User talk:Mod objective

Yahweh
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Movingboxes (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid using misleading edit summaries as you did here:. That wasn't sourced by the Bible--you just don't care for it. Movingboxes (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Hello moving. I've left you some questions on the talk page on the Yahweh article. Mod objective (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative conduct
Hi there. It's std practice in Wikipedia to try to be as civil with each other as possible. See WP:CIVIL and related links. Lack of civility can be grounds for a block or other sanctions. Toward this end, we need to make a strong effort to assume the good faith of other editors in upholding WP policies.

For this reason, I'd ask you to reconsider wording such as your recent comment: "...arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name" This wording suggests that are not assuming the other editor's good intentions. Please strikeout or revise your comment. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't know what you are referring to. What information have I insisted be deleted? Thanks for your patience as you get adjusted to collaborating here. HG | Talk 16:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a been a long day...:) Thanks and sorry, wrong user...

Yahweh lead
Per WP:LEAD,


 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.

The two-line version you keep reducing the lead to does not achieve this.

Please discuss on the talk page, rather than simply reverting the article to a form which does not comply with WP:LEAD. Jheald (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Movingboxes (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, you're already at four reverts on this section since 09:49 UTC this morning,, , , . So no more, please. Jheald (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Sorry, you're the ones that are in the wrong I am afraid since youre ignoring a important rule: WP:IAR, Mod objective (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you think you're right--WP:3RR is as much a policy as WP:IAR. Movingboxes (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that...but I don't understand you. The only way of trying to get one up on me is to try and ban me for reverting the lead to the concis version, in what was for the best interests of the article? You were biased to the rules and tries to persuade others that what you were saying was correct. I've read the rules, I knew what I was doing was for the interest of the article. Mod objective (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not trying to "ban" you. I'm trying to stop the edit warring.  You can't use multiple reversions as a tool to force your version of the article though.  At least three editors have seen the shorter version of the lead and changed it back to the longer one.  You can't ignore consensus.  WP:IAR doesn't mean "ignore other editors." Movingboxes (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been accused me of multiple users? Is it because of the network??? What in the world is going on? Here I am trying to IMPROVE an article on Wikipedia from being completely swamped by people who don't think Yahweh is a Name that ought to be presented concisly and properley, and I'm the one getting the punishment.

Would the mods kindly take note, that I have been discussing, but noone seems to want to care to listen...What is this anyway? The first one who calls the mods wins? An edit war is a war which conssts of two groups of people; a for and against. So whose interest is it in for the mods to decide who is in the right and who in the wrong? I wanted to keep the page tidy, and as a result I've been punished. So much for wikipedia. Mod objective (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a saying which comes from the Bible which says, what we do to YHWHs Name, He will do to us. I wasn't trying to make the article worse, I was serving in the best interests of trying to ensure it is presentable. I wasn't deleting information that didn't already appear in the main body of the article. But, hopefully others will see this and take my side on it. What Jheald and moving boxes have done has not been in the best interest of the article. The article is supposed to present the facts of a subject in the best possible way we can. WP:IAR Mod objective (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can you beleive this? A Jew has deleted the blaspheming section (all of it), yet no one cares? I deleted a small section which said that Yahweh was referred to as "Yahoo Wahoo" in a cartoon (off topic) and I get the punishment?

Okay. I understand most people are agaisnt the Name, but this isn't right at all. If a plate of food is prepared, you make it presentable. Those who are trying to make it presentable get punished. Those who try to make the food in to a mess, get praised but, put people off the article. Mod objective (talk)

I've also noticed that there are some Jews who are seem to be deleting and changing the information...which i don't understand at all. The article is about Yahweh. People already know about the Name, so why would it be in the best interests of the article to be so disresptful to the Name, by ruining the article? Mod objective (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mod. It certainly is a strange thing that you've been banned from using wikipeida, but I'm sure I will be able to help to make the page better... It's obvious now that the general view on the article, is that YHWH has any proper way of pronunciation, which is wrong... Knighthood (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)