User talk:The Anonymous One

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); 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! Khoikhoi 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Luminous flux
Luminous flux is not radiant flux divided by frequency. Edits reverted.--Srleffler 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Red links
Please do not remove red links from articles arbitrarily. These links mark new articles that need to be created. Only remove them if you judge that the topic of the link is not suitable for a Wikipedia article.--Srleffler 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thermal conductivity.
Please stop doing things like this. The equation contains more information than the dimensions of the quantities. By "simplifying" the expression like this you made it less informative, if not outright incorrect. The mere fact that two quantities happen to have the same dimensions does not make them equivalent.--Srleffler 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you, TAO! For putting the pretty picture into this article, I mean.

I do have one question. The graphic image equates the argument of the complex number z to the angle φ. In the article that angle is θ. Do you think that might confuse anyone? Should it be clarified somehow (like maybe in the caption underneath the picture)? Or do you think I worry too much? :)

Thanks again for the picture! DavidCBryant 16:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits at Brooke Foss Westcott
Please stop immediately. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - WeniWidiWiki 17:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have written it as an opinion or a possibility rather than a fact. I should have said that some people or Christians claimed that he was so and so rather than saying that he was so and so. But it was true that some people claimed he was very bad and un-Christian. 

The Anonymous One 10:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits on Catholic theology
You have repeatedly added the following sentence to articles on Catholic theology, in particular papal infallibility and magisterium: According to Roman Catholic theology, there are three sources of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. This shows a complete misunderstanding of Catholic theology. I have reverted it because it is incorrect and uncited. For the record, Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the source of divine revelation: For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. (Dei Verbum, 4) When Jesus was physically here on Earth, He did not write any part of the Bible. He did not instruct the apostles to write any part of the Bible; instead, He sent them to to make disciples of all nations. John 21:25 states, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." -- Cat Whisperer 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not source of divine revelation, it is channel of divine revelation. Jesus is the only source but Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are three channels of divine revelation. The Anonymous One 09:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Deposit of Faith, which the Apostles handed on down to us regarding Christ's divine revelation, consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The magisterium is neither a channel nor a source of divine revelation. The magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church:
 * "But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (Dei Verbum, 10). -- Cat Whisperer 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Magisterium is neither a source nor a channel of divine revelation, then is it a tool of divine revelation? The Anonymous One 07:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We aren't big on Original Research here at Wikipedia. How about finding a term that the Catholic Church actually uses to describe its magisterium, say from Dei Verbum, and using that instead? -- Cat Whisperer 11:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Protestants aren't Christians either
Regarding your queries as to whether Catholics are Christian, you may find this interesting: Catholic and Protestant Churches in Egypt Protest Against Coptic Orthodox Church Teachings that Non-Orthodox Will Not Be Saved. Also, the book "Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages" by Jaroslav Pelikan, ISBN 0670033855, might clear up some of the misconceptions about oral tradition that have crept into some of your edits. -- Cat Whisperer 04:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jane Austen
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Stephen Burnett 09:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, North and South is by Elizabeth Gaskell, not Jane Austen. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I got it wrong. I heard from someone else that North and South was written by Jane Austen. I heard false information.

The Anonymous One 10:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Diddle Diddle
Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stephen Burnett 09:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings
You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here How to archive a talk page. Thank you. --Stephen Burnett 07:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You have again removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. JNW 13:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moon
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Stephen Burnett 04:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

final warning on disruptive editing
If you continue to insert false information or your original research into articles, as you have been doing to venial sin, purgatory, Islamic symbols, and many other articles, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. This is not a joke. Read our No Original Research policy before you make another edit. If you have questions on how to proceed in accordance with Wikipedia policy without getting blocked, ask at the help desk or my talk page. But do not continue to edit in the manner you have been. — coe l acan — 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
I found your recent post to the Humanities Ref Desk to be somewhat insulting to Catholics. It also included spam, which I have removed. Please do not replace it. I also found this edit, associating Gog and Magog as undoubtedly being Islamic, to be Original Research and insulting to Muslims. I'm not inclined to sit around and wait for you to insult Hindus, Jews and Sikhs etc. I see others have also objected to other edits of yours. Ordinarily, I'd be seeking you to be blocked, but I'm happy to give the benefit of doubt to a newbie who actually seems to have a lot to offer. Do not add OR to Wikipedia. Do not insult other peoples' religions. Do not spam Wikipedia. I'm watching you closely. Consider this your final warning; further disruptive editing will be dealt with following the appropriate channels. --Dweller 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt' know that it was insulting to Catholics. I was not saying that Gog and Magog were Islamic, I said Muslims were one possible thing they could be.


 * I'm not sure how else to interpret this wikilink you inserted in End of days, " Islamic nations ". Just cut it out. If you can't edit on religious topics without upsetting people (and your lack of awareness indicates that this is the case) there are plenty of secular articles that need attention. --Dweller 09:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Having been warned about inserting your own opinions into Wikipedia articles, you have evidently decided to use the Reference desks as an alternative soap-box from which to express your views under the pretext of asking a "question". Don't. Please refer to the guidelines, which explicitly state:


 * The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting your own opinions. Editors should rather attempt to represent fairly and without bias significant views published by reliable sources.

You were warned some time ago that further POV edits would result in a block. Please carefully consider the good advice you have now been given: if you are not capable of making well-sourced, unbiased edits to articles within a certain category, then don't edit them, and stop using the Reference desk as a place to air your personal views. --Stephen Burnett 20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Stephen Burnett 08:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I know what is fact or opinion anyway? How do you tell between opinion and fact anyway? What seems to others to be an opinion seems to me to be a fact. What others think to be an opinion might seem to be fact or might be thought of as a fact by me.

A true neutral viewpoint might actually include several different viewpoints from different perspectives which are sometimes opposite or conflicting to each other.


 * There was a clue contained in the phrase "well-sourced, unbiased edits". This is a requirement which is not subjective or open to debate, and you know perfectly well that this is Wikipedia policy. I think it's fair to say that you've exhausted my patience to the point where I'm not prepared to enter into further discussion with you. --Stephen Burnett 16:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Report to ANI
Despite numerous warnings, you still made this edit. I am afraid you have exhausted my strenuous efforts to give you a chance and I will be reporting your entire catalogue of disruptive behaviour and anti-Catholic soapboxing to the WP:ANI noticeboard. --Dweller 08:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you to stop injecting your original research into articles, as you did here. I am blocking you for a while to prevent this account from being used to further violate policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Please take this time to read our policies, especially No original research. ··coe l acan 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What you said and thought about those edits being original research were mistakes, misunderstandings, and misconceptions.

My edit of Reference Desk/Humanities was not original research. First, I was just asking questions and telling some known facts first. Second, it is true that some people claim that Catholics are not Christians or that their Church is the Whore of Babylon, see the article sections Catholics as considered not being Christian and Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon.

The statement on my edit of End Times was not original research either. At first, before my edit, the statement was this:


 * ...the Antichrist who will be the President of the European Union.

After my edit, the statement was this:


 * The Antichrist will probably either be the President of the European Union or the president of its successor, probably a united Europe.

Hey, so this is not original research. In fact, this edit is less like and less of original research than that previous edit.

First, I was just removing the statement which said "the President of the European Union" and replacing it with "probably either be the President of the European Union or the president of its successor, probably a united Europe". I was just paraphrasing and changing the words of an original statement that had existed before I edited it. I wasn't creating new or original research, statements, or information. This statement of my edit was based on and added from a previous statement.

Second, this statement is less of and less like original research than my previous one. The original edit just said "the Antichrist who will be the President of the European Union". My edit changed the statement to "The Antichrist will probably either be the President of the European Union or the president of its successor, probably a united Europe." I put in the word probably which changed this statement from a fact to a guess, an idea, and a possibility, which made it even less like original research than before. And I put in that word twice, in two places in the statement, to make it less like original research. I changed the phrase "president of the European Union" to "either the President of the European Union or the president of its successor, probably a united Europe", which also made it less like original research because it changed the identity of the Antichrist from being just one possibility to two possibilities. I added "president of a united Europe" because if it is possible that the Antichrist will be the leader of Europe and that the European Union will change become a single nation in the future, than the Antichrist could either possibly be the president of the European Union or the president of a future united nation of Europe.

The Anonymous One 09:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
I see you're back from your block. Please try to remain inoffensive and constructive. A number of editors are watching your contributions. I strongly recommend you refrain from any edits on religious themes. Good luck. --Dweller 07:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My Several Responses
I have several responses to your criticisms of some of my edits:

First, Mohammed did indeed cut the moon in half (or at least according to Islam). Mohammed's cutting up of the moon in half is mentioned in Qu'ran Chapter 54 Verse 1 and in Hadith Volume 5 Number 208.

Second, claiming that Gog and Magog are Islamic is not original research. It is mentioned in the website articles of The Russian and Muslim Invasion of Israel, The Coming War of Gog and Magog -An Islamic Invasion?, and The Judgement of the Coming Russian Islamic Invasion of Israel.

Third, the claims and interpretations do to with the Second Coming in End Times#Dispensationalist Prophecies are not original research either. They are from the article 40 Signs of Christ's Return, which is part of the website Answers Book. If you still don't believe them, then you can go onto the Internet to search about many of those claims and interpretations.

Fourth, luminous flux is radiant flux divided by frequency. Luminous flux is luminous intensity multiplied by solid angle. Luminous intensity is radiant flux divided by frequency divided by solid angle. Therefore, luminous flux is radiant flux divided by frequency.

Fifth, as for Catholic theology, when I used the words source, channel, and tool to describe the Magisterium, I meant that Catholics believe that God uses it and uses it teach others and it serves God. No matter whether it is source, channel, tool, or whatever, the meaning is still just the same. I still meant that Catholics believe that the Magisterium was something use by God to teach others and hand down and present divine revelation.

Sixth, as for venial sin, I didn’t say it was a reason or not, I said I guessed that it was a reason. I didn’t say it was true or not, I said Third, as for the question "Bible -Needs to be Interpreted by a Pope?", I was just asking questions. I was just asking "Couldn't it be this way?" rather than saying "It is that way.".

Seventh, I never actually said that Catholics weren't Christians or their Church was Babylon, I have just said that some people claimed that Catholics weren't Christians and their Church was Babylon. It is a fact that some people claim that Catholics are not Christians and their Church is Babylon, see the articles Criticism of the Catholic Church and Whore of Babylon.

Eighth, as for Metropolitan France, I referred to France and all its colonies together as an empire because this term was used to refer to Britain and all its colonies together, as in the British Empire, and to a nations and all its colonies together, as in a colonial empire. Althought France is a republic and doesn't have very much colonies any more, this term is still technically correct to describe it and all its colonies together, in a technical point of view. I had no other word to describe it and this still seemed technically to be the best and most accurate word to describe it.

Ninth, as for Belle Epoque, I heard false information. I heard information that was not really true and was lying and exaggerating. Sorry for that.

The Anonymous One 10:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have not looked at your entire history, but your edits to Metropolitan France, Belle Époque, and Talk:Monroe Doctrine, among other entries, constitute a history of vandalism and bizarre postulations (e.g. referring to France as a current imperial entity, rewriting 20th century French history, and equating James Monroe with Hitler). It might be best to go forward using verifiable and sourced information (that of a scholarly and reasonably neutral nature, for there are many websites offering opinions and interpretations which are contentious, especially regarding political and religious theory) rather than trying to justify past edits. JNW 04:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam Under Attack!!!
I've opened a talk page discussion to gain consensus to remove this "question" here:. StuRat 02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Apologetics
. Looks like a violation of WP:NPOV, among things. Specifically: "and is as much of an established fact as the Apollo moon landings.". I've trimmed it down. Please, be careful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've removed it altogether. What does it have to do with apologetics at all? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First, the statement "and is as much of an established fact as the Apollo moon landings." was a mistake. I wrote this in when I first wrote this whole thing before, and because there was no sources or references, it was removed. Then, I copied this whole thing again and put it back into the article, but this time with sources and references, which I had found. I was meant to remove this particular statement but I forgot to so it remained there.

Second, the statement "and is as much of an established fact as the Apollo moon landings." does not mean that it was completely or very much of a established fact. Some people claim the Apollo moon landings were fake, see Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. So "being as much of an established fact as the Apollo moon landings" does not mean being completely or very much of an established fact.

Third, what has it got do with apologetics? It is something that is evidence, or at least something that is likely to be evidence, or if true is evidence, according to Muslims and the Qu'ran, that Islam is the one true religion.

The Anonymous One 10:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam-related edits
Kindly tread carefully. You're only recently back from a block for attacks on the Catholic religion. I recommended you keep away from topics of religion - advice you seem keen to ignore. I'll reiterate that advice - you seem incapable of anticipating when you will give offence or when your contributions are inappropriate. Please think twice, or even three times about your contributions here, because you're on thin ice. --Dweller 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But I promise I'll tell and write, or at least try to tell and write, only what is fact, not personal opinion, when I edit articles on religion. I know about my edits in the past, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't edit any articles on religion at all from now on. I promise from now on only to insert facts, not personal opinion, about religion. Why can't I do just that?

Other people are just as likely to insert opinion into articles about religion in their edits as I am. I know that I have inserted what is accused to be opinion in the past, but I now decide and try to stop, change, and just insert facts.

Even if I insert or have inserted opinion into articles, that doesn't mean that I have inserted and stated it as fact. It might be inserted and stated as a possibility, or a likelihood, rather than as fact. For example, the statement might say "It is possible that it is that way.", "It is likely that it is that way.", or "It might be that way.", rather than "It is that way.". I might probably insert statements, as a possibility or a likelihood, of several different opinions of several different people or groups. For example, I might say, "It is possible that it is this way (one opinion) or it is that way (another opinion).". Because people's opinions are not always true or right and you don't always know if they are, what can't I just say that they might or could be true? What can't I just insert opinions, but just as possibilities or likelihoods, not facts?

Even if I insert or have inserted opinion, that doesn't mean that it is my own personal opinion. It might be the opinion of some other different people or groups. For example, I never actually said that Catholics were not Christians or their Church was Babylon, I have just said that some people claimed that Catholics weren't Christians or their Church was Babylon. This opinion is not really opinion, it is actually fact. It is a fact that some people claim that Catholics are not Christians and their Church is Babylon, see the article sections Catholics as considered not being Christian and Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon. This thing about personal opinion here is a mistake, misunderstanding, and misconception.

The Anonymous One 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

About offending people, I'll tell you I don't really mean or intend to offend people. I don't mean to offend any religion or religious group or say which religion is right or wrong myself. I was just asking questions or telling some known facts or possibilities. If a statement is opinion, I'll just say "It is possible...", "Some people claim...", or "I've heard that...", etc. For example, first, as I said above, I never actually said that Catholics weren't Christians or their Church was Babylon, I have just said that some people claimed that Catholics weren't Christians and their Church was Babylon. Second, as for those PDF files, I never wrote them. I never completely agreed with or believed in what they said either and I never said I did. I was simply asking them to read and look at those files and to judge and decide for themselves whether what they say are true or right. If you read the question carefully, you'll see that if I really biased agianst Islam, I would not have written it. Those PDF files are part of the Answers Book, written by Keith Piper. Third, as for the question "Bible -Needs to be Interpreted by a Pope?", I was just asking questions. I was just asking "Couldn't it be this way?" rather than saying "It is that way.". This whole thing about offending people here is a MISTAKE, MISUNDERSTANDING, and MISCONCEPTION!!!!

The Anonymous One 00:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Debating forum
See Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 May 15 --Dweller 14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

3 June 2007
You've made peculiar additions to a number of talk pages which obviously have nothing to do with improving the articles, and appear to be off-topic trolling. Please desist from disruptive editing. ... dave souza, talk 08:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Stephen Burnett 08:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't know or think that they were vandalism or disruptive editing. Second, I was editing the talk pages of articles, not the articles themselves, so it doesn't need to or have to have anything to do with improving the articles. It could just be a question, comment, or statement. Third, I was just asking others what they think about those two things. I was just either comparing them or asking others what they think about those two things, the relationship between them, and what they have got to with each other.

As for my last edit of my User:Talk, I'm sorry. I forgot that I shouldn't remove it.

The Anonymous One 09:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you know full well, discussion pages are not chat forums; your attempts to use them as such is indeed disruptive. Instead of continuing to waste everyone's time, I suggest you use a little of your own to read the Talk_page_guidelines.


 * Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.


 * The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. 

--Stephen Burnett 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

You said that the talk pages of the articles in Wikipedia are for advice on improving the article, not for general conversation and discussion about the topic of the article. I'm surprised! I thought that the talk pages of those articles were for general conversation and discussion. I thought that was their purpose.

First, many of the edits, statements, comments, questions, and sections, etc, that exist in the talk pages of Wikipedia articles in fact are general discussions about its article's topic. If the talk pages in articles aren't really for general discussion, then how do you explain all those so many edits, statements, and sections, etc, that are general discussions?

Second, if the talk pages of articles aren't really for general discussion, than where can I have general discussion about a topic of an article in Wikipedia? Where?


 * Somewhere else. And don't try to hide behind that defense, you obviously knew they weren't for discussion, due to my answer and your question here. Obviously, either you have no respect for wikipedia policy, or you blatantly went against it, neither of which shows you have any reason to be editing -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And it's not as though that was the first time you were told, either. If you feel the need to express your opinions to the world, any of the alternatives I suggested here would have been, in your terms, much more effective uses of your time. Instead, you decided to carry on repeating the same actions, while hoping that somehow you would eventually achieve a different result. Given that you have repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of what this site is here for, I can only advise you to take another look at the alternatives that I suggested. This just isn't the place for what you want to do. --Stephen Burnett 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to User Talk pages
Please stop this *now*. Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum. And like I said when I gave you that list, don't make an ass of yourself. Please stop before this is brought to AN -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Block
I have extended your block indefinitely. There was no excuse for what you did tonight. That was premeditated disruption.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Anonymous One, see WP:ANI#User:The Anonymous One blocked 72 hours, should we make it indef? where this is being discussed.Proabivouac 15:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

'YES, THERE WAS'' AN EXCUSE FOR WHAT I DID! THAT WAS NOT PREMEDITATED DISRUPTION!'''

One thing I said in those edits was:


 * I don't mean to be biased or offensive by saying this. I'm just telling and informing you about those criticisms.

See! I was not being biased or trying to offend anybody. I was just telling and informing them about those things. I was just trying to tell and inform them about something.

They were not disruption either. I was just giving, telling, and sending them a message. I was just trying to give, tell, and send them a message.

They were not discussion either. They were just messages and requests. They were just messages about some criticisms of Islam and requests to look at them, try to refute them, tell other Muslims about them, and tell them to try to refute them too. I was just telling and asking them those things and wanting them to do those things. I don't really even need them to say or write anything there as response.

I never wrote those criticisms myself, nor did I ever said that they were true or right. I wasn't telling those people whether they were true. I just wanted them to look at them. I was letting and trying to let them judge and decide themselves whether they were true. As for who wrote them, they were part of the Answers Book, written by Keith Piper. I was just telling them to look at something, some information, and some statements someone else had written.

Not only was I not being biased or offensive by saying that, I was actually being the opposite. If you look carefully at those edits, you will see that if I had really being biased or trying to be offensive, then I wouldn't actually have wrote them in the first place. Those edits said:


 * Islam is under serious attack by some people. They have written serious criticisms against it...


 * I want you to read and look at those criticisms so that you can (or can try to) refute, dispute, argue against, respond to, and react to them.


 * Can you please tell and ask other Muslims to look at those criticisms? Can you also please tell them to (or to try to) refute, dispute, argue against, respond to, and react to them?


 * There is a section in Islam - A Case Of Mistaken Identity called "Questions to ask". You and other Muslims should especially look at that part, and try to answers those questions.

See! It said that I asked them to look at those criticisms, and tell other Muslims about it, so that they and other Muslims can (or can at least try to) refute, dispute, argue against, respond to, and react to them, or tell other Muslims to do so. That's so that they can defend Islam. It's for the own good of them, their fellow religious believers, and their religion. I was trying to help them, and to help them try to defend their religion. I wanted them to know about those criticisms so that they would be able to respond to and try to refute them.

If I had really believed that those criticisms were entirely true or right, I would not have told them to try to refute them. It is only that if I did not believe that they were true, that I would tell them to refute them. Use your own logic. But whether those criticisms are true or not, or whether they can or can't refute them, it is no use ignoring them. They should look at them, know about them, and face them.

I wrote those messages on their user talk pages because I was telling them personally and privately. I wanted and decided to tell them personally and privately. If you don't allow me to tell them publicly in the Wikipedia Reference Desk or talk page of an article, then can't you just allow me to tell them personally and privately, in their own personal private user talk pages. After all, a user's talk page is a personal and private thing. So is religion. It would be just the user himself who would read and look at the message so you don't have to even care about it. If it's not their talk pages in which I could tell those people, then is there a different, better, more acceptable, or more convenient way?

It was at 03:04 9 June (UTC) that Feba warned me to stop the edits on those talk pages but it was in 02:24 9 June (UTC) that I stopped and made my final edit on a talk page. This means that I stopped those edits before I got that warning so I couldn't have disregarded that warning.

As for many of the criticisms of what I did before, in fact, I have actually reacted to, responded to, and refuted them. I have started this along time ago but much of it is pretty recent. Have you ever looked at and read my responses to them? If not, then why don't you have a look at them? They include Brooke Foss Wescott, Jane Austen, Report to ANI, My Several Responses, Edit to Apologetics, Islam-related edits, and 3 June 2007.

This whole thing here about those edits is a MISTAKE, MISUNDERSTANDING, and MISCONCEPTION!!!

The Anonymous One 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel that spamming talk pages is an appropriate activity on Wikipedia, there is not all that much to discuss. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not your forum for contacting people about unrelated topics. --BigDT 12:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This means that I stopped those edits before I got that warning so I couldn't have disregarded that warning. This doesn't mean that you are immune simply because I didn't see your actions earlier. Admins are free to block when they feel it is appropriate, my warning is not a stand-in for an administrator's opinion. And keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a forum, your edits were very out of place. Honestly, I was being very nice to not immediately report you, I am not at all surprised to see you have been blocked. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 12:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You told me that I shouldn't write edits about general discussion on the talk pages of articles in Wikipedia. But this time it was different. Whereas last time you were talking about the talk pages of articles, this time we are talking about the talk pages of users. Whereas article talk pages were general and public, user talk pages were personal and private. They were different and very different from each other. I thought they were personal and private. I thought they were different and very different from each other. When you said that talk pages were not for general discussion, I thought you were just talking about the talk pages of articles, not the talk pages of users. Although general discussion wasn't allowed in the talk pages of articles, which were public, I thought they would be okay in the talk pages of users, which were personal and private. I thought you would not mind me having general discussion in a personal and private part of Wikipedia, or at least not too much or as much as in a public part. That was one reason why I didn’t thought what you told me in the article talk page meant that I shouldn’t make the edits then in the talk pages of those users.

What I did in those edits was sending, telling, and giving messages and requests, not general discussion. I thought it wasn't general discussion. That was different, perhaps very different, from general discussion, or discussion of any sort. I thought it was different. Whereas discussion is two-way and consists of several people talking together, sending messages is, or can be, just one-way, involving and being done by just one person, or both. Whereas discussion needs or involves response or repliance, sending messages doesn't need or involve sending responses or replies. The user of the talk page doesn't need to write anything in response, I just wanted him to read it and do what it asked him to. The messages and requests sent were not general either. They were special and specific, sent for a special reason about a special subject in a special time and situation. Those were not general discussion also because they were done in the talk page of a user, not the talk page of an article or the Reference Desk. I thought that was a reason why they weren’t discussion. If it was done in the talk page of an article or the Reference Desk, it would probably be discussion because it was one person talking and dicussing about this to lots of other people and a group in Wikipedia and telling and encouraging them to tell and discuss about it with each other, in a public place. But it was done in the talk page of a user, it would be just sending and telling a message because it was just with one other person and telling and saying something personally and individually to him, one way, in a private place. I thought you would not mind me having general discussion in a personal and private part of Wikipedia, or at least not too much or as much as in a public part.

Although you may think what I did in the user talk pages was very bad, it's not really that bad. I thought it was not really that bad, wrong, and serious, especially if it was just done once or only very rarely. That was one reason why I did and would have done those edits on the user talk pages. I didn't really know and understand how bad you would think it would be. I didn’t think it would be really that bad. I thought it would just either result in no response from you, another warning from you, or a block that is at least not indefinite. There were actually several reasons why it's not really that bad, or at least I thought it wasn't that bad. First, it would not have actually made any real difference or bad effect to Wikipedia or its general and public contents, facts, statements, and information, etc. It wasn't damage or disruption because it was adding information, not changing or removing information. It was added in a user talk page, a place for adding messages and not for containing facts about one specific topic. Second, it was done in the personal and private part of Wikipedia. It would be just the users of the talk pages themselves who would see, read, and look at those edits, or would just need to do so, and so you don't really even need to care or mind about it, at least not too much. Third, they probably would not mind or dislike those edits onto their talk pages, or they might even be glad to see them. Fourth, even if they didn't like having those edits being on their talk pages, they could simply delete and remove it, or perhaps also make a copy of it and place it somewhere else, or simply just ignore it. Fifth, if you don't like them you could simply go to my Special:Contributions and quickly delete all of those edits. Those were several reasons why I thought they were not really that bad, wrong, and serious.

You don't understand me. Nobody understands me. I hope and wish somebody would and could understand me. I want and wish for you to understand or at least try to understand me. Can you please understand or try to understand me?

One reason why I would do such a thing as what I did then was because I was really and very urgent desperate. The criticisms of Islam mentioned in those webpages were really and very bad, powerful, and serious and I thought and felt that I needed to tell Muslims about it. I thought that I needed to tell them about those criticisms, to refute them, to respond to them, to tell others about them too, and to defend their religion. I thought that I needed to help them, their religion, and them to do those things. I thought that even if the criticisms couldn't be refuted, I still needed to tell them about them because it would be no use ignoring them and they should face them. I thought and felt that because the criticisms were so bad, so powerful, and so serious, it was very important, very serious, and very urgent, to tell them about those criticisms. I thought and felt that I needed to tell as many Muslims as soon, quickly, and easily as possible. I thought and felt that I needed to tell lots of Muslims very soon, quickly, and easily. I thought that I needed to tell lots of Muslims and as many of them as possible. I thought that it was very urgent to tell them very soon and quickly and as soon and quickly as possible. I thought I should hurry and rush quickly to tell them. This made me very urgent, desperate, hurrying, rushing, eager, preoccupied, and perhaps impatient to tell and try to tell them about it.

You have criticized me alot for telling and trying to tell others those website articles, but have you ever looked at those website articles yourselves? If not, then why don't you look at them yourselves? If you did, you would understand me and why I sent all those messages and was so urgent and desperate to send them. You would know and understand how urgent and desperate I was to send them. You would know and understand how bad, powerful, and serious the criticisms of Islam in those articles were.

There were other reasons why I would do such a thing. I am and have been often fairly busy at school, at after-school lessons, and at home doing work, both classwork, homework, and housework. I often also do alot of leisure, recreational, and daily activities other than playing the computer, do things on the computer other than using the Internet, and look at websites other than Wikipedia. When I go onto Wikipedia, I often get distracted and go on reading or editing others things or places than what I originally planned or intended to, for a long time. Therefore, I would not have much time actually doing, reading, or editing the things or places in Wikipedia I actually planned or intended to, for example telling others about those criticisms. For a long time, 2 weeks, or 14 days, from 19 May to 2 June 2007, I was busy having exams and revision at school so I did not read or edit Wikipedia at all. I had lots of other things to do, read, and edit in Wikipedia so I wanted to do and finish what I actually planned or intended to, telling and finishing telling others about those criticisms, soon and quickly. I thoguht I should lots of others about those criticisms. I decided to tell others in Wikipedia first because I go onto that website the most often. Therefore I had not done what I planned and intended to do, telling others about those criticisms, for a long time, and I had very little time to do it. I was already very urgent, desperate, hurrying, rushing, eager, preoccupied, and perhaps impatient to tell and try to tell them because of how bad, powerful, and serious those criticisms of Islam were, and all this made me even more urgent, desperate, hurrying, rushing, eager, preoccupied, and perhaps impatient to do it.

I was so busy and so urgent, desperate, hurrying, rushing, eager, preoccupied, and perhaps impatient, both when I was and wasn't using the computer or Wikipedia, that I didn't, forgot to, and had little or no time or chance to think and consider much about whether I should be making those edits in Wikipedia or not. Because of that, I didn't, couldn’t, forgot to, and had little or no time or chance think and consider about how bad, wrong, big, and serious my actions of those edits I made and its consequences were. That was one reason why I thought they were not really that bad, wrong, and serious, and I did and would have done those edits on the user talk pages.

All, most, many, or some these things I have said above may or may not mean that what I did there was not wrong, and I should be allowed to do those edits. If not, they mean that I did not deliberately do such a bad thing, I did not really or completely know and understand how bad, wrong, big, and serious my actions of making those edits and its consequences were, and my actions of making those edits were a mistake. They were a mistake. There were many things up there which I said I thought were a particular way. If all or some of the things I thought were wrong and false, then what I thought were mistakes and was a mistake. It, together with my actions of making those edits, were a mistake. They might be a big mistake, maybe because of the number of those edits I did, but they were still just only a mistake and a mistake nevertheless and nonetheless. If they are a mistake, then they are a mistake caused by and consisting of lots of smaller mistakes. They are a mistake that is a combination of many small mistakes. The fact that I was so busy and so urgent, desperate, hurrying, rushing, eager, preoccupied, and perhaps impatient, and that therefore I didn't, forgot to, and had little or no time or chance to think and consider much about what I actually should or shouldn’t do there, was one reason why I made such a mistake. I shouldn’t have made such a mistake. But because it is just a mistake, I should have just been given another warning, or be blocked, but not indefinitely. But if they are a mistake, then I am very sorry for it and I regret it.

You may ask why would I make such a mistake again. One reason is when I was told that I should not make those edits in the Reference Desk, I decided not to make those edits there, but I decided to make them somewhere else, which this time turned out to be the user talk page. I thought that if I shouldn't edit there too and I edited there, you would just simply tell me that I shouldn't make those edits there too just as you told me I shouldn't make those edits in the Reference Desk. This was a mistake. This was one big underlying mistake that included and caused these two smaller mistakes, first making those edits in Reference Desk, and then in the user talk pages. I made the mistake of making those edits first, then waiting to see if you'll tell me if I shouldn't make those edits there, and then, if it's wrong, make those same edits again in another place in Wikipedia, and so on. I shouldn't have done this mistake. I should have decided to ask you first and then make those edits.

Actually, I have asked people in Wikipedia whether I could talk to those Muslims, in the question "Talking About Islam". I asked "Can I have a talk to them?". They said yes. But first, they didn't tell me if I should send messages onto users' talk pages like that. They didn't tell how I should talk to those users, in what way should I talk to them, or what I shouldn't or should only talk to them about. They didn't tell me much, carefully, specifically, and in detail enough, to make me know if I shouldn't send messages onto users' talk pages like that. Second, I thought there was no other way for me to talk to, to contact, and to communicate with those users other than writing messages onto their talk pages. I thought that was the only way to do it. Third, the only thing it said I shouldn't do was to make an ass of myself. What I did there was not making an ass of myself. I thought it wasn't. I was just simply telling them some facts and informing them to look at some website articles. Because they didn't tell me much about what I shouldn't or should only say or do there, I thought sending messages was only way to talk to them, and it just told me not to be an ass, I thought they meant it was okay for me to send those messages there like that. That was a mistake too. I should have asked them more, carefully, specifically, and in detail enough, to make me know if I shouldn't send messages onto users' talk pages like that.

One reason you may think I am very bad by making those edits is because I made so many edits in so many talk pages. But as I have said before, they were still just only a mistake and a mistake nevertheless and nonetheless. I still didn't really know that they were that bad. If those edits were just only a mistake, then no matter how many of them I have made then, they were still just only a mistake. At first, I was thinking of just telling a few Muslim users those messages, but when I saw and realized that there were so many Muslim users and I thought that I should tell lots of Muslims very soon and quickly, I decided to tell those messages to lots of those Muslim users at once by making lots of those edits. That was why I made so many edits at once. This thing of making so many of those edits at once might also be a mistake.

I want you to understand that I am unlikely to repeat those mistakes again. I understand now, I know what I should do and have done, I have learnt my lesson, I will be try to be more careful next time, and I will try not to make such a mistake again. If an edit of Wikipedia, especially one in a talk page or the Reference Desk, is or seems likely to be wrong, then I would ask you first whether I should make that edit or not. I would also ask you more in quantity, carefully, specifically, and in detail enough, to know if I really should do it or not. Just because I have made some mistakes doesn’t mean that I should be blocked for ever and ever and ever, for all eternity, and for the rest of my entire life. Can you or somebody please unblock me now?

Apart from whether I should send those messages in the user talk pages, another question I should have asked you is: If writing messages onto other users' talk pages is not the right way to tell them a message, then what is the right way to tell them a message about something? What is the right way to contact and communicate with other users?

You may think that I am very bad and should be blocked or blocked indefinitely this time because the criticisms of my past edits and another past block I had. First, many and most of those criticisms and that block don't and shouldn't really count and apply. They don't and shouldn't really mean that, count as, and apply as, and are not really reasons why I should be blocked at all, let alone blocked indefinitely. They actually shouldn't and don't need to be there at all. They should be removed from my talk page. They were either false, wrong, unfair, or unjust. You should ignore them, forget about them, and don't care about them. This is because I have refuted and written responses to them. I have already told you about them before but you still haven't told me if you've read and looked at them. If you haven't, then can you please read and look at them? Second, those criticisms before, and those edits being criticized, were different. They were very different from my current edits then and their criticisms. They were different criticisms, of different types, kinds, and forms, of different nature, about different things, for different reasons, criticising different things, of different edits, in different times, different places, and different situations. They were actually also different from each other, let alone from the criticisms of my current edits. They thought they were different. For example, one criticism said I was being biased, while another I was offending people. They were criticizing me for different things, one type of thing once, another different type of thing some time else, not the same thing again and again. Third, I have already decided and began to stop and not do some of many of edits I was being criticized for which were bad indeed, before I was blocked this time. I have actually decided to stop doing them a long time ago. For example, I have already decided long ago to stop being biased and to not offend people. I think the last time I actually deliberately and knowingly did a specifically, particularly, really, and truly bad and wrong edit were the ones on purgatory and venial sin.

The Anonymous One 10:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Earth governments (Star Trek)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Earth governments (Star Trek), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow
It's really amazing how so many people can lose so many time talking, they should have blocked him ages ago... --Damifb (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)