User talk:188.151.138.99

Elohim
Although I'm not disputing you, none of that is mention in the body of the article although angels are discussed. Nor did you add any sources. Please use the appropriate sections in the body of the text backing your statements with academic sources that meet WP:RS. Ditto Enoch. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Must I add extra sources even though the sources are in the wikipedia articles related to the text? Can you be more helpful and maybe help out writing the info so that I can see you are a trustworthy user who also want to expand the wiki? --188.151.138.99 (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I added the info on more appropriate places, no need for more external academic sources in this case as I see except the ones I put out. Simply expanded the section on important words and facts related to the already written. Some users are not experts at how to handle source material online, but advanced users are typically very insistent on putting out academic sources for almost each word, but I also see my mistakes. --188.151.138.99 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are asking if you need to add sources even if there are sources in a separate article, the answer is definitely. Those sources might be removed at any time. If you want to know if I'm trustworthy, just look at the top of my user page. Doug Weller  talk 12:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That was the initial question I understood and you did not need to answer that more than you needed to answer why you removed the added works on where "El" is also used for instance in the name Immanuel found in the Hebrew Bible. Trustworthiness is about helping out the community and spreading information where it needs to be. Like most advanced users you are making a name for yourself, I don't like the idea of usership on the wiki to simply expand ones own merits and just remove and correct as to give an appearance of trustworthiness and professionalism. Wikipedia is free and for the people who are interested to find out the right info if they go to the right page or should be. Now I know we live in a world were we need references a lot of times, but wikipedia is not that reliable anymore due to the inaccuracy of the info on most pages, especially religious pages, just someone quoting someone, we can't expand solely by references alone (a lot of religious scholars tend to push their own religion and have different opinions on nearly everything, wherefore we must conjoin the info appropriately for the viewer to get a grasp of the truth). For instance you can't write articles if you need a reference after each word, which is the demand today basically as I see. I could write any article with a lot of references and ignore certain key truths knowing that the whole page would essentially be useless or simply misinformative as a whole but not caring very fast and very good in most advanced users eyes. Do you agree with that articles should be useless and misinformative or miss a lot of info that is already out there? --188.151.138.99 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)