User talk:Piotrniz

Welcome!
test

August 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Christian mythology, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS. We need secondary sources discussing this and linking heaven to Christian mythology. Look at the way the rest of that section is sourced. Note that if you want to say Lennon or Hawking refer to Heaven in relationship to Christian mythology you need to show that explicitly, and possibly someone commenting on Lennon'' Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I realise you are new and there is no reason to expect you to be aware of our sourcing requirements, so don't worry about this - but if it's removed, please don't add it back without proper sources. Also, now that you have an account, try not to edit logged out. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that the topic needs anymore research than proving the use of cosmographic terms throughout the Bible? Note that the paragraph does not say the Heaven is mythical, only that 1 it can possibly be interpreted so and that 2 various people, including officially accepted by the Church Christian comologians, used to interpret Heaven as place in this universe. Hawking indeed confirmed that in his book, which you can read even online, I have read it in paper form. You can remove refs to the Bible if you wish. Sorry but the paragraph just cites the well established facts which you have cited on WIKIPEDIA already, e.g. in the topic Celestial spheres. Only the Bible refs might be considered original research. So sorry but you are not right in this point. 89.67.140.182 (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure. The Bible is a primary source so you can't use it in this way to make an argument. Any research we do should be to find secondary, occasionally tertiary sources that themselves make the same point possibly even using the same passages. Exactly what did Hawking say about Christian mythology and heaven that I missed? It's the direct link that's important, it doesn't need to say that heaven is mythological but it does need to mention heaven in relationship to Christian mythology. Could you also read WP:CITE and add citations directly, not via links to other articles. I would have fixed that but simply don't have time, and it's good for you to learn. If you look at the menu above this edit box, first line, on the right, there's a drop down box. If you click on this it changes the bottom left dropdown box and you can get templates to add citations easily. As I think you've noticed, page numbers are important for books. Wikipedia is a learning experience and even after many years I am still learning. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, what I meant was that the 2 mentioned authors have reminded that a Christian concept was that heaven and hell were parts of the universe. About Lennon I could perhaps quote preciser if biographies were available to me but the correlation implied by song, which often mentions the apparently "ruling" religion, is pretty clear (between 1 Christianity and 2 something that sounds mythical and that I wrote about). Proving that the former thesis was already called "myth" in sources is another task, but 2 last refs are good, I think. They are not to prove mythology but to prove connection between Christianity and this alleged mythology and, after all, to show the argument is known in mass culture. 89.67.140.182 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Free Will
Hi Piotrniz, Thank you for your attempts to improve articles. It appears that you are adding unsourced original research and interpretations to the article on Free Will, and sometimes editing without logging in to your account. Please log in before editing.

I reverted one of your edits on the Free Will article because it was unsourced and changed the meaning of the paragraph. Reverting edits is not at all personal, and I would be happy to discuss the proposed edit further. It appears that you re-reverted the edit without logging in. I would like to discuss the edit.

Here is my explanation. The common argument for a conflict between an omniscient being, such as God, and Free Will takes the following form: If God knows everything that is going to happen, then how can I be free to choose what will happen. This argument is not about injunctions or morality. It is about a potential conflict between definite knowledge of the future and freedom to change the future. Perhaps we can work together to make this point more clear in the article?

Kind regards, Jj1236 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Minor" edits
Hi there! I noticed you made some edits to dilemma of determinism recently, which on a cursory overview all appear constructive (thanks for that!), but also they all seem to be tagged as minor edits. The "minor edit" flag should only be used for trivial changes like spelling and grammar, not for adding (or removing, changing, etc) substantiative new content.

Thanks again for your contributions! --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Friedrich Nietzsche
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review of Dilemma of determinism
Just wanted to let you know I moved your deletion review request for Dilemma of determinism to the proper page at Deletion review/Log/2015 May 28. Deletion review/Active, where you posted it, is a bot-maintained page; it would be automatically overwritten in about a day if it had been left there. —Cryptic 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
votestacking and personal attacks in you canvassing for your DRV is not permitted and is considered Disruption. If you wish to appeal the block you can use. Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)