User talk:Elijah1383

Speedy deletion of Spiritual body
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Spiritual body, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Third Eye article
Your information on the christian view of the third eye is interesting, but please reshape it so it fits this encyclopedia - copying passages from the bible is not very accessible, nor does it easily transfer ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.101.92 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that user put it quite well and much more politely than your response on User talk:129.125.101.92. Your edits to Third eye‎ are not exactly constructive.  Specifically, What_Wikipedia_is_not. If you need help editng, review How to edit a page, but you need to be WP:Civil, whether you're talking to an administrator or, as you rather unfortunately put it, "just some guy."  Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Third eye has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.d ela noy gabs adds 01:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, according to the Bible, Elijah has already come. See Matthew 11:14. J.d ela noy gabs adds  01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent reversion
Hi. I'm not sure this edit to Third eye is quite suitable for Wikipedia yet. You need some outside references to the link between these Bible quotes and the Third eye. Maybe you could re-write it a little more concisely and then try re-submitting it to the page? Thanks.--PhilMacD (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The guy goes around causing trouble. Look at his history people attack his home page all the time hey maybee wiki should ban him.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

fine ill cite The holy science  i already went ova this with someone else like 6 months ago

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You should also know that you are very probably already in violation of Wikipedia revert policy by repeatedly reverting your additions to the article. Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

i was trying to edit so i could cite some sources. cant i just cite the BIBLe. you have to give me like 10 mins to change it.


 * I know you mean well, but what you are adding to the article looks like your own original research. You can't just cite the bible if you are also providing your own analysis of what it is saying.   You need some good cites where this topic is discussed.  As it is, anyone is free to challenge and remove what you are adding because it just looks like your personal opinion and analysis.  It's also a bit over long.   If you want to tidy it up without anyone interfering, you'd might be best perfecting it first on your own personal sandbox first, then copy and paste it over once you're ready. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The other bible topics just give a summary and list the scriptures and most of the stuff is false.

I just posted the scriptures so people could read them without clicking the link. The scriptures are clearly talking about the third eye. i just wrote in a few words so people could understand the scriptures. So what should i do just say these are some scriptures that refer to the third eye and just list them??? The other bible topics just list the scriptures and they give false information

When a person looks up third eye wiki is the first thing that comes up. The Jesus Christ post only Helps mankind

How can mankind evolve if they don't open there third eye and receive there spiritual bodies also known as the seven seals or charkas. The scriptures that i posted clearly go ova how mankind can wake up with Gods light in there body and the the term lamp stand is another name for third eye in the bible. This isn't that hard to do and is the only way mankind can put an end to decay. all i did was copy and paste the scripture and i just went over what the mean.

so why delete a post that only helps people.

Should i just delete my thoughts and just post the scriptures??


 * The other bible topics are mostly false - in your opinion. The scriptures are clearly talking about the third eye - in your opinion. You just go over what the scriptures mean - in your opinion.  Do you see the problem?  Your opinion, and my opinion, and virtually every other editor's opinion, are not notable.  You need cites from people who are published experts and who do have a notable opinion.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)