User talk:TheGreatGoblinMarket

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Blablubbs|talk 21:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. Blablubbs|talk 21:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pages use unreliable sources and cites historical figures with either vague or no connection to the sources presented. It has been edited to prevent the spread of misinformation. If this is a work of fiction can it be made clear in the article please. TheGreatGoblinMarket (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see too much misinformation on these pages. Please check the sources mentioned it, they either dont exist or come from the same person. TheGreatGoblinMarket (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatGoblinMarket, that is not how to go about it, as I have pointed out in edit summaries. Take it to the talk pages or try to improve the articles instead of blanking them. Blablubbs|talk 21:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that they do not exist and many of the articles are offensive to jewish people as the translation is not accurate at all. TheGreatGoblinMarket (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatGoblinMarket, at this point, the factual accuracy of the pages is very much secondary. Instead of blanking them, you should try to improve them, provide better sources, raise issues on the talk page. But just blanking your way through articles en masse is not going to do anything except get you blocked. Note too that content being perceived as offensive is not a reason to prevent its inclusion on Wikipedia. Again, please try to edit constructively instead of mass-removing content indiscriminately with the same edit summary over and over – your conduct is nearly indistinguishable from vandalism. I do want to sincerely thank you for stopping and starting to engage, though. Blablubbs|talk 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, that point completely fails to take into account that:

Wikipedia covers lots of mythological topics and subjects that may well not exist. It isn't about whether or not they're real (which often cannot be verified), it's about what people historically believed about these topics (which can be verified by professional academic analysis of the documents they left us about those beliefs).
angels were written about in Aramaic, Greek, Ge'ez, and other languages
Jewish people aren't stuck writing only in Hebrew (see previous point)
Judaism isn't the only religion on the planet

The latter three points are something that anyone with basic knowledge of historical religious studies knows.

If I see you carry out ONE more edit like you've done so far, I will block you (and I invite other admins to take the same policy or for Blablubbs to point to this message if they want to report you to WP:AIV). I'm honestly inclined to block you as not being here to work on this cooperative project that requires some degree of learning if you continue to defend your edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concede. I will work on improving the translations to make them more accurate. Its frustrating reading Hebrew that has been translated over google translate. TheGreatGoblinMarket (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not Jewish, I'm a polyglot. TheGreatGoblinMarket (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave my assessment of that claim out but Wikipedia doesn't use original research (i.e. your personal knowledge doesn't count here). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that you find completely different topics to edit, ones where you're not so concerned about what's "real" or not. I've noticed that some of your edits, you fail to comprehend at all what a source is. Edits you to made to Turiel before logging in completely misread the article.

The Book of Enoch is a historical document. Almost nobody believes it was by Enoch, but that doesn't change the fact that it was highly influential during the Roman era and for some time after. It mentions a lot of angels that are appear in medieval Kabbalistic works, and from there in early modern gentile grimoires: what relationship these texts have is for scholars (not you) to decide. At no point does any of this analysis rely on any assumption as to the reality of the beings mentioned in those texts.

The Grimoire of Turiel was a book published in the 20th century. That is an objective fact. It makes claims that are (reasonably) countered by another source. Claiming "There is no such manuscripts mentioned in this text, the entire page is a work of fiction" was so beyond wrong that it shows you didn't even try to look at the sources or even read the full text of the paraphraph you removed, you just made assumptions and didn't check to see if anything might confirm or deny them. That's no good for any topic, especially one as nuanced as this.

Your inability to know about or find sources does not mean they don't exist. That is a problem you need to overcome, and you'll have an easier time doing so in a less abstract area of study. The tutorial in this link would help you greatly. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]