User talk:Humaniora Sophia

Welcome!

Hello, Humaniora Sophia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
We have a tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure, if you would like to learn more about editing Wikipedia.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
"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).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream 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).
User-generated sources (such as blogs, social media profiles, self-published books, or pay-to-print books) are generally not reliable sources. The only exception is when an already notable subject makes a claim about themselves that is not countered or doubted by independent sources.
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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel article does not say that angels are commonly referred to as Morning Stars, which is the point of the disambiguation page. The verse you cite (which falls under WP:PRIMARY) only associates angels with a variety of stars but not specifically The Morning Star. Morning Star is a proper title, not a general category. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It actually indirectly does as many of those stars are morningstars. Bias towards information due to religious affiliation isn't for wikipedia, so please remove your hand.

What you and you alone perceive as "indirectly" isn't good enough. Wikipedia only summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, it is not a place for you to push your religious beliefs on. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the King James Bible isn't a good reference? I read through your user profile and found you are interested in various occult subjects and follow a self branded religion called Zen Baptism. Your edits reflect that your preconcieved ideals about religion are affecting your neutrality towards info. If information contradicts shady beliefs, occult ideals or information from occultists that seek to dictate truth, information, pure facts must prevail.

The KJV is a primary source, not an academic reference. What part of "academic reference" do you not understand? It's funny that what you insist is truth lines up with what only you know and believe -- maybe you should pull the log out of your eye before looking for specks in the eyes of others. Wikipedia works on what is objectively found in professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

quote from the wiki article about the King James Version "James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of, and reflect the episcopal structure of, the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[8] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England." - It's a scholarly source and thus academic. Many, many articles use such books as references. I perceive you also don't comprehend the idea about conforming to ecclesiology and interpret it as being some sort of changing of scripture to conform.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand what academic means in a modern context. Since the KJV, ancient Biblical manuscripts have been discovered, linguistics has become a proper science, and our knowledge of the era that the texts were written in and set in has improved dramatically. It is an out of date work.

And even if it wasn't, Wikipedia does not use editor interpretation of primary sources. The Bible is a primary source. You need to cite sources by modern academics who decide for the site what interpretations are noteworthy. That leaves out any question of whatever religion an editor follows or doesn't follow. Do you want Muslims posting that Jesus was not crucified because "it's the truth as taught by the Quran"...? No? Do unto others... Recognize that your opinions are just that. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Humaniora Sophia: stop posting unsourced commentaries and your own original research and opinion. It is disruptive. Please read the reliable sourcing policy and the verifiability policy, along with the no original research policy. All edits must be sourced to independent academic sources, not to your interpretation of the KJV or any other text. If this continues you may face editing restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion https://study.com/academy/lesson/academic-sources-definition-examples-quiz.html. You don't know anything about sources, scholarly sources, academic sources or how the King James Bible came to be nor the rules of Wikipedia.

You're in no position to tell two administrators what the rules are. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- And -- don't put comments of your own in the middle of other editors' comments, and please learn to sign your posts - use four tildes ~~~~. This isn't a debate - work within Wikipedia rules, or your editing privileges may be revoked. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The info on Biblical topics such these and nearly all Biblical characters have references to the Bible and I have read the rules and they don't say exactly what you are trying to claim. So you are being bias. I'm a fast learner, you are into occultism and should I thus reffer to the works of say Alice Bailey, Aliester Crowley, Albert Pike or maybe Blavatsky instead? In one day I can learn a lot. The article lacks logical consistency which you have replaced for a type of logical harmony, thus the article is bias. The information should be true or prefferably consist of information from various sources. Being an admin isn't a call to be abusive on the wikipedia nor a type of dictator many tried to correct your errors in the past. Maybe I should take the whole year to study both the rules, how admins operate and even your own profile. Just imagine the outcome. Humaniora Sophia (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that there are professors at universities and seminaries whose job is to study topics like Biblical history? And that they write books on how the Bible is interpreted? Those are the sort of books we're expecting to be cited. Maybe if you'd learn how modern academia works instead of being paranoid, you'd have an easier time here.

Once again, do something about that forest in your eye before imagining that sawdust got anywhere near the eyes of others. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use the plain text of religious works as references, as they are prone to personal interpretation. Instead, Wikipedia uses published reference works by theologians and recognized religious scholars. If you don't know what a theologian is, that's a sign that you have a lot more learning ahead of you. If you think that editors who ask that you observe Wikipedia's policies are somehow "occultists," you have a whole lot more to learn. And by the way, the word is "biased," not "bias." Adjective, not noun. Please learn the use of language as you study. Acroterion (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you guys are occultist based on your profiles and works being of a biased nature but mostly the war and watching my activity. I know the works of various theologians and often their works are contradicting, not only fail in logical consistency but also are occultists themselves largely of a freemasonic character. But nonetheless, I will cite them due to certain agreements, as I said earlier, a lot of the Bible is cited in a lot of articles such as Abaddon etc and the article was fine before you edited and what I wrote have been written by scholars in a similar way I failed to write source material on purpose. Wikipedia isn't as serious as you think but ought to be. I studied religion and occultism because I want wikipedia non biased which it isn't because of "admins" such as yourself and please stop quoting the Bible to me as you you have nothing in common with it's teachings which is very obvious to even a child, also here we are not religious but we defend truthful facts which you don't, you defend first and foremost teachings of certain scholars. This account was solely made for this purpose, to identify you, backtrack, history check and study you. I didn't make this account to write on two articles which should be obvious.

December 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Abaddon. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Stop cherrypicking topics and users to war against them on this website following your beliefs. You are clearly not an honest user and you are also abusing the Wikipedia as a trusted user.[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Abaddon. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Abaddon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two bias users doesn't make one right. I will not edit this time as to avoid power abusers, but I will spend much time, money, many hours of research and until all is made right.

Please take these warnings seriously - your unsourced edits are disruptive and are against site policy. Please find reliable academic sources for your edits. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And stop with the personal attacks against other users. We understand that you may not fully understand Wikipedia policies, but you are not entitled to attack other editors who enforce those policies. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've advised that not here to contribute to the encyclopedia [1] and appear to be attempting some sort of breaching experiment. You've wasted enough time here. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]