User talk:Srodinfo

Image Tagging for Image:Lionstar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lionstar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome and Shepherd's rod
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Equendil Talk 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I raised a number of issues on the article Shepherd's rod you created, which you may want to check. An introduction would be welcome as it's hard to tell what the "Shepherd's rod" is, also the entry needs to adhere to the Manual of Style and other guidelines explained in the links above. Equendil Talk 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights and Wikipedia
A quick word about the copyright issue. I don't know the copyright status of the page you used, for all I know you could be the author of it. However, note that every contribution to Wikipedia is put under the GNU Free Documentation License, and when it comes to things written by someone else, except for material that is in the public domain (either through time or choice), few licenses are compatible with the GFDL

For instance, suppose you run across an article, which says that you are free to copy and distribute it, so long as you don't charge for it. You could add its contents to Wikipedia, right? Nope! You can freely copy works under the GFDL, but it also allows people to charge for copies, so in fact you would not have the right to put something written and distributed with a non-profit clause under the GFDL.

(How can this be, with a "Free" Documentation License? Well, the "free" in GFDL does not refer to price, but to freedom, and one of the freedoms the authors of the GFDL believe in is the right to charge for making copies! It was written by the Free Software Foundation, the same group that wrote the GNU General Public License, the license Linux uses. If you're not familiar with open source and the free software movement, you may be unfamiliar with the concept of copyleft. If you really want more details about the FSF's ideas of "freedom," those entries will probably fill you in.)

Note that another common condition on works that allow copying, is that they be redistributed "in their entirety," and the GFDL allows re-editing, which also makes them incompatible.

Also, while the fact that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia can give new users the sense that "anything goes," in fact copyright and plagiarism is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. --WacoKid 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

December 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. 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:. Yunshui 雲 水 11:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit, specifically the statements, "...they can sue you and sue wikpedia for spreading false information and lies" and "You might end up finding yourself facing a court of justice" constitutes a clear legal threat aimed at another editor, with the clear intention of propogating a chilling effect. Yunshui 雲 水 11:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Yunshui.
 * My statement was not a threat. It was simply a notification concerning what false statements concerning a certain group of people could lead. If you read you would notice that I have never threatened to sue anybody. I am not even an association nor am I connected to any association to sue. I was just trying to predict as to where such offensive words may lead and trying to prevent it. In other words my statement was rather preventive than offensive.


 * Anyway, I apologize if my statements were perceived as threats and I can assure you that they are not.


 * If this helps I withdraw them and request you to remove the block according to what your guidelines state.


 * I am willing to respect and follow all guidelines placed by Wikipedia.


 * Could you please also inform me as to what to be done in order to deal with bias and statements that may lead to escalation?


 * Thank you very much.


 * Yours truly.


 * May I also ask why this policy was not respected before blocking me?
 * Perceived legal threats[edit]
 * Main page: Wikipedia:No legal threats
 * Policy shortcut
 * WP:NPLT
 * Wikipedia has a policy of blocking users who post legal threats on Wikipedia against other editors. It is important not to post comments that others may reasonably interpret as a legal threat; words such as libelousor defamatory are best avoided for that reason. In handling apparent legal threats, users should seek to clarify the poster's intention, explain the policy, and ask them to remove the threat. That users are involved in a legal dispute with each other is not a reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia.



Yea or nay? What say ye? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are clearly problems here beyond the legal threats, but since that's what I blocked for, feel free to unblock if you think it's warranted. I'd expect Srodinfo to strike those sections of his comment as well. Yunshui 雲 水 08:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any unblock should be accompanied by a change of username, as the current one isn't compliant with the username policy, and a clear understanding of Wikipedia's what conflict of interest and neutral point of view policies are and aren't should be ensured as otherwise, given my reading through of the discussion above, an unblock is likely to be brief. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what Bushranger and Yunshui mean. I persoanlly would not be willing to unblock w/o a wp:topic ban on Shepherd's Rod and related articles. Srodinfo, you appear to have an agenda here apart from building Wikipedia. Seems to me you are using it to advocate for a particular point of view or an outside organization. Are there any other areas of encyclopedia building you would like to explore? Otherwise, I fear wp:nothere might apply. If that's too stringent, I echo concerns about understanding conflict of interest and neutral point of view policies. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I am interested in philosophy, religion in general, especially Christianity and music. I am not associated with any association. My point was to attract attention upon some inaccurate facts. I have not been here since 2011. The moment I come in and edit one paragraph I am banned. Wouldn't you get upset if you were treated in such an unwelcoming manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srodinfo (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it looks more like you're here to promote the Shepherd's Rod sect specifically and Seventh-Day Adventism in general. Almost every single one of your edits outside of this talk page have been to articles revolving around one of the two, and they seem written more around a "THIS IS WHAT SHEPHERD'S ROD ADHERENTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE" tone. Wikipedia doesn't allow proselytising on its articles. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry. I really am not able to understand this. I have not been in here for ages. I come in to simply talk about a name. I never even talked about "This is what shepherd's rod adherents actually believe" and you accuse me of biased proselytism? Can you please tell me based on what objective information? Where did you see me push any religion above any other. By the way. I did not write this article. I did not even write one word in it. Have you seen my original article? It was all about history and nothing about doctrine. And even if someone talks about what protestants or muslims or Buddhists believe, does that make him pushing any of those religions? It is not allowed to talk about what a group of people believe on Wikipedia? Is that proselytism? Please explain to me where did I push any particular religion or faith above any other? Besides who told you I believe in the Shepherd's Rod? I have already clearly confirmed that I am neither directly nor indirectly connected with any Davidian association. I think you people are not understanding clearly some of Wikipedia's rule and there is flaw in following them properly. Are you insinuating that if you are a Republican or a Democrat then you can write or say nothing about the Republican or Democrat party or Donald Trump? That means practically all Americans are excluded from writing similar articles. Are you saying that no French person can write about France of French history or about the French revolution or French philosophes or even about the statue of liberty that was given by the French? are you saying that no Christian nor Jew can write about Christ or any of His disciples or about Christianity or the Bible because he believes in it? So now you have to be atheist, Muslim or Buddhist to write about the Bible? I point to you one of clear's Wikipedia rules which is "In handling apparent legal threats, users should seek to clarify the poster's intention, explain the policy, and ask them to remove the threat. " and this has not even been followed from the beginning. This is also another rule that says: "If these conflicts are resolved (or a consensus is reached to test whether they are resolved), then editors should be unblocked" and I have already said that whatever was perceived as threated is unambiguously withdrawn and you still do not want to unblock. I do not think that such issues are solved in a rational manner. The reason is that there is no well informed authority to train people on how to objectively and rationally deal with such issues on a case by case situation. Anyway, I am shocked about what I have seen. Wikipedia is no more what I thought it to be 10 years ago. It is not a place of free discussion and communication of ideas where "every" person is allowed to say what he feels and what he says. I think what most are concerned about here is " who is editing" and not " what is being edited". Has any of you even looked at the subject to see which area is being biased in this whole discussion? None of you seem to be informed about the topic, or the subject or even the way things are being treated. All you talk about is my name does not allow me to edit, period. I might as well stay away from Wikipedia forever because a human being cannot talk about humans nor human rights anymore since, he is one of them or related to them. Does that make any sense to you? It seems nothing of what I say will matter to you simply because my name is srodinfo. Isn't this discrimination? I might as well simply remain silent.

OK. So you guys want to keep punishing somebody who was looking for justice and unprejudiced investigation. You say that I have not edit other articles. I am sure it is not difficult to find millions on Wikipedia who have not published more than one article. Do you ban them all for not publishing more than one? I have already told you that I am interested in publishing more. So why do you keep ignoring that? A just justice considers a defendant innocent till proven guilty. You do the opposite. All your claims are based on subjective unproven suspicions. Your only argument is that you are guilty till you can prove yourself innocent. Many false accusations have been placed and I did not see anyone backup his claims or justify it with evidential argument. Is this how Wikipedia is run today? I believe it needs a serious or reform or it will die out by itself soon as no better than any biased controlled media. None has even been able to answer any of my arguments. They have been totally ignored. The only answer I hear is that "we suspect you are biased, therefore we are not interested in your arguments" Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen for your fair and kind justice. Congratulation.
 * Wikipedia is not about "justice", "investigation", or "punishment". It's about building an encyclopedia while adhering to Wikipedia policy. And your wall of text indicates you either cannot or will not understand what the conflict of interest policy says, instead giving the impression that anybody who disagrees with your editing being unbiased and truthful is automatically in the wrong, and constructing a series of strawman examples that, again, demonstrate either you haven't read the COI policy or you are incapable of understanding how somebody whose username and edits imply "I provide the truth about X" would raise questions about their being able to maintain a neutral point of view about X.


 * Wikipedia's username policy prohibits conflict of interest usernames. All you would have to do to resolve "my name does not allow me to edit" is to change your username to one that does not imply "I edit on behalf of X", and state that you have read, understand, and agree to follow WP:COI and WP:NPOV, and an unblock could have been seriously considered. Instead you chose to post the above rant, which - speaking frankly, only makes it impossible not to believe that you are here to present The Truth, instead of being here to build a neutral encyclopedia.


 * Wikipedia welcomes all editor of all stripes and persusaions to edit anything, but they must edit within policy or they cannot edit. Wikipedia has never been, as you claim, "a place of free discussion and communication of ideas where "every" person is allowed to say what he feels and what he says". Wikipedia is not a forum. It is an encyclopedia, and it has policies to ensure that the encyclopedia can be verifiable, collegial, and neutral, and it always has. They are simple, they are sensical, and they must be followed to be a Wikipedia editor. Anyone who can follow them can edit. Anyone who can't, cannot. That is how Wikipedia has been from day one, and if you cannot or will not follow Wikipedia policy, you cannot be allowed to edit, and you would have been blocked in 2007 just as quickly for it as 2017. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You still accuse me of things without showing evidence. You say one has to be neutral and collegial and you do not say by which evidence you can prove I have COI. You say my name should be changed. Show me how to change it and I will. You say I need to edit more articles and I say I am willing.

when I talked about "every" person I really meant neutrality. Neutrality also means showing point of view of both sides For instance neutrality means to also say that Republicans have such point of view about Obamacare while Democrats have the opposite one. A free media should be a place of discussion in order to be neutral. IN fact scholarly articles are often the result of exchange of ideas and debate. There is nothing nor anybody in the world that is totally neutral. Every so called "collegial" work is impregnated by a certain opinion. Even the Einstein's theory of relativity is contested and there are different point of views involved in it. Even Newton's Principiae that are considered the basis of our modern physics taught in our schools for 300 years have been contested by Einstein. Even the Euclidians space, belonging to the most abstract type of science we have, has also been contested and found not always valid. That's why a book has to be signed by an author. And that is why Wikepedia has to be backed up by references. Even facts and events have to be backed up by historical documents and witnesses. So now if I write something that is not backed up by references and evidences then you can call me biased. But you have not seen not even one word of what I have written so based on what you talk about my bias?

It seems to me that for you neutrality means that only non Christians can talk about the Bible and that only non Americans can talk about America. I am not saying that we are ought to place our own opinions in something that is supposed to be collegial. Besides I did not write one word for you to say that I am not neutral. You did not who me where is my lack of neutrality?

Concerning "fair justice" you people are banning others and accusing me of inappropriate unscholarly behavior. This is judgment .You are the ones that turned it into a court of judgement instead of a place of exchanging information on a scholarly basis. Moreoever the so called "scholarly" attitude has turned many media and information sources into a controlled aristocracy that ends up showing one point of view neglecting the other in the name of "scholarly". Information is information and point of views can sometimes if not often be also accurate information as long as they are declared as point of views. Neutrality also means listening to the story from different angles although some of the angels might seem as not belonging to the elite or the so called "scholarly". That is what really distinguished Wikipedia from other encyclopedias. Besides that advantage Wikipedia has less advantages than traditionally printed literature whose sources can be tracked in a transparent manner.

I have never claimed that I am here to show the truth, since I have said nothing so far. My objection is that you people have lynched me already before I said anything. all I am saying is let me speak instead of strangling me and if what I am saying is not backed up by evidences or scholarly documents then you can begin your accusations. But this has not been done. So really, the ones who have not abided by wikipedia policy is not me. It is those who have lynched me from the beginning without letting me talk. I have already declared that I am willing to abide by all Wikipedia's rules and regulations and you accuse me that I don't without showing how. Bear in mind that I have been to Wikepdia only a few times and I have been absent for ages. So you need to explain to me literally what I need to do so I would do it. I am willing to change the name if you show me how and am willing to edit other articles if you allow me. but you are not even giving me the chance. So how can you accuse me of not abiding with Wikipedia policies? Since the rules are so simple then they have not been abided by others when I clearly already pasted the rules that have not been respected. I have not received an answer to this so far. I have to abide by Wikipedia policy and not by what has not respected these policies.

You are not even giving me the chance to do what you want me to do. I am not able to edit other articles since you have blocked me and I am not even able to change user name because you are not telling me how is this block allowing me to do anything. So what is next? You still insist on ignoring me although I have written nothing in the article and although I am willing to do you what you are requesting and although I am abiding and willing to abide by all Wikipedia's rules and regulations to the best of my knowledge. You have not respected Wikipedia's rules and policies by abiding through proper protocols for banning. you have not remediated the ban after compliance with all requests and rules. Can you explain to me what is the purpose of serving an authority position here if no rules are being respected? Can anyone answer my requests or at least give me a valid reason as to why am I being ignored? Is there anything else you want me to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srodinfo (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)