User talk:Cluelesswonder

Sodomy Laws
Hi, thanks for contacting me. I understand your point. However, reliable sources are highly dependent on the context. The New Testament (and [despite my personal beliefs] the Tanach) are not in general reliable sources ``as to whether something actually happened." However, the context here is the opinion held by Christianity towards homosexuality. As such, citing a verse in the New Testament that condemns sodomy is absolutely a reliable source ``for the assertion'' that the New Testament condemns sodomy and, since the New Testament is a foundational text of the Christian religion, it is also a reliable source that the Christian religion has traditionally condemned sodomy. I'd agree that a better source in context would be a historical source specifically tying sodomy laws to Christianity.

My main point was that your additions "Christians are divided in the belief" and "however context needs to be taken into account to fully understand what is being said in these verses and not specifically condemning homosexual relationships as we understand them today" is, without nuance and citing of reliable sources (in this case, adding reliable sources would involve sources about how some Christian denominations today ) a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy as it provides a slanted view towards accepting homosexual relationships which is very far from universally held in the Christian religion. I've gone ahead and re-reverted your changes and edited the article to add a cited note that some Christian denominations no longer believe this. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To echo Luntz' commentary: the Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible says. Whether or not you agree with what the Bible says is irrelevant: if a statement is made that "the Bible says x", and cites a book, chapter and verse for that, that is a sufficient citation.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care what the Bible says or how a couple homophobes interpret it. It's not a reliable source for Wikipedia.
 * That's not terribly civil of you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WAAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAA!

WP:Edit warring
Be wary of the WP:Edit warring policy. You have already violated that policy at the Sodomy law article, especially WP:3RR, and can therefore be blocked from editing per that policy if a WP:Administrator happens upon your edit war or you are reported to one...such as at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Be wary of be quiet.

Sockpuppetry
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet. Thank you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
As you've pretty much requested to have happen, you've been blocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE, per. The block is for 48 hours with the expectation that it will be made indef per the outcome of the SPI. As you're a sock and you know it I'll assume someone else has already given you the blah blah blah on how to appeal your block, although I suspect you won't care. 18:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Upped to indef per standard procedure for socks.  18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just this account, dipshit? Fuck are you dumb. Zad 68  a bullied nerd with a mod. account LOOK OUT WORLD!
 * Nerds with guns! Head for the hills!   Heh...  Patience please, an attendant will be with you shortly.   19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)