Hello, I'm Joyous!. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Joseph (Genesis) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. If you want to leave those links in the section called "external links" or "further reading," that would be a much better place for them. Wikipedia generally discourages external links within the body of an article. Joyous! Noise! 14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok thanks! I’m still learning the ropes here. I’m worried about getting reverted for the actual Römer quote, so I wanted to verify that he’s possibly the best source on Joseph in 2020s academic Hebrew Bible scholarship. I’ll delete the external link from the body of the article as well. IncandescentBliss ( talk) 14:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, we have delightfully similar usernames! IncandescentBliss ( talk) 14:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

What’s the best way to reach out to the admins of WikiProject Bible? I’d love to collaborate with them. IncandescentBliss ( talk) 15:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

(Yes, love the username!) I'm not sure how active WikiProject Bible is, but you can reach the group by posting a message to the project's talk page, and someone will get back to you. Joyous! Noise! 15:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! IncandescentBliss ( talk) 15:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The historicity section of the Old Testament page is decent and I think should be added to the Hebrew Bible page. (Seems clearly just as relevant to both.) Is there an easy to add it? IncandescentBliss ( talk) 02:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

So you basically want to copy the material from one article to another? This section can help you deal with that. Basically, it's fine to copy material from one article to another, but we want to keep a "trail of breadcrumbs" that allows readers to find the original source of the material. The easiest way is to leave a link in your edit summary that points back to the "source page," and to add the "copied from" template {{ copied}} to the talk page of both articles. Joyous! Noise! 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi IncandescentBliss! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I’m loving it so far. I have years (decades really) of experience with the Hebrew Bible particularly and am trying to bring my expertise to many of the more popular pages. Trying to be a positive contributor and summarize where things stand in the current literature! IncandescentBliss ( talk) 09:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Good to know! It's always nice to see positive contributors joining the project. Welcome! CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! IncandescentBliss ( talk) 09:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cain and Abel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exodus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello IncandescentBliss, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm always so happy, and genuinely thrilled, to see an academic expert joining the ranks of Wikipedia. However, please be aware that Wikipedia's policies around experts stink, and that as a consequence, Wikipedia has a very strong tendency to chase away experts. The essay Wikipedia:Expert editors has a lot of useful advise on the current state of things, so please read that carefully. Also, have a read of WP:GREENCHEESE, which is a situation that you will find yourself in one day. It's best to be mentally prepared.

The single best tip I can give you is this: try to focus as much as you can on writing new article content, and try to avoid as much as you can any kind of discussion about any type of content (existing or new). It's so easy –and this is not an exaggeration– to spend ten times as much time and energy on discussing a single sentence or paragraph than it would take to write a whole new article, and still end up with content that is utterly misleading. This happens most in articles on controversial subjects, but any subject that is sufficiently popular is guaranteed to create such situations (the uncontroversial here becomes controversial). Therefore, the more obscure the subject you're editing, the better. New pages about stuff no one knows the first thing about are the gold standard (see, e.g., this article I created: no other editor has even touched that article content-wise, yet it's a notable subject and Wikipedia is certainly better off for having that article).

Generally, when your stuff gets reverted, by all means do open up a talk page discussion (this is often very beneficial), but from the moment you sense that the other editor is just not getting it (which will be most of the time), withdraw from the discussion and go edit some other article. You won't be able to convince them, much less educate them. You might think 'but I put a lot of time into this', but in the great majority of cases that will be a sunk cost fallacy, since you will only lose much, much more time with it if you continue the discussion, time that you could have spent productively elsewhere. You might also think 'but I am right here', but that really counts for nothing: it's not important who's right, only who can convince (or hector) whom based on (flawed interpretations of) sources and (instrumentalization of) WP policy. Write articles. Write new article sections. Have fun. But be prepared to see your excellent content being removed, being tinkered with, or being skewed by the hardheaded, the ignorant, the opinionated. Don't engage them; just move on.

One day academic experts will outnumber the type of editors I just described, and everything will become so much easier here. But until then, this is not a place where academic experts can have erudite or even simply informed conversations: this is the domain of quibbling amateurs and battle-scarred content-warriors, people who generally have no respect for scholarship, much less for scholars. Scholars can still have much fun editing here, and just as importantly, genuinely improve the world's single most used source of information. But in order for that to happen, it is imperative that they do not get all worked up and frustrated, up to the point that they burn out and leave, forever. This happens all the time here. Please don't let it happen to you. Sincerely, ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 23:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much! This is great. Is there a way to get experts to the front on pages like Ten Commandments and Josiah and temple menorah. I’m providing views that are the academic consensus and they’re being quickly reverted by people who are not experts. Is there someone who “runs” the WikiProject Bible or WikiProject Israel pages that I could request help from or collaborate with. Some of the most-visited Bible pages need significant help (it seems like the ones just slightly below the views of the super controversial ones are the ones in most need of attention). There’s one specific editor who reverts half of my work. He’s restricted on Israel-Palestine conflict pages, but doing mass-reversions on *ancient* Israel pages. It seems like he’s migrated his extremism views to pages he’s not restricted on. What can I do? IncandescentBliss ( talk) 23:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

It frankly seems like this editor has almost total leeway on medium-level controversial pages—-all the whole being restricted on others. It’s very frustrating. IncandescentBliss ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Re What can I do? As I tried to explain above, nothing. Let it go. Do something else. No experts will come to help you, because there aren't any on here (or very few at least, and they don't have time for content disputes, which are no fun anyway; there's a very strong ewww factor).

But more generally, please wp:assume good faith. This is extremely important: there are a lot of reasons why people may revert your stuff, but the chances that they are not also trying to make Wikipedia better are actually very slim. They may be anonymous, annoying, ignorant internet users, but they are human beings. Talk to them. Discuss the content for a while, but do not make it personal. Never make it personal. If you're not getting anywhere, disengage.

Every editor has the right to disagree with you, however wrong they are, whatever their restrictions elsewhere (also note that this is a standard warning, not in any way a restriction). This is the nature of this project: if there are more editors who are wrong than editors who are right, Wikipedia will be wrong. You must learn to live with that if you want to stay on here. If you feel you're getting a bit worked up, please take some time off from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Also, Wikipedia:Tips for the angry new user; Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Calm and friendly discussion is mandatory. Keep it concise. If it doesn't work, step away. Soon. Never accuse anyone of anything, unless the case is so obvious that other editors instinctively agree with you. When you don't see that happening, again, step away. Go edit another article.

If half of your work is reverted, then the other half is not reverted, right? Wikipedia has been improved. This is the mindset you need to survive here, especially early on. Read the policy pages, especially WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Do not think you understand them. Read them (most people don't). If you've read them thoroughly, and you've been regularly editing here for a few months (or a few years in case you only edit sporadically), you may come to understand how the policies actually work in practice. At such a time you may also get into a position where your arguments on article talk pages will have some more force, or where you're able to identify a truly disruptive editor and successfully report them. But really, avoid that stuff. It's hellish even if you are the most experienced Wikipedia editor out there. Write articles. Write article sections. Avoid frustrating discussions. Have fun. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 00:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! IncandescentBliss ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Book of Hosea

added a link pointing to Yehud

Torah

added a link pointing to Ashur

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I think I'm supposed to be your mentor, so just wanted to ask how everything is going. Please let me know if you need advice or if you feel you're ready to venture forth on your own :) Alaexis _¿question? 21:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Jacob

added links pointing to El and Kingdom of Israel

Ishmael

added a link pointing to Georgia

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacob, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages El and Kingdom of Israel.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ark of the Covenant, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - FlightTime ( open channel) 00:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I’m confused.

”There is no rule forbidding references in the lead, but it is nice when they can be left out. Keeping references out of the lead makes it easier to read, keeps it free of clutter, and easier to edit.”

Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section

Heavily edited articles like Biden and Trump do not have citations in the lead. IncandescentBliss ( talk) 00:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cain and Abel. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• 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.

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.
You have repeatedly inserted a paragraph that doesn't belong in the lead of the article, see talk page where there is now a discussion.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång reverted and I had to revert again just now. Specifically, a paragraph about puns and possible etymology is not necessary to "identify the topic" nor to "establish context, explain why the topic is notable" and isn't one of the most important points or controversies. Those are the criteria for what should be in the lead. Instead, that paragraph belongs in the Etymology section.
For example, the mark of Cain MIGHT be appropriate to include in the lead (it isn't anywhere in the article at all, at the present time), but introducing any more than a sentence about it should be mentioned on the talk page first. Thank you! FeralOink ( talk) 12:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Fajkfnjsak per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fajkfnjsak. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.   TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacob, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Albright and William Dever.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

IncandescentBliss ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

My goal in being a Wikipedia community member is to update the English Wikipedia page in the area of my academic specialty. Most of what I’ve done has been to summarize already extant historicity sections in leads (some of which appear to have previously been systemically deleted previously). It seems that certain editors think whole sections of Wikipedia pages, especially ones that relate to the historicity of the Bible, do not belong in leads—-and dismiss as simply theories even when sourcing from textbooks. It appears I have roughly the same editing interests as some who got banned years ago, but that account was most certainly not me. This is my only account. I have a degree in the Hebrew Bible and care deeply about accuracy regarding communication about its historicity. It troubles me that history-focused perspectives on Bible pages are being banned. I will attempt to do a better job in the future to not reinstate an edit if it is reverted without discussing it in the page’s talk section. I will also attempt to focus more of my editing on the body of the Hebrew Bible pages. I’m genuinely trying my best to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and contribute in my area of academic speciality. Feel free to take a look through all of my edits. I’ve tried deeply to summarize the current academic consensus as it stands in academic literature in my edits (or in advance of my own future study, summarizing sources already used prominently in historicity sections). Pinging my mentor and Apaugasma who acted as a early mentor to me on here when I first signed up. Thank you for your time!@ Alaexis: @ Apaugasma: IncandescentBliss ( talk) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My goal in being a Wikipedia community member is to update the English Wikipedia page in the area of my academic specialty. Most of what I’ve done has been to summarize already extant historicity sections in leads (some of which appear to have previously been systemically deleted previously). It seems that certain editors think whole sections of Wikipedia pages, especially ones that relate to the historicity of the Bible, do not belong in leads—-and dismiss as simply theories even when sourcing from textbooks. It appears I have roughly the same editing interests as some who got banned years ago, but that account was most certainly not me. This is my only account. I have a degree in the Hebrew Bible and care deeply about accuracy regarding communication about its historicity. It troubles me that history-focused perspectives on Bible pages are being banned. I will attempt to do a better job in the future to not reinstate an edit if it is reverted without discussing it in the page’s talk section. I will also attempt to focus more of my editing on the body of the Hebrew Bible pages. I’m genuinely trying my best to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and contribute in my area of academic speciality. Feel free to take a look through all of my edits. I’ve tried deeply to summarize the current academic consensus as it stands in academic literature in my edits (or in advance of my own future study, summarizing sources already used prominently in historicity sections). Pinging my mentor and Apaugasma who acted as a early mentor to me on here when I first signed up. Thank you for your time!<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Apaugasma|Apaugasma]]:</span> [[User:IncandescentBliss|IncandescentBliss]] ([[User talk:IncandescentBliss#top|talk]]) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My goal in being a Wikipedia community member is to update the English Wikipedia page in the area of my academic specialty. Most of what I’ve done has been to summarize already extant historicity sections in leads (some of which appear to have previously been systemically deleted previously). It seems that certain editors think whole sections of Wikipedia pages, especially ones that relate to the historicity of the Bible, do not belong in leads—-and dismiss as simply theories even when sourcing from textbooks. It appears I have roughly the same editing interests as some who got banned years ago, but that account was most certainly not me. This is my only account. I have a degree in the Hebrew Bible and care deeply about accuracy regarding communication about its historicity. It troubles me that history-focused perspectives on Bible pages are being banned. I will attempt to do a better job in the future to not reinstate an edit if it is reverted without discussing it in the page’s talk section. I will also attempt to focus more of my editing on the body of the Hebrew Bible pages. I’m genuinely trying my best to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and contribute in my area of academic speciality. Feel free to take a look through all of my edits. I’ve tried deeply to summarize the current academic consensus as it stands in academic literature in my edits (or in advance of my own future study, summarizing sources already used prominently in historicity sections). Pinging my mentor and Apaugasma who acted as a early mentor to me on here when I first signed up. Thank you for your time!<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Apaugasma|Apaugasma]]:</span> [[User:IncandescentBliss|IncandescentBliss]] ([[User talk:IncandescentBliss#top|talk]]) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My goal in being a Wikipedia community member is to update the English Wikipedia page in the area of my academic specialty. Most of what I’ve done has been to summarize already extant historicity sections in leads (some of which appear to have previously been systemically deleted previously). It seems that certain editors think whole sections of Wikipedia pages, especially ones that relate to the historicity of the Bible, do not belong in leads—-and dismiss as simply theories even when sourcing from textbooks. It appears I have roughly the same editing interests as some who got banned years ago, but that account was most certainly not me. This is my only account. I have a degree in the Hebrew Bible and care deeply about accuracy regarding communication about its historicity. It troubles me that history-focused perspectives on Bible pages are being banned. I will attempt to do a better job in the future to not reinstate an edit if it is reverted without discussing it in the page’s talk section. I will also attempt to focus more of my editing on the body of the Hebrew Bible pages. I’m genuinely trying my best to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and contribute in my area of academic speciality. Feel free to take a look through all of my edits. I’ve tried deeply to summarize the current academic consensus as it stands in academic literature in my edits (or in advance of my own future study, summarizing sources already used prominently in historicity sections). Pinging my mentor and Apaugasma who acted as a early mentor to me on here when I first signed up. Thank you for your time!<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]:</span> <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Apaugasma|Apaugasma]]:</span> [[User:IncandescentBliss|IncandescentBliss]] ([[User talk:IncandescentBliss#top|talk]]) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

IncandescentBliss ( talk) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

For an reviewing admins. Fajkfnjsak's socks have several times claimed not to understand what he was blocked for or why, much as this user does here (focus on edit warring, which, again is something Fajkfnjsak also did). See [1] [2]. The claims of bias against the academic consensus in this reply are also pretty classic Fajkfnjsak, see e.g. these edit summaries [3], [4], [5]. Besides the issue of sock puppetry, Fajkfnjsak shares with IncandescentBliss the issue of not getting what the problem with their edits are more generally (namely extreme POV pushing of one side in an ongoing academic debate, or else needlessly foregrounding issues like the historicity of Adam and Eve as if that were the most important aspect of the characters [6]). This does not strike me as what would be most significant to a person claiming to have a degree in the Hebrew Bible. Would a scholar of Greek religion be obsessed with proving that Deucalion never existed?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Responding to ping – IncandescentBliss, as far as I can see you are not blocked for the content of your edits, nor for edit warring or anything of that kind, but because Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fajkfnjsak/Archive#06 June 2024 has concluded that your are Fajkfnjsak. Your unblock request must only address that. Merely saying that the Fajkfnjsak account does not belong to you is not helpful and will accomplish nothing. Please take a look at Fajkfnjsak and their sock accounts and show us with diffs how and why they must be a different person (e.g. one diff showing something they said or did, another diff showing what you said or did and how it's different).

@Ermenrich: I agree that IncandescentBliss' edits clearly show that they are not an academic expert on the Hebrew Bible, as they claim they are. Obviously they have a strong interest in the subject and are aware of some of the literature, but they come at it with a strong POV that is wholly unscholarly. More likely, they're a student. However, that in itself is not blockable behavior. Can you show, for example, that Fajkfnjsak or their socks ever made claims of being an academic expert? While the evidence at the SPI case clearly shows that IncandescentBliss shares a strong POV with Fajkfnjsak, I'm not seeing it show much more than that. Sharing a POV is not enough to determine that someone is a sock: there are thousands of people out there with exactly this POV. As a whole, I must say that I do not find the evidence convincing enough for a block, though it's not unlikely that I'm missing something. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 21:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Apaugasma: I don't think that Fajkfnjsak ever claimed academic expertise - but keep in mind that it's been three years since his last, officially sanctioned sock Bilto was community blocked. What he and IncandescentBliss definitely share is a penchant for claiming to add academic consensus, a tendency to spam the same text across multiple articles, a tendency to use particular sources, most notably Moore and Kelle (2011), and a tendency to edit war. I can likely dig up more diffs to show these sorts of connections if given a bit of time.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I’ve rarely used Moore and Kelle (2011). I don’t think that’s a particularly reliable source. I’ve used Frevel (2023) often. It’s the industry standard textbook in the history of ancient Israel. My *focus* on the historicity is because the consensus in *continental European* scholarship is not represented in the Hebrew Bible pages. The Hebrew Bible pages lead sections have systematic bias against the consensus of *continental European* scholarship. Summarizing a new, industry standard textbook from 2023 (Frevel) has been the easiest way I can think of of updating these pages. I’ve tried to make edits in line with Frevel’s book and its relatively neutral tone—-guarding against too definite of statements but stating clearly when there is certainty about the historicity of certain topics. It’s not for lack of knowledge or not being an expert that I’ve used this as my main source. It’s because I think it’s the industry standard and thus more likely to stick.

In agreement with what Apaugasma said, I really don’t think I can prove I’m not someone else. In nearly any acamdeic setting in continental Europe almost none of my edits would be controversial. I’m happy to qualify that relatively fringe American scholars occasionally take the pre-monarchic period literally (as the Abraham page does does essentially for Kitchen’s work). And I’m happy to include the moderate (though usually more conservative than the consensus views) views of Dever in prominent places. But I find it truly shocking happening to share a general perspective—-which is the consensus of an entire continent—-with someone leads to blocking. If you review all of my edits, you’ll see *most* of them have not been reverted and I’ve made numerous positive contributions to Wikipedia. I have not claimed to be an expert, but I do have a degree in the Hebrew Bible.

I am deeply interested in historicity. It is often a/the core topic of academic discussion about the books of the Bible (for example, the Book of Judges). I am interested in *history*. Maybe I’m missing something but it seems like when entire sections of an article are missing form a lead section, a short summary is merited (like with Adam and Eve). Either the section itself should be deleted or it should be in the lead.

Look through the Hebrew Bible pages and you’ll see how often the historicity sections in the body are *missing* summaries in the lead. This is where my personal fervency came from. As a reader of Wikipedia it looked like deliberate suppression of *sections already in the article*. A lot of which were already pretty good! See, for example, what I did with The Tower of Babel page months ago (which has not been reverted last I checked by the way). If it looks like because I’m summarizing historicity sections of Wikipedia that I’m not an expert, so be it. But I’ve done that simply because I have limited time and the work of the historicity sections were often good.

I’m frankly not sure what else I can say, but it’s troubling to me that my work as a whole has not been evaluated and that the people who are policing the Hebrew Bible pages (to apparently align with their personal views; 2 editors specifically will essentially not let *any* edits into lead sections that are not in alignment with fringe American scholarship) are left free to edit while the all of the constructive work I’ve done (including numerous foreign-language sources that had not been included in the English-language Wikipedia) results in a ban. Frankly, it’s very disheartening. IncandescentBliss ( talk) 05:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I’m not sure you understand why you’ve been blocked. I identified you as having a similar POV and editing style to a banned editor. An admin looked at my evidence and agreed that you were likely that editor. If you can show differences in your editing from him, you may be able to convince a different admin to unblock you. But talking about your motivations or expertise or American sources isn’t going to help you.—- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply