User talk:Nomnompuffs

September 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Gender of God shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Gender of God, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to Talk:Gender of God. Jim1138 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Gender of God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the text at Gender of God changed, please continue to discuss at the talk page to build consensus. However, do not revert the article text again. If there's consensus for the change, another editor will be able to change the text for you, so you don't violate the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coogan[edit]

Michael Coogan is a Harvard prof on the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament. His books are WP:RS in this matter. It is your WP:BURDEN to prove otherwise. Jim1138 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, the section is asking what The Hebrew and Christian Bible say about the gender of "God". Not what Michael Coogan says about the gender of God.

As its been stated before, the Bible (etc.), is not RS on what the Bible (etc.) states. Jim1138 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already proven otherwise. The text clearly says so when read without interpretation attached. It follows naturally, which is why you have chosen to use indirection. If you could have proven a female component from Genesis 1:26-27, you would have done it already, since it is literally 2 verses to skim over. However, the natural reading of the verses do not support your position, so you have been using evasions and indirections. Nomnompuffs (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please use the Talk Page for the article, because decentralizing the discussion only enables you to fragment the evidence of your illogic. Nomnompuffs (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomnompuffs - sorry to intrude here, but I responded to your call for a 3O on the Gender of God page. I think you might not understand what constitutes a reliable source here. WP works mainly off secondary sources, and in this context the Bible is a primary source. So while what you say is correct - that the Bible says such and such - what is needed is a secondary source that literally says "the Bible says such and such". Do you see the difference? It needs to be a reputable other person making that statement, not just a WP editor. Otherwise this is called WP:OR (Original Research) because it is you who is editing the article based on your own analysis, rather than editing the article based on the analysis of some other reputable person. I hope that helps clarify what seems to be going on. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]