User talk:Seekong

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe quoting a scripture is a reliable source. Do you disagree? For instance, where Noah is said to eat only vegetation, I quoted the scripture. Where is the discrepancy?


 * Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" In your own edit you used the phrase "it appears" to preface your additions which makes it very clear you are interpreting the source which is original research. Helpsome (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

So why not just take out the words "it appears", as it is in fact, a fact?

Why delete ALL of the edits because of your dislike of any biblical reference?

Do you think you might be able to put in the rest of the edit without the word "it appears" (which if you read the bible, you would see how obvious it appears).Why not for another good idea, read the bible reference points that were there to see if these things are so?

Why be so dismissive?

Actually, forget it. Wikipedia has become a close-minded site with so many technicalities that soon you'll be sued for putting information on there which is true because people don't want your input into their lives. Hopefully I'll be one of them.


 * You are entitled to your opinions but you cannot pass them off as facts. Original research isn't allowed here. Do you not understand how many people claim that their interpretation of the bible is "obvious" even when it contradicts other "obvious" interpretations? Helpsome (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If you read the scripture before typing your words, this scripture wouldn't apply to you...(Proverbs 18:13). It isn't an opinion, but a stated scripture. I recommend that before deleting people's work, you read the references, and then maybe you will be able to get the context of stuff. To be honest, if instead of focussing on "it appears", you went ahead and checked the reference, which you make out that I didn't put (I'll put it again there for you...Genesis 1_29-30 (Adam and Eve's food source), and Genesis 9:2 and 3 (Noah's food source). Now, the reason for "it appears" (this might be a bit hard for you to understand as I understand you can only think in intellectual and psychological terms without reasoning) is because there may have been disobedient humans who ate meat before the flood which aren't mentioned.  Is that a good enough explanation?  Is it still on the subject of "taboo foods", or would you like me to go into the etymology of the word "taboo", and how in Fiji it means "men's talk", as private to women?  How far do you want to go on your exclusion principles?  Seriously though, just have it deleted, and best wishes to you.  You are a true expert.  I hope you get to run the country one day. You'll do just as good a job as everyone else in there.

I wish to thank you Helpsome in realising how stuffed up the world is because of people with little brains like yours. The system's coming to a crashing halt, and you'll be too happy sitting on your pencil to realise it until it's too late. A bit like Pompeii, but at least you and all the other overly critical moderators will actually make good fertiliser in the first place. I now really, REALLY hate wikipedia, more so than before, when I used to boast about how good the articles in science were. Now I'll only boast about how pathetic the moderation is on there, in that they (that means you, but you represent the whole mob) don't read what's read, but react on what they THINK they read. You are a moron, and I am glad you are here on the world, as you make great Darwin Award issues.


 * Before insulting me, you could have taken a moment to read WP:OR specifically the section on primary sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." You also might want to note that I am not a moderator. These are the kinds of things one should generally know before calling someone a "moron". Helpsome (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This edit appears to have a legal threat in it. Are you threatening me with legal action? Helpsome (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)