User talk:Sfbmod

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sfbmod, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! -TFD (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sfbmod, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Sfbmod! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful[edit]

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
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).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
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).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein that didn't seem very civil, ~~so it has been removed~~. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Why are you threatening me in that talk section of that page for posting primary source references that contradict the current fraudulent conclusions of Einstein's personal religious beliefs he published? Is it because it goes against common Atheist dogma that wishes to conclude Einstein was more of an Atheist than the Christian he claimed he was through Spinoza's God?

"We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation."

- Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1677, p. 12

Of that Einstein said scientists could not be Atheists because of they're "blind" faith "religion without science"?

"Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. ... And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God."

— Albert Einstein, Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfbmod (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines[edit]

Hi. Please do not modify comments to which someone already replied as you did here. See wp:REDACT. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not attack other editors like you did at Talk:Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein. Moreover, not only was the inquisition Christian (although I'm not saying that it represented the views of most Christians), but it was responsible for much suffering and many deaths. It is ridiculous to compare the processes of an encyclopedia and the actions of its editors to such atrocities. —Paleo Neonate – 23:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing[edit]

Okay, clearly you're not going to provide us with 2ndry sources as requested. Further innuendo unrelated to that is unwelcome. El_C 21:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for for tendentious editing and for making personal attacks ("bigoted viewpoints") towards other editors. You have been testing our welcome and patience, but you've gone too far this time. I caution you that, for the remainder of the block, you may only use this user talk page for an unblock request. Any other comments are likely to see your access to this talk page being revoked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 00:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have increased the block to one week due to block evasion. El_C 22:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, while blocked, you may only use this talk page to submit an unblock request. Since you've failed to do so, your access to editing this talk page has been revoked. El_C 22:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sfbmod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm being discriminated against by a bigoted hate speech attack against me calling my views "bizarre" for merely wanting to share verbatim Albert Einstein primary sourced quotes that contradict verifiably fraudulent secondary sources that leave out critical information from other primary sources. I didn't even know I was blocked until after I tried to respond in the other talk section showing how moderators do not treat users here fairly who do not fully understand how these systems work yet. I'll be showing how Wikipedia is showing to be the largest source of disinformation through these unfair policies that purposefully encourage hate speech by bigoted moderators who care about biased secondary sources over primary if this can't be resolved quickly. Sfbmod (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

El_C's estimation below is uncannily accurate. Further, since this unblock appeal demonstrates such an overwhelming level of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I am extending the block to indefinite; I do not see that Wikipedia is positively served by allowing you to continue editing. If you wish to appeal this block, you may do so via WP:UTRS. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The level of vitriol and invective in this unblock request is excessive, to say the least. You have failed to understand our no original research policy and instead doubled-down on the personal attacks and innuendo. From experience, I estimate the likelihood of your unblock request being granted to be approaching zero. El_C 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #81140 [edit]

does not address reasons for block. banned six months from UTRS -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]