User talk:Astrid-divine-empress

February 2023

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Existence of God. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liliana, it's not commentary, point of view, or personal analysis. It's a proof. Please reinstate the edit unless you have been appointed ultimate veto authority over Wikipedia content. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also, several of the existing 'arguments' in the article are either opinion or references to opinion. The fact that some are from hundreds of years ago does not give them priority over more recent arguments (especially more recent arguments that are proof rather than 'argument'). Thanks. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions can be attributed to reputable credentialed published philosophers or other respected people on the topic (if the opinions are published in a reliable source), or to prominent notable historical figures. Wikipedia operates on verifiability not truth. If you are serious about editing Wikipedia please read all the links here and in the Welcome section I have created below. Good luck. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DIYeditor. I've read everything, and am of the continued opinion that the truth doesn't rest upon publication or reputation, especially not just that something is true only because people have talked or wondered about it for a long time. The proof is also not just true but it is verifiable completely as working on axioms using logic. So when we arrive at a conclusion in such a way, it can be said to have been proven. Note that this is not 'court of law' proof where people think beyond reasonable doubt, but rather, a mathematical proof that demonstrates the idea beyond ANY doubt. I hope that you can understand and then reinstate my small but important edit to the document. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your proof was nonsense. So are you trolling wikipedia (why would someone do that?) or what? It's simple, show some philosopher saying what you want to have inserted, paraphrase it attribute it or quote it, and put it in the right place. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can find philosophers to support it, but note that this isn't needed since the proof is already there in it's full form. Please read the original manuscript here:

[redacted]

If you think that it's nonsense or has any problems at all then I'm very happy to hear your questions. If those questions are not forthcoming then there is a conclusion I would draw, and it might not be favourable to you if I explain it here. I'm trying to be nice :) Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally think it is right or wrong that qualia prove God in some way. I am sure you can find philosophers who say that. This google drive link is extremely trollish and I hope nobody clicks on that. This is a very difficult kind of trolling to deal with imo. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or look bad, but rather the point is to publish the proof so that it can be widely discussed and debated. So you can see that I'm not trolling, since the proof is sound. But if you feel that the location of the document affects how it is perceived then I could move it to another place. For what it's worth, I feel that the location of the PDF doesn't change much, or gives/takes credibility. Also please note that PDF files cannot contain viruses even on Google Drive. Do you want to take this talk to Talk:Existence of God so that we can see how the others feel about it? Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to play by your rules. You have to play by our WP:RULES, or you're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi tgeorgescu. I wasn't asking for people to play by my rules though it would not hurt them to do so. I simply ask that my scientific and referenced, fully verifiable proof be included in the document that it most directly relates to. When you say I might be 'out', what do you mean by that? Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also that I'm not here to dispense moral advice on this occasion, or to judge anybody. I feel it is most important at this point of time in this place that the proof be released freely so that people may read it and know of it. Thanks ! Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Existence of God. Ppt91 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume good faith Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Astrid-divine-empress That is not how good faith works. When you persistently ignore the WP:CONSENSUS and push WP:POINT, that constitutes disruptive editing and eventually vandalism. If I said the Earth was flat because knowledge is inherently personal and thus scientists cannot be trusted, I could not just go ahead and push that view because my argument is simply undeniable proof. It would be a fringe view that could at best be included in an article on flat Earth beliefs (which it is, by the way). Accordingly, if you would like to discuss the relationship between the existence of God and qualia on the qualia page, then you should feel free to do so, provided you can support your claims with WP:RELIABLE sources and in a manner consistent with WP:NEUTRALITY.

I suspect that at this point you know exactly what you're doing and intend to cause disruption, perhaps merely trolling or perhaps assuming some inexplicably high degree of intellectual superiority over the rest of the community, including those editors specializing in philosophy of mind who would likely see this "proof" as an example of flagrant disregard for philosophical and intellectual inquiry writ large. I don't know and I don't really care to know. Please do not reply with any more claims of undeniable proof and please do not make any more edits that show complete disregard for editorial policies of Wikipedia, unless you want to risk being blocked from editing. I don't mean to be unkind, I am just being blunt as this conversation seems to be going in circles, despite best efforts of several courteous and patient editors. I'd also recommend taking a look at WP:CHOPSY. Ppt91 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, Astrid-divine-empress! Thank you for your contributions. This is an encyclopedia, so remember that it's a necessity to include references listing reliable websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. Please understand that these sources should verify the information in a fair and accurate manner. However, you must not copy and paste text you find anywhere, except for short quotations, marked as such with quote marks and carefully cited to the source the quote was taken from. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted by others if unreferenced or referenced poorly or if they are copyright violations. See referencing for beginners for more details.

I am DIYeditor and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page.

Here are some more pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! —DIYeditor (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for specified reason:

"this user seems to be doing some kind of phishing or looking for editors' IP addresses under the guise of being an incompetent editor here to promote an WP:OR "proof" of God. I have redacted (refactored?) their Google Docs links"

But, it is actually impossible to collect IP addresses using Google Docs. The link goes directly to a referenced Google Doc. So if anyone is saying I'm 'phishing' then you could say that about any Wikipedia reference at all.

I'm not clear on the thing about google docs, I've seen conflicting information, but for example:

Google Docs does have tracking if you’re a business, enterprise, or education customer, and that data does include their email and IP address. It tracks the viewing, creation, and editing of files, but not the printing or copying/pasting (only creating a new copy of the file).

It's a very peculiar sort of link to give. But you were going to be blocked anyway for WP:OR, WP:CITESPAM, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:IDHT anyway. Feel free to read those in your spare time. You had plenty of time to review Wikipedia policies but you just talked right past it and kept obstinately pushing your own research. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Astrid-divine-empress (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block was not necessary to prevent disruption. At each point I've been making legitimate contributions to a encyclopaedia which is owned by everyone.

Decline reason:

Block is entirely appropriate and necessary to prevent your disruption. Yamla (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2023 (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.

Wikipedia is the private property of the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course, property does not exclude copyleft licenses. The Wikimedia Foundation has delegated editing, adopting WP:RULES, and blocking users to the Wikipedia Community. So, in all senses except regarding what the law defines as illegal, the Wikipedia Community, as a whole, is the boss of Wikipedia content. See WP:FREE explaining that even a free encyclopedia blocks users that do not abide by WP:RULES.

You were violating our WP:RULES. Do you understand that? Even the Friedrichshof Commune had rules, why do people find strange that Wikipedia has rules? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's strange to have rules. But if leaders are not elected by God or the people, then all the people are the leaders. Perhaps some did not agree with the content of the proof, but I gave them opportunities to ask questions about it so that it may be more clearly explained. At no point did I attempt to vandalise Wikipedia or collect IP addresses. To the contrary, I've used WP extensively for research in the past and I want to give back to the community. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care if you were collecting anything. Besides, I am not an admin, so I cannot unblock you. About being chosen by God: I don't see how one would present objective evidence that they are indeed elected by God. Epistemology forfeits such evidence. About being chosen democratically: according to WP:DEM, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is like a company who does the job of writing an encyclopedia, same as Britannica and Larousse do, except Wikipedia works mainly through volunteers. So, neither being elected by God, nor democratic vote, have anything to do with Wikipedia content. And all the people are the leaders is simply put false. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK but then if everybody is a volunteer I can volunteer myself as the manager of Wikipedia? How is the process conducted? Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are positions of admins, checkusers, bureaucrats, stewards, open to editors who have a good and extensive track record. In general, they get nominated or ask themselves the nomination, and a public discussion ensues. That isn't a democratic vote, i.e. arguments are weighed instead of just counting heads. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand that even if someone didn't like the proof, they may want to ban me temporarily from editing a particular page on WP. But I'd like to ask that you unban my account so that I can still make some contributions to WP in other areas, such as pure math and quantum physics. If I'm unable to edit or add any pages at all then it will be impossible to attain any position within WP. Then I will need to accept that for the rest of my life, I can only use WP as a read-only user? Please consider the request. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I could not unblock/unban you even if I wished. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possibility you will be unblocked until you can demonstrate you understand why your edits and behaviour were totally inappropriate for Wikipedia and convince us they won't be repeated. You are far, far closer to losing access to this talk page than you are to being unblocked. You've worked hard to convince us you would be disruptive if allowed to continue editing. --Yamla (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not trying to be a problem. Just explaining my point of view. I thought that is why we are using the talk page. Maybe I made some mistakes according to WP policies, but if so, they were contained since both of my initial edits were quarantined anyway, in alignment with the policy for new users. So as far as I know, my behaviour has just wasted some of your time. I've read the policies of WP and don't think I infringed them, and I definitely wasn't vandalising things. I think there's a difference between posting well-formatted and applicable material and deliberately causing problems. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's the original source. Since I'm just referencing something then I don't believe that this is OR, the paper is already published on that website:

[redacted]

Please consider referencing it in the article since it's extremely topical within the context of the subject. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]