User talk:12.5.63.8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Antichrist

Hello. Please avoid placing your personal opinion in articles, as you did here in the Antichrist article. If you have any interpretations or views on an article, discuss them on the talk page of the article in question with other users before adding them. This keeps the bias of the article nonexistent. Thanks! Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's a fair bit to reply to, so I'll reply to the things you wrote here first, then the stuff on my page.
I know nothing on that subject, aside from it being of religious nature, which of course means it will be a disputed subject. The reason I reverted your edit is because while it may have had some validity, it was worded too much like a discussion; it seemed like you were explaining what you personally thought. Try to avoid doing this in the future; instead, write generally accepted facts that nobody will dispute. For example, "the Antichrist embodies evil" is not a very widely debated statement. However, "the Antichrist is John Smith" would be disputed by many. See the manual of style for more info on how what to write and what not to write.
I don't have the power to permanently delete text. I may remove it from a page, but there is always a log of this removal in my contributions and the page's history. Nobody can delete those, except for the extremely high ups (server-side admins). So yes, the posts that are 'deleted' are recorded in the history of the article.
Also, I know that you posted that on the discussion page, but nobody responded to it. They probably didn't read through it. I'm sorry about that, as if someone had they probably would've told you how to rewrite it so that it is encyclopedic.
And we only ask you to cite everything that is disputable, like I said earlier. "Osama bin Laden took responsibility for 9/11." This is acceptable, as he recorded a video saying he did it, and it was covered by many news networks. "The Jews did 9/11" is not acceptable; nobody credible supports this. See WP:CITE. Thanks! Master of Puppets Care to share? 23:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Master of Puppets. Well now I know why you deleted the information, I also suppose the first bit of content on the subject is your own.

As far as opinion and bias, what would you consider is up there NOW!!! What I wrote is not opinion and bias, au contraire it's the truth that others have jaded to make thier own.

ALL truth belongs to the Father, men own nothing but lies. I don't know why I expected wikipedia to be any different than anybody else.

Cheers..

[edit] December 2007

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Self-hating Jew for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


It's practicly dedicated, my computer is always on, if you can't find me in a whois then maybe you aughta ask the server who I subscribe to why not. I already know why not, it wasn't hard to figure out. Ever since 9/11 anybody with any brains has been moving offshore in order to protect thier freedom and rights from the bush regime. As far asthe self-hating-jew after they cut all my links the open forum was the only place I could get any attention. Ya'll brought it upon yourselves, I asked nicely for dialogue more than once and was refused audience more times than I can count. Did you find my letter to you? I'm betting you didn't it was in your mail box the very moment you showed up at ANTICHRIST YOUR mailbox I kid you NOT! Like I say I've got 30+ years experience doing exactly what you are doing NOW! If yer lucky you may learn a few things just by talking to me about it. Yer obviously intelligent enuff. Mind you I don't know all the jargon ya'll use in the corporate office, but I DO know your job and probably everybody elses. I have no reason to lie, and no ego to inflate you can believe me if I tell you something, I think you are probably getting that feeling already.

As far as the remark to "Puppet Master" I call a spade a spade, he was acting like an idiot so that is what I said. I don't make it a habit of conversing in vulgarities, but I mean what I say.

Did you research my thread on the subject? Did you find anything wrong with it, as to why it shouldn't have been a contribution? So what's next in the chain of command, yes I'm a vet as well. Talk to ya later..

Bruce

12.5.63.8 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Be careful about not making personal attacks, like you did here. Thank you. Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're getting it, but thanks for the advice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Care to share? 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of all the whacko's out there I don't hand out my identity to just anyone, especially to companies as all they wanna do is make money and typically share such info meerly for profit. I'm fully aware of what computers are capable of.


Now see, I don't even know who I am talking to anymore.. I thought I was talking to RJEDIT

I don't see any face, all I see is a computer screen, and for that reason I should trust what I see in it?


One more thing to clear up any misconceptions. The original piece I wrote concerning the Jew Hating was on topic, and rightfully true. I consider the page an insult to Jews, and apparently so do the Jews. ALOT of people hate themselves, why single out the Jews.

12.5.63.8 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User:Master of Puppets, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ScarianTalk 17:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Why don't you try and edit (positively) to Wikipedia on sections that you haven't already got into arguments about before? I think it's best if you try to keep your head down and not try and cause so much trouble. If you would like any help on how to use Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to ask me :-) ScarianTalk 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, buddy. He didn't come "crying to me". I actually saw your personal attack on him using an anti-vandalism program. MOP and I have not engaged in conversation about you or the conflict(s) you have had. I said "What?" because, you're right, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If people give you hassle just ignore them. It's simple. Have fun editing and contributing to Wikipedia. ScarianTalk 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Look, I'm new here and I have already entered additional disccusion in another place. As soon as I get this dispute resolved I will consider looking elsewhere. If it is NOT resolved consider me gone from this place. With a poor opinion of wiki, as much so as the other academia complaints.

And yes, even tho I'm an american I am born Irish/English Catholic.

BTW I said alot of nice things about RJEDIT and the way he handled the complaint. Too bad you didn't notice it, you were too focused on what Master of Puppet said. Now it's too late.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned there is no problem if you keep away from any users that you have entered into conflict with. I have no idea what you're talking about. It will resolved if you just carry on contributing to Wikipedia. Everything will be resolved if you just keep editing Wikipedia and focus on improving it.
Please recognise what I am saying. Stay away from MOP or anyone else causing you problems and carry on contributing.
That's it. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with your place of birth or nationality/origin. It's all about caring for this place and making it better.
So, please, just stay away from users whom you are having problems with and just contribute. ScarianTalk 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for your help!

Bruce

12.5.63.8 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Condensed reply

Ok, so from what I've gotten from your replies there are quite a bit of misconceptions in this incident. First off, I am not an administrator. Secondly, I do not control anyone, and did not ask anyone to do anything. Thirdly, I am not overriding your edits due to my personal POV. I reverted your edits because they were written in a highly conversational tone, and also quite removed from traditional manuals of style. I tried to say this before, but you didn't really show any indication of understanding what I wrote.

So, that being said, if you wish me to go away I will. However, I'd really like to help you get your knowledge out there. I'm sure you have some fine insights; you just need help adding them to Wikipedia in a format that is acceptable. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I can forget it if you can, in fact I had already done so with the help of the wikipedia staff. Even so, what I wrote was the consensus on the discussion page, and yours was POV!

Cheers..


Hello. I have reverted this edit to Antichrist: [1] because it is the expression of a personal point of view. (Material prefaced by Comment: IMHPOV are likely to be removed regardless of the content of the edit or identity of the user.) Such material therefore should not be in the article space. Regards, Kablammo 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, you are right thanks for the help. I checked my messages after checking the history of the post.

Cheers..


12.5.63.8 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding that block of text to the Antichrist article. I'd like to discuss it with you, as it probably could be incorporated into the article; I'd just like to help you make it more encyclopedic. Thanks, Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it under consideration, Thanks.

12.5.63.8 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured I'd go through it step by step and help you identify what can be changed in accordance to Wikipedia's guidelines.

  • Your text is formatted like this.

Mine is like this.

[edit] Here goes.

  • The term "AntiChrist". Simply put it means the opposit of "christ". Altho the Jews disbelieve in Jesus and for good reason, I'd like to use Jesus as a familiar example of what "christ" is all about.

There are a few things here that can be fixed. Firstly, the commonly accepted definition is stated at the beginning of the article, so the definition here is redundant. Secondly, the usage of the first person "I'd" is not encyclopedic.

  • First I would like to site the countless times in the New Testament where even Jesus says "many will come in my name, but believe them not". Very clearly defining the difference as "many" meaning more than one.

Aside from the typo in 'cite' and the usage of "I" again, this is better. However, the bible verse would be better supplemented with a reference. Also, try to establish a consensus on what people interpret that phrase to mean; as the bible is a widely disputed subject by almost every person, it is sometimes hard to establish a neutral point of view.

  • Rather than explain what Jesus was, I will simply detail what it means to be an "antichrist" and see if you can recognize the "scenario" throughout history, even within the Christian Faith, as there are and have been MANY world leaders who claim to be "christian". Anything in quotes in the following text is the word of Jesus

Again, usage of "I" and "you" is discouraged, as this is not a discussion.

  • ANTICHRIST a man of THIS world who seeks power over THIS world through fame, fortune, and power. "My Kingdom is not of this world" A Leader among men that uses deceit and trickery as a base of power. "you are of your father the devil" Any Man who claims to be the Christ, or has Others claiming him to be the Christ or Messiah. "No man shall know his name", "many will say lo here is christ or there is christ but believe them not" They perform miracles in the name of Jesus "In the end days there shall be no miracles"

The following is a list of antichrists down throughout the ages, add to the list as you see fit, and count how many of them have either claimed to be the messiah or stand on the foundation of Christianity. Also thier end fates. "when I come again it shall be in glory". In terms of formatting, all-capitals words are not encyclopedic, with the exception being acronyms. Again, try to cite all the above passages. The chief issue here, however, is that you state "all of the following antichrists"... as if it is a fact. Whether Hitler was the Antichrist or not is not agreed upon within the religious community.

  • Napoleon, Hitler, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Saddam Hussein.. The list is truely endless. What is the ONE thing ALL the above people have in common? They ALL seek power over YOU, the individual. Control the hearts and minds of the people, and you control the world. Is that not true? -666

Again, formatting; watch the caps. The assertion to the reader is also not encyclopedic; an article shouldn't be telling the reader what to believe, but rather presenting a comprehensive, neutral analysis that allows the reader to form their own opinions based on the text presented in the article.

  • Some claim such men were persecuted, and martyred. Funny concept considering there is no such thing in the old testament. God does not want a blood sacrifice, Jesus wasn't either. Jesus was victorious over this world until the bitter end. If but one man stood beside him to defend him, they could not have crucified him. Every good Lawyer knows you can't defend yourself, Jesus knowing the Law didn't even attempt to. Hitler was defeated by brave men who stood up for the rights of others, not by those attempting to defend themselves.

Again, assertions. Also, instead of saying "funny concept" and so on, try saying "There is no evidence of antichrists being persecuted and martyred in the old testament." If this is indeed true, then that is a well-put together sentence. The end of the sentence is also tricky; again, try not to say such shaky statements as fact.

  • "Those who seek to gain thier life shall lose it, and those who seek to lose thier life shall gain it."
  • A few points, and if somebody wishes to challenge any of it by all means do so.. ..in the discussion page.

Do not invite people to the discussion page on the mainspace article; they will most likely find their way there on their own. Also, try not to quote before you make points. See Wikipedia:Quotations. It is also good to have multiple quotes to illustrate one point, from different sources, though that isn't a must; it just helps the sturdiness of the statement.

  • The book of Revelations was written by a Jew whom the Catholic Church refers to as "John the Divine", he also wrote 1 John. The BOR refers to the mark of the beast as "six hundred three score and six" in plain numbers that would be 666. The concept of the "antichrist" comes from Judaism, to which they refer to countless "false prophets" throughout thier own history, to which they subscribe Jesus as just another one among many.

Try not to use acronyms, such as BOR. Otherwise, this sentence is quite good; maybe with a little rearranging of words it would be up-to-par. For example; "The Book of Revelations was written by "John the Divine", a Jewish scholar (if that's what he was?) who also authored 1 John. The Book of Revelations refers to the number of the beast as "six hundred three score and six". The concept of the Antichrist comes from Judaism, which refers to countless "false prophets" in it's history, one of whom is Jesus."

  • Comment: The 22nd Chapter was not written by John, rather it was added by Christianity later. Such words as are written in the 22nd Chapter a Jew would never even utter. The Chapter appears out of context with the rest of the BOR as if schizophrenic.

Try not to make comments; rather, you may write "However, the twenty-second chapter was not written by John the Divine, but rather added in by Christianity at a later date." Also, metaphors are not encyclopedic; try not to personify things.

  • God has his hand in ALL things, it ALL balances out in the end. The concept of "evil" does not exist in the mind of God, there is simply light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance to everything. Like two sides of a coin so to speak. Any man who speaks to you of "evil" is either speaking out of ignorance, or purposely lying to you in order to enslave you to hatred, predjudice and fear. Don't be fooled or confused by this manmade term.

This is a very controversial statement. I personally have talked with many Christians about this subject, and almost all give unique interpretations of God. You could try reading the God article on Wikipedia, and seeing if you can incorporate that here. Also, the "Don't be fooled..." sentence is not encyclopedic, as it has a commanding tone.

  • The AntiChrist is clearly a MAN, not a religion, or organization. Of course the number 666 could represent either. It's a symbol of power over the souls of men. That is why there are 3 six's and not just one or two. The number 3 represents spirit, and the number 6 is the power number for men which was taken away from him in Genesis where instead he received the number 2 which is the number for "animal" material intelligence, Instinctual and Savage.. ..in knowing this remember what I said above The concept of "evil" does not exist in the mind of God! He created the numbers any interpretation of them is mans.

Again, assertions, assertions, assertions. The interpretation of the mark of the beast is also speculation; again, try reading that article on Wikipedia and seeing if there is a general consensus as to what it represents.

Those are at least a few tips I could think of. Try to rewrite that, using the pre-existing text in the Antichrist article as a reference, and feel free to call me up again when you're done. It may take a while, but I'm sure you have a lot of information that would be useful to the article in question; the thing is getting it into the right tone and presentation. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the help, you know you DO have the power as does everybody else to edit, or delete it. You are probably more familiar with using your favorite online concordance to look up chapter and verse for the changes, As I have yet to find one that actually fits my needs on the computer. None of them I have found are well integrated, and of course the online ones are clumsy with advertising. If you know of a good one I'd like to hear of it. I used to use bible.com but they started with intense graphic layout and advertising which only slows down any serious minded searches for information.

Sure no problem on a rewrite, I'll just open my notetab editor and make a few changes, using your guidelines for reference. Thanks for your help. I'm usually a good judge of character, I said I thought you were probably a nice guy, and I wasn't pulling your leg when I said it.

BTW: Some of the reasons you are giving me is POV, I don't wish to shock anybody with this article it is shocking enuff just as a subject. As you rightly know. But if I write the following "false prophets in it's history, one of whom is Jesus." I would be making the whole article slanted from the christian perspective, as the Jews do not make Jesus a personal issue. It's only the christians who do so, and to tell you the truth they are tired of hearing about it. Cause they could care less, and they will continue to think so as long as christians continue to browbeat them over it.

Please stop suggesting your POV, as I know you already have one. Anybody who understands the alternative arrived at it by these same identical suggestions as I have outlined in the Article. If they have any questions that is what the discussion page is for.

Also I don't actually KNOW that the 22nd Chapter of the BOR was added later, how could I if there is no evidence. It's just a feeling I get when trying to read it. Like I said, schizophrenic.


Cheers..

Bruce

12.5.63.8 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


I have moved this to my own page, check the Antichrist History for the revision.

Thanks for both your help and your understanding.

Cheers..

Bruce1333 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to become a member. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (12.5.63.8) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Basketball110 03:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Happy Holidays!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketball110 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)