User talk:Bonic94

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Slagelse, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa thank you Diana. you live and learn i guess. Bonic94 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm CFA. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mark of the Beast have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. C F A 💬 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA why are you deleting what is true? who are you to change what the mark means ? this is not symbolic it is literal. thats what the church always believed. Bonic94 (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of all things to add your commentary into, why the disambiguation page? There is an actual article on the subject. C F A 💬 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark of the Beast. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. C F A 💬 00:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA Im gonna report you if you dont stop reverting what i have written. i only write was the bible says. stop reverting it. Bonic94 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mark of the Beast, you may be blocked from editing. C F A 💬 00:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA STOP REVERTING WHAT I WRITE!!!

i said nothing wrong, im writing what the actual bible says..if you dont stop this bullying i will report you! Bonic94 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mark of the Beast, you may be blocked from editing. C F A 💬 00:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mark of the Beast. C F A 💬 00:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA stop reverting and bullying me! nothing what i said is vandalizing. im writing the Truth. stop editing it!!! im gonna report you Bonic94 (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Mark of the Beast, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. C F A 💬 00:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA Stop reverting what i have written which is the truth according to the Bible, why are you editing what is true ? this is your only warning stop or you may be reported for bullying and from blocking someone from writing the truth . Bonic94 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Mark of the Beast. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan

Hello Daniel. i tried telling him from the beginning that he had no reason to delete what i wrote, because its the actual truth from the source itself, its like writing Sylvester Stallone was the actor in Rocky then deleting it, but he acted as a bot not trying to communicate at all. but he just kept deleting it.

what can we do with this issue? im not a vandalizer, but i love the truth. i even edited it once to a neutral position that had both views in it, even if the other was just an interpretation. Bonic94 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the edit warring policy, An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Instead of edit warring, you need to use the talk page to discuss the changes you want to make. As to the content of your edits, please read the comment by Liz. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello, Bonic94,

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a theological website and we go by what reliable sources state, like magazines, journals, books and mainstream news websites. What the Bible says is only relevant when quoting the Bible, it is not seen as an inerrant source of truth as believers might hold. Wikipedia is theologically neutral and is written for readers of all beliefs and none at all.

If you have questions about this, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@[[Us How can't you see that this is a fallacy? how can outside sources be autorithy over what the inside source says? regardless of beliefs.

if we are neutral and non biased and read what the mark of the Beast is in the Bible then we come to the conclusion that it is a mark that will be given in the right hand or the forehead, that is what it says black on White, how can outside sources tell what the Bible says and contradict it and be okay with Wikipedia? Bonic94 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that magazines or other books are more reliable about the Bible than the Bible itself ? what the heck how does this make sense ? Bonic94 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RSPSCRIPTURE which explains further. If you have more questions not answered by that, please ask at the Teahouse as suggested by Liz. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan That actually helps me, because most scholars have the same view as i. so if i in the future edit a page and add the external links to the scholar commentary on the verse then what? because that is what im gonna do. btw i cannot go to the teahouse and write, as i dont have a browser on my phone. Bonic94 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should be citing scholars for that commentary instead of the Bible because it is an interpretation of the text. See WP:SECONDARY for why that's important. Otherwise it's original research. While people often think they have "the truth", the existence of thousands of denominations shows that any single interpretation is not glaringly obvious. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]