User talk:John1427

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, John1427, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. Please add your messages to the bottom of the talk page, or they may be overlooked. Your article is not yet protected from recreation, although it will be if you keep reposting without waiting for advice.If you post an article it will be assessed as it stands. If you don't want that to happen, you should write it as a draft.

I deleted your article because

it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that he meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to him or affiliated organisations, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what he claims or interviewing him. Much of your text was unreferenced, and the refs you did give were not independent third-party sources, two didn't even mention him.
It's not clear that he is notable. An earlier version failed on this issue, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Demola
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: he is the founder and president of Covenant Ministries International... He has written works that have been accredited by Oral Roberts... and was recruited to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Note also:

there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated sites.
Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial and text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also guidance for editors with conflicts of interest.
If you work directly or indirectly for an involved organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:John1427. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=John1427|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful[edit]

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE , final warning.[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jesus. Jeppiz (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHU[edit]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jeppiz (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:David Demola[edit]

Draft:David Demola, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:David Demola and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:David Demola during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John1427 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

John1427 was blocked but not justifiable. Repeatedly try to change summary of Jesus, and accused of vandalism and received no good answer on why it is vandalism. I received that the answer was that to justify was 'waste of time' here:

per Jeppiz,Tgeorgescu and GPL93.John1427 keeps trying to change the Jesus article from "Jesus was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader" to "is the only begotten son of God" [108] and then sends whoever reverts that a picture of a kitten with "Jesus loves you" to their talk page. I don't know if he is for real or just a troll or what but it is a nuisance and dealing with it is a waste of time.Smeat75 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted fromWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsAgree

As for his reason, I'm not gaming the system, being aggressive, being or untruthful, deceptive, or acting manipulatively affable. I repeatedly tried to change the summary of Jesus, which was seen as vandalism. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.

I was quoted with vandalism and tried again. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism.

I understand that I do not need to be educated on vandalism. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued).

There was no crude humor, obvious nonsense, irrelevant obscenities, malicious removal of content. There were fact based insertion with verifiable sources done to Jesus in a neutral point of view. Thus, there was no deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone Here I was accused of editing with a religious POV on Wikipedia.

Support topic ban from religion, broadly construed. This person mistakes this neutral encyclopedia for a religious tract, and their disruption must be stopped. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Indef - This is someone editing with an agenda and not here to improve the encyclopedia. Show him the door. WaltCip (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And here is no evidence, just a personal attack.

Indef If they want a pulpit, I suggest here, not WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted fromWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsAgree

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. I was accused of vandalism while editing Jesus, yet my source was removed twice in an edit war. Here is a scene of hypocrisy in which I was accused of disruption, where a verified source of mine was removed.

Science has not yet proven that Jesus died.^[1] There are more to be blocked. Those supporting the non-religious perspective wanting to write in POV-tone that Jesus died without any evidence. Logically, Jesus has not died, but the non-religious POV says he is without evidence.

John1427 (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ http://www.veritas.org/can-scientist-believe-resurrection-three-hypotheses/

Decline reason:

You have not been blocked for your religious views, but the fact that you want to impose them on this project and its guidelines. People of all religious faiths and denominations(as well as those with no religion at all) from all over the world work together to work on this project. You have shown no indication that you want to do that. As such, as noted in the ANI discussion about this, you would need to agree to a topic ban from religion-related articles in order to have any chance of being unblocked. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Indications of caring[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John1427 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I said on my appeal to the ban, I am here to work. There is more to be done in the topic of religion, such as working out the logical kinks and biases of the non-religious community on Wikipedia. However, those who present a non-religious view will do anything they can to inhibit the good faith efforts I have contributed through personal attacks such as accusations of vandalism, quoting previous actions on talk pages about content, without presenting the case to a third party. This is not to focus on their efforts to undermine Christian theology, or a larger non-religious conspiracy, but to add minimal significance on how the emphasis of a dead Jesus which I find un-credible and unverified has resulted in such a ban. To be apathetic academic bias would actually fundamentally uphold principles of Wikipedia, through application of internal logic and correction of logical fallacies, done with verified sources as I have attempted, something that would be expected of any academic. Though there are some that have been civil, kind, and mindful of the guidelines of reprimanding my seemingly reckless behavior and fervent "demeanor" the majority have done an outstanding job of protecting the present image of Jesus of Wikipedia, to the expense of my image as someone in love with the project, and wrong judgments/perceptions/assumptions about my own personal motives and identity. Has anyone looked into other edits of mine outside of Jesus? I understand Jesus is a big deal, but in light of the overall smaller contributions[2][3], there is much reason to believe the improvement potential in the field of religion. I am no specialist, expert, or theologist, yet there is much work done in this field that is to be reflected in Wikipedia, the minimal views being insignificant, and the page of Jesus reflects an academic secular view that presents the bias that he is dead in the summary, which science has not disproven. Such a notion that a religion-ban would satisfy the critics of the work of Christian theology on Wikipedia is valid, but such an act would invalidate/suppress a passion to improve all-inclusive knowledge, the lack of which was the basis for which the argument of my ban was made. I don't seek acceptance here, but seeking purpose removed from this site is unacceptable.John1427 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no "non-religious community on Wikipedia" whose "logical kinks and biases" you can analyze. Wikipedia as a whole is a 100% non-religious project. Wikipedia is not atheist or anti-religion either, but it only presents religious topics from an outside disinterested view. It absolutely does not present any religious beliefs as true (or as false). We always approach religion from the "Christians believe that...", "Islam posits that..." etc approach. So while your vision of "all-inclusive knowledge" is based on presenting Christian theology as truth, you will not edit articles related to religion. That will be either by your being topic banned from religion (in general) and Christianity (specifically), or by your remaining blocked. That choice is up to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I must comment on your proposition that anyone not proven to have died should be treated as alive. It is, frankly, ludicrous. With only a relatively small number of exceptions, statistically the vast majority of humans ever to have lived have not been proven to have died. It would be very stupid to assume they're all still alive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[1] ttp://www.veritas.org/can-scientist-believe-resurrection-three-hypotheses/

[1]