User talk:The Anonymous One

Welcome!

Hello, The Anonymous One, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Khoikhoi 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luminous flux

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

Red links

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

Thermal conductivity.

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

Your edits at Brooke Foss Westcott

Please stop immediately. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - WeniWidiWiki 17:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Catholic theology

You have repeatedly added the following sentence to articles on Catholic theology, in particular papal infallibility and magisterium:

According to Roman Catholic theology, there are three sources of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of Catholic theology. I have reverted it because it is incorrect and uncited. For the record, Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the source of divine revelation:

For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. (Dei Verbum, 4)

When Jesus was physically here on Earth, He did not write any part of the Bible. He did not instruct the apostles to write any part of the Bible; instead, He sent them to to make disciples of all nations. John 21:25 states, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." -- Cat Whisperer 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not source of divine revelation, it is channel of divine revelation. Jesus is the only source but Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are three channels of divine revelation. The Anonymous One 09:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Deposit of Faith, which the Apostles handed on down to us regarding Christ's divine revelation, consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The magisterium is neither a channel nor a source of divine revelation. The magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church:

"But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (Dei Verbum, 10). -- Cat Whisperer 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Magisterium is neither a source nor a channel of divine revelation, then is it a tool of divine revelation? The Anonymous One 07:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't big on Original Research here at Wikipedia. How about finding a term that the Catholic Church actually uses to describe its magisterium, say from Dei Verbum, and using that instead? -- Cat Whisperer 11:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants aren't Christians either

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

Jane Austen

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

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

Hey Diddle Diddle

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

Removal of warnings

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

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

Moon

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

final warning on disruptive editing

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

Your edits

I found your recent post to the Humanities Ref Desk to be somewhat insulting to Catholics. It also included spam, which I have removed. Please do not replace it. I also found this ([1]) edit, associating Gog and Magog as undoubtedly being Islamic, to be Original Research and insulting to Muslims. I'm not inclined to sit around and wait for you to insult Hindus, Jews and Sikhs etc. I see others have also objected to other edits of yours. Ordinarily, I'd be seeking you to be blocked, but I'm happy to give the benefit of doubt to a newbie who actually seems to have a lot to offer. Do not add OR to Wikipedia. Do not insult other peoples' religions. Do not spam Wikipedia. I'm watching you closely. Consider this your final warning; further disruptive editing will be dealt with following the appropriate channels. --Dweller 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Your edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report to ANI

Despite numerous warnings, you still made this edit ([2]). I am afraid you have exhausted my strenuous efforts to give you a chance and I will be reporting your entire catalogue of disruptive behaviour and anti-Catholic soapboxing to the WP:ANI noticeboard. --Dweller 08:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

After my edit, the statement was this:

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome back

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

My Several Responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam Under Attack!!!

I've opened a talk page discussion to gain consensus to remove this "question" here: [3]. StuRat 02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Apologetics

[4]. Looks like a violation of WP:NPOV, among things. Specifically: "and is as much of an established fact as the Apollo moon landings.". I've trimmed it down. Please, be careful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've removed it altogether. What does it have to do with apologetics at all? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Islam-related edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debating forum

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 May 15#Online religion debating forum --Dweller 14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 June 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

--Stephen Burnett 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to User Talk pages

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

Block

I have extended your block indefinitely. There was no excuse for what you did tonight. That was premeditated disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymous One, see WP:ANI#User:The Anonymous One blocked 72 hours, should we make it indef? where this is being discussed.Proabivouac 15:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

One thing I said in those edits was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Anonymous One 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]