User talk:Scifiintel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

jesus Jesus loves me and I love Jesus

Scifiintel stands for Science fiction intelligence

Contents

[edit] Jesus

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind invitation. I appreciate your sentiments and share them.--Drboisclair 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd love too, but I might not be the best writer you're looking for. And, I don't really have much spare time. Sorry I couldn't help out, but I think it's great that Wikipedia's article is the first reference on Google. Cheers. →Cyclone1→ 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I also share your opinion. I will take a look at the article and see what I can do..
Can I ask, are you Christian? -- Jonabofftalk 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks, and Yes, I am a Christian. Scifiintel 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Been there for a while. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Jesus

Hey, thanks for the notification. I was just wondering, how did you know I was Christian? Anyway, have a nice day. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew you were a Christian because your user page is in the Christian category. Scifiintel 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh... I didn't even know I was on there haha. And by the way, I don't really mind if people try to canvas me... it's only the second time it's happened and I like visiting Wikipedia and there's this orange/yellow bar telling me I've got a message... so in the future, feel free to canvas/spam me. Have a nice day. PS: Mind me indenting your comment? ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and no, I don't mind. Scifiintel 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus comments

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia - I hope you like it. However, I'm somewhat concerned about the messages you've been leaving on the talk pages of a large number of Christian users, as many people may regard it as spam, or canvassing to support your point of view. You might like to take a look at WP:CANVAS. You should, however, be aware that you are liable to be blocked for disruption if you continue. Thanks, David Mestel(Talk) 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weeeel... maybe. But you definitely shouldn't do it on individual user talk pages on such a large scale. Far better to say something on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. David Mestel(Talk) 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(reply to comment left on David's talk page) The problem here is that mass-canvassing of every single editor who identifies as Christian isn't the correct way to get help with the article - posting on the article's talk page (or on project talk, as David suggested) is a better idea. But please do not continue to canvass talk pages, since it is considered spam and could possibly result in a block. --Coredesat 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:CANVAS is proposed, but at the moment, there is a canvassing clause in WP:SPAM, which is not proposed. And one or two positive responses to your mass posting are not worth posting the same message on nearly 400 user talk pages (plus possibly more, I noticed you tried to add Category:Protestant Wikipedians as a subcategory to the Christian one) - it is disruptive, as not all people in these categories edit Jesus on an active basis, nor are they obligated to (and some may not want to, nor may they want the message to begin with). Just use Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity's talk page - you are more likely to find interested editors there. --Coredesat 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Look here: Campaigning

A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki. "1. Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc.

[edit] Friendly notice

If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop. I believe my posts fall into both the legal sides of these categories which is from the Spam article. Scifiintel 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a large hand if nearly 400 editors is a handful. David Mestel(Talk) 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, contact groups - not individuals. For instance, post your request for review on the talk page of a Wikiproject rather than spamming user talk pages. Also, refrain from gaming the system (see Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Gaming_the_system.) The number of editors who have taken issue with your canvassing thus far is indicative of the frowned upon nature of your actions. --Strothra 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps some frown, but obviously some do not. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia's Policies explicitly say that they should not be followed if they hinder the improvement of the Encyclopedia. What I am doing is helping to improve the encyclopedia. And even still what you are complaining about has no hard and fast rule attached to it. Scifiintel 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that you should go around doing it anyway. Your actions are close to violating WP:POINT. I'm only pointing this out as a friendly warning. --Strothra 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with your "Point" reference and saying that I am close to violating it is that I'm not close at all to violating it. "Point" refers to trying to make a point about a policy. My actions do not fall under a Policy definitively. Scifiintel 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the admins and others that have asked you to stop canvassing. Canvassing is clearly against WP policy, and it is unwelcome... even on a topic many of us revere such as Jesus (and making sure the Jesus article is factual, NPOV, and correct). Personally, I happily consider myself a Christian and don't mind someone asking me to make sure the Jesus page is well-maintained, but I agree with David Mestel that the appropriate venue for that request is Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. --Jhortman 22:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Scifiintel's actions are not restricted by any of the policies mentioned, since he is only asking Christians to improve the Jesus page. This is acceptable, since the purpose of Namespace, userboxes, the Wikipedia community and categories is to allow editors who are knowledgeable on a subject to be found. The so called spam does not try to influence opinion, votes, discussions or requests, only asks the user to help improve Jesus. This should be a welcome request to Christians who should not want Jesus to be presented in an incorrect way. -- Jonabofftalk 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, as a Wikipedian, I would not want any topic to be presented in an "incorrect way," as you state. (That is, in a factually incorrect or non-NPOV manner.) The correct place to ask for vigilance in maintaining a page, though, is on the project page of the related project, if it's a topic with a great amount of interest, as Jesus certainly is. Just my $.02, though. --Jhortman 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for internal spamming and canvassing. Do not do it again. You've already had some previous problems with soliciting/canvassing other users in an attempt to subvert discussions. If, after this block expires, you spam again, the next block will be a bit longer. --Cyde Weys 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I would do Jonaboff's suggestion below? Scifiintel 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really, just stop spamming and canvassing. There's really no legitimate reason you need to be contacting hundreds of users. --Cyde Weys 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that I wasn't of help in Cyde's view... -- Jonabofftalk 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Even neutrally worded spam is still spam, and we'd really rather not have any of it around here. You don't need to contact dozens of people to make an article better (and certainly not hundreds). --Cyde Weys 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Then answer me this, why do we have categories such as these, if we are not to be able to contact those in the categories of things that may be of interest to them, why have them? Scifiintel 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As I suggested to you earlier, post on the talk page of the category - not on the talk pages of hundreds of individuals.--Strothra 05:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Do category members recieve notifications of changes to the talkpage as they do for their own talk page? Maybe they should. It could be a user-preference. What do you think? -- Jonabofftalk 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You're just blokced because the issue is involves Jesus. There. Plain and simple. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion.

In order to fully comply with Wikipedia:Canvassing, I suggest that you:

  • Be open. Don't make cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages.
  • Avoid redundancy. Rather than copying the same five page essay to twenty talk pages, write it once, in the place where it is most relevant, and then link to it.
(The above were taken from Wikipedia:Canvassing)

Perhaps you should add a line to your message that it has been sent to many Christian Wikipedians, and instead of adding the whole message to other talk pages, link to your own (for example with [[User_talk:Scifiintel#Jesus|I have asked others who have added themselves to the Christian Wikipedians category to read this post on my talk page]] ). -- Jonabofftalk 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BenC7 here

I wouldn't worry too much, even if your edits have been reverted; when users log on, they will still see a "you have new messages" message. Looking at the page history shows the message. BenC7 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Scifiintel 05:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If a 48 hour block is what it takes to get the attention needed to improve Jesus, I'd say there are worse things. You have my attention and I'll definitely take a look at the article and see where I can make appropriate changes. Thanks, AuburnPilottalk 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And thank you very much again. Scifiintel 05:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think you should be applauded for spamming, even if it was for a good intention. Post your concerns at the Wikiproject:Christianity, which is the appropriate venue for them. --Jhortman 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This has bought my attention to how you were blocked for letting fellow christians to make sure the Jesus article was up to scratch as it is many peoples first port of call on Google. Though as said above somewhere, I was not previously aware of this, but now the article has my attention and if I see anything that could be changed for the better of the article then I will do see. Many thanks. Fethroesforia 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fethroesforia. peace out Scifiintel 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
I unfortunately have to agree with the Wikipedia policy on this issue. First of all, thank you for posting the message. You posted it on my alternate account, but I did see it on my watchlist. Thank you for the reminder, and we do need to keep the Jesus article, and other ones too, on our watchlists. However, I do have to gently remind you that going against the Wikipedia policy in a forceful manner does not accomplish anything. I realize that you probably didn't realize the policy regarding spam at the time of posting, but I think the best thing to do now is just to let ruffled feathers rest a little, and then taking future issues directly to the Christianity portal's talk page. Your intentions were good, I'm sure of that, but going at it this way isn't a very good testimony to Christ. If you read the comments regarding this situation on Cyde's talk page, you can see that a lot of negative comments were partially provoked by this situation. Many Christians, in defense of this incident, were very angry in their expression of their feelings. I think the best thing in this case is to just let it pass. Show the others in the Wikipedia community that Christians are not stuck up people who cannot let an incident like this pass. I know that God will reveal to you what to do in this situation. In Christ, lovelaughterlife♥talk? 05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, and I agree; however, I don't necessarily agree that it's not a good testimony to Christ. Sometimes it's not good to be angry, but sometimes it is.
Titus 1:7 says "For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain," (NASB) which means a justified temper is ok. Look at John 2:13-15, "The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;"
Maybe Jesus was angry here and if so He definitely was justified in being so. I didn't look at these people's negative comments on Cyde's talk page, but they may have been justified. Scifiintel 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Just keep in mind that our best testimony for Christ is a changed heart, one which responds in a way the world cannot understand. The world expects you to be angry about something like this; yet the only times Jesus was angry was when His Father's temple was being mocked as a marketplace. Remember that the WP:CANVAS guideline was put in place, not to squelch Christian thought or action, but to keep userpages clear for solicited messages and communication. Was Christ angry about what happened? I don't think so. I think that getting people organized for such a thing is a good idea; you weren't aware of the Wiki policy, and that's fine. But Jesus also said "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21) We're to follow the laws of the land which don't go against our faith. This one, in my opinion, does not. I think you were right to want to keep an eye on the Jesus article, but maybe you could set up a list of people who wanted to be contacted in this situation, or create a Wikiproject about it. There's no reason that this needs to be a big deal- remember, the big thing is about spreading His glory, not winning an argument or even keeping /wiki/Jesus updated well. I hope you take this message in the spirit which it was given. I'm not attacking you personally-I just wanted to give you something to think about.

In the love of Him whose name will forever be glorified,

David 15:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't edit others' user pages...

[bv removed] -- Scientizzle 05:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC) You asked me not to vandalize but this is a friendly reminder that that man's user page asked to be vandalized. He told me to because he said he liked it. Scifiintel 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the warning I gave you. -- Scientizzle 05:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Scifiintel 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWII Article

Yeah I just saw that. I can see it wasn't meant as any malicious, so sorry for the vandalism warning (removed). However, it looks like it's the subject of an ongoing discussion and I didn't see a clear consensus on what to do with the section, nor did I see you participating in the discussion. You may want to voice your opinion/suggestion for what to do with the section on that article's talk page before doing something that drastic. Whole sections disappearing without a telling edit summary or at least a warning that you're going to do it set off some flags for me. Sorry for the mix up! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatism

Done. Happy editing. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scifiintel 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education in North Korea

Hi, Scifiintel, I'm questioning the "Plagiarism" statement you put into this article; see the discussion page there. I suggest that you either back it up properly (with verifiable sources, and higher precision level), or that we gently remove it. I am not saying that your statement is incorrect, but, again, we need verifiable information. Slavatrudu 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I can't find any evidence that there is plagiarism in North Korea, although it wouldn't surprise me at all considering that it's surrounding neighbors have an identified problem with plagiarism. It is probably because the country is so closed that we don't hear of the plagiarism outside of it. Their communist so they have extremely tight control of the media. Anyway, I'm going to make sure the article is fixed. Scifiintel 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jew lists

I am aware that we have dozens of unsourced Jew lists, most of them violating both WP:V and WP:BLP; that's unfortunate, but I can't fix all of these problems. I have managed to clean up one list, and keep it clean. Jayjg (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zhao.jpg

Hello Scifiintel, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Zhao.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Scifiintel. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

This is Rianon and I was wondering, I found some things that are wronge on you page JESUS For your contribution to wiki and was wondering if I can give you some suggestions. Now I don't have Quote and verse on the top of my head but I know what I'm thinking is correct. So if you can get back to me I will be ever so gratfull. Have a wonderful day and God Bless........

Rianon Burnet 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, can you put the Jesus love me (the rectangular box) on my page, I don't really know how to do that quite yet....... Thank you and God Bless.....

Rianon Burnet 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Hi Scifiintel, I was just wondering why you believe that your religion is the right one. What drew you to that specific religion? I’m doing research for my thesis and I’d like to get a discussion going. Get back to me. All the best. MagicBullet5 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is the most historically accurate document you have ever read? Maybe all you've read is Harry Potter books but that statement is way off base. Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean that it's true. Regards. MagicBullet5 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Cat poison

A tag has been placed on Cat poison requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

What exactly do you mean by biased? The Bible is full of passages and stories that contradict each other as well as hundreds of fantastical stories that could only have really happened in a Disney movie. The People's History of the United States is a far more accurate book if you want one example. There is nothing in the Bible that warrants it to be considered anything other than a second-rate piece of fiction from many years ago. It's garbage. All the best. MagicBullet5 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's just a few of the thousands of biblical contradictions found in your holy mess of a book.
  • 24. Robbery commanded

Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36

  • Robbery forbidden

Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15

  • 25. Lying approved and sanctioned

Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22

  • Lying forbidden

Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8

  • 26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned

2 Kings 14:7,3

  • Hatred to the Edomite forbidden

Deut 23:7

  • 27. Killing commanded

Ex 32:27

  • Killing forbidden

Ex 20:13

  • 28. The blood-shedder must die

Gen 9:5,6

  • The blood-shedder must not die

Gen 4:15

  • 29. The making of images forbidden

Ex 20:4

  • The making of images commanded

Ex 25:18,20

MagicBullet5 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have time to go through all of these, give me a break. You just know that the Bible is a flawed book full of lies, contradictions, and immorality. Good luck buddy. MagicBullet5 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, I know that you want to get along with your day. Here's the last question that I want for you to answer me: do you believe that every word of the Bible is the pure, flawless, unadulterated truth? Thanks. MagicBullet5 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible is Truth?

So you believe that the Bible is the absolute truth. Tell me what you think about these Bible quotes:
  • When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

  • Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

  • But God said that slavery is A OK. Isn't outlawing it going against his word? MagicBullet5 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you agree with these quotes?
  • All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
  • If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
  • Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Thanks. MagicBullet5 (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)