User talk:SKWills

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Easter Bunny. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Easter Bunny. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imp

DON'T call me an imp based on one or two edits to the Easter Bunny article. I've made plenty of constructive edits elsewhere. Consider this as a warning, and consider yourself lucky that this is all you're getting.--The copyeditor's corner 20:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Christmas. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Victim: A Romance of the Real Jefferson Davis (1914)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Victim: A Romance of the Real Jefferson Davis (1914) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.amazon.com/Victim-Romance-Real-Jefferson-Davis/dp/1410107868. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 11:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

The Page was created as a Temporary measure till I could Write a Proper Summary. Also, the Description was Written by Thomas Dixon Jr., and was composed in 1916. It is no Longer in Copyright. I did not get it from Amazon. I got it either from Faded Page or from The Internet Archive.

https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20130825

The actual Book Description is how Thomas Dixon Himself described The Book.

Instead of Deletion, couldn't this have just been made more Clear?

SKWills (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing & socks

[1]
[2]
~~[3]~~

You seem to want to change what Christians thought in the past and to disregarde the sources or lack thereof. Please stop this behaviour. Veverve (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, those IPs have the same writing style as you and seems to also want to rewrite the past when it comes to Christianity, see [4], [5]. Veverve (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jburlinson and Dimadick: you both worked on those pages, so I make you aware of my claims. Veverve (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity is known for its defense of slavery, not opposition to it. Paul the Apostle send the runaway slave Onesimus back to his master, and the Epistle to Philemon is seen as "a Christian foundation document in the justification of slavery". Dimadick (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Sublimis Deus article, SKWills was not POV-pushing, my mistake, sorry. Veverve (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@. Dimadick

Christianity is Historically Known to have been the Motivation for Opposition to Slavery. And Paul did not Send a slave back on the basis that He believed Slavery was Good.

A Single Out Of Context Quote from a Historian does not make that go away, especially since the same Wiki Article says This.

"""Although it is a main theme, Paul does not label slavery as negative or positive. Rather than deal with the morality of slavery directly, he undermines the foundation of slavery which is dehumanization of other human beings. Some scholars, but not Paul, see it as unthinkable in the times to even question ending slavery. Because slavery was so ingrained into society that the “abolitionist would have been at the same time an insurrectionist, and the political effects of such a movement would have been unthinkable. "[25] Paul viewed slavery as an example of a human institution of dehumanization, and believed that all human institutions were about to fade away.[25] This may be because Paul had the perspective that Jesus would return soon. Paul viewed his present world as something that was swiftly passing away.[26] This is a part of Pauline Christianity and theology.

When it comes to Onesimus and his circumstance as a slave, Paul felt that Onesimus should return to Philemon but not as a slave; rather, under a bond of familial love. Paul also was not suggesting that Onesimus be punished, in spite of the fact that Roman law allowed the owner of a runaway slave nearly unlimited privileges of punishment, even execution.[26] This is a concern of Paul and a reason he is writing to Philemon, asking that Philemon accept Onesimus back in a bond of friendship, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Paul is undermining this example of a human institution which dehumanizes people.[26] We see this in many of Paul's other epistles, including his letters to the Corinthians, delivering the message of unity with others and unity with Christ – a change of identity. As written in Sacra Pagina Philippians and Philemon, the move from slave to freedman has to do with a shift in “standing under the lordship of Jesus Christ”. So in short, Onesimus’ honor and obedience is not claimed by Philemon, but by Christ."""

The Article "Christian Abolitionism" says This.

"Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from "un-institutional" Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]"

And This.

Ancient times Paul, the author of several letters that are part of the New Testament, requests the manumission of a slave named Onesimus in his letter to Philemon,[3] writing "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother" (Philemon 15-16). In addition, the Book of Revelation condemns the slave trade on the basis that it involves the marketing of human souls and their bodies as if they were cargo.[4] The views that Paul and Revelation are not the only ones in ancient Judaism to oppose slavery. The Essenes, a radical Jewish sect in Israel which rejected much of the institutions of civilization, also rejected slavery, for violating the free equality of man.[5]

In the fourth century, the bishop Gregory of Nyssa articulated a fundamentally Christian conception of the world that embedded a thorough rejection of the notion that one human could be owned by another and a condemnation of the institution of slavery. The historian Kyle Harper [nl] writes:

Humans were granted mastery over the animals by God. But in practicing slavery, humans overstepped the boundaries of their appointment. Gregory proceeded to attack slavery by questioning, philosophically, the paradigmatic act of the slave system: the sale. With penetrating insight, he asked how the human being, the rational creation of God, could be given a “price.” What, he asked, could have the same market value as human nature? “How much does rationality cost? How many obols for the image of God? How many staters did you get for selling the God-formed man?” Here Gregory offers a logic that was entirely novel in the ancient world but would reverberate in later centuries with tremendous consequence.[6]

In "Christian views on slavery"

"Saint Augustine described slavery as being against God's intention and resulting from sin.[2]

John Chrysostom described slavery as 'the fruit of covetousness, of degradation, of savagery ... the fruit of sin, [and] of [human] rebellion against ... our true Father'[78][79] in his Homilies on Ephesians. Moreover, quoting partly from Paul the Apostle, Chrysostom opposed unfair and unjust forms of slavery by giving these instructions to those who owned slaves: " 'And ye masters', he continues, 'do the same things unto them'. The same things. What are these? 'With good-will do service' ... and 'with fear and trembling' ... toward God, fearing lest He one day accuse you for your negligence toward your slaves ... 'And forbear threatening;' be not irritating, he means, nor oppressive ... [and masters are to obey] the law of the common Lord and Master of all ... doing good to all alike ... dispensing the same rights to all".[78][79] In his Homilies on Philemon, Chrysostom opposes unfair and unjust forms of slavery by stating that those who own slaves are to love their slaves with the Love of Christ: "this ... is the glory of a Master, to have grateful slaves. And this is the glory of a Master, that He should thus love His slaves ... Let us therefore be stricken with awe at this so great love of Christ. Let us be inflamed with this love-potion. Though a man be low and mean, yet if we hear that he loves us, we are above all things warmed with love towards him, and honor him exceedingly. And do we then love? And when our Master loves us so much, we are not excited?".[80][81]

By the early 4th century, the manumission in the church, a form of emancipation, was added in the Roman law. Slaves could be freed by a ritual in a church, performed by a Christian bishop or priest. It is not known if baptism was required before this ritual. Subsequent laws, as the Novella 142 of Justinian, gave to the bishops the power to free slaves.[82]

Several early figures, while not openly advocating abolition, did make sacrifices to emancipate or free slaves seeing liberation of slaves as a worthy goal. These include Saint Patrick (415-493), Acacius of Amida (400-425), and Ambrose (337 – 397 AD).[83] Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394) went even further and stated opposition to all slavery as a practice.[84][85] Later Saint Eligius (588-650) used his vast wealth to purchase British and Saxon slaves in groups of 50 and 100 in order to set them free.[86]

Saint Pelagia is depicted by James the Deacon as having freed her slaves, male and female, "taking their golden torcs off with her own hands".[87] This is described as a highly virtuous and praiseworthy act, an important part of Pelagia's ending her sinful life as a courtesan and embarking on a virtuous Christian life, eventually achieving sainthood."

I can go on but Shan't.

SKWills (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC) SKWills (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add new sections atthe bottom

I've moved your rant about humanism from the top of WP:NPOVN to the bottom. If you click on 'New section' in the header to add new sections they will go in the appropriate place and you'll also avoid edit conflicts. NadVolum (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Rant about Humanism. Its a Valid Objection to a Biased article. And i don;t Appricviate You calling it a Rant or Moving it do it won't be Seen. SKWills (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SKWills since people expect new material to be at the bottom, you've been done a favor. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was I also done a Favour to be Banned? I did not Realise Wikipedia was an Explicit Humanist Encyclopedia that Existed to Promote Humanism. After all, the Page on Christianity includes Criticism of Christianity that comes from the Actual Critics of Christianity. The Page on Islam includes Criticism of Islam from Islams Critics. But, it is wrong to Include Criticism of Humanism that has not been Filtered through Humanist Sources, and we must Accept that Humanism is in fact good and Noble and Oure.

I am sorry, but I do not Feel a Favour has been done if I am Banned, Told I Randomly Capitalise Words when I actually Capitalise All nouns as German does, and told it is Wrong to call People Liars Who are in Fact Liars.

Maybe You should rewrite the Wikipedia Article on The Ontological Article. After all, the Page depicts aa Complex Philosophical Argument. its not. The Ontological Argument is just God Exists because We can Think of Him. Its all Right there on The Humanism Article. And it is Proven since it is in The Handbook Of Humanism.

The Humanism Article is a Joke. Its Only Sources are Humanist Sources. Even the Critisim Section are taken Purely from Humanist Sources. There is absolutely No Need to even include Arguments for God's Existence. But this does. it goes Further than that. The Humanism Article Actually says the Arguments Fail.

the Humanism Article will not allow Humanism to be Called a religion. It is not a religion. Calling it a religion must not be Allowed. I can Find Any Number of People Who do see it as a Religion. I can even Find Living Modern Humanists Who see it as a Religion. But they are Wrong. The Handbook of Humanism says so.

And its a Good thing Humanism is not a Religion. After all, Religion promotes Slavery, Bigotry, and Racism. Religion promotes Hatred of Gays and Opposes Gay Rights.

That is Why People are abandoning Religion and embracing Humanism.

Of course No One ever abandons Humanism. it is simply too Perfect ad Once You become a Humanist You never leave for there is Nothing better.

And Humanism is Thousands of Years Old. It did not come from Christ9ianity. It also did not come from The Religion Of Humanity by Auguste Compte. That was a Minor Influence at best.

Really, the Article on Humanism is what Secular Humanists Who are also Militant Atheists want us to Think Humanism is. It is not what Humanism Actually is.

I am not Advocating Writing an Article Condemning Humanism. i just want it to be Fair and Accurate and to use more than just a Handful of Biased Sources. And I don't want it to include unnecessary attacks on Religion, especially specific Religions such as Islam and Christianity.

Do You Really Learn Anything about Humanism from the way This Article Claims the Arguments for God's Existence are Irrational and Fail? SKWills (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claims is not a noun. Basic grammar. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a Grammar Issue, and when You Ridicule My Grammar You make it seem like I am talking like a Stereotypical redneck Hick from the Deep South you see in Movies, or like a Slackjawed idiot. And I am not Fond of the Insults. You are a Disgrace. SKWills (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 15:47, 21 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

All I want is for the Article on Humanism to be Unbiased. I do not want it to be a Promotion of Humanism. The current Article comes Only from Humanist Sources. Specifically 2 Books. Both Actively Promote Humanism, and put it Only in the Best Light Possible. They are also not Representative of all Humanist Thought and are Written with a Specific View in Mind. The Article includes comments about Why the Arguments for God's Existence Fail. It provides no Counter to this. It also Misrepresents those Arguments. For example, The Ontological Argument is presented as God exists because We can Think of Him. A Simple visit to The Wikipedia Page on The Ontological Argument proves this is not what The Ontological Argument Actually says. And it is not the Place of Wikipedia to decide the Arguments for God's Existence Fail. If allowed to make a Full Case, I can Easily provide a Far better Article on Humanism that will neither Disparage Humanism nor Promote it. But Right now The Humanism Article includes absurd levels of Bias and Inaccuracy, and I simply do not Care that they come from The Handbook Of Humanism. It is simply not True that The religion Of Humanity was only a Minor Influence on Humanist Development. We'd not have the Modern Philosophy of Humanism if not for Auguste Compte. It is simply not True that Humanism is Thousands of years Old.It is not true that Humanism is Criticized for standing for Human Rights and individualism. It isn't even True that Conservatives promote Christian Values. Or that Christians are all Conservatives. There are Progressive Christians, for example. There are also Atheist Conservatives. There are even Secular Humanist Conservatives. The Article also says Humanists are Liberal and Progressive because They Believe in Individual Rights and Freedom, and thus reject Conservatism. This would Mean you cannot be an Individualist and a Conservative. Conservatism must be a Communal Ideal and must reject individualism. The Last Time I read Anything by a Conservative, though, They Promoted Individualism. Indeed, their biggest Objections to Liberal Policies is that they are Communal and not Individualistic. I suppose the Conservatives Lied. They aren't Interested in Individualism after all. And we have A C Grayling and Stephen Law, Liberals and Secular Humanists, to Thank for exposing them. And We shall just take their Word for it. really You have to see this is one Sided. The same goes for other issues. It is not True that Religion opposes Gay rights. Some Religious Groups do. But, to say Religion opposes Gay Rights means All Religion. Its not even True that All Christians Oppose Gay Rights. Wikipedia has pages on Gay Christians and Gay Affirming Churches. It is not True that Religion supported Slavery. It is True that Certain People Who followed Various Religions did, but it is also True that Christians, not Humanists, lead the Call for Abolition. I am not denying other Christians opposed Abolition and supported Slavery but that does not Mitigate the Fact that Christian Groups and Individuals Actively lead the Social Movement to Abolish Slavery in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Not Humanists. Christians also Lead the civil Rights Movement. And Women's Suffrage. This Article however Claims Humanism is responsible for Women's suffrage. Racism was also Actively Opposed by Christians. And Historically, there have been Humanist groups that supported Racism and Scientific Racism. There were Humanists Who endorsed Eugenics. Christians were the Largest Force opposed to Eugenics. The Humanism Article even says Atheism is a Byproduct of reason combined with the Acceptance of Science. Are we to believe All Rational People Who Accept Science will inevitably become Atheists? That is the Implication. After all, Atheism is a Byproduct of Reason and Accepting Science. The Article also hijacks Historical Figures, presenting them as Humanists when they simply weren't, or claiming they Held Humanist Values when the Values they Held were either not the Humanist ones they Claim, or else were those Values, but there is No Reason to see them as "Humanist values" as if they are Exclusive to Humanism. For example, Promoting the Use of Reason does not mean you Promote Humanist Values. Promoting Democracy does not man You Promote Humanism. Promoting Science does not mean Promoting Humanism. In many cases, their examples are False. They present Immanuel Kant as Promoting Rationalism, for example. Immanuel Kant rejected Rationalism. Immanuel Kant Wrote " A Critique Of Pure Reason". The article also expresses that The Ontological Argument fails due to lacking Empirical evidence. This is an Issue due to assuming Only Empirical evidence is Valid, but i'd Really not Think it necessary to Mention as I don't Know Why Attacking the Strawman Version of Arguments for God's existence Help us Understand Humanism Anyway. But it matters here since the Sources call Humanists rationalists, and yet says they Demand Empirical Evidence. That makes them Empiricists, not Rationalists. It also Proves My Point that Auguste Compte had a Large Impact on them, and was not a Minor Influence. The Call for Empirical Evidence being the Only Valid evidence comes from His Positivist Concepts and His religion of Humanity. Just as Many Humanist orginizations in Britain and America, Contrary to what This Article says, were actually based on His ideas. He is denied simply Because he said it was a religion, and they want that Word to be Forbidden in Use when Describing Humanism. Speaking of which, Why is it that Humanisms is not a Religion? The article mentions religious Humanism, but as a Distinct subset, and claims it is Seldom practiced today. Bu, what s the Difference between Religious Humanism and Modern, Non-Religious Humanism? Even Humanists have Questioned the Value of saying its not or whether it is Accurate. Such as here. "Humanism is a Religion? Why Even “Anti-religion” Humanists Should Celebrate" BY DAVID NIOSE • 10 NOVEMBER 2014 Noise Acually still sides with it not being a Religion. But, here is another One. "IS HUMANISM A RELIGION?" August 19, 2014 · by Paul Chiariello The Irish Times ran This article. "Humanism is a religion that can be understood HUMANISM does not concern itself with the beliefs or practices of any religion." By By PADDY LEAHY Tue Jun 18 1996 - 01:00 Yet if I even add "Claims to be non-Religious" instead of "Is non-religious": I have Vandalised the article? This Wikipedia Article even Denies Islam any Credit for The Islamic Golden Age. Instead, All of the Social and Cultural Achievements are said to be rooted in Greek Philosophy, and Greek Philosophy is said to be Humanist, so The Golden Age of Islam came about due to Humanism, not Islam. It also repeats a Myth common in Militant Atheist Circles that Christians Destroyed Classical Learning, and it was Only Reintroduced during The Renascence, leading to the spread of Humanism, which of course Displaced Christian Values and Lead to immediate Social Improvement. A Constant Theme in the Article is that as science and Technology Advances, Religion Declines and Humanism increased. I suppose We- I mean You, as I am Rightfully Banned- need to Revise the Article on The Conflict thesis. After all, According to that Article on Wikipedia, Historians Dismiss the Idea of Science and religion being at Odds and being Irreconcilable, Opposing forces. But clearly they are. Religion Always Declines as Science and technology Advances. With Advances in Science and technology, People naturally Cast off Religious Beliefs and restrictions and Gain Freedom and Tolerance and Understanding. Humanism is the Flourishing of Science and Technology. Are We Really saying that is not a Bias? Then again this article keeps telling us what Popular Arguments are. Usually to dismiss them. Such as a Popular Argument for Theism is The Ontological Argument. It then dismissed them. I suppose The Arguments were thoroughly Refuted, then. No Counter is ever given. But I had thought an Article on Humanism would Teach us what Humanists Believe, and no focus on a Dismissal of Popular Arguments for theism or for something Humanism opposes. Even in The Criticism of Humanism, We see the Critics of Humanism Accept that Humanists Stand for Human rights and Freedom and Individualism. The Biggest Objection to Humanism is it is Perceived, Falsely of course, as a form of Christianity. How Dreadful a Falsehood. Humanism is Far Older than Christianity and Unrelated to it and Flourishes as Christianity, and Religion in general, Declines. Nevertheless, that is presented as a Criticism. The Article also seems to assume if You are an Atheist then you are also a Humanist. But there are Atheist criitisisms of Humanism. For example, Noam Chomsky was Critical of it. as has been Pierre Girard. And so is Richard Green from Atheism UK. None of their Concerns are mentioned. Indeed, the Critisisms of Humanism, which I Remind You are actually Taken from Humanist Sources, not directly from the Critics of Humanism themselves, are either Islamic, or else unspecified. There are also other Critisisms of Humanism that This Article simply Fails to address. And if I am Allowed to make My Case or revise this article will elaborate on. But this is Long. I want to be thorough but must cit some thing. So I will simply summarise and Source later. Humanism has been critisised as being Unrealistically Optimistic about Humanity's Innate Goodness. It has also been Criisised as being less tolerant than it claims to be. And Far from being Critisised for Standing for Human Rights, it has been Critisised for Re-defining Human Rights as following its Tenets and for Imposing its beliefs and Values in the Name of Human rights and Freedom. It has also been Critisised as being Uniformist and Communal, as opposed to Individualistic. Its not like Everyone sees it as "Individualistic" as the Articled says. It is Critisised for the way it condemns other Groups as well. Especially Christianity. Even a Cursory Internet Search shows many Articles Critising Humanism, and not for being too Individualistic or for Standing Up for Human Rights and Freedom. Such as "Sharp Blue: The failure of humanism" By Richard Baker. This Article can also be found. "The Failure of Humanism" Posted on January 23, 2017AuthorChinoF12 Comments The Final Example is from a Christian Source. The Article does Attack Christianity, so I feel a Christian Response should be included to make this Case. "The Trouble with Humanism" from Christianity Today MAY 12, 1967 I did not extensively seek Sources, I did a basic Internet Search and chose the First 3 that looked relatively Interesting. but to illustrate a Point that Criticism of Humanism can Easily be Found and does not Solely Consist of complaining that it Stands for Individualism and Human rights, or that it is a form of Christianity. By Ignoring the Criticism from the actual Critics, and instead Filtering those Critisisms by Listening to how Humanist Books Present them, One does a Disservice to the Pursuit of Knowledge and an Exchange of Ideas and Information. By Deriving All of the Materials from Only Humanist Sources that exist only to Promote the Humanist View, and to not Question those Sources, or even look at a Broader Variety of Humanist Sources, We also do a Disservice to that Aim. This Article uses Primarily Only Two Humanist Books, The Humanist handbook and The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Humanism. Other Books are also used ut these are Disproportionately Used, and the others share Contributors. They are all taken from the same half Dozen Writers. And those Writers are Biased and Agenda Driven. Stephen law for example Created The Evil God Challenge designed to Attack Christian Concepts of God. He has Actively attacked Christianity specifically as Evil and Hatefully and oppressive. So has A. C. Grayling. Indeed, both have Attacked religion in General. grayling said Religion Flourishes only through Brain ashing, for example. Are these really Unbiased and Fair Sources that We can Rely on to Accurately Present a Case for Humanism? Humanism is Presented as Inevitably linked to Scientific and technological advancement as if they are the same thing. And Atheism is explicitly said to be the Result of Rationality combined with The Acceptance of Science. It eem from this article, if You are Rational and Accept Science You Will be a Humanist. The Article doesn't even Deal that Deeply with Actual Humanist Beliefs. And there are Actual Humanist beliefs to Deal with. The Work of Paul Katz for example deal with Actual issues and beliefs of Humanism. But, This Article Reduces Humanism to a Series of Platitudes. Humanism is not simply The Acceptance of Tolerance and Individualism. There's moe to it than that. Further, This article Acts as if Humanism is a Unified, though not Centralised, Belief System. it Acts as if there are No Major Disagreements Amongst Humanists in terms of Humanist beliefs and Values. This is not the Case as Deep Philosophical Divides Do Exist. Which is WHy I mentioned Paul Katz Who was Removed from Administering the organization He Founded on Humanism, and Who has since been Rather Open with His Disagreement with other Factions within Humanism. In Reality, Humanism is as divined as Any of the Religions Humanists often Claim can be Proven to be Bad for Humanity due to Division. Which is Perhaps why it avoids those issues as they are Contentious and Undermine the Intent to Show Humanism as an inevitable Conclusion that Unifies us in Reason and tolerance. I am sorry if that Sounds like a Denouncement of Humanism. it is not My intention to do so. But consider this. I have edited a few other Pages. I have not been Known to Edit pages on Christianity to Remove Critism or to Rewrite them to include only Glowing and Positive References to Christianity taken from Sources that exist to Promote it. I Think if this is a General Encyclopedia, such is Necessary. And I'd prefer those Critisisms to be from the Actual Critics of Christianity. The same is True of Islam. Or ahy other Philosophy. Why then is this article on Humanism Free of such Critisism? Why, for that matter, is this Article so Little concerned with the Real issues of Humanism? Why does it instead Focus on Why Religion, and in particular The Christian Religion, which it Equates to Theism, are Wrong? In the section "Humanism And religion" it oes nothing but Dismiss the Arguments for God's existence. it does so by Misrepresentign them, reducign them to Caricatures, and then Declaring them "popular" and saying they are Why people No Longer follow Religion, assuming that means Humanism. it says they Fail. The Article also makes Value Judgements. It makes explicit Claims that Some Ideas are Good and others bad. This article reads like a Pamphlet Promoting Humanism, Trying to Convert us to Humanism. It does not read like a Neutral, Unbiased Encyclopedia Article. Wikipedia is supposed to be Neutral. This Article is not. and if I am Banned for Life over this, then Wikipedia is worthless.SKWills (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Read WP:GAB and try again. Absolutely no admin is going to read through whatever ↑this↑ is. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 21 June 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was Blocked for wanting The Humanism Article to be Unbiased and not a Pamphlet for Humanism. I was accused of bad Grammar, which is not a Reason to ban people and not True, and for Accusing someone of being a Liar. I Wrote a Much Longer Explanation. I was Told it was a "This" and No One Will Read it. It is however The Actual Reason. I was Blocked to preserve Bias. SKWills (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Also, I'm not really sure your English language skills are good enough to edit English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2022 (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.

I did address the Real Reason I was blocked. Look on The Humanism page. It is Biased. It does include Value Statements. It does Strawman the Arguments for God's Existence, then Declares them Failed. The Criticism Section does not Include Criticism that can easily be Found and Only takes Criticism from Humanist Sources, and depreciate it.

I was not Banned for Life because called someone a Liar. Nor for Grammar. I was banned for Life because I wanted to Fix an Incredibly Biased Article.

SKWills (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a waste of time to tell you this, but we really don't care about your opinions and you weren't blocked for them. You were blocked for being disruptive and that can happen to someone who is absolutely correct on what they are saying but is unable to work with others and acts disruptively. If you'd approaches things a different way I doubt I would have blocked you originally. But you would have been blocked sooner or later because for some reason you think that you know more about using capital letters than the average English professor and are unable to follow our guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Your writing style simply messes up our articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Removed the Previous Reply. I Just realised how absurd what You said is. I did not say I Know More about Using Capital Letters than Anyone Else. Why are You Fixated on My Capitalisation? I Use this because I am Severely Dyslexic. I also ahave Poor eyesight. I Capitalise All Nouns Generally, with Exception. But this is a Styaletic. It is not Me Boasting of Anything. it is a tool I use to Help My eyes Focus on Specific Points. Without it, I tend to make FaR More Spelling Errors than I would otherwise. Most find the Spelling Errors more difficult to Read than the Capitalisation. I am not Arrogant about it. I never Bring it up. You did. Why on Earth are You fixated on My Typing when That can be Edited?

Am I really expected to Believe that I was Banned for life over Capital Letters? Are You really trying to present me as Arrogantly Boasting that I Know more about Capitalisation tan English Professors? When did I do that? SKWills (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am trying to play by your rules now, But If allowed back on Wikipedia, I won't be able to maintain it. I can't always spell using the conventions You want, and at the same Time actually be sure what I am typing is correct. I do not however Think I was really banned for life because I spell Life with a Capital L and Me with a Capital M instead of saying me. That sounds rather petty. Especially since You did not even Warn Me, You simply Banned Me. You Banned Me for Life over an issue You did not even Attempt to discuss with Me.

I was not Disruptive and this is not about Me not being able to Work with others. And its not Really about Me Thinking I Know more about Capitalisation than English Professors. This is an Excuse. SKWills (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You weren’t banned for capital letters. You aren’t using capital letters just for nouns. And as sorry as I am for your disabilities no one should have to edit your text. But you haven’t shown the ability to work with others. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Doug Weller, that is exactly what You said.

"But you would have been blocked sooner or later because for some reason you think that you know more about using capital letters than the average English professor and are unable to follow our guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Your writing style simply messes up our articles."

You also did not Say Anything about this Before banning Me. You banned Me with No warning. You Simply Banned Me.

as for not being able to Work with Others, what exactly is that based on? The Fact that I am in dispute with an editor that won't Listen to Me and simply Copy and Pastes a Reply about How His Sources are Academically Accepted? Look at the Humanism Article talk Page. I Bring up Issues with the Article. They are Ignored and The Poster I am in Dispute with Never bothers Addressing them and simply repeats the same thing. This is Why I went for Help. You now say I am the One Who won't Work with others.

How? How did I not work with others?

Oh and don't bring up Me calling another Poster a Liar. I checked your Posting History. You've called People Liars.

This is Rules for Thee and not for Me if I am banned for that. And keep in Mind I am Banned for Life.

I Tired working with others. You banned Me before I had a Chance to. SKWills (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Doug Weller says I was Disruptive and do not Work well with others. I do not Know Why He said this. I Tried to Edit The Humanism Page, another user reverted it and did not Respond to what I was saying was Wrong with the Article and simply Copy and pasted a Response, so instead of getting into an Edit War, I went for Help by Citing a Non-Point Of View Violation. I was unaware that going for Help was a sign I did not Work well with others. And yes I called it a Lie that He said The Ontological Argument was "God Exists because We can Think of Him", but that is a Lie, and Doug Weller, Who Banned Me, has also called People Liars. I have No Idea how going for Help rather than getting into an edit war Qualifies as being disruptive and not being able to Work with others. Nor do I see Why I must be Banned for Life over it. If this is also Declined, can someone other than Doug Weller Please explain what exactly is happening? I legitimately don;t Understand what i did Wrong. All I wanted was to correct the Bias in The Humanism Article. I did not want to get into a Fight over it. I sought Help. The Only Other issue is the way I Capitalise Words. But, I was Banned before Anyone even Mentioned it to Me. Is it Really such a Crime that warrants Permeant removal? I have No Idea Why I was banned, exactly. Saying I was Disruptive is not a Reason as how i was Disruptive is not Explained. Saying I do not work Well with others is not Explained either. I was trying to get others to Help Me. I am Genuine in saying I do not Understand Why this is being Said.SKWills (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is impossible to read. Why on Earth are you randomly capitalising letters? Why are you still doing this after literally being blocked for this. If you are unable to write a coherent unblock request (as per WP:GAB), I'm afraid I agree with Doug below. WP:CIR applies and we should revoke talk page access, so I'll go do that now. It doesn't help that you are also violating WP:NPA. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2022 (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.

For the next Admin. I'm wondering if leaving TPA is being a bit unfair to this editor. Nothing has changed and this must be stressful for them. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, what You just said is a form of Abuse. Harassment like this, and Demeaning others like this, is Abuse. When You Devalue People and Speak of them in The Third Person, it is Bullying. You had No Reason to Post that other than to Devalue Me.

Its bad Enough You banned Me for No Valid Reason, and at this point I am sure its For No Valid Reason, but when You have to return to Bully People, its really a Sign that This is just You being a Tinpot Dictator.

SKWills (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.