User talk:Artbulla
Image copyright problem with Image:Celsus.gif
[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Celsus.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Edits at Church of Jesus Christ (Bullaite)
[edit]Please see Talk:Church of Jesus Christ (Bullaite) regarding your edits to this page. Snocrates 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Art, please look over the Wikipedia policy covering conflicts of interest in editing articles. In short, it asks editors which have a significant relation to the subject of an article to refrain from editing unless it is done so in a non-controversial manner. Since you claim to be founder of your religious group, there's some clear difficulty in you writing this article with an outsider's perspective - just as I would find it difficult to do so regarding my own ministry. While we appreciate you bringing this group to Wikipedia's attention, it would be best for you to focus your editing in other areas. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My response to this comment is that because I'm the subject of the article does not mean I cannot maintain objectivity concerning the information contained in the article. My objection is the information in the article is not accurate. I am a primary source for this information. I have been available on the internet for years and no one has contacted me for an interview to get the information. Any biographer uses his subject as his primary source except in this case. It has to be third party or it's not objective! This is absurd and shows the bias of supposed "scholars" who have a Darwinist point of view. Dishonest!
Sincerely,
Art Bulla
- Your edits have not been "objective". See WP:NPOV to read about what this means on WP. "Darwinism" seems irrelevant to anything to do with this issue. If you continue to make the changes you have been doing after being politely asked to familiarize yourself with WP policies, your user account and/or your IP address could be blocked from editing on WP. Snocrates 07:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I reply to these charges,
Darwinism is relevant to the issue because you are all a cabal of Darwinists, militating against reality, i.e. an ordered creation and purpose to existence. I notice that you do not deny this, only stating it is "irrelevant". Darwinists are those who believe in Darwinism, or at best theistic Darwinism, which is an oxymoron. This cognitive dissonance produces a form of insanity, and inflates you all with a hubris against any proclamation that there is a God, which I understand is the stated policy of Wikepedia. What evidence do you have there is no God, except your bias? None! I am an eyewitness. Upon your criteria, you fool, Jesus, Moses, and all the Twelve Apostles are considered unreliable in their testimony to the affirmative. This is hardly objective! This snarky nitwit, Snocrates, began the attack, charging that when stating the facts surrounding my First Vision, as found in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, ISBN: 0-595-28287-3, I was engaged in petty "self promotion"! Stating a fact is not self promotion. Thus he first began the attacks. But returning to the subject, either I had the vision, or I did not. But he cannot prove that I did not. Therefore he is the one who is biased, not I. Stating facts is not self-promotion,and I would like to include an article concerning the subject written for Steven Shields, editor and publisher of Restoration Magazine. I affirm emphatically that I did receive the vision, and was merely stating a fact. It is true that on this occasion, no one else was witness to this but myself. But on another occasion an audible voice spoke in the presence of three men who were disinterested, which shook the ground. Therefore this fool is biased against godliness, as I used to be, before these occurrences, which dramatically and powerfully informed me to the contrary, by beholding glory ineffable. And this bias causes him to militate and attempt to trample me under foot as the swine he obviously is (by their fruits ye shall know them). I glory in persecution. I glory in my God for I have seen him. The Twelve were also forbidden to inform the public about the resurrection of Jesus to which they were eyewitnesses by snarky rulers making rules.
17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. 18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus (same policy as Wikepedia, motivated by the same spirit which militates against godliness). 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
(Acts 4:17 - 20)
I give you warning, as you have been replete with warnings and have judged me, therefore I having authority judge you. You all know of a first death, but I testify that after the first death, there is a second one which come upon all who deny the existence of the Holy Ghost, which is unpardonable, which you all are in danger of doing, being carried away by your heady high-mindedness into the depravity which so afflicts those on the left, and which have caused the judgments of God to be poured out upon you:
4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
(New Testament | Luke 12:4 - 5)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.(Romans 1:28 - 32)
Sincerely, the Iconoclast of Darwinism
The primary sources are published books and so forth. My First Vision is published in the book, Revelations of Jesus Christ. You have proven yourself to be a liar. You lack objectivity and I expect to be censured. You're the one lacking objectivity because the very power that deceives you inflates your mind with confidence that is difficult to shake which you are unable to detect because you are filled with pride and hubris. It is because of hubris that these things are censured. God knows it and I know it so don't lie to me. I glory in being censured. If I wasn't I would think I was doing something wrong. If the devil was not stirred up then I would be doing something wrong. Woe unto those who fight against Zion.
- If the book mentioned is notable and reliable, then it can be included. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about it to say if it is or isn't. And I would also remind you of an official policy we have here which can be read at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Directly above, you clearly and explicitly violated that policy by accusing someone else of "hubris". Continued violation of that policy can and often does lead to an editor being blocked or banned, along with his IP address. Consider this a formal warning that if you continue in such conduct, the same may well happen to you. Like it or not, we are about objective, verifiable content here. If you can give us an exact quote from the book, preferably with page number of the quote, which clearly and explicitly substantiates the content you want to add, place the quote and the content you seek to add on the talk page. However, you should also note that we have policies regarding WP:Neutral point of view, in addition to the very problematic policy you have regarding this article, Conflict of Interests. You might want to read both of those pages. I am personally a member of most of the religion projects out there, and I know that we cannot write articles from the perspective of anybody, even the subject, but have to present all information in the coldest, most analytic and neutral way possible. Yeah, I believe in a god too, but I can't write any article in such a way that the article indicates that a god does absolutely exist. I don't like it myself, but them's the rules around here. The last rule you should note is WP:3RR, which clearly and explicitly bans any editor from reverting the same content twice. You've already broken that rule. If you attempt to restore the content again, I'm afraid that I would probably have to report you for doing so. If I or anyone else does that, then you could even be blocked from ever editing that page again, something I think we'd both rather avoid. So, please, discuss any changes, including reversions, you seek to make on that page on the article's talk page. We might in some cases have to tone down the language a little to maintain NPOV, but I can tell you that if we can verify the substance of the content you seek to add, no one will oppose adding neutrally phrased content indicating that. If you violate policy again, though, there is a very real chance that you might be blocked not only from that page, but from wikipedia as a whole. John Carter 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Art, I understand what you're saying in feeling that you, personally, are the best source of information on yourself. Obviously, if you want to know about someone's experience, they're almost always going to be the best person to talk to for learning more about it. The issue you're running into, though, is that Wikipedia policy does not allow people to write articles about themselves, regardless of who they are or what they believe. The neutral point of view policy here is aimed at showing an objective viewpoint of topics covered here, and it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to write about oneself in such a manner.
If you've found factual inaccuracies in this article, the best course of action for you to take is to bring them up on the talk page with a specific reference to where corrections can be found (according to the sources listed at Wikipedia:Verifiability). Allow other editors to make those changes. Keep in mind, though, that Wikipedia can't be used for proselyting, so content here must be restricted to neutral, objective, verifiable facts. Accusations of bias or "Darwinism" aren't helpful, though, and is unlikely to convince others to help you out.
As other editors have pointed out, continuing to edit this article is against Wikipedia policy. If you continue to do so, it may lead to a block, which is a result that nobody hopes for. Please restrict your editing on this article to suggestions made through its talk page. Thanks. Tijuana Brass 22:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Art, we're trying to be patient and help you out here, but your insistence on making inappropriate edits is starting to wear thin. Consider this your final warning: if you continue to edit Church of Jesus Christ (Bullaite), it will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked. Please follow the guidelines given above if you want to suggest changes to the article. Tijuana Brass 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very well. Due to your persistence in ignoring the rules mentioned above and refusal to cooperate with other editors, I'm imposing a week long block. I hope you'll use the time to rethink the way you'll contribute here in the future. Tijuana Brass 22:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)