User talk:Swingkid

If you need any help, just click on my name at the end here and write me on my talk page. Chavatshimshon 11:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good start
I see you're off to a good start. Let me tell you three things, firstly when you write back to me on my talk page, always make a title as this the only way to seperate dffrnt users messages, you can do this by putt two = on either side of the word. In order to see what i mean, click 'edit this page' at the top and have a look at the title to this message. Secondly... now this is important, always after you've left a message, sign it at the end by typing ~, otherwise its kinda hard tracking back who left the message. Thirdly please read the guidelines I left you above. ok!? Chavatshimshon 21:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. yeah, im religious. what's your line of business?
 * Well, sounds interesting. About inventions, all the main inventions have been invented, all invoation these days is just about improving, not inventing. I hope you have a job kid, thats what matters in life. Remember, allways sign your message otherwise its hard to see where it comes from. Every time you type up a message allways end it with four ~ and your username will automaticly show up after the message. Chavatshimshon 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my posts
''yeah please look at my posts and check them some time and comment about anything i am doing wrong or could improve on. thanx --Rainbow Warrior 12:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)''


 * I have never been asked to do this before, usually I would comment on a single edit or an article. It is far more difficult to offer critique on an individual editor. Well, here goes!


 * I've had a quick look at your posts, and the first thing I thought, when I saw the subjects you've tackled, is "this user is brave". Religion and politics are minefields, so prepare yourself for some conflict.


 * A few things to note:
 * Keep it neutral. I thought that some of your edits seem to have a slight bias.
 * Slow down and use the preview button. You've allowed too many easy-to-spot typos to creep into your edits. When you're editing a contentious subject, the quality of your edits needs to be superior. There are other editors who will grab an opportunity to change your edit, don't allow them the opportunity.
 * Familiarise yourself with the five pillars and keep them in mind whenever you edit. Be prepared to quote official policy in disputes or disagreements but be prepared to ignore the rules when it is sensible to do so.
 * Talk! This is perhaps the most important advice I can give. Often you will feel frustrated that you spend hours typing in article and user talk pages in order to add or change one sentence in an article. But remember that, since Wikipedia is built on consensus, you can use that to protect what you've added when others attempt to modify it.
 * An addendum to the above is be specific. Your request to me is a case in point. It would have been easier for me to respond to your request had you limited its scope to a single edit or a specific article. I have no doubt that there are some edits that you are insecure about yourself, relying on me to find these and comment on them is an unrealistic expectation.
 * Be prepared to compromise. There are things that you believe, that you will have to set aside while editing on Wikipedia. If consensus has been reached on something, even if you believe it to be incorrect, you are not at liberty to change it. This can be frustrating, but you'll have to learn to live with it.


 * I know that the above advice is not what you were hoping for, but if you have some specific edits that you wish to bring to my attention then I'll be happy to comment on them.


 * It is only fair to state that I am quite new to Wikipedia myself, I only started editing on the 19th of September 2006, so any advice I offer is based on limited experience. Regards LittleOldMe 13:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou
That was exactly what I was looking for. I feel there is much bias on wickipedia. The reson being that interpratations are too often stated as facts. What I feel is wanted or needed is the truth about peoples beliefs and oppinions. So quoting a book or a person is good. But putting ur own oppinions on a book and then stating it as the book says it or prooves it is biased. It should be stated as a group in society believes the book is meaning this. Further it should express the opposing groups point of view that they don't thing this is not correct for xyz reasons.

U feel i have been biased. Well that is not my intent. If making sure both points of view are expressed is biased then i am biased. But I think this not be the case. I think rather that i am combating bias and bringing things back to the neutrality that wickipedia is intended to have. The facts and only the facts. The fact that there are two oppinions is a fact. Each groups basic reasoning is a fact.

Yes i did rush some of posts. Maybe this is not the wisest. But should it not be discussed anyway before it becomes permenant. I feel that i have made a point and i feel that point will stand and hopefully influence other wickipedia writers. with time maybe none of my posts will remain. But hopefully the neutral way of posting will endure for generations of wickipedians. --Rainbow Warrior 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Satan Article
Hi, just responding to your talk page message. You made a change to "Satan as an accuser" saying that satan could be interpreted as different entities. That’s not possible in that particular case because the content for that particular section is in the form of a story in a small area of the bible with Satan being used as a character in the story. I changed "book of Enoch" to book of 2 Enoch because the other two books are NOT written in the 1st century. I removed the content you added to create The Other Christians section it’s NPOV/NOR because you haven’t provided any proof that this is a view supported by other people. Without supporting references it appears to be your own research and pov so is not allowed in the article. If you can provide good citations to show this is a view supported by many people then it could be included. -- Shimirel (Talk) 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Response Satan Article
Sorry to hear you are so biased and narrow minded. You have made jumps in logic. You assume that Satan is a person and not a title. What i am trying to say is you have an oppinion to what, who Satan is. No problem with you and others having a particular oppinion. Your discredit and blatant ignoring of the other oppinion is your big fault.

"That’s not possible in that particular case because the content for that particular section is in the form of a story in a small area of the bible with Satan being used as a character in the story."

It is possible in this particular cas because the content for that paricular section is in the form of a story in a small area of the bible with a man described as the Adversary or Satan.

This is a common litary concept in play writing. In fact if u read the oddyssey it is a similar style. With characters doing long dissertations something people don't really do in real life conversations.

Nobody has any doubt that this person is the adversary of this story. But it is difficult to prove that he is an angel. All that we do know is that he cam up with the other sons of God to worship and commune with God.

so u see what u said proved my point just as easily as yours by basically just changing not possible to is possible and leaving the rest of the sentence the same. My other two points are just there to hopefully give u the chance to open your narrow mind a bit wider.

I will get the evidence to show that the other view exists there is quite a bit on the web. There are heaps of books written on the subject. I am suprised you haven't come across them. --Rainbow Warrior 03:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the life story. Remember, I'm Jewish, and don't believe in the 'Jewish Jesus', I believe the guy tried telling everyone that he was a messiah without even knowing what it meant, and that hundreds of years later he was made into an obscure religion which took upon itself to kill millions of people who didn't believe their beliefs. The result is that people today still don't know what a Messiah is all about, what purpose it serves etc! I have a right to believe that and will exercise it, Ok? Anyways, the main thing is to be working a job otherwise you can go mad in the head! Seriously! Chavatshimshon 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What
Don't lump me with the catholics and associates. People that follow true christianity don't kill. I am a conscienteouse objecter to military service. People of my belief have been killed by christians and Jews for mellenia. Well fanaticle catholics and such like have persecuted Jews because the blame the death of Jesus on the Jews. The fact that i recognize Jesus as a Jew I thought would mean something to you. I suppose the link commonly made between Jews and intelligence is not always the case. Some people do know what the Messiah is about. You can believe what you want but that doesn't mean it is the truth. Do you know what the messiah was meant to be all about? Do you belive he is yet to come? Yeah i do work just not a formal job thought that was clear. yeah people get bored if they don't keep themselves busy. --Rainbow Warrior 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)