User talk:Syamsu

Welcome!

Hello, Syamsu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Anupam^Talk 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Syamsu! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links for Wikipedians interested in Christianity-related content.

Getting Started
Join • Task for You Discussion Board • Templates
Useful Links
Notice Board (watch) Project Category Christianity Portal
Miscellaneous
Featured Articles • Good Articles Did You Know?

Work Groups
Anabaptist • Core Topics • Indian Christianity Methodism • Jesus • Syriac Christianity
Departments
Article Requests • Destubbing Campaign Assessment • Articles Needing Clean-up Peer Review • Adopted Topics
Subprojects
Anglicanism • Bible • Calvinism Roman Catholicism • Lutheranism

WP:3RR violation

Could you please undo your revert (your last one violated WP:3RR) and use the talk pages; discussion should be used to achieve consensus. I even tried to rewrite it to address some of your concerns. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the change, because of the rules, but please note that now it makes no sense! I already mentioned soul in the first sentence, and then you introduce soul again in the sentence you added.--Syamsu (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again

Please be cautious of edit warring at Free will. Is this edit [1] one of yours? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have broken 3RR there. You have until I finish compiling the AN3 report to self-revert; please do William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Syamsu_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29 William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Free will. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ckatz^chat _spy 08:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Free will. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ckatz^chat _spy 08:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other interests

For the past 3 months you've done essentially nothing but edit Free will. It would be a really good idea to get out a bit more, have some other interests, not look like a WP:SPA William M. Connolley (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR, again

You're up to 4R. Please self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Syamsu reported by User:William M. Connolley .28Result:_.29. There is still time to self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're now so far over 3R that I've lost count. Do you have no respect for the rules of this place at all? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you may continue to edit if you are prepared to make useful contributions. Note, however, that you efforts to date to not reflect an intention to do so. If you repeat the actions that have led to these blocks, your editing privileges will be suspended indefinitely.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ckatz^chat _spy 19:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching fourth 3RR - please stop edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Free will. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You have exceeded 3RR at least three times previously and been temporarily blocked twice for it, along with your sockpuppet User:Carloveldema. You are up to 2 reverts so far this morning. Be very careful what you do next. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth 3RR violation (at least)

Your recent editing history at Free will shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Posting while logged out does not let you dodge WP:3RR, especially when it is obvious from your edit history that that IP is you. Examples of your previous edits from this IP: [2], [3]. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syamsu, you've put this edit up seven times in the past two days. If you're trying to make a point by getting yourself banned, then carry on. If you'd like to see these edits stick then you're going to have to convince people that they're appropriate and not re-edit until they've explicitly told you they're satisfied. This means that if you can't persuade them, you don't make the edit (but you don't get banned, either). Are you willing to give this a try? Garamond Lethe (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3rr report filed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Syamsu_reported_by_User:Vsmith_.28Result:_.29 Vsmith (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Free will

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This is your third block in the last two weeks, and it appears you have no intention of following our policies on edit warring. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Syamsu reported by User:Vsmith (Result: Indef). EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

There was no problem untill some evolutionists well known to me came in who reverted, without argument, contributions which were established for months with much discussion on the talk page. (there were some recent changes, but the basic contribution was there for months already). They would delete the entry, and then put on the talk page that there is no consensus for it, and make other empty references to wiki rules like original content, without any argument whatsoever of what precisely was wrong with the entry. I don't feel the 3RR rule was warranted in respect to content that was already there for months, and people who provide no argument. Technically the contribution hinges on if a reference to Occam arguing the soul can only be established to exist throught faith and not evidence, is justifiably interpreted as what decides (soul) can only be identified to exist with a decision (faith). I have no idea why specifically anybody finds this reference unjustified, there was no argument about that in rejecting the entry outright.

Decline reason:

The policy is very straightforward: you sjould nor edit war, even if you believe that you're right. Max Semenik (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2012 (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.

(Edit conflict decline) At this point, you have already been blocked twice for edit-warring, and yet you still think that the edit-warring rules do not apply to you. In your request for unblock, you go out of your way to insult your opponents with the word 'evolutionists,' a word that is only ever used as disparagingly. I don't see any evidence that unblocking you would lead to a better encyclopedia; given this unblock request, it seems likely to lead to more of the same kind of disruption, and an immediate re-block by someone else. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:12, 17 September 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

The basicly same point I make has been accepted at the creationwiki on free will, and at the dutch language wiki on free will. And it was accepted on the english free will wiki. All after much talk on the talk pages of the respective wiki's. That indicates there is intention to reach consensus on my part, and no intention to reach consensus on the part of the evolutionists who deleted it. Evolutionists employ group dynamics, is why I insult them as evolutionists. Syamsu (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The editorial policies of other wikis are not relevant here. You will need to address the reason for your block. Kuru (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I guess I would indeed do the same thing again, because I ignore people who provide no argument. That's about as much care I can muster after having talked at length on the talk page, and then having the entry deleted with vacuous references to wiki rules. I think my case should be considered as a likely case of majority oppressing minority. The common view that the agency in free will can only be subjectively identified, ie that love and hate are not matters of fact but matters of opinion, is now not represented on the free will wiki. Syamsu (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. You were edit warring, you were previously blocked for edit warring, you say right here you would do it again; why should we want people editing here who are unable to accept the social contract of the community? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:35, 18 September 2012 (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.

You have repeatedly said that the people who don't agree with you 'provide no argument.' But I've looked at Talk: Free will, and they did explain, very clearly, why they thought this information wasn't right for that article. You've said that you 'did enough to get consensus,' as if you didn't understand that the word 'consensus' means that people come to an agreement together, and doesn't have anything to do with how many words you type. But when I look at Talk:Free will, I see that people have come to an agreement- it just isn't one you like. You accuse the people who disagree with you of being 'evolutionists' who use 'group dynamics,' but when I look at Talk:Free will, I don't see any discussion of science at all, and no sign that these people are involved in any kind of group attack - they're just people who happen to be interested in this topic, as far as I can tell. I can't tell from your use of the words what you think 'evolution' or 'group dynamics' or 'consensus' means, because you aren't using them in a way that makes sense with the meanings of those words.. You use the word 'wiki' when I think you mean 'article.' I can't help noticing that you don't communicate your ideas very clearly, occasionally use words in confusingly incorrect ways, and that when other people communicate their ideas clearly, you don't seem to understand them. Because Wikipedia editors work together with each other, and communicate in written English, it simply isn't possible, no matter how good your intentions are, to use Wikipedia if you can't do those things. Even as I type these words, I fear you won't understand them, and that I'm probably wasting time typing them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reread most of the talk. You can see that Pfhorrest shifted his criticism to saying that the way the agent is identified is not relevant for the free will wiki. Which means he accepted the references to Occam and Reid were essentially valid, but then he had doubts about whether it was relevant enough for the article. I dismissed those doubts as insignificant, mainly because previously Pfhorrest himself mispresented Reid on the talk page, saying Reid considered agency a matter of objective fact. --Syamsu (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

That my argument is unclear to you is cognitive dissonance on your part. Many science-minded folks have a hard time dealing with reaching a conclusion subjectively, because they are drilled to be objective. Like I said, technically the contribution hinges on a reference to Occam (and Reid). If you can tell me what any of the other people argued specifically what was wrong with that reference, then you have a point, but such arguments aren't there. LOADS of talk was already deleted from the page. I was continuously steering discussion towards evaluating the merits of this reference, I also pointed out possible weak points in the reference myself, but all to no avail. The contribution I made should have been left there as status quo, because basically it was there for months already, and then people should argue why it should be removed. Not remove it with meaningless appeals to wiki rules Syamsu (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. You engage in a personal attack from your very first sentence, and then argue about a content dispute. You don't bother addressing the reason for your block, and instead you use this unblock request in an attempt to justify your behavior that led up to your block, implying that you will continue in this manner if you are unblocked.

Please don't waste our time with further unblock requests until you have reviewed and fully understood Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, lest your talk page access be revoked as well. I also suggest you accept WP:OFFER, wait six months, and try again. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2012 (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.

Anouncement of damnation of wiki

That because in conspiracy of a group of Darwinists the encycopledia in practical effect surpresses freedom of expression, I hereby damn the encyclopedia.

Dualism

The logic of free will has two main parts, the agency which does the chosing, and the alternatives which are chosen. These two parts are wholy different from each other, the agency is called spiritual, what is chosen is called material. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, subjectivity and objectivity. You have to chose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions (subjectivity). You have to measure to find out what is in the material domain, resulting in facts (objectivity). ^[1]

You have accidentally used the {unblock} template to post an announcement; I have corrected the problem. Because you make it clear that you are too caught up in your own personal story of being persecuted to understand the Wikipedia rules you are expected to follow, it seems unlikely that this account will ever be unblocked. Further unblock templates would be a needless waste of time for you and for the administrators who review such requests, so I am disabling your access to this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Overview of the dual categories of free will == (appended on Syamsu talk page) }}

what choses	what is chosen
subjectively identified	objectively measured
spiritual	material
opinion (creates information)	fact (rewrites information)
soul	body
God love hate self etc.	solids, gasses, fluids (fermions) etc.
creator	creation

RfC on Talk:Free will

As a past contributor to Free will, you might be interested to participate in this Request for Comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Harrison-Barbet, Anthony. "WILLIAM of OCKHAM". Philosophos.com. we can have no knowledge of an immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically. Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith

[1] Harrison-Barbet, Anthony. "WILLIAM of OCKHAM". Philosophos.com. we can have no knowledge of an immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically. Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith

[1]