if someone reverts, discuss, then attempt to form WP:CONSENSUS, before restoring our change. When the consensus is against our change, we should accept it and move on. If there is not enough participation to reach consensus, venues such as public relevant noticeboards can be used, such as WP:RSN to assess the reliability of chosen sources, WP:NPOVN for the neutral point-of-view, etc. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 04:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Yahweh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Raskolinkover reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ♠ 16:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mooters 1563, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

On your blocked comments in Talk:Yahweh

One of your claims was-

No, this is fake history made up by atheist to discredit God and his Word Jesus Christ his Son who died for us. God is one and he revealed himself to Abraham and Moses. It's in the Bible! Read it! Atheist don't know the Bible and made up lies against it. These so called "scholars" are nothing but lying deceivers from Satan himself! They have deceived you! Hear O Israel, the Lord is God and the Lord is one! Raskolinkover (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This was in response to-

I completely disagree with your assertion that the article is "anti-religion"; this article merely acknowledges the simple historical fact that the ancient Israelites practiced polytheism and that monotheistic Judaism arose gradually out of monolatrism. These are conclusions agreed upon by most historians and Biblical scholars. This whole issue has been discussed to death and we do not need to discuss it anymore. Please, just drop the stick and back away slowly from the dead horse carcass. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I dont understand why you would deny the fact that the early Israelites were essentially polytheists. The Tanakh, or as you would say, the Bible, aggress with this assertion. Read Joshua 24:2, which states Abraham and Abraham's father worshipped other gods. Its certainly not fake history. And as for Shema Yisrael, even if this was something recited during the early Israelite time, the word echad according to Strong's can mean,A numeral from H0258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first:—a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together. See [1]

Read Psalm 97:7, another perfect example, which is defiantly not referring to angles, but gods in every sense of the word. Information like this comes inside your very own bible, not just archeological discoveries. Lets not forget Deuteronomy 32:8-9, or Psalm 82:6-7, which bluntly admits the existence of other gods. Also, why would Yahweh be jealous of idols, which are mere stone. A far better explanation is that Yahweh could not be confident that he was the only god in existence, simply because he was not the only god in existence.

Judges 3.31;5:6 clearly references Anat, a war goddess, and does not dub her a false god. These verses state that she is Shamgar's mother. Idielive (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)