User talk:Messenger003

Welcome!

Hello Messenger003! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! User:Chongkian (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

March 2023

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Justice have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Justice was changed by Messenger003 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.883758 on 2023-03-16T05:53:57+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edits made to Talk:Justice, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines, especially WP:NOTADVOCACY. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You continue to add personal essays to the talk page. Other users (see above) have tried to engage you in discussion about this but you have added the content without responding to their concerns. It's disruptive, and other users have to respond each time. You have the WP:ONUS responsibility to seek consensus before adding disputed content to a page. Oblivy (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Justice. Please stop using that page as a forum. It violates WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, based on their response to me below in #need help, I'm wondering if maybe a p-block from that page and its talk is needed. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user has really focused only on editing this page and its talk page, so that would probably fix the problem. Based on what was posted on my talk page it seems that they are having trouble processing the warnings and are still intent on trying to make more edits.

N.B. Reviewing my last comment I'm not completely comfortable with my tone, but it seems trying to explain Wikipedia to this editor is just more time wasted. Oblivy (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, the user hasn't been back on that talk page since I reverted and warned. If they return there, I will install a partial block. But the edits that followed, and I think User:Oblivy will agree, indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is we're doing here, and that signals we might be heading for a NOTHERE block. Let's monitor. Messenger003, I hope you understand what we are discussing here. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Wait and see is best, perhaps Messenger003 will find a constructive way to contribute. Oblivy (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of research: this account has activity in a number of wikis,[1] mostly just to create a userpage.

There is significant activity only in English and in Chinese, and only on the Justice (正義) pages. The edits to 正義 follow a similar pattern (这是造物主给出的定义，意图挽救瘟疫、战争、气候极端中地球！ - "this is the definition from the creator, to save the earth from sickness, conflict, and climate change"), and are all quickly reverted. Of course, user has been warned about disruptive editing on the Chinese site as well [2]("阁下似乎在做出扰乱性编辑" = "you are engaged in disruptive editing").

Worth noting there is a small but familiar set of edits on the Spanish site. [3], all on Discusión:Justicia ("La definición dada por el Creador (Dios): ¡Proteger la libertad de otros seres vivos y de uno mismo es justicia, y el resto es maldad!"), and all reverted.

I do feel like the block of text pasted below, plus the contents of the user page, plus the strikethru text on Talk:Justice are violations of WP:UPNOT and WP:ADVOCACY, and just an attempt to insert religious diatribe into English Wikipedia wherever it will stick. I'm very reluctant to tell people they are not welcome here, not even sure it's appropriate (vs. a page block, and reversion of offending content), but every additional move from this user suggests WP:NOTHERE. Oblivy (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Thank you for your hard work! You are only wrong, that is, I can delete the will of the creator in the article, I care more about the promotion of the definition of justice, and I don’t care about the personal page! I always like to be straightforward and concise, and I really don't know how I caused the destructive editing in your mouth. I said I don't like reading lengthy instructions, and suggested that the wiki keep the instructions simple, as many people do too. I wish you well!Messenger003 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

need help

I'm not quite sure what caused the deletion, I'm not very familiar with editing and I can't find a channel for dialogue, please guide and help Messenger003 (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Messenger003, we can chat here on your user talk page. I'll just tell you straight-out: Wikipedia is not a place to proselytize, and our article on Justice should analyze the concept from point of view of peer-reviewed, published academic papers – not spiritual doctrine. We do have several articles on Christianity's views on several topics – justice is not one of them – but if that article were to exist, it would similarly be written from an academic point of view. There are plenty of other places where you can publish religious doctrine, but a general-purpose encyclopedia such as this one is not one of them. Perhaps Conservapedia – as a encyclopedia written by and largely for devout, religious, conservative Christians – would be more open to your writing? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I seem to understand a little bit, so can I just delete the part that affects religion? Because he is just a definition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger003 (talk • contribs)

Well, you also need to provide reliable sources that substantiate your claim, and figure out the proper place for the text. The reliable sourcing would need to demonstrate that there is a scholarly consensus for this singular definition of justice, which I doubt exists, since the article on Justice doesn't make an attempt to provide a single definition and instead outlines the viewpoints of various scholars. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for the delay, your reply was perfect! Firstly, originality is perfectly rejected; secondly, I believe that those who first defined justice in the entry cannot provide the source; thirdly, due to the particularity of justice, it is deeply related to all aspects of human beings, and it is inevitable to affect religion , You said that religious preaching is not allowed. What I have given is only the definition and the results derived from this definition. It is not that deleting it will not affect religion. I agreed to the deletion, and you added conditions, which once again perfectly negated the free wiki! Please give a more perfect answer that conforms to the wiki and logic! I wish you well!Messenger003 (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Sorry, I might be wrong, I'm not very familiar with wiki rules! You are right to ask for attribution. But I still want to talk about the particularity of the term justice: the root cause of wars, plagues, religions, extreme climates, and various problems in today’s human society is that the concept of justice in people’s minds is vague. It means that the content of the justice entry has not been recognized by people, or it is equal to nothing. Since at least it is not good enough, why not try my definition, it is simple, clear, rigorous, and perfect, and it will not be too late to delete any objections! Justice is different from other common terms. If we can find the correct origin, human beings are not in today's situation!Messenger003 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messenger003, I'm not sure your English is fluent enough to be editing pages on abstract concepts here on enwiki. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Your judgment is accurate! My English is really not fluent. Thank you so much for letting me know it's ok to edit. I will try to be as accurate as possible!Messenger003 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chongkian Thanks for coming to guide me! I would like to email the article to be revised to you for review first, pick out the flaws, correct it and then edit it, or directly edit it after you discuss it. But I can't find your email address, or post the full text here?

A letter to all senior wiki editors

Dear senior editors:

I write this letter with great gratitude to Wikipedia, and I apologize for the trouble my rash editing behavior has caused you! Let me first talk about why I am grateful: In order to promote the new concept of justice, I have tried many ways to contribute articles to major media on hot issues, but they are basically lost in the ocean of numbers, and I also use many other methods. Although in the Internet age, it seems that you can say it everywhere, but when your views are different from the mainstream, you will find that you have nowhere to say it. So I'm very grateful to Wiki for giving me a spot on the talk page, even if it's rudely underlined. Let me talk about my impatience, because my previous article is not ideal, and it is not suitable for the homepage of justice. I would like to thank the editor of the wiki. In the midst of multiple deletions and warnings, I am also reflecting on how to improve the article. Special thanks to @Valereee As a kind reminder, I decided to combine people's general doubts about justice and re-plan the structure of the article so that it can answer questions more clearly. So, apologies for my impatience up front! Please forgive the recklessness of a novice who does not want to be a senior editor!
Let me talk about my feelings, which may not be correct, but please listen with tolerance: I think many novices, like me, just want to compile a specific entry, and they don't have a careful understanding of the rules. Reckless behavior, but please treat it with tolerance, understand the content, communicate elegantly and politely, and maintain a state of maintaining the freedom of others. I think it will reduce a lot of misunderstandings. For entries that are not professional, staying on the sidelines will not damage Wikipedia , It is also a respect for other editors. This also made me realize the general ambiguity of the concept of justice, power should be used to maintain freedom, not interfere with freedom! At the same time, the ultimate purpose of wiki is to serve people as a tool! All behaviors that serve people should be respected!
The purpose of my coming to Wikipedia is to edit my article in front of the justice homepage, so that people can see His definition at a glance when entering the Wiki justice entry: safeguarding the freedom of other living beings and oneself is justice, and the rest are evil! No matter who edits, I am grateful to have a senior editor do it for me! Based on the above definition, I cannot give up my right to edit, because it is evil, unless this definition is proved to be wrong; also based on the above definition, anyone who cannot prove him wrong, then he is right, and hindering his promotion is hindering The freedom of others to obtain the truth is evil! So I have repeatedly reminded attention to the particularity of justice, because if you are not careful, you will fall into the situation of fighting against justice. 
At the same time, I had to demonstrate the vagueness and imperfection of existing concepts of justice. First of all, there should be no ambiguity about the fact that justice should be the code of conduct for all. After all, very few people claim to be evil. Since they are all just, the world should be harmonious. Obviously not now, so the concept of justice is vague . The same should be true of the Wikipedia entry for justice, which in my opinion is not perfect and even codifies evil. Anyone who enters the existing entries and reads them patiently will still be confused and not operable. That means it complies with wiki verifiability, verifying it's wrong. There is also Wikipedia's non-originality, which cannot be achieved in the entry of justice, because it is not perfect or wrong, and it is far from correct. If it is not original, it should be blank. Neutral is meaningless. The essence of Wikipedia's three requirements is to avoid getting into a situation where disputes cannot be resolved. If there is no dispute, the three principles can be ignored. So my edits to Justice are perfectly legitimate and compliant! If someone can prove that the new definition is wrong, it will not be too late to delete it!
I will post the new text in the back, and hope that senior editors who are interested in justice can take a look and help find faults. It is better to have constructive opinions. I will be very grateful! If you are not interested in Him, please stay on the sidelines! This text I expect it to be perfect, but it may fall short, so guidance is sincerely appreciated!
    In order to avoid embarrassing situations for both parties, I will post the new text for a while, and post it on the homepage if there is no objection. Enthusiastic editors hope to help forward the letter or the main idea to the editing group to remind! I am very grateful! In case I am unable to edit, I would like to ask a senior editor who agrees with this definition to edit for me in the absence of a response for a long time. I would like to extend my high respect to you!Messenger003 (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

new text

Justice should be the code of conduct and moral bottom line for all human beings and all civilizations, including AI! Therefore, He should be clear and simple, so that most people can distinguish right from wrong, avoid evil and follow good!

The definition given by the Creator (God): To safeguard the freedom of other living beings and oneself is justice, and the rest are evil!

From this definition, the following behavioral norms and results can be deduced:

1 When life disappears, justice is meaningless. Therefore, safeguard the freedom of one's own life is justice!

2 Freedom outside oneself takes precedence over one's own freedom, and known freedom takes precedence over unknown freedom, thus ensuring the balance between social order and everyone's freedom;

3 Giving up one's own freedom and ignoring the violation of the freedom of other living beings is evil;

4 There is no neutrality between justice and evil;

5 Everyone is obliged to destroy evil, and evil cannot breed naturally;

justice is not abstract

In the common understanding of human beings, justice is grand and abstract. In fact, it is wrong. Justice is not abstract, but very specific and meticulous. It can be said to be considerate. For example, the care of the disabled in public facilities is the protection of the freedom of the disabled, and all the details of care are the figurative of justice. So justice is fully operable!

justice is simple

Usually people think that justice is complicated, mixed with many theories of fairness and equal distribution, as well as speculations and concepts from ancient Greece. In fact, justice is simple. All injustice in the world is the unreasonable deprivation of the freedom of others, and justice is to protect everyone's reasonable freedom. For example, compulsory distribution is unjust. Maintaining the freedom of others eliminates factors that affect interests other than ability and effort, so the weak will not covet the interests of the strong; based on the same reasoning, the strong will naturally help those who really need help, forming a voluntary Give, the weak take the necessary distribution; for another example, should college admissions favor special groups? Slanting will result in the deprivation of the freedom of the students who were not admitted. This is evil! Equality is subject to the same rules. For example, in South Africa, the consequences of evil have clearly appeared.The definition of justice and evil is a yardstick for judging right and wrong. Most people can use him accurately.

justice is eternal

Justice runs through the whole process of life and is eternal. When creatures can only rely on violence to obtain living space, the freedom to drive the same kind to hunt other creatures to maintain their own lives is justice, and it can promote the evolution of creatures. When intelligent creatures appear and can gain living space without violence, violence becomes evil. At this time, the freedom of other life should be maintained is justice. Therefore, the connotation of justice accompanies life forever.

justice is universal

The concept of justice is applicable to every aspect of our lives. For example, maintaining the freedom of all living beings means not breaking the balance of the ecological chain and not interfering with the evolution of other life; putting it on the search for alien life, intelligent life higher than the earth will not affect us, that will Interfering with the evolution of people on Earth as a whole, they must also have this universal concept of justice; as small as the emotions between individuals, when you maintain the freedom of others, you will naturally respect the choices of your companions. Another example is the story of an American grandmother stealing bread for her starving grandson. The grandmother is just. When there are people who are about to starve to death, if you have extra bread and don’t provide them, you are evil. The punishment for the bystanders in the story is completely consistent with natural justice. So, all the things we do right, they meet the definition of justice.

Evil must bring disaster

Because there is no neutrality between justice and evil, then injustice must be evil. For example, Russia invaded Ukraine. If Ukraine surrendered or negotiated peace talks, it would be giving up its own freedom, which would be evil, because it would encourage evil and bring about even greater disasters. Another example is the Monroe Doctrine of the United States before World War II, which encouraged evil forces, and finally had to participate in the war, and tens of millions of people around the world paid the price. Assuming that before the Russo-Ukraine War and World War II, the United States and other countries made it clear that they would defend freedom in the face of evil, the war would not have happened. The United States will not pay a huge price in life and material. The United States and other countries don't know that their appeasement means ignoring the violation of other people's freedom, which is evil in nature, which leads to the possibility of nuclear destruction on the earth today. The only benefit of American appeasement is that it provides an incomparably stronger case for this definition. For another example, the vast majority of countries in the world ignore the violation of the freedom of the Chinese people, and the Chinese people surrender their freedom without resistance, so that this group cannot freely deal with the emergency situation they are facing, which leads to the global spread of the new crown virus, and the loss of several The lives of tens of millions of people, huge amounts of property, and even the whole world have been suspended, and it will continue endlessly! These are the consequences of evil. Therefore, evil will definitely bring disaster. Let the evil go, there will be greater disasters behind. If human beings do not have a clear concept of justice, then the future of human beings must not be optimistic.

Definition of justice requires oracles

Justice is the code of conduct for all human beings and civilizations, including AI, and it must be defined as the duty of a god who transcends human beings, so that all beings are equal. Fortunately, this definition comes from the will of the Creator! Messenger003 (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M003, I'm afraid that's an essay, which is not what we include here on Wikipedia. I'd suggest creating a blog where you can discuss your personal philosophy of Justice. Valereee (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Thank you for your reminder, I will seriously consider your suggestion. However, can I post it on the wiki after I streamline it?Messenger003 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messenger003, no. You will need to go somewhere else to publish this. This piece will never be appropriate for Wikipedia, no matter how much streamlining and copyediting and work you or anyone else puts into it. It is a personal statement of belief. You must go elsewhere.

I feel like you are not listening. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee|Thank you for your clear notification! I respect the principles of the wiki!Messenger003 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, then don't use Wikipedia's pages to post your own musings. You are violating WP:NOTWEBHOST. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies What you said is unreasonable! If I don't post it, you won't see it, and if you don't tell me, I don't know if it's okay! Now I am still wondering, is it because of the addition of religious factors that make it impossible, in that case I can completely delete it. However, I am really sorry to trouble you! As long as an editor disagrees, I will not trouble you again! Actually, I'm just asking a yes or no.Messenger003 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know in how many different ways I have to tell you that it's not OK. We are not a webhost. You are not contributing to the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 27 April 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).

Messenger003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know if your indefinite ban is your personal decision or a collective decision? I've told you clearly above: one editor disagrees, and I won't give you any more trouble! Isn't your decision superfluous? In fact, I will not make unnecessary entanglements with unreasonable people. I hope you don't slap other editors in the face, and you can understand the words! I believe not all wiki editors are of this level!Messenger003 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not really sure what this unblock is trying to say. But if you want to be unblocked, you're going to have to do some reading. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Then make a new unblock request, tell us what makes your essay inappropriate for Wikipedia, and explain what kind of content you'll add instead. Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for more advice on writing unblock requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 28 April 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.