User talk:PreludeJustin

WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:INTEGRITY
Hello. If you are about to add folk etymologies to articles about Biblical figures, please be explicit about doing so. Please do not present folk etymologies as scholarly ones and do not repeat information found in other sections of an article. Also please check whether your sources really support your statements instead of engaging in original research. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. What article you are referring to and what change specifically?


 * See (violation of WP:INTEGRITY),  (violation of WP:RS),  (violation of WP:SYNTH). --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at these tomorrow, but thus far I have been unimpressed with your edits. I only desire to enter correct information, cited by authoritative, scholarly sources, and you seem to be intent on deleting these things with no reasoning. If you declare something to be a violation without substantiating your claim, it isn't a strong claim.

Actually, I'll handle the first reference you provide:

You delete content from the page on Yahweh that you claim is attributed to me. "Several pieces of evidence have led scholars to the conclusion that El was the original "God of Israel"—for example, the word "Israel" is based on the name of El rather than on that of Yahweh." The only problem is that I did not write any of that and it has been on the Yahweh page for a long, long time. The information is true, though I can't verify if the reference is accurately labeled, but it's not something that I put there. I haven't looked to see if you deleted information that I added to the Yahweh page and correctly referenced when you modified this passage, but this is evidence that you're not giving due diligence to modifying Wikipedia content before acting.


 * Please see the edit summaries first, before commenting on my diligence. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the summaries. The problem is that you seem entrenched in your position... I lack the desire to go back-and-forth editing content. What I posted was relevant, important, concise, and referenced by an Oxford professor's penultimate work. Maybe when I have more free time I will try to, once again, make the web's best resource more accurate. At this time, however, I do not have the time I had before. -- PreludeJustin August 10th, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.248.173 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)