User talk:GabrielVelasquez/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ARCHIVE: November 2007 - February 2008

Contents

[edit] Editing policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
I have just read the editing policy and feel encouraged that I am on the right track.
"Improve"
-GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not have to link to the entire URL if the link is from Wikipedia. Entering [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]]in the code will link to this: Wikipedia:Editing policy too.

[edit] Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, GabrielVelasquez, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Here is a link to learn how to work with photos. Picture tutorial If you need more help feel free to notify me. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

Please stop messing with the sections at Talk:Gliese 581 c. de Bivort 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you insane? I was obvious what was being done. You even deleted the complete explanation of what was going on and the consensus to get away with what you did. There was nothing deleted. There is a horrible amound of redundant talk distributed all over. This was only a sort. I will spend another full day if I have to to restructure the 57+ plus entries into something more coherent and less contractictory and redundant. Nothing has been or will be deleted, I was in the middle of this and it took me all day and I was almost done. You have no idea. I swear. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
A dissuasion page is generally not reared to be easy to read. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 14:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
"Generally," what are you implying. I don't see the issue. Are you saying it's okay for it to be difficult to read a discussion page, and okay for it to be ridiculously redundant and convoluted, even when someone can do something about it, even when the structure is right there in the article (content menu) itself . I can appreciate the free expression and artistic processes, but there is a limit to how much chaos I can stand for ("Improve"). I does no harm that I can think of (can you?) and it will only benefit the discussion in the long run. It should have been done long before me. GabrielVelasquez (talk) - 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's ironic to me that he said "the sections" when there were none. That's what I was adding. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) - 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Just a friendly reminder about NPA and Civility. :) - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was about to snidely ask if you had also sent one of these friendly messages to your buddy...
But I read your user page and discovered that you are of admirable character.
I appreciate you recognized I am not a vandal. thanks, GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomical formulae

If I were you, I would use sourced values whenever possible. Very simple calculations such as orbital periods based on semimajor axes in the Solar System should be OK. If you're going to rearrange astronomical formulae, you should know exactly what you're doing.

I have no doubt that BlueEarth's contributions are honest, but he is clearly lacking the knowledge needed (I confess, I too have been guilty for that sometimes myself...). The calculations he has done have been either pure speculation or just nonsensical. Worse, he kept readding them. Good-willing, but clueless editors are one reason why haven't been as active as before. I'm sad to hear that Dr. Submillimeter has gone, but it is also very worrying that he's just one in a long list of professional contributors who have got enough.--— JyriL talk 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Planetary HUMAN Habitability page is needed

The planetary habitability article is about the conditions needed to support complex life including intelligent life such as humans. I knew that human life in our galaxy is probably very rare. In order to support human life, the Earth-like planets must have at least one large "lucky" moon. The atmospheric pressure, partial pressures of gases, surface temperature, pull of gravity, insolation, and climate must be right for humans. It is about 60% interesting about conditions supporting human life. BlueEarth (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting on this (planetary human habitability), and I get how to do it myself now. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Habitable Moon

I like this picture you created on my talk page. This picture is about Earth-like moon orbiting around blue gas giant planet. This Earth-like moon is covered with some forests/grasses, some oceans, some covered with snow/ice, and some are barren. This moon maybe supporting complex life and possibly intelligent life. BlueEarth (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


{{help}}

[edit] When two views conflict

Question: The 5 pillars page says that when two views conflict in an article an effort should be made to represent both, paraphrasing I think. So, I want to point out and ask about the non-edit-war status of Gliese 581 c. I think this article is heavily biased by popularist scienists, and their supporters, and the realistic perspective has been brushed to the side and minimised. Simple calculations like 377 atmospheres of pressure, 505% of Earth's recieved heat/insolation, lack of density figures, assumptions about water, assumptions about tidal locking, assumptions-assumptions, contradictory assumptions, a calulation that assumes (no atmosphere) black body and then uses various (atmosphere) Albedos at the same time. Nonsense on top of nonsense. I don't want to have to fight people to get this non-habitable persective given equal billing in this article, and I thought someone more experienced at editing and such could audit the article and see that both sides are fairly and equally covered. Really some of those links are nonsensecal, like the one with the surface sunset picture ("New Earth"), implying we can go there, it's just getting to much for me. Can someone help??? - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is to do the edits. Try to do them in just a few revisions (as apposed to one for each sentence you change). You might find it helpful to make your own page like User:GabrielVelasquez/Sandbox to work on it until you have it in a version you are ready to post. Make sure it has plenty of references and discuss the changes you made and why on the talk page. I think you will find it is easier to get things changed then you think :) GtstrickyTalk or C 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. You might also try a Request for Comment (RFC) to draw in more editors. --Dseer (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planetary habitability

Hello, can you explain why you removed the picture [1] ? Thanks Poppy (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
see [2]

[edit] I shouldn't be defending your beliefs alone

Greetings,

Thanks for taking the time to leave a note on my talkpage. Years ago I spent a great deal of time contributing to the JW page and related articles. Sadly, the results were less than I had hoped for. I have since found that my time is more productively spent in the Christian ministry talking to people on a personal basis. For me, this is much more effective and personally satisfying. DannyMuse (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir,I appreciate your message, and I would like to help you but the link that was given me led up to an error. I'm very new to the site, so I'm still working out nuances.Where is this discussion you speak of?(Jazzmaniac (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for the (correct) link, but as I look through the talk page and see how heated the discussion has become, I have doubts that I will have the time or the stamina to contribute anything meaningful to this page. I will keep the link in mind in case I do see somewhere where I can contribute. {Jazzmaniac (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)} Is the list you're talking about under the subheading "Jesus is Not God?" Or is it somewhere else? (because I don't see it). {Jazzmaniac (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)}

[edit] Warnings.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.--C.Logan (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--C.Logan (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who fist broke the "assume good faith" policy by deleting my addition of a reference without discussion. I consider all trinitarians in general to be desperate and when I undid your delete I didn't know who you were. I don't care if you chose to take it personaly as an attack. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I've noted on my talk page, you misunderstand the policy. It applies towards editors, not actions. The gist of it is to assume that an editor meant well, and that they weren't deliberately trying to harm the encyclopedia (perhaps because they were unaware of the policies employed).--C.Logan (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. KrakatoaKatie 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I got my sleep and am the first one back, So I'm the one blocked (ten hours since his last edit), that is a load of horse-cookies. I undid his vandalistic deletes and changed my edit to satisfy the reasonable part of his (later) argument. His accusing me of Original Research is a JOKE when I am doing nothing different than anyone who has edited the article!! - just look at the list. He accused me of not acting in good faith because that is exactly what he did deleting the addition of a reference to begin with. He is using policy (OR) to bully me into submission, and you are supporting him. I was the one who had his edits deleted, I reported the 3RR violation, you have some nerve, and you talk to me about a spirit of cooperation. hypocracy. he has clearly made insinuations about deleting everything there with his trinitarian biased view and you have the nerve to block me. How do you get to three reverts without undoing deletes, is that not what I was doing?? 24 hours is not going to change the fact that I am outraged by this abuse of authority and power. You add insult to injury and make a strong case for not bothering with you and all of wikipedia just as the other professionals who have left (case User:Dr.submillimeter). I request another Administrator on this ASAP! PS to John (after edit conflict), I don't claim to be unbiased, I am a nontrintarian defending the Nontrinitarianism article from trinitarian bias and vandalism - Guarantee me that he puts down his bias and then you have a point."

Decline reason: "I have reviewed the edits leading up to the block and find that the block was legitimate and warranted. A 3RR violation did occur and really... "everyone else is violating 3RR so I will too" is not an acceptable reasoning for doing so. — Trusilver 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Personal opinions

I believe you would be well advised to read WP:COI. Your statement here from C.Logan's talk page, "I consider all trinitarians in general to be desperate", makes it quite clear that you even perceive yourself as having a clear bias which makes your ability to make unbiased judgements extremely questionable. It is also possible that your repeated comments on that page may violate other policies. I very strongly urge you to review all relevant policies. If you believe that you have a relevant complaint, or if C.Logan believes that he may have a relevant complaint, then I believe the best thing to do would be to leave a message on an administrator's noticeboard or file a request for mediation. In any event, I believe your recent statements can easily call into question your own status as a neutral observer, particularly such obviously prejudicial statements as the one quoted above. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the diffs C.Logan has provided on your additions to the page Nontrinitarianism, and I find a few problems with your additions and conduct.
One, it is completely unnecessary to bold the language you seek to insert. Trust me, the average reader can understand the meaning of the use of the word "Father" without being hit over the head with it with bolding.
The edit summary of "schizophrenic trinity god" also again appears to indicate that you yourself may have existing biases, and, as per, WP:COI, people with such clear biases are urged to leave alone material they cannot be completely fair about. Also, none of the other quotations include such bolding, and as such it is, in a sense, doubly dubious.
You also apparently refuse to provide the required citation for inclusion of such material, stating your interpretration of this text, which is even a transliterated text from an unrelated language, is somehow "self-evident". Perhaps to you. But we do require evidence, such as citations, not personal opinions. It is policy that all additions must be cited, particularly if they are found to be challenged. Also, all such uncited additions can be removed immediately, although generally that isn't done, if and when they are uncited. On that basis, C.Logan's removal of your uncited addition was permitted by wikipedia rules and guidelines.
You apparently almost immediately began to explicitly fail to assume good faith when using such language as "trinitarian sabotage" and "desperate trinitarian". In fact, the former could very easily qualify as a personal attack, which would be a violation of policy on your part. As indicated, you justified the second comment on the basis of an apparent belief of your own that all trinitarians are desparate. That is about the most explicit failure to assume good faith, not only of an individual but of a whole group of people, I can remember ever seeing.
Also, I once again remind you that policy dictates that any person seeking to add material must justify it with a relevant source citation. From what I have been told, you have consistently failed to do so, saying your beliefs are "self-evident". They may be, possibly, but the official policy of No original research and possibly WP:SYN, indicates that sources are required anyway. In such cases, particularly when an editor such as yourself has already explicitly stated your own apparently very strong opinions, it is extremely justified of other parties to require sources to verify that the inclusion is not being solely done to, as per that policy, "serve to advance the editor's position", and thus violate policy.
Discounting the statements of historically recognized sources as Doctors of the Church out of hand hardly helps your position, as their statements very clearly qualify as significant enough for inclusion.
In summary, I would once again advise you that our purpose is not to advance our own positions, but to provide verifiable information on the subject. In instances when individuals refuse to provide verification, as you have done, it is acceptable to remove that content until such citations are provided.
Lastly, your insisting on restoring your at best inadequately justified templates on that editors page could be seen as being Harassment, violating yet another code of wikipedia, if not in this case an official policy.
The editor with whom you are in conflict is, based on my own admittedly limited contact with him, an individual who is guided by the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and I believe that he would respect your proposed additions if you respected our other policies and guidelines in turn. Consistently belittling, insulting, and attacking him, in addition to often violating policy, really doesn't make anyone more sympathetic to your positions.
I have now placed the page in question on my own watchlist, so I will see when it or its talk page is changed. I sincerely urge you to abide by the rules of decorum and provide sourcing for your proposed additions. Unfortunately, if you were to continue to do otherwise, you might be eligible for disciplinary sanctions yourself, which I think we would all seek to avoid. I urge you to become familiar with the guidelines and policies I have linked to above. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To note, I really have no problem with the inclusion of the text, as long as the requested source is provided. The unsourced state of these verses is a problem on several Christianity-related pages, Trinity included. I understand why people can be apprehensive to delete these, but we shouldn't add to the problem. Source what we already have first, and if you're going to add something, be sure to provide a source for it.--C.Logan (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ... bias of Christian Administrators rampant on Wikipedia

{{helpme}}
To: User:Jimbo Wales,
User:Gabbe,
User:Gamaliel
...as I can only edit may own page for now.
If there is anyone out there who is an administrator who would be willing to discuss with me the infestation of Christian bias and mob-rule influence that is evident on Wikipedia I would gladly take up the discussion.
The bias of Trinitarian Administrators and the bias of Christian Adminisrators seems to be rampant on Wikipedia from what I have observed, not just here but throughout.
Duely noted that User:Trusilver is being reviewed for deletion and I object to his interference here.
Duely noted that User:John Carter is a subscriber of a Christian newsletter and has a Conflict of interest himself (the hypocritical nerve!).
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask which article you're referring to? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
He is referring to the article Nontrinitarianism, as per my own comments to him above. The above statement contains a statement which I believe is entirely unsupportable. I would very much like to know which "Christian newsletter" it is that I subscribe to, because to the best of my knowledge I have no such subscriptions. I also once again very strongly suggest the above editor cease indulging in these unsupported accusations. To raise unsupportable accusations and use them as the basis of calling others "hypocrites" is I believe completely reprehensible. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
After looking at some of those revisions I'd say I support C Logan's reversals of your edits, Gabriel. Sorry, but they were violating Wikipedia policy (such as WP:OR). Also, I'm not sure how Trusilver is involved in this, and I definitely can't see where this accusation of John Carter being biased is coming from... Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have left notes on the talk pages of Gabbe and Gamaliel. I imagine they might respond here whenever they see those messages. At this point, I very seriously doubt the other party mentioned would see fit to intervene. And Trusilver was the party who declined to unblock this editor in his earlier request. And the reference to Trusilver being considered for deletion has a link to a humor page here. I should note in the interests of total disclosure that I am being considered for "deletion" on the same page. And if the reference to a "Christian newsletter" is the newsletter from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity on my talk page, yes, I do receive that newsletter when it comes out irregularly, as I am a member of that project and virtually all the other religion projects, as can be seen on the page showing my userboxes, User:John Carter/Userboxes. It is one of the few that has such a newsletter. John Carter (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am here in the context that I reviewed this editor's request for unblock and found that there was no reason to grant it. Trusilver 03:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I will be difficult for me to shake the feeling that this was well ochestrated, the feeling of hidden bias, and move on to impove this article without feeling impeded unecessarily. I may have interpreted certain things my intuition highlighted for me, with only 3 hours sleep, too hastely, but I won't drop the distrust. small example: you Mr.Carter try to get yourself clear by saying you have "virtually all the other religion projects" newsletters, but I don't see the Jehovah's Witness project there or any other Chistian-Nontritarian group for that matter. But I find your comments to my new aquaintance User:Vassilis78 encouraging, and on that note I will add a subpage to this talkpage called References, becuase the dump of references of the magnitude I intend would not be appropriate in the article or here... I'm not a Christian, or a JW, but I studied for four years (and I hate the Trinity [lie], give me credit for not vandalizing or impeding there) so I have a great deal of source and reference material, the 2003 CD-ROM reference Library in fact, and if no one objects I'll paste quotes there to sift it for useful references. I'm sorry that I seem to learn better from trial and error than reading policy, a friend of mine had to print out the 5 pillars and other welcome stuff before I read it (manual of style is 28 page hard copy). On the point of NPOV you'll have to clarify how the Trinity (article) itself or Nontrinitarianism (article) for that matter are not simply POV.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, I am glad to see there is a lively/healthy discussion going on a the Nontrinitarianism Talkpage and I no longer feel picked on. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you're right about not having joined the JW project formally. At this point, I've been working more or less on assessments, and did complete the assessments for that project, as per my userpage here, but didn't actually join. I guess I forgot to formally join before, or decided that the minimal information I have to date found which can be used on the subject made it unlikely that I'd be able to contribute in any major way. Also, I am tentative about adding all the userboxes of all the projects I've joined or created, including all the new geographical projects I'm developing. I did however keep the article which is now Psalm 83 from being deleted by adding more content to the minimal content regarding the name of god from the Jehovah's Witnesses perspective in that article, which probably counts for something. Regarding the POV of the articles on the trinity, the Christian trinity is very clearly notable enough to qualify for a separate article as per WP:NOTABILITY, and for that matter so is Nontrinitarianism, as both concepts are central to a number of Christian faiths. The fact that there is sufficient material written on the subjects to make separate articles means that there are separate articles. Also, and you may object to this, which is unfortunate, I do think most of the Christians in the world do follow some sort of variation of the Trinitarian doctrine. To that extent, those editors and readers are going to consider the article on the trinity very important, as it is a belief which they adhere to, so to a degree it makes sense to cover the subjects to an extent from the perspective the greater majority of editors will more easily understand. It isn't POV to have content treat a disagreement which exists in the real world, and clearly there is a disagreement on this subject. POV refers to when individual editors are consciously trying to either insert their own POV into articles, or make articles reflect their POV. To the degree that these two articles fail in either regard, they are POV. To the degree that they treat objectively and with due weight the subjects, they succeed. However, generally only GA articles or higher are considered to really succeed there. Neither article is at that level, so there is room to add more material, as long as the principle of WP:Undue weight is followed. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, I can verify that John supported the creation of and has joined the Unitarian Universalist work group of Wikiproject Religion. Aleta (Sing) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your call

I appreciate your call so that I may contribute to the article of Nontrintarianism. It is true for many religious articles that have extremely poor bibliographical support and a lot of bias. I can give many resources but I need some time, because I am generally very busy. A couple of things I want to mention are that it is impossible for someone to understand the classic Trinitarian dogmatic formula without knowing Greek philosophy. In Greece, Orthodox theologians study Greek philosophy first, and after that proceed to patristic studies. Protestants who do not take into account this principle, p.e. who do not know the cultural, historical and linguistic environment of the Nicene/Constantinople Creed, become more anachronistic in their exegesis that those Church "Fathers", who understood Bible without taking into account its Hebraic background.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anachronism" - Thank you.
I look forward to your edits and input. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psalm 83

I'm not sure that adding the other translations would necessarily be useful, or accepted. There would be a problem of giving the translations WP:Undue weight, and thus violating that policy as linked to above. This might be different if it were one of the "non-standard" translations of the Bible, like, for instance, a Mormon translation, Seventh-Day Adventist translation, Jehovah's Witnesses translation, or some other specific church's specific translation. In those instances, I can easily see adding the content, but otherwise the facts of the case could be reasonably said to be established by the translations included already. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Your conduct is continuing to regularly violate several wikipedia guidelines, including your repeated use of perjoratives. I pointed out that no particular purpose would be served by adding additional translations of a given verse, as per policy, and I get insulted for doing so. Please learn to behave in a more acceptable manner. Also, I did read your nontrinitarianism page, and frankly am not at all sure what purpose it is supposed to serve. The only purpose I can see it serve is as a place to argue your position, and wikipedia cannot be used as a soapbox as per the official policy of WP:SOAP. For what it's worth, it is very possible to please me and other editors. All that is required is that your actions follow policy. To date, you have displayed a minimal understanding of policy, and continue to argue that somehow you should be free to act as you wish in any event. That is not permitted. And I indicated on that page that I thought it made sense to add content regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses to an article, which is to say make references in the article about how the JW's are nontrinitarian, because at this point such content is completely lacking from that article. That is a far different matter than simply adding more translations of the same Biblical text simply because they repeat a given word, as you are proposing to do.

Also, I have sent you another e-mail.

And, lastly, please refrain from continuing to violate WP:NPA and attacking others with such language as "hypocritical". Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this point by point backwards. Your interpretations are worse than the subjectivity you acuse me of.
(1) Hypocracy has a definition, and if someone does something that they themselves have declared is wrong, then the offence they have commited is "hypocracy." You can wine all you want about that but C.Logan was on this SOAPBOX and telling us all that we needed references and then went ahead and added a line about Jehovah's Witnesses in the article without any references, which was rightly deleted. That this act is hypocrytical is a fact. You are starting to sound like a regular violator of Wikipedia Policy to me, with your threats to cover up my complaints. If you continue to spout these accusations with vague lines like "several Wikipedia guidlines" without actually listing them, you make look to me like someone who is simply using their position to intimidate and badger. So before I leave that point, I have said Hypocracy is not a perjorative it is a statement of fact by definition, and you throwing that word out to try to silence my complaint is bordering on harrasment and intimidation.
(2) Much not in keeping with the policy on Good Faith, you assumed that I was insisting on something that I was not, and very subjectively interpreted my offer of more references to be for a specific article, thought we were in fact talking about more than one on other pages. Those references were for multipurpose use, the Psalm page was an example of what I intended to use the references for, and you could have used those 60+ translations for anything, you are not my puppet and I never never directed you to use them for any such thing.
(3) Now you have lied about my getting on any SOAPBOX by insinuating that those references are for my use and my use only as I did not have to post them for public veiwing if I intended them only for my use or my point of view. They are from Encyclopedias, some of them Catholic encyclopedias. There are a great many references there that can be used for many things. You are making up POVs here, telling lies to cow me and fluster me, but it will not work. It is a lie to say that I have expected to be able to act in any way I please, I was fully compliant in submitting much referencing and you deliberately ignore that. I watch you and your clique cut me off from doing one thing and then watch you turn around and let them do the same thing. I don't know who you think you have backing you that you can act like this but it will be investigated.
(4) It is untrue that I insulted you (deliberatly), you asked for something and got it and you were to cold or self absorbed to be bothered to simply say thank you. I point it that out in an informal way but it was not an insult. (I will edit this later when I have more time.) GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You can wine all you want about that but C.Logan was on this SOAPBOX and telling us all that we needed references and then went ahead and added a line about Jehovah's Witnesses in the article without any references, which was rightly deleted. John, please look thoroughly into this accusation. I think I know where Gabriel's misinterpretation lies.--C.Logan (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You've likely got to bed already but I have started reading your e-mails. The first thing that strikes me is that it strikes me, at times, that you seem to bludgen me with policy, and I have not gotten to trust you yet... At times you seem to do what seem to me to be rather decent. like your warm invitation to the Greek JW. But I still get glimpses through my intuition of things not adding up. Small example: You once quoted part of what I said and it read to me that cutting it like that seem to take it out of it's full context. Using a misquote against me. I don't know if you are at that level of tactician, but I get such a bipolar tone from you, like this email I have started to read, both of which my filters tagged as possibly dangerous and immediately place in the junk bin. (Drop your hopes of me e-mailing you back if you have any, I don't percieve that you deserve those wings yet)...
For what it's worth, your attempt to peddle the trinity or placate me towards it is a waste of time: specifically, Jesus forgiving sins as a point shows a little ignorance, as in the Gospel of John, the one I know best, he gave the twelve the authority to forgive sins, or to not forgive sins, and so that's no divinity proof (although, divinity definitions vary, you mean Godhead I suppose). I hope that is a new slice of reasoning for you so that you are please to have learned something new. I am a teacher at heart I guess...
Continuing with your querie on my faith, I won't disclose my beliefs, they have morphed but I remain. I appreaciate that you are trying to direct my energies, but you don't know how much time I spend editing astronomy articles. eg, I just replace a paragraph at Epsilon Reticuli b, an it's recent so you'll be able to see the difference easily...
Not to insinuate anything about you, your suggesions on emails and ids, brings to mind that I do find it a bit of a surprise and somewhat disturbing that you have my email address...
I'm curious to know where you got the idea that I tried to rearrange a talkpage.
Maybe you mean the howling of that dino-lover. I quashed that objection, and I did reorganize the talkpage,
All 58 entries (you should have seen the mess!), and it looks great now as 18 distinct heading with subheadings (talk:Gliese 581 c).
(going to bed soon) Oh yeah, The letters you write seem different, but I think I touched on that. that blunt "Please review this policy." may be the correct/appropriate tone of a wikipedian but I prefer being spoken to as a person, you get?
I've just recently seen Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Film for Movie, etc.(gross and twisted movie)
and being tired I get these odd accents and quotes from it coming to mind, like the yellow Plutonian:
"Yoo downt hav to yeall att mee!"
Any way, over and out.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for an answer to some of this, not alone the question, where did you get my e-mail address??
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the email thing, you have the option of allowing users to email you activated in your settings. When someone is at your page, the option to "E-mail this user" is found in the toolbox (below the search box on the left). You can switch this setting off if you'd like, but it's usually pretty useful- it allows a medium by which a user can communicate directly with another Wikipedia editor without having to undergo the scrutiny of others (as everything is recorded here and is very difficult to erase completely. It also allows for more personal communication, and allows one to get the point across without having to worry about violating talk page guidelines.
On a personal note, it might do you well to understand Trinitarianism and Trinitarian reasoning a bit better. I can understand disbelieving in a theological concept or disliking it, but you appear to hold a contempt for it that I can't quite understand. I can appreciate a bitterness towards proselytizing (Muslim users message me occasionally to do so; I let them know quickly that I'm open to learning, but I can sense a push easily), although my experiences with John in a previous discussion leads me to believe that he's not one to take it to that point. Why the bitterness?--C.Logan (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nontrinitarianism

Your recent comments on the page above almost certainly qualify as further violations of WP:NPA, and could very likely be considered to be violations of WP:DE as well. I sincerely urge you to cease indulging in such behavior, and possibly apologize for same. Otherwise, as per both pages linked to by me above, your actions could result in a block against you. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make unfounded accusations against well-established editors. If you believe you are being treated unfairly, collect and display some clear evidence. For example, difference links of the offenses in question would be a good start. Thank you, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical: I would like to know what a new editor is suppoed to do when a biased Adminitrator(s) is/are abusing his powers and autority to bully and intimidate and lie to protect a pet-user(s) and to impede hypocritially the improvement of an article that is contrary to his beliefs, and when they start sending harassing/threatening e-mails to said editor?? Also, MOP, could you please go back to Guildwars and leave adult stuff to adults.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not going to help your situation, GabrielVelasquez. Anyway, WP:ANI would be a place to start, but only if you had solid evidence. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:GabrielVelasquez/Watchlist

If I may also suggest, the "Users to Watch" category might concern people. Specifically, you may be accused of WP:STALK. Just dropping a note. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Tit-for-tat huu? whatever, I can only keep so many items on "my watchlist" before I start to miss far too many changes to everything, that's all. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swatting with policy

I will be honest with you. I did request input from other administrators regarding how to deal with someone who has as little interest in observing or even knowing policies and guidelines as you do. This is in part because I have only been an admin for two weeks, and have never had to deal with an editor who displays the degree of disregard for even the most basic civil conduct and the degree of distrust bordering on paranoia as you seem to have been displaying regularly. I was told, given your conduct, that what I should do is block you for a week. You will note I have not done so. If you continue to show the degree of contempt for policy and guidelines that you are still doing, however, I imagine that you will be blocked, and probably for longer than a week.

Ignorance of the law is rarely an excuse. I once again urge you to become familiar with policy or guidelines, or you will almost certainly find that your continuing to violate both will result in very serious sanctions against you.

Also, your page Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References almost certainly qualifies for speedy deletion, as per those rules which you probably never bothered to consider either. Note that I have not deleted it, as I am more than empowered by both being an admin and by policy to do. I very strongly urge you to move it into userspace, or you will almost certainly find it deleted.

In conclusion, there would be no reason to continue to have to remind you of policy and guidelines if you did not seemingly constantly act in violation of both. If you continue to do so, however, I have no doubt that you will face the sanctions which I have to date refrained from placing. Please, learn to behave. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is all very nice and good cyclic logic, but I would like a second opinion. Otherwise, as I have said, without acutally putting the offence in front of me it can be interpreted as weasel words and intimidation tactics. Also if I have bothered you so much, then for the reason of conflict of interest as well, I deserve a second opinion, and not from one of your admin clique buddies either. Also you seem to know what violation I have commited with Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References, instead of waving the whole manual of Wikipedia in front of me, I'm asking you to show it to me. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It basically violates WP:NOT. And your comments above once again violate WP:CIVILITY. For what it's worth, the rest of wikipedia and its editors do not exist to make it easier for you. You are obligated to read some of the policies and guidelines yourself, and not constantly ask others to do your work for you. Should you continue in the name-calling, personal attacks, and other misconduct which is, basically, what I have come to expect from you, I cannot help but imagine the one-week block might well be extended. John Carter (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know intrinsiclly from what I have read that you are wrong.
You continue to make subjective intepretations of what is Civility, like you own the place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
I don't have time right now to list all the points and suggestions that you have contradicted or violate,
but I will place them all here as soon as I have the time.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of John Carter's Hypocracy and Duplicity

The remainder of the editors of wikipedia do not exist so that you can ask questions of them without bothering to learn anything first. That sort of laziness is at best problematic. Please bother to acquaint yourself with our policies and guidelines. Good day. John Carter (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know intrinsiclly from what I have read that you are wrong.
You continue to make subjective intepretations of what is Civility, like you own the place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
I don't have time right now to list all the points and suggestions that you have contradicted or violated,
but I will place them all here as soon as I have the time.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cease your unacceptable conduct. It is incumbent upon every editor to themselves know the policies involved in their actions. I am not required to explain everything to you, nor is anyone else. You have to date been given a good deal of latitude because you are a new editor. However, your repeated violations of WP:NPA, refusal to provide recognized sourcing, unjustified reversions, etc., have tried my patience to the point that I frankly have no further interest in any communication with you whatsoever. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Please feel free to list the policies and guidelines I have violated. I will of course have the opportunity to do likewise. As per your recent comments, your additions to the Nontrinitarianism page were statements of personal opinion, thus explicit violations of WP:POV and WP:OR. As per the statements at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it is not required to assume good faith of individuals who have demonstrated bad faith. By seeking to add material in explicit violation of wikipedia policy, it is at best an open question whether that guideline still applies in your case. Thereafter, you have accused others of "hypocrisy" for acting in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines, while at the same time insisting that your own failure to adhere to policy and guidelines, and even evident disregard for same, be ignored.
When the article on Psalm 83:18, it's original name, was first created, I opened a question at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. The consensus of admittedly few interested editors was that we should not have separate articles on too many subjects. Also, by policy, we are not supposed to repeat information in multiple articles. At this point, you appear to have very little if any knowledge of what content might already exist and where it might exist. On that basis, it could seriously be problematic to add too much to such an article. Also, any additions would have to not violate the policy of WP:Undue weight. On that basis, making specific references to specific Bible translations in too great a number would be a violation of policy. Also, in all honesty, most of that content would probably belong better in articles more frequented than that one.
Regarding your e-mail, you enabled e-mail. I do not in fact have your e-mail address, but I did hit the "E-mail this user" button in the Toolbox to contact you. You have enabled all wikipedia editors to e-mail you, without necessarily having any parties involved reveal their addresses. By the way, I have preserved all of my contacts with you and am more than willing to forward them to any party who might request to see them. I only contacted you in the beginning to try to keep you from continuing to act in violation of policy and/or guidelines. That clearly hasn't worked.
Regarding my not being a member of the JW project: I reside in Saint Louis, Missouri. The metropolitan area has two very good public library systems, the university libraries of Washington University, generally accounted among the best in the country, and the St. Louis University, which, as an old, highly regarded theology school for Catholics, has an extraordinary religion library. I regularly visit all four locations, among others. Guess what? I think I found all of three books on the JW at the Saint Louis University library, not even that many at the other three, and the ones they do have tend to be checked out most of the time. It makes it kind of hard to contribute to content regarding a subject when you don't have sources available. Also, despite my involvement in so many religion projects, I tend to deal with Biographies most of the time, even if religious biographies, and I can find little if any information on any individuals involved in the JW. I, of course, realize, given your willingness to jump to conclusions, none of what I said above will necessarily be believed or even acknowledged.
I told you about the previous conversation regarding how I was advised to block you to indicate to you that I honestly am not your enemy, whether that agrees with your own self-dramatizing preconceptions or not. I could have blocked you, but did not. I could delete the POV pushing, unreferenced, talk sub page, or at least proposed it for deletion. I have not.
You have regularly accused others of "hypocrisy".. Pardon me while I outline some of your own behavior. You have added content in explicit violation of policy and guidelines, you arrogantly demanded it's restoration, you have raised demonstrably false accusations against others, you have disrupted conversation for the purpose of making your possibly irrational attacks, you have regularly engaged in personal insults, in violation of policy and guidelines, and you have repeatedly said that you can't be bothered to find sources for your own comments. I wonder how many rather insulting words I could use to describe you?
In conclusion, it is clear to me that you are either incapable of understanding how to conduct yourself, or are unwilling to be bothered to find out how to do so. If that is the case, then I suggest that you perhaps consider trying to enroll in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User program, which will allow you to have someone you can ask questions of who will, at least for a while, be willing to answer them. As indicated before, I am under no obligation to answer any of your questions, particularly considering that you have already indicated that at least some of your conduct is such that assuming good faith of you is not necessarily warranted. Otherwise, I sincerely hope that, if by some circumstance I am forced to encounter you again, you have a slightly better idea of how to behave. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


"Thus I refute John-Carter"
I already listed issues on your talkpage and you deleted every section. So I know your offer to put issues on the table is false. I am pleased to acknowledge that the evidence continues to accumulate on how falsely you have behaved in your dealings with me.
As noted by another, you continue to take my words out of context so that you can apply whatever policy violation you desire. You have become very good at twisting other words to have your own point of view look like the only truth. I admit I had a big attitude with you (which I know you'll take out of context and twist), but I don't come at things that way, there has to be escalation, and part of what that means ( which you will continue to deny) is that this is has progressed there mutually. You think you know how to make yourself look good, boasting your inaction means you are not my enemy, but your animosity is obvious; you've made yourself the enemy of anyone who reads your contradictions, and even if you delete them I've saved them elsewhere.
You continue to harp on my reaction from days ago (as though it had not already been graciously overlooked by C.Logan) so that you can continue your belligerent tirade. You continue to insist on your POV with regard to (fantasy) additions to the article "Psalms 83," where you can only see the words "addition" and "Undue weight," when it was first of all your interpretation of what I (have I yet added anything there!) meant to add. I actually completely changed my view after the very first time you mentioned it (60+ Bible translation freeware was the point), but for lack of better things to pontificate about you have to bring your biased POV into it to play on the matter again and again to pretend like it is my issue.
On the point of Jehovah's Witnesses books in Public Libraries: that is one of the lamest (bias hiding) excuses I have ever read; I have personally witnessed brand new JW books that have been donated to the main branch of Winnipeg Public Libraries "Millennium Library" get sold in charity book sales by the same library to raise money for "New Books." You are then using a bias of libraries as an excuse to cover your own bias. Concomitant to that, you conveniently fail to acknowledge the simple fact that the Jehovah's witnesses' website has most of their books and brochures uploaded for easy reading and referencing. This is your attempt to dissuade me that you are not biased, but because of my ability to see the real you, you have only managed to do the reverse.
You say you could have blocked me, but I think it would have been and would be very incriminating if you did, if you can, and that is what you have not. As to your remarks about the references I placed on the talkpage (as a subpage) of the article for Nontrinitarianism, that you could have deleted them also, it is easy to show this is double talk and weasel words as your asking for said referencing and then deleting them would also be very incriminating.
You want to harp back again several days to the time when I simply added a Bible verse to a list of Bible verses that already existed, and I was not properly advised (unneutral-incomplete) by C.Logan as to why he deleted the it at the outset, the very first undo (“quote” - Book title/section title/page#, publisher or author - would have been more neutral). You do this in spite of the fact that C.Logan is appreciative of my current understanding and compliance, because you need to feel in charge and to tell others how competent you are or incompetent they are. "I wonder how many rather insulting words I could use to describe you?" is what you wrote, again you fail to acknowledge and will call it an attack when I point out matter of factly that this statement is hypocritical and violates the same policy that you like to throw in my face, simply to brush me aside. Once again, you have stooped to a new low. The other statement "it is clear to me that you are incapable of understanding how to conduct yourself" (sic.), is another insult by you. You continue to quote my use of the word "hypocrisy," yet seem unable to abide by the principal of conduct that says you should not be contradicting yourself. "If that is the case" is your way of covering up yet another insult. Your platitudes about conduct have proven worthless, and I do not, by the sum of your worst statements, believe that you are at all as you say "sincere."
Your reference to your being "forced to deal with" me again is yet another failing of the principles of the encyclopedia and if I were to enjoy acting as tactlessly as you do I would find the appropriate policy link to toss at you for it.
For someone who boasts about having such a high IQ (I quote “166 / 7 types”), you are as a matter of plain fact to me, a terrible tactician, or a tactless terrible tactician, or (for the Texan) a tit-for-tat-tactless-terrible-tactician.
Your not so impressive ability to assume what people have read or have not read or what other people are thinking reveals a blind spot and I want to warn anyone who reads this not to assume that John Carter has read all of every policy at the other end of the links that he tosses at people (like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers ). As I said already, it makes no difference if I list of all the polices and guidelines you have contravened or violated for when I already have done so you just delete them calling it "Trolling," in effect calling me a "Troll" for listing what you asked.
I too have been putting aside copies of your remarks, demands, accusations, and policy violating suggestions, so you can’t intimidate me with such threats.
There is no real pleasing you, for you are one of the most conceited users I have ever encountered on Wikipedia, and since my life is simple, I would spend all three wishes to the end that you meet your purpose.STOP Harrassing me and stay away from my pages. The last thing I will tell you here is that this is going to be a hard lesson for you, and I by no means mean to emphasize the lesson part; you have failed as an administrator and at being a decent human being.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/GabrielVelasquez for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply place what you believe is an appropriate response on the page. I would support a request for a reasonable amount of time (say a week or so) in which you can respond. — BQZip01 — talk 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NWT 'Divine Name' quote

I've been thinking about the material you wanted to add and possible fixes. You could the provide a link to that material in the "external links" section. Or, you might want to make a short summary section as "Jehovah's Witnesses View" and provide a link to the material. --Editor2020 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References. 12 Noon 2¢ 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I am prodding this rather than requesting it to be speedily deleted to give you a chance to userfy the page if you want to keep it. It is inappropriate for the mainspace, but if you want to move it to a subpage page of yours, then OK.--12 Noon 2¢ 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)