User talk:Skiman717

November 2021
Hello, I'm Uranium Site. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Steven Furtick, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Uranium Site (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Steven Furtick. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Steven Furtick was changed by Skiman717 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.926293 on 2021-11-09T20:02:25+00:00

September 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adam and Eve. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

How was my edit unconstructive and disruptive? The account of Genesis and Adam and Eve is historical to the religions you cite in the article. Why be disrespectful to a group’s religious freedoms and call their religious history a “myth” when there is clear historical evidence to support their claim? Skiman717 (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are indeed stories that come faiths claim are true, according to themselves. But Wikipedia isn't a religious doctrine; WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR are site-wide policies here at this encyclopedia. There is even a huge note right there in the first sentence explaining the technical meaning of this term in this context. DMacks (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The very explanation given takes the word myth out of its original context. My edit did not claim historical accuracy, but rather referred to the story of Adam and Eve as a religious account, which is true. Without these religions where would your so called myth of creation come from? Skiman717 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, what historical proof can you provide to prove this account of creation is a myth. If you are looking for a definition of the word myth, here it is. Myth - a widely held but false belief or idea. You are calling the account of creation false, but with no proof to back up your claim. Skiman717 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, when you said "there is clear historical evidence" you didn't actually mean "historical accuracy"? If there's evidence, why would it not be considered accurate? You are using a connotation or lay-language meaning of the term "myth" that is not the technical one. As our article says, "Myth in this case not meaning a false story, but rather a traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc." And the full term as linked, "creation myth", is likewise " a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." Neither of those academic definitions says anything at all about it being false. The definitions involving actual "false" nature are often a secondary definition. All claimed evidence for any specific "Adam and Eve" actual people is religious in nature, internally contradicting within the Bible, and also contradicting extensive modern research (see Historicity of the Bible), therefore the only thing that can be said is it's part of certain religious traditions and their creation stories. DMacks (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point. I said there is no proof to show this account as being myth. The first five books of the Bible are the historical account of creation and the nation of Israel. If you read the Bible from cover to cover you will see the lineage of Christ from Adam to Jesus. Why would the creation account in Genesis be “symbolic” as you suggest? Jesus paid for the sins of man so we may be reconciled to God. Sin originated in the Garden of Eden through the actions of Adam and Eve. If the creation account were symbolic or allegorical, then why would atonement be required for our sins against a Holy God? Does the thought of God and accurate biblical history scare you? Skiman717 (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is 100% religious theology. That's the point. DMacks (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Evolution. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardoen (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Your statements are 100% worldly theology, which is also the point. Skiman717 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wikipedia is a mainstream worldly and academic site, not one that takes theology or religious dogma as fact. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources are required
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)