User talk:SKWills

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Easter Bunny. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Easter Bunny. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Imp
DON'T call me an imp based on one or two edits to the Easter Bunny article. I've made plenty of constructive edits elsewhere. Consider this as a warning, and consider yourself lucky that this is all you're getting.-- The     copyeditor's corner   20:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

December 2019
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Christmas. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Victim: A Romance of the Real Jefferson Davis (1914)


A tag has been placed on The Victim: A Romance of the Real Jefferson Davis (1914) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.amazon.com/Victim-Romance-Real-Jefferson-Davis/dp/1410107868. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 11:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion?
The Page was created as a Temporary measure till I could Write a Proper Summary. Also, the Description was Written by Thomas Dixon Jr., and was composed in 1916. It is no Longer in Copyright. I did not get it from Amazon. I got it either from Faded Page or from The Internet Archive.

https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20130825

The actual Book Description is how Thomas Dixon Himself described The Book.

Instead of Deletion, couldn't this have just been made more Clear?

SKWills (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

POV-pushing & socks
You seem to want to change what Christians thought in the past and to disregarde the sources or lack thereof. Please stop this behaviour. Veverve (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Also, those IPs have the same writing style as you and seems to also want to rewrite the past when it comes to Christianity, see,. Veverve (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC) you both worked on those pages, so I make you aware of my claims. Veverve (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Christianity is known for its defense of slavery, not opposition to it. Paul the Apostle send the runaway slave Onesimus back to his master, and the Epistle to Philemon is seen as "a Christian foundation document in the justification of slavery". Dimadick (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the Sublimis Deus article, SKWills was not POV-pushing, my mistake, sorry. Veverve (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@. Dimadick

Christianity is Historically Known to have been the Motivation for Opposition to Slavery. And Paul did not Send a slave back on the basis that He believed Slavery was Good.

A Single Out Of Context Quote from a Historian does not make that go away, especially since the same Wiki Article says This.

"""Although it is a main theme, Paul does not label slavery as negative or positive. Rather than deal with the morality of slavery directly, he undermines the foundation of slavery which is dehumanization of other human beings. Some scholars, but not Paul, see it as unthinkable in the times to even question ending slavery. Because slavery was so ingrained into society that the “abolitionist would have been at the same time an insurrectionist, and the political effects of such a movement would have been unthinkable. "[25] Paul viewed slavery as an example of a human institution of dehumanization, and believed that all human institutions were about to fade away.[25] This may be because Paul had the perspective that Jesus would return soon. Paul viewed his present world as something that was swiftly passing away.[26] This is a part of Pauline Christianity and theology.

When it comes to Onesimus and his circumstance as a slave, Paul felt that Onesimus should return to Philemon but not as a slave; rather, under a bond of familial love. Paul also was not suggesting that Onesimus be punished, in spite of the fact that Roman law allowed the owner of a runaway slave nearly unlimited privileges of punishment, even execution.[26] This is a concern of Paul and a reason he is writing to Philemon, asking that Philemon accept Onesimus back in a bond of friendship, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Paul is undermining this example of a human institution which dehumanizes people.[26] We see this in many of Paul's other epistles, including his letters to the Corinthians, delivering the message of unity with others and unity with Christ – a change of identity. As written in Sacra Pagina Philippians and Philemon, the move from slave to freedman has to do with a shift in “standing under the lordship of Jesus Christ”. So in short, Onesimus’ honor and obedience is not claimed by Philemon, but by Christ."""

The Article "Christian Abolitionism" says This.

"Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from "un-institutional" Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]"

And This.

Ancient times Paul, the author of several letters that are part of the New Testament, requests the manumission of a slave named Onesimus in his letter to Philemon,[3] writing "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother" (Philemon 15-16). In addition, the Book of Revelation condemns the slave trade on the basis that it involves the marketing of human souls and their bodies as if they were cargo.[4] The views that Paul and Revelation are not the only ones in ancient Judaism to oppose slavery. The Essenes, a radical Jewish sect in Israel which rejected much of the institutions of civilization, also rejected slavery, for violating the free equality of man.[5]

In the fourth century, the bishop Gregory of Nyssa articulated a fundamentally Christian conception of the world that embedded a thorough rejection of the notion that one human could be owned by another and a condemnation of the institution of slavery. The historian Kyle Harper [nl] writes:

Humans were granted mastery over the animals by God. But in practicing slavery, humans overstepped the boundaries of their appointment. Gregory proceeded to attack slavery by questioning, philosophically, the paradigmatic act of the slave system: the sale. With penetrating insight, he asked how the human being, the rational creation of God, could be given a “price.” What, he asked, could have the same market value as human nature? “How much does rationality cost? How many obols for the image of God? How many staters did you get for selling the God-formed man?” Here Gregory offers a logic that was entirely novel in the ancient world but would reverberate in later centuries with tremendous consequence.[6]

In "Christian views on slavery"

"Saint Augustine described slavery as being against God's intention and resulting from sin.[2]

John Chrysostom described slavery as 'the fruit of covetousness, of degradation, of savagery ... the fruit of sin, [and] of [human] rebellion against ... our true Father'[78][79] in his Homilies on Ephesians. Moreover, quoting partly from Paul the Apostle, Chrysostom opposed unfair and unjust forms of slavery by giving these instructions to those who owned slaves: " 'And ye masters', he continues, 'do the same things unto them'. The same things. What are these? 'With good-will do service' ... and 'with fear and trembling' ... toward God, fearing lest He one day accuse you for your negligence toward your slaves ... 'And forbear threatening;' be not irritating, he means, nor oppressive ... [and masters are to obey] the law of the common Lord and Master of all ... doing good to all alike ... dispensing the same rights to all".[78][79] In his Homilies on Philemon, Chrysostom opposes unfair and unjust forms of slavery by stating that those who own slaves are to love their slaves with the Love of Christ: "this ... is the glory of a Master, to have grateful slaves. And this is the glory of a Master, that He should thus love His slaves ... Let us therefore be stricken with awe at this so great love of Christ. Let us be inflamed with this love-potion. Though a man be low and mean, yet if we hear that he loves us, we are above all things warmed with love towards him, and honor him exceedingly. And do we then love? And when our Master loves us so much, we are not excited?".[80][81]

By the early 4th century, the manumission in the church, a form of emancipation, was added in the Roman law. Slaves could be freed by a ritual in a church, performed by a Christian bishop or priest. It is not known if baptism was required before this ritual. Subsequent laws, as the Novella 142 of Justinian, gave to the bishops the power to free slaves.[82]

Several early figures, while not openly advocating abolition, did make sacrifices to emancipate or free slaves seeing liberation of slaves as a worthy goal. These include Saint Patrick (415-493), Acacius of Amida (400-425), and Ambrose (337 – 397 AD).[83] Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394) went even further and stated opposition to all slavery as a practice.[84][85] Later Saint Eligius (588-650) used his vast wealth to purchase British and Saxon slaves in groups of 50 and 100 in order to set them free.[86]

Saint Pelagia is depicted by James the Deacon as having freed her slaves, male and female, "taking their golden torcs off with her own hands".[87] This is described as a highly virtuous and praiseworthy act, an important part of Pelagia's ending her sinful life as a courtesan and embarking on a virtuous Christian life, eventually achieving sainthood."

I can go on but Shan't.

SKWills (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC) SKWills (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Add new sections atthe bottom
I've moved your rant about humanism from the top of WP:NPOVN to the bottom. If you click on 'New section' in the header to add new sections they will go in the appropriate place and you'll also avoid edit conflicts. NadVolum (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Its not a Rant about Humanism. Its a Valid Objection to a Biased article. And i don;t Appricviate You calling it a Rant or Moving it do it won't be Seen. SKWills (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @SKWills since people expect new material to be at the bottom, you've been done a favor. Doug Weller  talk 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Was I also done a Favour to be Banned? I did not Realise Wikipedia was an Explicit Humanist Encyclopedia that Existed to Promote Humanism. After all, the Page on Christianity includes Criticism of Christianity that comes from the Actual Critics of Christianity. The Page on Islam includes Criticism of Islam from Islams Critics. But, it is wrong to Include Criticism of Humanism that has not been Filtered through Humanist Sources, and we must Accept that Humanism is in fact good and Noble and Oure.
 * I am sorry, but I do not Feel a Favour has been done if I am Banned, Told I Randomly Capitalise Words when I actually Capitalise All nouns as German does, and told it is Wrong to call People Liars Who are in Fact Liars.
 * Maybe You should rewrite the Wikipedia Article on The Ontological Article. After all, the Page depicts aa Complex Philosophical Argument. its not. The Ontological Argument is just God Exists because We can Think of Him. Its all Right there on The Humanism Article. And it is Proven since it is in The Handbook Of Humanism.
 * The Humanism Article is a Joke. Its Only Sources are Humanist Sources. Even the Critisim Section are taken Purely from Humanist Sources. There is absolutely No Need to even include Arguments for God's Existence. But this does. it goes Further than that. The Humanism Article Actually says the Arguments Fail.
 * the Humanism Article will not allow Humanism to be Called a religion. It is not a religion. Calling it a religion must not be Allowed. I can Find Any Number of People Who do see it as a Religion. I can even Find Living Modern Humanists Who see it as a Religion. But they are Wrong. The Handbook of Humanism says so.
 * And its a Good thing Humanism is not a Religion. After all, Religion promotes Slavery, Bigotry, and Racism. Religion promotes Hatred of Gays and Opposes Gay Rights.
 * That is Why People are abandoning Religion and embracing Humanism.
 * Of course No One ever abandons Humanism. it is simply too Perfect ad Once You become a Humanist You never leave for there is Nothing better.
 * And Humanism is Thousands of Years Old. It did not come from Christ9ianity. It also did not come from The Religion Of Humanity by Auguste Compte. That was a Minor Influence at best.
 * Really, the Article on Humanism is what Secular Humanists Who are also Militant Atheists want us to Think Humanism is. It is not what Humanism Actually is.
 * I am not Advocating Writing an Article Condemning Humanism. i just want it to be Fair and Accurate and to use more than just a Handful of Biased Sources. And I don't want it to include unnecessary attacks on Religion, especially specific Religions such as Islam and Christianity.
 * Do You Really Learn Anything about Humanism from the way This Article Claims the Arguments for God's Existence are Irrational and Fail? SKWills (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Claims is not a noun. Basic grammar. Doug Weller  talk 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a Grammar Issue, and when You Ridicule My Grammar You make it seem like I am talking like a Stereotypical redneck Hick from the Deep South you see in Movies, or like a Slackjawed idiot. And I am not Fond of the Insults. You are a Disgrace. SKWills (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I did address the Real Reason I was blocked. Look on The Humanism page. It is Biased. It does include Value Statements. It does Strawman the Arguments for God's Existence, then Declares them Failed. The Criticism Section does not Include Criticism that can easily be Found and Only takes Criticism from Humanist Sources, and depreciate it.

I was not Banned for Life because called someone a Liar. Nor for Grammar. I was banned for Life because I wanted to Fix an Incredibly Biased Article.

SKWills (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I know it's a waste of time to tell you this, but we really don't care about your opinions and you weren't blocked for them. You were blocked for being disruptive and that can happen to someone who is absolutely correct on what they are saying but is unable to work with others and acts disruptively. If you'd approaches things a different way I doubt I would have blocked you originally. But you would have been blocked sooner or later because for some reason you think that you know more about using capital letters than the average English professor and are unable to follow our guideline at Manual of Style/Capital letters. Your writing style simply messes up our articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I Removed the Previous Reply. I Just realised how absurd what You said is. I did not say I Know More about Using Capital Letters than Anyone Else. Why are You Fixated on My Capitalisation? I Use this because I am Severely Dyslexic. I also ahave Poor eyesight. I Capitalise All Nouns Generally, with Exception. But this is a Styaletic. It is not Me Boasting of Anything. it is a tool I use to Help My eyes Focus on Specific Points. Without it, I tend to make FaR More Spelling Errors than I would otherwise. Most find the Spelling Errors more difficult to Read than the Capitalisation.  I am not Arrogant about it. I never Bring it up. You did. Why on Earth are You fixated on My Typing when That can be Edited?
 * Am I really expected to Believe that I was Banned for life over Capital Letters? Are You really trying to present me as Arrogantly Boasting that I Know more about Capitalisation tan English Professors? When did I do that? SKWills (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am trying to play by your rules now, But If allowed back on Wikipedia, I won't be able to maintain it. I can't always spell using the conventions You want, and at the same Time actually be sure what I am typing is correct. I do not however Think I was really banned for life because I spell Life with a Capital L and Me with a Capital M instead of saying me. That sounds rather petty. Especially since You did not even Warn Me, You simply Banned Me. You Banned Me for Life over an issue You did not even Attempt to discuss with Me.
 * I was not Disruptive and this is not about Me not being able to Work with others. And its not Really about Me Thinking I Know more about Capitalisation than English Professors. This is an Excuse. SKWills (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You weren’t banned for capital letters. You aren’t using capital letters just for nouns. And as sorry as I am for your disabilities no one should have to edit your text. But you haven’t shown the ability to work with others. Doug Weller  talk 18:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Doug Weller, that is exactly what You said.
 * "But you would have been blocked sooner or later because for some reason you think that you know more about using capital letters than the average English professor and are unable to follow our guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Your writing style simply messes up our articles."
 * You also did not Say Anything about this Before banning Me. You banned Me with No warning. You Simply Banned Me.
 * as for not being able to Work with Others, what exactly is that based on? The Fact that I am in dispute with an editor that won't Listen to Me and simply Copy and Pastes a Reply about How His Sources are Academically Accepted? Look at the Humanism Article talk Page. I Bring up Issues with the Article. They are Ignored and The Poster I am in Dispute with Never bothers Addressing them and simply repeats the same thing. This is Why I went for Help. You now say I am the One Who won't Work with others.
 * How? How did I not work with others?
 * Oh and don't bring up Me calling another Poster a Liar. I checked your Posting History. You've called People Liars.
 * This is Rules for Thee and not for Me if I am banned for that. And keep in Mind I am Banned for Life.
 * I Tired working with others. You banned Me before I had a Chance to. SKWills (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

For the next Admin. I'm wondering if leaving TPA is being a bit unfair to this editor. Nothing has changed and this must be stressful for them. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, what You just said is a form of Abuse. Harassment like this, and Demeaning others like this, is Abuse. When You Devalue People and Speak of them in The Third Person, it is Bullying. You had No Reason to Post that other than to Devalue Me.

Its bad Enough You banned Me for No Valid Reason, and at this point I am sure its For No Valid Reason, but when You have to return to Bully People, its really a Sign that This is just You being a Tinpot Dictator.

SKWills (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.