User talk:KnightofZion

Regarding your sources in the Creation-evolution controversy article
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).

Your edit to Creation-evolution controversy cited:
 * http://www.eco-pros.com/evolution-creation.htm - A personal website with no editorial oversite nor academic credentials.
 * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html - While a reliable source, you engaged in original research, elaborating on points not actually in the sources you cited; making a point that the source does not make. This is a major problem with almost all of your addition to the article.
 * http://www.allaboutcreation.org/age-of-the-earth-c.htm - No evidence of academic credentials, no evidence that it's really multiple people, appears to be a church website (not a scientific resource). It could be acceptable for discussing religious views of evolution (but not the science of it), if the site or it's owners met the notability guidelines or it showed a high degree of scholarly merit.
 * http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm - This would be an appropriate source for discussing different religious views of evolution, but not for discussing evolution.
 * http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/10/human-evolution-height.php - Again, a reliable source in itself, but you going well beyond what the source said. Not acceptable.
 * http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Epic_of_Evolution - This is a user-generated source and completely unreliable. Never cite any Wiki on Wikipedia, even if it's a sister project of Wikipedia.
 * http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html - Again, taking a source and going well beyond what the source actually says.
 * http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm - Blogs are not acceptable souces, this is not a scientific website, it is a pseudoscientific website.
 * http://www.icr.org - This is just the ICR's homepage. Are you just trying to prove it exists?  Again, original research.

I'm not even going to get into the mistakes your additions contained, but the problems that caused them.

Wikipedia is not a blog, it does not engage in original research, and it does not make a point. You should read the neutral point of view policies, the no original research guidelines, the reliable sourcing guidelines, and I recommend looking over this user essay discussing how Christianity and the NPOV policies relate, particularly the section on science

Wikipedia only summarizes what sources says. It does not create any sort of narrative, moral, or point to weave each source together. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalising articles is not "quitting"
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hebrew astronomy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please do not add unsourced material, expansion on sources beyond what they say, (both of which university professors would laugh at harder than this site), or petty whining as you did with this edit. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, and is open to further expansion and correction. As such, it is not a stable source, which is why Universities (and even Wikipedia) does not accept Wikipedia as a source. A number of university professors edit here, and I've actually encountered more professors (all but one) who have said "Wikipedia is good when you're not citing it for a paper" than I have professors who completely didn't trust it (just one who was jealous that other people knew more about a subject he didn't even teach). Furthermore, because we are just a summary of sources, we do not take original research, especially research that has missed out on the past few centuries of scientific progress and the past few centuries of theological progress.

That you don't get any of that (and like to keep bringing up professors as it's a relevant insult), that you responded with contempt for my attempt to helpfully explain why your edit was reverted, and that you don't seem to have any regard for the reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and no original research policies and guidelines all show that you don't belong here. You don't have to believe in evolution to edit here, but you do have to accept that that is what the scientific community believes. You haven't been "fired," and you have the opportunity to change your ways, turn the other cheek if you really believe you've been wronged, and quit leaning on your own understanding, but if you mess up another article you will be asking to be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not a vandal, this is a false accusation
I_have_been_told_I_have_vandalized_an_article.2C_but_I_have_not.21_What_do_I_do.3F

I will contact someone who knows more about Wikipedia guidelines, who might be of assistance. I have not vandalized the Hebrew astronomy page, as my research might not have been "perfect" but I will take the advice of your superiors, those who founded Wikipedia and don't desire to discourage people from contributing knowledge, or disincentive, as it is called. The amount of disincentive I have received from people, is beyond reason. I will ignore these false accusations, and move up the chain of command in the Wikipedia administration, to find out which editors are actually guilty of true vandalism, by removing people's research and fostering an environment against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which speak of disincentive and causing contributors to quit. This is a free and open online encyclopedia. I respect it. However, I am losing respect for those who run the site with an overly-pompous, undignified, biased, bigoted and unjust opinions. Just because a person has the power to "control" doesn't mean they should abuse that power, and exercise that power, without properly and humanely addressing the real issue. I will post my Hebrew astronomy information, as it originally was, to show that I am not a "vandal" who just goes around destroying and corrupting pages on Wiki. The "Nazis" I said were controlling this site, have proven me disincentive, desire to quit, and let it go. The vandalism I am being accused of, is unjust, and without merit, being thrown at me by people who are atrocious editors.

The firmament
It is often misconstrued that "most ancient people believed the sky was a solid dome" (or firmament), as this modern view is biased in regard to the intellect of ancients who studied astronomical data often from religious standpoints. This is the "solid dome over the earth" concept, which as defined by some conservative scholars, (John Calvin, for instance), is also viewed as an atmospheric expanse. Yet among primitive peoples various stories seem to reflect a belief in a solid sky. More accurately, like some ancient peoples, the Hebrews likewise are thought to have believed the sky was a solid dome or firmament. Yet it could be they thought according to the Torah as the first chapter of Genesis records the firmament as being the position where the stars were placed. The implication is that there was a firmament below a fixed and solid "dome". Additionally, the firmament was likely seen by ancient Hebrews as the space occupied by the cosmos, while "Heaven" literally sits above the firmament in an assumed finite view of a created universe. Shamayim (ם‎שמי‎) is the Hebrew word for "heaven". Thus, the firmament can be understood as being made of water, or "waters" as the second day of the Biblical creation describes this event as a division of waters (waters above and waters below). They believed the Sun, Moon, and stars to be embedded within the firmament.

Therefore, the earth's atmosphere could not be the logical assumed position of the sun, the moon, and the stars, which are above; instead, the ancient Hebrews would have believed the "waters" were simply above the "heaven of heavens" or the firmament (the expanse), between ,"Heaven" and earth. Thus, the implication is that the visible universe was likely believed by some ancient scholars, to simply be contained below "Heaven", whereas the heavens below "Heaven" are the firmaments regarding earth's atmosphere and the cosmos.

Perhaps I am not a Wikipedia scientist, who knows 100% of exactly what is appropriate for posting, but the one-liner in the current Hebrew astronomy makes my ancestors sound like idiots, and makes me sense the citation is biased as well as antisemitic against Jews. I am upset that my research wasn't considered for being refined, but instead, I was accused of vandalism and blocked. This is exactly what the higher authorities and founders of Wikipedia address, by saying disincentive is not good for the future of Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia gets shut down one day, simply because "Like most ancient people, the Jews thought the sky was made of a solid dome" is the only reference to the firmament, which in Genesis (of the Torah), says "..and God called the firmament 'Heaven'" -- which I wanted to expound on under this Wiki article. My ancestors, my Jewish history, and my knowledge of this subject, states the contrary, that this "solid firmament" is one of water, which is the "floor of Heaven" above all the stars and galaxies. This article doesn't have any information suggesting this knowledge, which is out there. I might not be the "expert" on this subject, but I know my ancestors didn't believe the sky, where the rain comes from (earth's atmosphere) was a "solid dome" as SOME ancient people MIGHT have believed. But if Wikipedia says, "MOST ancient people believed the sky was a solid dome" then it must be true, right? I disagree, respectfully. I also tried to clarify by saying, SOME people may have believed that, but no one can say that is verifiable, just like I said it is hard to verify a statement of beliefs of ancient people, by saying biased remarks like, "Most Christians thought the earth was flat" is a misrepresentation of fact (i.e. - a lie), a false statement, and something that only a biased and ignorant person would say. Citations could make that statement seem "true" if they omit other facts. Jews didn't think the sky was a solid dome. Sorry, it isn't a fact of history. They believed much more highly than this, that the "vault of Heaven" the firmament, was high above the universe, as though the universe itself were surrounded by a cloud of water, or a solid "dome" in a finite universe. Modern science states the universe is basically infinite, though many suppositions and theories suggest other ideas in modern astronomy. However, Hebrew astronomy has a LOT more about the firmament, than this one-liner, which is eating me up. Someone needs to correct this, simply because it is offensive to anyone who knows the facts of history, and has at least some citations and verifiable content to add to such a suggestion.

I believe the statement on the firmament should be removed, or edited. But the statement existing there presently, is an outrage and an offense, with only one citation to verify that some ancient people in Africa believed the sky was a solid dome, and some Native Americans told legends of "shooting arrows" at the sky, to form a ladder and climb up to the "ceiling" of the sky, by climbing the arrows. This is in the same document where one is suggesting the Jews believed the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, as well as the Planets -- are all embedded within the atmosphere of earth, where the clouds are, just a little higher. This is not only hard to believe, that ancient people would be that stupid, but also not a fact of what the ancient Hebrews believed. Anyway, I feel I am wasting valuable time and energy explaining all this, but it's not important. It's just one stupid little thing, and it is enough to make me desire to quit Wikipedia, due to complete disincentive. Let the ancients believe whatever the ancients believed. If you want to keep false information in your encyclopedia, making it sound like no one in history imagined Heaven was far above all the stars, and was "hammered out like metal" all around the "firmament" or the heavens, where the "Heaven of heavens" above them all, would make our universe appear to be like a "finite universe" or a "snow globe" if you will. Can anyone prove the ancient Hebrews didn't believe Heaven (the firmament) wasn't far above the stars, and that God Himself sits above the heavens, and is high above the "Heaven of heavens" or "Shamayim", which indicates the "hammering out of the firmament" or the "stretching out the heavens like a tent".

Is there ANYONE on here who even cares about this issue in the Hebrew astronomy page? Is there anyone intelligent on here, who can relate to why I am complaining about the one-liner existing on this page? Anyone? Anyone at all? Or just block me for trying to add some research. I'll get all my books on ancient Hebrew beliefs, and cite them if you really, really want this correction. However, I am disinclined to help the madness of Wikipedia. This site is a circus, run by clowns and court-jesters, and idiots who really don't know what knowledge is all about. At least there is science out there talking about the "finite universe" theory, though it might not be widely known or accepted, is beside the point. Ancient Hebrews believed the universe was divided on the second day of creation, according to Genesis, where the water was divided from the water, and "Shamayim" where the Hebrew root word "mayim" also means "water" where the waters are inferred, not limited to just the earth's atmosphere, as it logically makes no sense that on the second day of creation, God divided the waters from the waters, (water on earth, reflecting the water of Heaven above), and this belief is historical in all Jewish knowledge, that the waters above, were also thought by some to just be "the clouds" or some kind of "water dome" that came down during the Great Flood of Noah's time. However, this doesn't preclude the fact that others believed the waters above, couldn't be in earth's atmosphere, or below the Sun, the Moon, or the Stars or Planets, because on the fourth day of creation, just as it states in Genesis, God placed the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars (and planets) in the firmament. In other words, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, including the Planets, would have all been to believed by "most ancient people" to be embedded in the earth's atmosphere. This is illogical, and stupid, as well as hard to prove. How can anyone believe that ancients who were responsible for building things like the Great Pyramid, and other amazing structures that concern astronomy, were that dull and dim-witted? Maybe they were. But I have research enough to state that they didn't all, "most of them" believe the sky was a solid dome. No one can prove this, which is why I contend, and I must protest. I know better knowledge about the ancient Hebrew astronomy subject, and desire to contribute to it. Regardless, I give up. No one seems to find any of this relevant. We might as well say, "like most ancient people, the Jews believed in unicorns" and cite some reference to the old King James translation where the word "unicorn" is actually used. But I am wasting my time.

Thank you, for you intelligent person, who might read this, and sense particularly that I "might" have more to add to this research, just "maybe". If not, then thank you idiots for blocking me, because I have no more incentive to contribute to your free encyclopedia. I am NOT a vandal. Period. But some of the idiots on here encouraged me to resort to childish tactics, or "trantrums" because being kind and polite, and being honorable and just, was getting no results. Shock value alone, just so SOMEONE intelligent might step in and see. But I sense no intelligence among this community. So farewell, and I look forward to the days when I begin to tell people, "Why would you Wikipedia anything? Use another reliable source; anyone can edit Wikipedia; it's completely full of morons and most of the information is biased." My saying this, actually encourages friends and family members to think less of Wikipedia, and to frown upon it, and to frown upon the idiots and "Nazis" who run it. I am capable of discouraging people from using this site, to prevent people from wanting to even explore it, read anything it offers, visit it, or even better -- contribute anything at all -- especially donations or financial contributions. I would find that to be insane. I hope one day, everyone stops donating to Wikipedia. I'm sure your "supervisors" who own this site, who founded it, who truly do honor the codes, would "fire" you people who discourage others, and even drive them away from this idiotic communist website. I truly pity the owners and founders of Wikipedia, because their intentions were FAR from the intentions of the micro-managers they never "hired" to drive away any hope for actualizing any potential this encyclopedia might have had in the future. I see no room for improvements at this point. All I know, is there are some really insane Nazis running these pages -- and the owners who would otherwise receive "contributions" in the form of money, simply will have to watch that dwindle down, as the Wikipedia controversy continues. I know I will say, "Friends tell their friends to never use Wikipedia" -- because it's dizzying and defies judgment and common-sense. Thank you again, and have a great life, while you try to justify your meaningless existence -- by exerting control in a closed system, where you have the smallest amount of force or influence on planet earth; the world of Wikipedia. Enjoy your world of information, and mis-information, lies, misstatements, omitting truths, and deleting facts. <br Most of my friends and family agree that they hate Wikipedia. At one time, I tried to explain to them that it is carefully managed and that it seems like a great resource. At one time I believed Wikipedia was a good resource. No longer. Thank you for making it striking and clear, that I should line my views up with those who know of a world outside of this toxic community of control-freaks and morons. I don't just hate Wikipedia, I hate the fact that it will take a long time to get it off the web permanently. One day, I believe Wikipedia will be demolished by the wishes of everyone who sees it as being as useless and as bothersome as "most intellectuals" presently believe. Concluding my tangent, with my thesis statement of Hebrew astronomy saying "Like most ancient people, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome firmament" and I say, like most post-modern scientists, and intellectuals, like most intelligent people -- they believe and one day will all believe together, with one voice, that Wikipedia is a solid load of crap." Again, thank you for reading my concerns, and my talk page, and my journal entry here. I enjoyed spouting this out, as it proved to be amusing, thinking of a time when I wondered why my professors down-graded my paper with the red pen, saying, "Please refrain from using Wikipedia in your research papers in the future, thank you." And much, much more :)

I love these teachers now. They were right! I should have just trusted their remarks, instead of defending Wikipedia, and contending, "Why would they downgrade me for this? Wikipedia is a great tool, and even more amazing than they give it credit for. I'll prove it!" Alas, Wikipedia editors have proven to me that my good professors were right. This resource is truly sad and pathetic, lacking in so many ways, having only a few strong points. If only it weren't a communist dictatorship run by control-freaks who have no lives! What a wonder it would be, if knowledge could be collected, like a collective consciousness of humanity, in fulfilling the mission of Wikipedia's founders. But Wikipedia is the land of the insane, and I truly wish to say, I have learned my lesson. Don't trust Wikipedia. Don't trust the editors. And lastly, Don't let your friends use Wikipedia, or their friends, or their family members, and don't let them use it in school, or for any "real research". But in continuing with the human trends of history, let the people use Wikipedia like astrologers use horoscopes, or as Chinese take out and delivery customers use fortune cookies. Thus, Wiki should be treated the same, as a fortune cookie, or a daily horoscope. Thank you, I will refer this to all my friends, family members, and colleagues. The names of all the editors who have driven the nail in my coffin of disincentive, will be happy to report back with this "dissertation" and complaint, with the same attitude. Wikipedia sucks. That's about all it comes down to.

KnightofZion (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourself
You have belittled the suffering in the holocaust by comparing me removing your temper tantrum from the article to the persecution of the Jews. I have requested that your account be blocked, bevause you're too immature to quit like you keep saying you're going to do. Playing the race card as you did has made me lose all possibility of respect for you. Still, may you never have to know what suffering really happened in the holocaust, even though you are an insult to all who died there. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourself You have belittled the suffering in the holocaust by comparing me removing your temper tantrum from the article to the persecution of the Jews. I have requested that your account be blocked, bevause you're too immature to quit like you keep saying you're going to do. Playing the race card as you did has made me lose all possibility of respect for you. Still, may you never have to know what suffering really happened in the holocaust, even though you are an insult to all who died there. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting to be unblocked due to biased and unfair treatment by religiously biased administrators who are not following the Wikipedia guidelines, and are abusing their power, exercising control and authority in a forum where it is not commemorative or commendable, nor acceptable or admirable. The one who should be ashamed, is the one who "blocked" me without any reason, justification, or any sound guideline to prove that I should not be allowed to contribute my knowledge to Wikipedia.

What kind of drugs is this user on? My ancestors die in the holocaust, and you accuse me of not knowing what they went through? You're an admin on this site? I should be ashamed of what? That you are an ignorant jerk, who knows nothing about me or my family, or my Jewish heritage, or my ancestors who died in the holocaust? What does your comment have to do with my editing the "Firmament" on Hebrew astronomy? Seriously, the article was requiring expert advice. What does your comment and "blocking" reflect on Wikipedia?

Google "Why Wikipedia Sucks" and find out for yourself the kind of people I am beginning to appreciate. There are others out there who understand the "Nazi" treatment they receive, just for adding research to a page that someone is obsessed with controlling. It reflects the truth about "Wiki Nazis" who are tyrannical control freaks, who must not have anything useful or valuable to do in real life. You people make me sick. Why should I contribute to Wikipedia anyway, since you just delete things that don't line up with your own personal biased belief systems. My research was legitimate, maybe not perfect, but apparently it struck someone's nerve. I call you a book burning Nazi, because you burned the research I posted multiple times, and instead of kindly addressing how to refine the research, as is the purpose and intention of Wikipedia, in sharing vast amounts of knowledge in one universal database... well, it appears Wikipedia is a communist society run by idiots. I would love to contribute, but it seems that all you people resort to are "delete/block" tactics, whenever someone confronts you. No surprise there. That's what Hitler did. That's what Stalin did. That's what all tyrants do. They just shoot people who disagree with their political or religious beliefs.

I am angry with Wikipedia in how it's run, and how it operates, by those who control the flow of information, who make this site more conspiratorial than honest, and suffer from controlling personality disorders, where instead of kindly or politely dealing with "problematic posts" they just block people. I am asking to be unblocked, not because I want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore, but because based on principle alone, I desire to have the opportunity in the future, when perhaps a day comes when less Nazis are in control of Wikipedia, and then I might be able to contribute knowledge. Nevertheless, I doubt any Wiki-tyrant will take time to read or consider these things. I have been called names, accused falsely and wrongly, and have been treated like crap for trying to contribute to this site. I desire to quit contributing, but then the tyrant says, "You can't quit... you're fired!" In such a typical control-freak manner. Seek mental help, do the world a favor. KnightofZion (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

UNBLOCK MY ACCOUNT

 * Slot off, JarlaxleArtemis. A Checkuser caught you dead-to-rights. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 01:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)