User talk:ALEXseekerOFtruth

April 2012
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please do read WP:V and WP:Truth as you start editing. Also please read WP:NOR and WP:Primary.

I have had to revert two edits now, based on WP:NOTESSAY. Please do not express personal opinions, but uses WP:RS sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also please note that once you have been reverted by more than one editor you should stop reverting and discuss the issues with them to avoid a WP:Edit war. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Editor! How do I show a CLEAR MISQUOTING/MISREPRESENTING of a source? This time I actually quoted the whole SOURCE area of the misquote. How else .. or what is a better way to clear or correct a misquote? Thanks!! Alex


 * What you used for a "source" was the Bible, a WP:Primary source. As you know there are many biblical scholars who debate the interpretations of the Bible and they do not always agree with each other. Your "own interpretation" about how a Bible passage may be viewed is a WP:OR case. You need to read WP:Truth on that issue. In any case, I made a small trim that should help in this case.


 * The way items get entered into Wikipedia is by using WP:Secondary sources. So you need to find a few books (not the Bible) published by scholars such as well known professors, then "quote the professors", with page numbers in the books, not the Bible. History2007 (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Editor! "My" source was the VERY SAME "source"(bible) used previously by the very SAME paragraph. Yet you seem to be questioning its validity when I used it in its expanded form.

As to my "own interpretation"(???), in my LAST edit.. I DIDN'T give ANY "interpretation" at all, as I ONLY quoted an EXPANDED qoute from the VERY SAME Source(Bible ESV) as the ORIGINAL quote. To ALLOW the READER to make their Own conclusion of the QUOTED text.

Though I GREATLY appreciate the "small trim" you made in the offending paragraph AND your advice on using sources OTHER that the "bible"; your preceding statements and logic also has me greatly confused. ;-( As by my last Edit, I had already read the "WP" notes and decide ONLY to CORRECT a obvious false statement and see if the READER can catch it. ;-)

P.S. "own interpretation".. could you be referring to: 'Raising the sight of God sitting at the right hand of HIMSELF[Mk 16:19] and therefore literally beside Himself[Mk 3:21][Mk 3:21 ASV]' ?

Would it STILL not be allowable, writing it as: 'Ending with God sitting at the right hand of himself[Mk 16:19] and therefore literally "beside himself".[Mk 3:21][Mk 3:21 ASV]' ?


 * You appear to be approaching this from a non-Trinitarian viewpoint; please read WP:NPOV and WP:DUE for policy regarding Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. You will find that most articles concerning Christian doctrine will be written to describe the mainstream Trinitarian point of view, and non-Trinitarian sects are generally dealt with in separate sections describing their beliefs, particularly if they have some markedly differing views on the subject in question. But in particular, you will see that History2007 raises an important point when he asks that you use secondary sources. Your proposed edit is considered original research without a source to support it, and as it represents a fringe, non-Trinitarian theory that the Bible contradicts itself, is probably lending undue weight to the subject. Elizium23 (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

e/c ALEX, here is my advice on how you can proceed. It may seem unusual, bu believe me I hav ebeen around here for a while:


 * Change your user name. Use a new accout and declare it as a name change. Your current user name will bother people here, and your edits will get viewed as unusual - that user name sounds like you are "on a mission". Just use ALEX123 or ALEX whatever you like, but not "seeker of truth". WP:Truth has a long history on Wikipedia.


 * Avoid upper case and over excited comments. Calm down and do things systematically. The more uppercase you use and the more outraged you sound, the less you will succeed. Your point about Thomas "was valid". I corrected it the with a simple edit. All you had to do was say: "confirming to biblical source" in your edit summary and say "stated" as I did. There is no need for over excitement.


 * Remember that those of us who watch these pages are just "inundate with junk edits". Look at: this. Some guy enters the mass schedule for a specific church and I have to revert him to keep the encyclopedia functioning with sanity. So do things gently and calmly.

Also remember that today is a busy day with everyone and his brother expressing an opinion that Good Friday was a Thursday, so not much time to discuss.

I think you know the topic, but need to calm down to make a positive impact. And as But i DOO  see  said try to stay in the middle of the road. History2007 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

HELLO History2007 & Editor, Thank you for taking the time to give a quick reply during a busy day and for your well thought out advice. ;-)

Your are VERY correct that my viewpoint was anti-trinity and I NOW see that I should have limited that comment to the correct ANTI section of the site and NOT to have pushed it in the PRO area. Having momentarily "not seeing the forest for the trees", I did lose my objectively due to my passion for LOGIC as well as "Truth" AND Accuracy and my great distaste for the IL-Logical, the UN-True, and the IN-Accurate! ;-)

I have greatly thought over your suggestion of changing my user name... but have decided, for now, to keep it and all the extra scrutiny that will come with it. Oh that All NON "fringe" and POPULAR "truths" were to be as well scrutinized and tested for LOGIC, "Truth" AND Accuracy! ;-)

I greatly admire those that "test EVERYTHING" and do NOT take everything said at face value. Men like Copernicus, Galileo, and Columbus; who were thought of as "fringe" elements in their day.

Even Isaac Newton, though he was too fearful of the powerful Church to publish his findings on the trinity dogma of which he was taught in youth to believe without question.

I KNOW that I am not not even close to their level of intellect but I try to emulate their sprite of "SEEKING" Logic, "Truth" AND Accuracy which they also embraced in the face of what was the POPULAR thinking of their day.

I WILL keep ALL you wrote in mind next time it crosses my mind to edit or comment on anything! ;-)

P.s. Some of your links(Elizium23) did not work properly. P.s.s. What is a User Page and is it viewable by all?