User talk:DigDeep4Truth

Your edits
There's little point in adding semi-irrelevant comments to long-closed discussions on my user talk page. If you have something to say on Talk:Jesus (name) say it there (keeping in mind that the intended purpose of that page is the improvement of the article)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. Your manifesto added to your user page is quite inaccurate in places (for reasons recently discussed on Talk:Jesus (name) and other reasons), and if you try to add that material directly to Wikipedia articles in that form, then there is a probability that your Wikipedia editing career will be contentious and short... AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * God Bless you too! Please be patient. Much sifting to do, Developing an out an Outline, then forming a Rough Draft of Questions. Did you know, Manifesto's are for Governments, not private people? So please be kind enough to remove the usage of the word "manifesto". Feel free to substitute "declaration" as that would be a better word selection. The word intended by me is "Motivation Statement" as there are many people who repeat or cite sources without finding the original research or document they are discussing. ~ After a some time has passed for this UserPage to mature, I look forward to asking you "what do you find inaccurate". Just not yet. May I contact you for guidance at a later date? DigDeep4Truth (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Harry S Truman and the KKK along with Scottish Rite Freemasonry created 1948 Israel
Not a lie. Harry S Truman joined the Ku Klux Klan and Freemasonry before becoming President of the US. You just didn't visit the Official Klan website to read for yourself. Not just him, we had a string of KKK Presidents. But also Notice KKK as USA Presidents matches up to the Ottoman Empire being advised to Block Jews from Palestine. (It cane be proven that Freemasons precede, and fill gaps between the following lists) http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm

KKK Listed members while in office:
 * 1) > President William Mckinley, and 1897 – 1901
 * 2) > President Woodrow Wilson, 1913 - 1921
 * 3) > President Warren G. Harding, 1921 - 1923
 * 4) > President Calvin Coolidge 1923 – 1929

KKK former member:


 * 1) > Harry S Truman 1945 - 1953

Not listed; Yet Active KKK / Black suppression supporters:

Theodore Roosevelt, changed the name "Executive Mansion" to "White House" in 1902. Named our Military, "The Great White Navy". And sent VP Taft to the Philippines to cover up what happened to Magellan & (Moorish) Pigafeta when he landed and discovered translated Arabic Script in the Philippines. When 3 black soldiers in Texas were accused of fighting with White people to defend themselves but then refused to come forward, Roosevelt kicked 150 Blacks military soldiers out of the armed forces for refusing to tell on each other. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/struggle_president.html
 * 1) > Theodore Roosevelt 1901-1908 ~ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/struggle_president.html
 * 2) > President William H. Taft 1909 - 1913

When President William Henry Taft selected the first movie of the "White House", he chose it to be "Birth of a Nation". That's a Klan movie. Then he selected the first Presidential car to be the "White Steam Car", even though the “Doble Steam Car" was much more reliable and better performing. His Favorite book was the Baptist Klan book "Leopard Spots".

Links to Truman as KKK:

http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm

http://www.kkklan.com/tokens.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

Look at Ask.com Bing.com or Google.com for yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=truman+KKK

No one refutes that Harry S. Truman joined the KKK in 1920, for about $150 in today’s money given from his own pocket. But then Truman helped a fellow Freemason who was Catholic (York Rite Mason) get a political chair and the KKK chased him out for betraying them. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

-


 * What good is getting grumpy with me going to do you? I've only been here 4 days, right? Well today I proved "Yeshua" was NOT Jesus's name until 1700 CE. How many decades have Scholars like you not been able to figure this out? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) As of 521 CE the Jews say Jesus was never in their Talmud or Religious writings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud
 * 2) Greek translation of the common Hebrew name Yehoshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Joshua), Yeshua did not originate until the Second Temple period in Aramaic Talmud, Not Hebrew.
 * 3) Then in 1700 CE Frankfort Johann Andreas Eisenmenger printed Entdecktes Judenthum, saying that "Yeshu" was always such a deliberately insulting term for Jesus. And that Yeshua should be the encoding his name.

` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Jesus
Re this edit. Yeah, there were only three sections and I needed a fourth to generate the direct link to the section I wanted to make into a URL. I could have forced a ToC with the appropriate code, but I was lazy… Thanks for removing the now superfluous section. --Pete (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerning edits on Sirach...
Hello,

I'm very concerned about your edits on Sirach. Your resource doesn't explain what the "Gospel of Jesus" is, nor does such content exist. Also, you've added unnecessary redirecting links. What you basically did is reworded the introduction of the article and added non - existing content. None of your edits weren't really undone except redirecting links I removed. Please place a proper resource that explains to me about the extra content such as the: "Gospel of Jesus" or I have to remove useless information that really doesn't exist. -- ♣Jerm♣  729 02:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm very concerned about ♣Jerm♣  729  edits on Sirach. 1) Why didn’t Jerm729 bother to correct the name of the Books to match the Bible? Why did having the correct name, make him very concerned? 2) Why is Jerm729 breaking links that point to the correct Book name? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean you created? I copied this talk into Sirach where it belongs before you did. You attacked me for adding the name of Jesus back into the title "The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach". You had it as "Wisdom of Sirach". ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I answered you. Now answer one of mine. 1) Why didn’t Jerm729 bother to correct the name of the Books to match the Bible? http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Ecclesiasticus-Chapter-1/

I just saw the moving of the section so calm down -- ♣Jerm♣  729 08:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jerm729 still not answering... 1) Why didn’t Jerm729 bother to correct the name of the Books to match the Bible? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You created links to the alternative names of the article which redirected back to the exact article. The reason why the other titles are bolded because they are alternative names of the subject of the article. I did not mention anything about not having the name "Jesus" being not added to the article. Clearly "Jesus" is part of the authors name if you didn't notice that also has an article about: Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira that the name Yeshua (name) could both mean Joshua or Jesus. I opposed your changes because you added additional content that does not exist such as the "Gospel of Jesus": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sirach&diff=593542431&oldid=593540059 that I opposed adding because your original resource :http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ecclesiasticus-Chapter-1_Original-1611-KJV/that does not correlate or explain with the information you've added. Instead of any explanation, you responded with a personal attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sirach&diff=593841294&oldid=593540812 and still no proper answer. I didn't really respond because the attacks you made against me, which I'm highly offended.

Note: My response to your personal attacks: I'm not a Protestant or belong to any Christian group for that matter. I'm an independent Christian, but I guess now I have to edit my user page since you prefer to creep into it and use against me that says nothing about me being a Protestant or Catholic. Also, Sirach is my favorite book in the Bible. -- ♣Jerm♣  729 21:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I will change the alternative name from: Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira to Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Yeshua ben Sira since the name "Joshua" is an english translation of the name: Yeshua that could both mean Joshua or Jesus. -- ♣Jerm♣  729 21:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But that is not the name of the book . Jerm729 are defacing the article with nicknames you have made up! ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I'll just leave it alone and end the discussion here. -- Yeshua (name) -- ♣Jerm♣  729 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeshua is also not the name of Jesus. Yeshua was the acronym selected by a Johann Andreas Eisenmenger in the 1700's. Jesus had an Aramaic name that sounded like "Yeshu" in the Talmud. But people on wikipedia keep posting his name was Hebrew. Hebrew was not even in use during Jesus time. The primary languages was Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and other Aramaic Dialects.

After seeing the way the user edits of course I felt higher attention was needed from others beside myself
User:DigDeep4Truth has been posting ranting tirades about the KKK on article talk pages where they're completely irrelevant ([79], [80], [81], etc.). Because I've removed some of these tirades from the article talk pages, and have also pointed out many factual errors of his -- concerning subjects which he is quite ignorant about, but seems to think of himself as some kind of deeply-knowledgeable authority figure -- User:DigDeep4Truth has chosen many times to accuse me of lying or deliberately uttering things which I know to be falsehoods ([82], [83], [84], [85] etc.). I warned him about violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF as early as my edit summaries on these edits [86], [87], and also warned him on "Talk:Timeline of Palestine" ([88]), and left two pointed warnings on his user talk page: [89], [90]. This eventually pretty much stopped the nonsense for about two days, but today his spitefulness seemed to overflow again, and he accused me of "lying" two more times: [91], [92]. My patience with User:DigDeep4Truth has now officially expired, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone could remind him of Wikipedia policies in a way which I'm unable to do as a non-administrator... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What factual error? AnonMoos painted one side of a mirror. Why not have a Third Party ask us to both make one post as to the facts on the name "Yeshua" and see who is telling the truth? ~ Despite my naive newbie rants the first few days I joined Wikipedia (I deleted more than a few myself), The Consensus on "Palestine" was that it was AnonMoos who was not posting facts. The editor OnceinaWhile posted with me to note AnonMoos was posting things he knew was not true. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

-
 * Agree that this editor displays poor behaviour and a failure to assume good faith. See this example of using an edit summary to launch an attack after being reverted for making changes to the lead of an article without consensus. An SPA that is interested in advocating personal beliefs rather than constructively contributing to the project. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Flat_Out, I apologize for posting "keep an eye on this editor he has unusual bias". But if you examine the conversation with Jerm729 above I hope you will understand it was in "good faith" that I was trying to alert others and gain a third party opinion, rather than have an edit war, because you reverted an edit which was perfectly factual and it addressed the whole articles content without proposing discussion. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I would like to give you some friendly advice. (1) Stop posting editor comments from other pages here because it misrepresents other editors. (2) Stop blaming other editors for your block, it just reinforces the reason you were blocked in the first place. (3) If you want to be unblocked, I suggest that you agree to refrain from editing articles related to Christianity. single purpose accounts such as yours rarely do well here. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what I did wrong. All I did was start a discussion about his/her edits, but it seems that the user responded with a personal attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sirach&diff=593841294&oldid=593540812. I did not discriminate against any religious group, and my user page never said I was a Protestant or Catholic in the response to the attack. I was just concerned about a source that did not correlate with the content implemented in the article: Sirach, but the attack response was neither proper nor was there an explanation despite the response being a personal attack. -- ♣Jerm♣  729 04:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In print, the article named "Sirach" has only two names. Greek: The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach Roman Catholic: Ecclesiasticus. Neither title has been allowed to appear in the article by you. There was no personal attack. I asked five questions about why someone so focused, purposely damage a wiki and make the content unsearchable by removing the correct names for the article? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

King James Version
I have reverted your edit to the article King James Version, and moved it to the talk page. Regards TomHennell (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cease Personal Attacks
Given that you have already received a level 4 warning for personal attacks on other editors, edit summaries such as this are not acceptable. Please read WP:NPA. If you are not able to assume good faith then perhaps this is not the project for you. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   10:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The way you used "good faith" a little patronizing as if there could have been any other motivation? I pointed why the change made sense, and why your excuse to block the change did not make sense. "Bias" is the correct word to express your judgement that every time the word Gospel is used it is about the life a death story of Jesus even though that is not the correct definition. You clearly ignore the definition of the word. In fact you are threatening me because you perceive me to be in a weak position. So I'll make this simple. Post the definition of "bias" and post the definitions plural of "gospel" from a dictionary. Then decide how honest was I being? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you continue to make personal attacks as you have done again above, an admin will likely remove your ability to edit your talk page. I don't disagree with your definition of gospel at all and if you had read my posts to you and my edit summaries, you would understand that the truth was not the issue. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   10:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to make personal attacks. People are just overreacting when it is AnonMoos who is wrong. Be the way, you left a note for me in the editing of this page "Rv. pls do not remove an active block notice" ~ I did not remove the active block notice???? ~ I was blocked from replying to AnonMoos false accusation. No personal attack was being made. A Lie is a Lie. We are adults and can figure this stuff out. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. The edit you prefer does not match the dictionary meaning and deuterocanonical content of the article. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Indefintitely blocked
It is evident to me that you are not here to contribute collaboratively to the encyclopedia project. I have indefinitely blocked you from editing as you have another objective than constructive encyclopedia building. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Could someone at least give me enough permission to post on the appeal page? AnonMoos got his way without me ever being allowed to defend myself? And now AnonMoos is deleting my posts for appeal from this page? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This page is designated for your appeals (using Template:Unblock or similar), and anything you post to this page needs to be about 1) Promising not to do bad things in future, or 2) Why your past actions were not so bad after all -- but NOT re-offending in the things which got you blocked in the first place! AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You may request an unblock by posting at the bottom of this page, replacing "Your reason here" with appropriate text. However, before you consider doing so, you should read the guide to appealing blocks. Also, I will advise you that you will be very unlikely to be unblocked unless you make it clear that your future editing will be very different indeed from what you have done so far. Amongst many other things, nobody will unblock you in order to enable you to promote fringe points of view such as that there is a great international Zionist/Ku Klux Klan conspiracy. Nor are you likely to be unblocked unless it seems unlikely that you will continue to make what appear to other people to be personal attacks on other editors, whether you agree with that assessment or not. Nor are you likely to be unblocked as long as it seems that you intend to try to force your own beliefs through, convinced that you are always RIGHT, rather than being willing to accept consensus when it is against you. In fact, it seems to me that you probably genuinely do not understand why you are blocked, and if that is so then you will be very unlikely to produce a convincing reason why you should be unblocked, as unless you understand what the problems have been, you are likely to simply repeat them. However, you are free to try to prove me wrong, and I shall be delighted if you can succeed in doing so, as it will mean one more constructive Wikipedia editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not posting and KKK conspiracies to wikipedia articles? AnonMoos and I had a talk on my talk page. We're allowed to do that aren't we? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I will reflect on the above and post a reply later. I promise my behavior is as a new person who felt under attack for merely wanting accurate facts. These three editors do not want those facts. So my behavior erroded under the pressuure of discovering not all editors are as dedicated to the truth as me. I promise to be more tactful in the future. And will do a reply following your directions. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DigDeep4Truth (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)}}
 * I've read your request, and would suggest two things. One, you aren't blocked because you are right or because you are wrong. It's the way you behave. Two, please read WP:TLDR. It's not a policy, but it might help your next request. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * DigDeep, I was preparing to decline your request, but then noticed that someone else had already done so and you undid it. I have now undone your reverting of JamesBWatson, who declined your unblock request earlier today. Broken formatting doesn't mean you can remove an admin's decline of your request. Feel free to make another unblock request using your own words (not copy-and-pasted words of others that make it unclear who even wrote the unblock request) and without using reference templates (sources are irrelevant to unblock requests, and on the technical side, cause the template to do very strange things), bullet points, or other extraneous formatting. You are not permitted to remove or change a declined unblock template as long as your block stands, so please don't do that again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter, please forgive me. But I am new. And this process is overwhelming. The people reviewing this are not focusing on the complaint of AnonMoos. I can easily stop using the "L" word. I am trying to figure out if they are upset with me for posting that Truman was KKK in my Talk page, even though there is a Wiki dedicated to him being a member. There are also many supporting links from the KKK themselves. Are I not allowed to have discussions on my talk page? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Trying to clean things up. JameBWatson made the petition unreadable. Why did he do that? ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The user is manipulating the talk page by removing content. After A fluffernutter is a sandwich! posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DigDeep4Truth&diff=593961534&oldid=593961328, User: DigDeep4Truth removed content or reworded the content here in which he was specifically warned not to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DigDeep4Truth&diff=593962094&oldid=593961534. Furthermore, the user has continued to remove and add additional content such as the removal here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DigDeep4Truth&diff=593963230&oldid=593962714. This user is still continuing to alter and add more content. -- ♣Jerm♣  729 23:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
Due to ongoing disruption, talk page access has been revoked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting of unblock requests
An unblock request is supposed to be a short piece of text, stating why an editor thinks he or she should be unblocked. It is not intended to be a long document with complex formatting. The process for dealing with such an unblock is not designed to cope with such formatting. If an unblock request is either accepted or declined by the standard method, then any extraneous formatting is likely to be destroyed. It is possible, with some extra work, to restore the formatting, but it is rarely worth the effort, since the text of the request is still legible, and fancy formatting is irrelevant to the request anyway. It is certainly not worth the effort when the "unblock request" doesn't even deal with the reasons for the block. It is also very easy for an administrator to not even realise that formatting has been damaged, as he or she is likely to proof-read his or her contribution, but will generally have no reason to re-check someone else's contribution that he or she has already read.

No doubt you didn't know that. However, you didn't need to assume that the format was damaged intentionally out of malice: a much more natural assumption was that it was some sort of mistake. If you go through life always assuming that anything that is wrong is because someone has maliciously set out to cause harm, you will find that the world is full of wicked people, very often cooperating in evil conspiracies. Mind you, anyone who seriously thinks that the Ku Klux Klan's website is a reliable source of information will no doubt find out some pretty amazing "facts" anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)