User talk:Andrew Kelly/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive. Do not edit this page! If you want to talk to me, click here. That would make more sense.

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia[change source]

Hi, Andrew from NC, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy editing! Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Other
Thank you! --Andrew from NC (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Gospel of John[change source]

A lot of what is in the Gospel of John is very different than what is in the other three gospels. Andrew, this sentence is really bad!

I just corrected "different from" to "different to" which is correct. "Different than..." is worse, not better. Any sentence that starts "A lot of what..." is an ugly sentence.

The sentence only needed one word changing. It needed "from" changed to "to".

Yes, I'm an old teacher......

You are certainly not on your own. A very large number of young Wikipedians are uncertain about the correct syntax of prepositions.

Amandajm (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to make it easier to understand. This is the Simple English Wikipedia after all. --Andrew from NC (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the problem. Some people always talk about high falutin' ideas that require fairly complex language. But most people, in day to day life, use very simple language and a limited vocabulary. English can be complex, but we often simplify it by using one word in lots of ways.
The word "what" is one of those words that we use in many different ways.
So, you have written "A lot of what is in the Gospel of John...." This makes sense to a lot of people who speak ordinary day-to-day English. People who have grown up using English understand you.
  • Correctly you mean "A lot of that which is in the Gospel of John is different ("to" not "than") that which is in the three other Gospels."
When you see it written out in a grammatically correct way, it becomes clear that it is not such a simple sentence at all.
  • Problem. What is the problem with using "what"? The problem here is that no person who is studying English as a second language will ever learn to use "what" in that sort of way.
When they study English, they learn to use the word "what" correctly, as a question. "What" is a Gospel? Tell me "what" the Gospel of John is about? "What" is it that are you talking about?
  • So if you try to simplify things by putting them into "ordinary, everyday" English, it is not a help. Everybody's ordinary everyday English is different. It depends very much on the country or even the town that you come from. Putting complex English into "colloquial" English only helps the little group of people who come from that English-speaking area.
Everything that is simplified here has to go into English that is Grammatically correct. Because when a German, Chinese or Russian student learns English, they do it out of a text book. They learn some ordinary phrases (which you learn by heart, so the grammar doesn't matter) but everything else is learnt by grammar and vocab.
Many English-speaking students nowadays don't learn grammar at all. I go around correcting the mistakes.

Young people who are native-speakers but don't have much knowledge of grammar often write long sentences using lots short words and bad "syntax". (the way the sentence is constructed)

At the risk of being discouraging, I am going to say that what is required to write good simple English (or simplify complex English) is a very good grasp of the English language, a "theoretical" knowledge and a big vocabulary. This might sound like a surprising requirement, but knowing the simple way to put complex ideas effectively requires vocab.
Are you planning on continuing work on the New Testament? More stubs for all the books would be a great idea.
I hope you like the pics I've added.
There is also a great shortage of pages on things like Twelve apostles, Three wise men with redircts from Magi, Three Kings etc and all sorts of other Christian concepts that people are likely to look up.

Amandajm (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I never really thought of it that way. Grammatically correct and simple seem to contradict each other, but I will try to use proper grammar in the future. Sorry if my previous comment sounded insulting. In response to your question, I have started the Simple Wikipedia version of WikiProject Christianity. By the looks of other Simple WikiProjects, few (if any) people will sign up, but it is worth a try. I do plan to work on other articles related to Christianity, but I don't have a lot of time to spend doing it, so it will be slow work. --Andrew from NC (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think your comment was insulting, Andrew. Thank you for taking it so well.
  • I'm glad someone is working on the Christianity articles. I have been involved quite a bit at Wikipedia, and also rewrote the Jesus article here with a lot of opposition from some person called "Coppertwig". Be careful of Coppertwig. He/she will insist that you use the words "only Christians believe this" or some such, after every sentence that you write. This person hassled me endlessly until I suddenly realised that "Coppertwig" is a little "Copperstick". A copperstick is a "stirrer". In other words, the beastly person was a troll.
On Wikipedia there are some very anti Christian editors who tweak things to give them a bad slant all the time. I just left a little message for a writer who said "The supposed author of Mark's Gospel", instead of "The presumed author of Mark's Gospel". A few little words like that can add a really negative slant.
  • Can you do a bit of research into Hebrews? It's almost certainly not Paul. Ordinary readers might presume it is, but I don't think that any Biblical scholars do. There's probably a reference that would be appropriate.
  • That Genesis summary needs rewriting. I'll have a go at it, when I've got a bit more energy. I'll have to reread Genesis first.
I usually write Art and Architecture artcles, but there is an overlap, because so many of the paintings are of religious subjects and so many of the buildings are churches.
God bless! Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. I have seen a lot of articles written with a negative slant, both here and on regular English. As far as Hebrews goes, a lot of Christians say that they have no idea who wrote it. They say that "where God is silent, we should also be silent." I have taken several Bible and New Testament survey classes, but none of them really got into detail when it came to the author of Hebrews. I am just going from memory here. I will do a bit of research sometime when it isn't so early in the morning and see if I can get some sources. I think I might have accidentally attributed it to Paul in Pauline epistles. I will go check and, if necessary, remove it until I do some more research. Thanks for taking so much time to explain the grammar! Grammar has never been something I'm great at, but I see now how important it is here on Simple. --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not the best person to discuss epistles. I'm not a great fan of St. Paul, I have to admit. If I get landed with the Epistle Reading in church I fall over the words. I'd much rather read the Prophets, particularly if I have to do it out loud. What makes it worse is that our dear old clergyman recites it quietly from the King James version, while your trying to read it out loud from the R.S.V which is the one that is in the pews. Amandajm (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books of the New Testament[change source]

Hello Andew from NC, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. I hope you will have fun editing here.

You created an article Pauline epistles, which contains a list of the letters Paul of Tarsus supposedly wrote. These letters are in the New Testament of the Bible. Most scholars agree that some of the letters were indeed written by Paul, like the Epistle to the Romans. Some letters were lost, like the First Epistle to Corinth (the Corinthians). Others, like the Epistle to the Hebrews were probably not written by Paul. My reason for removing the Category: New Testament, was that it is called Category:Books of the New Testament here. As there will probably be many Pauline letters, I created a category Category:Pauline epistles, as a subcategory of Books of the New Testament. Our proposed guideline on Categorization says that an article should not be in a category, and a subcategory of that (Example 1 of the Guideline). For this reason I removed Books of the New Testament, when I added Pauline epistles.

All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinners in the hand of an Angry God[change source]

Hello again,

I noted that for th article, you added categories Category:Christianity, as well as Category:Sermons, an Category:Speeches; Category:Christianity is far too broad, so I changed to Category:Puritanism (but, as always such categories are up for discussion); Currenlty I do not think we have enough articles for Category:Sermons, but we might have enough for Category:Speeches (A sermon is a speech after all); the only problm is to find a Category we can put Speeches in? (The two other articles I think qualify are I Have a Dream, and Sermon on the Mount; though with sermon on the mount it is unclear if the speech was really held or if it simply is writedown of ideas).

All the best --Eptalon (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could keep Category:Sermons in the article so that once more sermons are added (which will probably happen) there will be a category. I'm not sure where, but I know that I have read somewhere here on Simple that it is okay to have a red category until there are enough articles to populate it. As far as Sermon on the Mount goes, it was definitely a sermon (and, as you said, that makes it a speech as well). --Andrew from NC (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(What I actually did is comment out the category Sermons); As you have probably seen, I have come up with a way to do a category Speeches; On a more funamental level, what is the difference between a sermon, and a speech? - Except that the sermon is given by some kind of clergy? - Until we do not have at least three articles that we can clearly classify as Sermons, there is no need for such a category. Sermons clearly goes under speeches. Which means that two of the three entries there currently will change - making the current speeches category obsolete. Once we have more speeches, we can think about subdividing them. --Eptalon (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as to the Sermon on the mount, some people think it might come form earlier sources; some passages can also be found in the en:Gospel of Thomas, a text discovered in 1945. Some scholars think there is indeed a (lost) source text (usually called en:Q document) Matthew and Luke are based on (except for Mark). In that case this could be a poltical text (aimed at converting more peope to the new belief, rather than an actual speech Jesus gave); see also en:Synoptic_Problem for a discussion of these relationhips. --Eptalon (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:[change source]

I joined your WikiProject Christianity project! Hoping to help out in anyway, thanks for putting it on the Wikipedia talk page. Talk to you soon, AmericanEagle 02:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining WikiProject Christianity! I was wondering if anyone would even see the message I put on the English Wikipedia and I'm glad you did. I don't have time to sign on every day, but if you ever want to contact me then I will certainly respond when I do sign on. I hope you like it here on Simple! --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've already created some articles and largely edited others [1], I find this funner than the Big Wikipedia because there are more things to do/create. Blessings, AmericanEagle 05:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Good-Night![reply]

WP:PW[change source]

Well, you started the Christianity project, I started the Prowrestling project...I'm not a wrestler nor is any of my family but it is still part of my blood!!!--  † ChristianMan16  08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[change source]

I'm not going to even touch the point that his "vote count" is an actual legitimate vote that we have a set policy for. We do not use consensus to mean a majority. We use the definition of consensus of "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole." This group will never reach a single opinion or position on this matter. If there were a couple of hold outs that's one thing, but there are quite a few. Not everyone has given a position either. You don't see my name on the "vote" for one thing. I'm not "voting" because it hasn't been agreed that we are going to have a vote in the first place. That's InkPen's creation. I'd be in the oppose group at any rate. -  EchoBravo  contribs  13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring your attention to a couple of replies I've made to you on other pages: here and here. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to briefly reply to your question to me on Benniguy's talk page. Perhaps I should have said the voting was really only to get a clearer picture of where members of the community stand on the issue, not is. I'm not ignoring anything, I simply think it's gone on long enough. It's been going on for a long time with no consensus, so I am simply suggesting we bring it to a close. I hope that helps you understand. · Tygrrr... 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quickest (and not to mention fairest) way to bring it to a close would be to give him one last chance. --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[change source]

For alerting me of that post! :) SwirlBoy39 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for reconsidering! --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article[change source]

I've made articles for several of the books of the Bible, but the one I just made took me so long! It is called the Book of Ruth, I thought it looked pretty good too. Anyway, I have been working a lot for the Wikiproject Christianity, God Bless You! AmericanEagle 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Book of Ruth looked good. Many articles around here are lacking when it comes to pictures, so they really added a lot to the article. I also found it interesting because I just read Ruth a few nights ago so it was fresh in my mind. Great job creating the articles. You've definably got me beat. I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia so I'm glad someone is working on the Christianity related stuff! --Andrew from NC (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[change source]

You have been blocked as it says in Wikipedia's blocking policy for 1 day for breaking the policy against personal attacks (calling people pornographers), despite several warnings. If you do not agree with this block, please reply on your talk page by adding {{unblock|reason}}, replacing reason with why you think the block is wrong, or send an e-mail to an active administrator in this list.--Eptalon (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Interesting. It seems as if you are going out of your way to prove to everyone just how incapable of logical thought you are. And you are doing a good job of it too. Of course this might be considered another personal attack... --Andrew from NC (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks[change source]

If you are still angry about the incident at Simple Talk, please note that Wikipedia cannot cater to the censorship demands of everyone. We are help to write an encyclopedia so that others can learn, not to censor content. Anyway, the photos are all part of "the sum of all human knowledge", there is no good reason to take them down. If you do not agree with this, please leave. Thank you. Chenzw  Talk  11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't seem to have read it on Simple talk: Look, here's the bottom line: Wikipedia's not censored. Tasteful, educational pictures are chosen for articles wherever possible. You act like we've got a picture of a wet t-shirt contest on the breast page instead of a black-and-white diagram and a painting of a mother breast-feeding. If that's too wild, racy or shocking for you, I believe that sounds like a personal issue and is far from a compelling argument to change a long-standing valued policy of Wikipedia. Your options boil down to two: 1. accept that we're not censored and that we do our best to make sure images in articles have an illustrative, educational purpose and aren't just be there to shock or 2. leave. It's as simple as that. · Tygrrr... 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am certainly not going to just accept the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. But I will let it go for now because I am clearly in the minority. If I run across a conversation about censorship again I will probably chime in there. I do not and will not take back what I said. I also will not leave Wikipedia for fear that the Christianity articles be left all alone in the hands of atheists, but for now I will stop contesting your precious rules. And, for the record, you will never gather "the sum of all human knowledge." Those who think that they will are just setting themselves up for disappointment. Thank you and have a nice day (or on this side of the world, night). --Andrew from NC (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the comments above. End of story. Though I agree with most of what you said, you can't say it...here 'sigh'. This, as I have found out, is not a Christian site. So we have to live in harmony, while editing. But to the people above, I didn't think it was a personal attack, he was just stating that only people who want those kinds of things on here, aren't fighting it. Hence the word: ____________. Good point that if you left wikipedia, Christian related articles would be left to people who no nothing about it (atheists). I would still work on them though. God Bless You, AmericanEagle 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Courtship[change source]

I read the last comment about ChristianMan16's story, I thought: Only Andrew from NC could have said that. My elder sister just officially started "Biblical courtship" last night! Great timing! That was so true about "Why would she want to break up with him if she was going through a hard time? If there was really any love in the relationship they both would have realized that he needed to be there for her. And the boy would not have run away from home if he really trusted in God to make the situation right". So True. God Bless, AmericanEagle 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's nice to see that a few folks around here agree with me. Hope everything works out for your sister! --Andrew from NC (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Graham[change source]

Hello Andrew from NC , I just proposed this for a "Good" article. Can you help it become better and then vote on it with me when it's time. Thanks a million, AmericanEagle 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Graham[change source]

Please vote in this Wikipedia:Proposed good articles#Voting section for Billy Graham. Thanks, AmericanEagle 04:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine[change source]

It was a bust anyway. I am going to be working on it for awhile then relist it. But it took it off after one day, because I saw their point. But when I relist it, you'll have a week to vote on it. Thanks, AmericanEagle 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar![change source]

The Special Barnstar
For first getting me started on Simple, I award you this Barnstar! AmericanEagle 21:39, 8 May, 2008
Wow, I've never gotten one of these before. Thanks! --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...[change source]

Are you on? Wow, this is cool. Been a while. :) Cheers -- America †alk 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went on an editing kick this morning. I'm not sure if I will stick around or not. But I'm here for now. --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I read about your sister on Simple Talk. Congratulations!
Oh yes, you had congratulated them on their courtship a few months ago. It's so much fun. They only met each other in late December, so it was a rather quick meet-friendship-courtship-engagement-marriage this August. Since we know one another well, do you think you could review me? Yay for Charles Spurgeon, I think that it's rather good. Do you like my user page? That took a while to design. Sorry for all the questions. Cheers -- America †alk 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to review you when I have a bit more time (I don't want to rip you off by only spending the minute or two I have now). Perhaps I can do it tonight. I like your user page. I've never spent much time on mine since I don't stick around for more than a week or two at a time. Maybe I will improve it some day. As for Charles Spurgeon, I hope he makes it as a good article. I would hope for featured, but somehow I don't think our current admins would go for it. Anyway, I've enjoyed my stint here at Simple. Perhaps I'll be back tonight or tomorrow. --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. It has 13 Support votes and no opposes. I can promote it myself, the admins don't have complete control over it, plus most of them a quite kind and will go by our policy. Glad to see you back (or at least in part), you were the first person here I ever liked editing with. You don't have to review me now, it's up to you. :) Cheers -- America †alk 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Went on another editing kick, eh? lol :) -- America †alk 05:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I went on another kick. It was the fourth of July so I didn't have too much to do. I don't like articles without pictures so I worked on transferring several pictures over to Commons. Congratulations on Charles Spurgeon! It is a really good article by any standard, but it is especially good when you consider that 99% of the articles here are mere stubs. Well, it's nearly two in the morning where I'm at, so I'm outta here! --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1:50 here. I've got only a few moments left. Night -- America †alk 05:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been admiring that snippet. I like the article very much. Most of the thanks, however, should go to some random editors who also worked very hard on it. Cheers -- America †alk 05:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship[change source]

Linking categories[change source]

Ohai, nice to meet you. :) Actually, you can link categories. ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's how you do it. I just learned something new. Thanks! --Andrew from NC (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or just use the {{Cat}} template. -- Creol(talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message[change source]

Hi. Thanks for this message[2]. Perhaps you have assumed I am a new Wikipedian (on SEW yes, otherwise no). I know my edit summary may have prompted you to think that I was vandalising. but trust me, that edit was seriously lousy. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you use vulgar language in your edit summary it leads other editors to believe you have a conflict of interest. If you were just correcting a mistake you ran across you probably would not have felt so strongly as to use the edit summary you did. If you want to be taken seriously, you should not act childish. --Andrew from NC (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the comment may seem vulgar. But that edit wasn't a mistake . It was a pointed attack on my country. Not just that , it was absolute nonsense. I am a Konkani and have never heard of KonkaniLand before this edit. Indian-occupied Konkaniland????? lol. No one has complained in 47 years, why should some Pakistani have a problem. If you were me you would have probably felt the same way I did. Of course you probaly may not have used the word I did. And BTW The english wikipedia too uses the word [3]--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not deny that the edit was legitimate. Not being an expert in Indian affairs, I had no way of knowing if the information was correct. I based my decision to revert (and yes, I did put a good bit of thought into it) on the fact that you used language typical of an upset vandal. So, as I have already said, don't use profanities and your legitimate edits are very unlikely to be reverted by other well-meaning people. And, just for the record, just because the English Wikipedia does something makes it neither right nor appropriate. --Andrew from NC (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For one, you do not need to post a message everytime on my talk page stating that you have replied to my message. I have put your talk page on watch. Point taken, but I hope you see my point too, that it is not always possible to keep one's cool. It has been quite a few days since I saw that edit. I was sorting out some SUL issues so I did not revert it immediately. Besides you havent seen some of this anon chaps edit's. Any Indian is bound to be riled by some of the edits he/she has made. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to keep your cool if you try hard enough. But I realize people make mistakes. I let you know when I replied because I didn't know if you were watching my page or not. Some people do not watch my page because they expect me to reply on their page. But I like to keep the entire conversation in one place for easier future reference, so I let you know. --Andrew from NC (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know I always keep telling my friends that people who go about flaunting how holy they are are probably the biggest sinners around. Sorry, I tried hard but my weak soul couldn't resist the temptation to post this! --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not flaunting about how holy I am. I confess that I am a sinner. I simply explained why I reverted your edit. As I said a month ago, your edit may have been valid. But when you use profanity in your edit summary it leads people to think that you are up to no good. Why bring this up a month later? --Andrew from NC (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning[change source]

I see that you have just reverted and warned User:Deepak D'Souza for removing content from Konkani language‎. I think you reverted him as you saw bul**** in his edit summary. I have reverted you as his revert seems to be right; the IP had a strong POV while editing the article. Chenzw  Talk  09:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See ya[change source]

It's sad to see you go. Cassandra talk 01:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. You will be missed.--TBC 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good bye, my friend. :) — AE (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for vandalizing using multiple socks[change source]

You have been blocked as it says in Wikipedia's blocking policy for 1 week for breaking the policy against vandalism and sockpuppettry. If you do not agree with this block, please reply on your talk page by adding {{unblock|reason}}, replacing reason with why you think the block is wrong, or send an e-mail to an active administrator in this list. -- Creol(talk) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[change source]

Since I cannot edit this conversation on the Admin Noticeboard, I will post a response here.

First off, I admit that I was wrong. Vandalizing Wikipedia was a very immature thing to do. And since I have been very open about my faith, my stupidity has made Christianity in general look bad. I do not deny that I was wrong. However, American Eagle and Christian Man had nothing to do with this. Lay off of them.

As you have seen on my user page, I had planned to leave Wikipedia. I would like to have the option of coming back someday, but if you wish to block me indefinitely, that's your right. It would be hypocritical, seeing as other users (i.e. Ionas & Mind the Gap) voice their strong opinions, but I realize I have blown it.

Wikipedia is a very anti-Christian site. It baffles me that a Christian such as American Eagle ever became an admin here. But just because Wikipedia is bad does not give me the right to vandalize it, just like I do not have the right to blow up abortion clinics just because they are filled with murderers. I was wrong and, if unblocked, I do not intend to further vandalize the site.

For my sake, I would like to point out that I confessed to my wrongdoing on Simple Talk. Seeing as I use a shared IP account, I doubt you would have been able to trace the vandalism back to me had I not clued you in. So, with that being said, do with me as you will.

--Andrew from NC (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have the option to come back. Your block lasts until 08:16, August 30, 2008, then you are free to come back and edit. Having a strong opinion on something is not wrong, and you can edit whatever pages you want. Opinions don't keep you from editing here, look at Gwib, all he cares about is the human anatomy (wink)! He isn't blocked for that, The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't blocked for being an atheist, nor am I block (or kept from adminship) because I hold strong Christian and moral beliefs. You were blocked for vandalism and sock-puppetry, and (you agree) rightfully so. Andrew from NC, you posted the first link I ever saw for Simple English Wikipedia and you were my favorite user when I first started. You did wrong today, you should not have done so and deserve the block. But, once your block is over I welcome you to help out here. Cheers — AE (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad you feel that way. Hopefully those pushing for an indef ban will as well. And as far as the human anatomy (return wink) and atheism go, those are very good reasons to be blocked. But like I said, most folks around here don’t get it. By the way, I’m glad I was your favorite user. Apparently having friends makes us a “group of cronies.” Go figure that one out! --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that your friendship makes you a group of cronies. I said socializing as friends on Wikipedia and using WP to converse as friends does not help the encyclopedia. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It creates community, which in turn helps the encyclopedia. --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how collaboration on similar articles creates and helps an encyclopedia, but sometimes it has a negative effect as far as cases go. When one party is in a position of power and trust, that trust can be abused and can (and is) lead(ing) to favoritism.
I also believe, due to his similarities in beliefs and (e-)friendship with AFNC, that AE should not conduct administrative actions regarding this case. It constitutes a conflict of interest in the case, and I don't consider you very "unbiased" in this case. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Honestly, I don't see how being that way should be reason to block. I mean, I full dislike their beliefs, they are so wrong, but they're contributing here, being good users and aren't shoving what they think downs the rest of our throats. As I don't do to them with Christianity. I work on Christianity-related articles often, and fully believe my way, but I AGF and work with these users anyway (and enjoy it). Ionas; I'm still waiting on your "evidence." Anyways, I've got to go to bed and will be gone at church all day. Remember guys, WP:AGF and I'll expect that full report when I come back. Cheers all! — AE (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work on some articles now, I'll compile when I have time. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To AE: I have to disagree with you here. I have been blocked in the past for calling some users pornographers (which you said you agreed with). That would be a very good example of them shoving their beliefs down my throat. It is one thing to be accepting of their wrong beliefs, but quite another to defend them. --Andrew from NC (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew from NC, based on how you reacted on one of the censorship discussion (see the admin noticeboard for the link), I pointed out since you have strong political views you may also have strong views in religious matters. Simple Engish Wikipedia is not Anti-Christian, it is an Encyclopedia - It tries to show all options. If I am informed correctly, Islam is the fastest-growing religion, in a few years there will be more Muslims than Christians. Also, in the over 2000 years of Christianity, it is hard to speak of One Holy and Apostolic Church - The Copts in Egypt (Oriental Otrthodox) and the Assyrian Church of the East are also Christians, yet these two (and several others) resulted from a split in the Church because they did not agree with certain things. In England, and the US, Protestant branches are stronger than the Catholics - The Protestants split from the Catholics because of disagreement; because of what Jan Hus, Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Jean Calvin (and others) did.

The Second Vatican Council saw the creation of Dignitatis Humanae by Paul VI (English Version). This is a tool for something called Ecumenism; it allows different groups of people with different faiths to work together; There are many points of disagreement between Christian groups, as well as between Christian groups and Islamic and Jewish ones. This document says that instead of quarreling over the differences forever, the common points can be used as a basis for talk and for working together.

This can also be applied here. You may not believe Evolution is a good idea, and think that the ideas of Creationism or Intelligent Design serve you better - thats your right. I (and probably several others in the community) however ask you to acknowledge that other people may have different views - The idea of Evolution makes a great number of them happy (Even the Roman Catholic Church subscribes to it now; Pope Pius XII accepted evolutionary research in his encyclical Humani Generis; mentioned in the Evolution VGA).

Creating a large number of sockpuppets to vandalise the articles you do not agree with cannot be excused - Creol was right in blocking you, I would have done the same. Only you are responsible for your actions. Others may have similar views to yours, but they cannot be made responsible for what you did, so please stop accusing them (and stop telling us that they should be punished for things they did not do).

To summarise: Simple English Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. It tries to present the options, if possible without judgment. In this it is probably as anti-Christian, as it is anti-Islamic, anti-Buddhist (etc). It is made by volunteers. The only thing in common between these is their desire to create a free encyclopedia. As long as you can subscribe to the idea that other people may have different views, you are again welcome to constructively contribute here, once your block time runs out next Saturday.--Eptalon (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I didn't deserve the block. I will say again: I was wrong in creating sockpuppets and I was wrong in vandalizing. But I am not wrong for believing in the one and only truth: The Word of God. I don't care if Wikipedia is anti-Islamic, anti-Buddhist, or anti-Evolution. It should be. But the fact that it is anti-Christian is a very big deal. It is wrong. But as I said, it did not give me the right to vandalize. I am not asking, nor will I ask anytime over the next week, for my block to be lifted prematurely. I hope that we can at least agree on that one point. I have said what I have to say. I don't plan on wasting any more of this Sabbath Day talking to people on Wikipedia. I shall be back tomorrow. --Andrew from NC (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest: What is it that makes you believe that Simple English Wikipedia is anti-Christian?--Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why can it be anti-Buddhism etc and not anti Christian? Just because you are Christian? SwirlBoy39 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because like all zealots, he thinks his religion is right and all the others are wrong, so it's OK to be biased in favor of the "right" stuff. Dtobias (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could make him do a penance of helping me with some Satanism articles to learn about WP:NPOV. :) Sticky Parkin (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about punishment, guys - He was blocked solely to portect WP. - By the way, Satanists are a very diverse crowd; unlike Christianity, there is no common belief behind different Satanist movements. --Eptalon (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My user page was vandalized by Somewhere Out There, probably a sockpuppet, apparently for simply being a member of WikiProject Sex and Sexuality. I think Andrew from NC should explain why he feels so strongly about the whole WikiProject (as opposed, perhaps, to specific articles). So far I've mostly been working to improve articles relating to the anatomy and physiology of the male reproductive system. I assume he doesn't take the position that the biological systems of Christians work differently from those of other men? — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 08:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see little redeemable qualities in this user. I doubt that he will, at any point, stop disrespecting other users who don't bow to Christianity. We have people knowledgeable in Christianity and many other religions, we don't need someone like you who insults people, vandalizes, and disrespects people for not agreeing with you. I don't care that Eagle appreciates your influence, he shouldn't be treating you nicely - if this were Wikipedia, you'd be block indefinitely for sockpuppetry, repeated vandalism of articles and user pages, and showing no indication that you'll ever be a positive member of the community who will work with anyone not your own doesn't make me think you're REALLY sorry, especially when you're making double talk statements like "I'm sorry, but" and then making disrespectful generalizations of those people you insulted, as if you reserve the right to violate policy because you follow a higher power. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Response[change source]

Sorry for the essay below, but that’s how much space it took to answer to my many accusers.

To Eptalon: You asked “What is it that makes you believe that Simple English Wikipedia is anti-Christian?” Wikipedia in general (not just Simple) is anti-Christian for several reasons, the biggest one being that most of the editors do not confess God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe and all that is in it. Anyone who doesn’t confess that is going to be unstable in all their ways. And that unstableness is manifested in almost every article on Wikipedia, including those on evolution, abortion, sex, marriage, homosexuality, and false religions. Wikipedia reeks of anti-Christian editors who think that the world is millions of years old, Charles Darwin was brilliant, Jesus was a freak, it’s okay for a woman to murder her unborn child, and the anus is a sexual organ.

See Eptalon's response below.

To Truth’s Out There: The reproductive systems of Christian men do not function any differently than those of non-Christian men. But that doesn’t mean it is okay to put articles and images of that system on a website frequented by children. It’s not as if all those articles and images are strictly medical in nature. Many of them are pornographic and sick. As I said before, people who make arguments for putting such porn on the internet are pornographers. People who enjoy looking at such porn are sick.

Have you actually read the articles that I expanded from stubs, the titles of which are listed on my user page? Perhaps you should have before tarring me as a "pornographer". I've actually taken pains to remove unnecessarily salacious images from the tops of articles, replacing them with milder images. Where appropriate, I've used diagrams instead of photographs. However, I've not shied away from using suitable photographs where this illuminates the text. Other encyclopedias and books, including those written for children and teenagers to teach them about sex and body changes, do the same. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at them, though I can't say I enjoyed it. I saw inappropriate pictures of sexual organs and even a drawing of two people having sex. This is not educational material. People need to wait until they're married to see a lot of that stuff, and then they ought to only see it on their spouse. --Andrew from NC (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to have to disagree as to what is inappropriate. The drawing of two people having sex could not be any less objectionable. It does not show any sexual organs at all. And the other articles are primarily about biological processes. Some diagrams and images are appropriate to help illuminate the text, which may otherwise be difficult to grasp. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 18:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, hint - people can go ELSEWHERE on the internet and get very lude images and videos of peoplehaving sex. A drawing of two people have any sex is education through-and-through because it teaches people about anatomy. It's educational material by the fact that its sole purpose is for education. To say that it does not educate people on sex because you don't like it doesn't make it not educational. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people can get porn elsewhere on the internet does not excuse having it on this site. Saying that everyone else is doing it is not a very good argument. --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To A Link to the Past: I have not insulted people for not agreeing with me. I have pointed out that many of the arguments they are making are unbiblical. I am not “disrespecting other users who don't bow to Christianity.” I have done my best to point out the anti-Christian qualities of Wikipedia as respectfully as I can. But sometimes you just have to say hard things, knowing that the people you are speaking to might hate you for it.

Accused people of being pornographers, you have flat out accused people of being anti-Christian, and you have vandalized peoples' user pages. The fact of the matter is that if you had the power, you would probably eliminate anyone who wasn't Christian, and THAT is the reason why you're a person to be hated. I love plenty of good Christian people, but I show nothing but disdain for abortion clinic bombers like you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my apology above, it would be very wrong for me to go bomb an abortion clinic. Just because someone is wrong does not give me the right to kill them. I would not kill someone who wasn’t Christian because that would be murder. I have apologized for vandalizing user pages. It was wrong for me to edit a user page that did not belong to me. I have already stated that I will not do it again.
Your comment shows just how hypocritical you are. You get mad at me for accusing users of being pornographers and then you accuse me of being an abortion clinic bomber. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here.--Andrew from NC (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You claim you never insulted anyone, so I claim that too. If calling people pornographers isn't an insult, then I reserve the right to respond to that, and I gave a most appropriate response. And as far as I am concerned, your views of Christianity are twisted and wicked. Too bad there is not "Thou shalt not be an ass" commandment, that would've made this world a whole lot better. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To SwirlBoy39: Christianity is not right because I say so. It is right because God said so. Wikipedia should be against non-Christian religions because they are wrong, not because I said so.

Wikipedia SHOULDN'T be against anything because it's an unbiased entity presenting unbiased POVs. Would you kill someone who is on the streets praising Hinduism because God says that their religion is wrong? If not, Wikipedia should not be against their religion for those same, ignorant reasons. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not kill someone because their religion was wrong. I have never made any indication that I wanted to kill anyone. Having a logical conversation and killing people are two completely different topics. --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Dtobias: It is interesting how non-Christians such as yourself think that they are entitled to make hateful comments against Christians and then throw a fit when a Christian points out that they are wrong.

I'm entitled to make hateful comments against you because I come from a Christian family. You're a terrible Christian, and Jesus probably thinks so too.
If that was meant to be sarcasm, you completely missed the point. If that was not sarcasm, you completely missed the point anyway. --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Ionas: I am looking forward to seeing your “evidence” just as much as American Eagle is.

As I said before, I should not have vandalized Wikipedia because of its anti-Christian content. I was wrong in doing that. I have confessed my wrongdoing time and time again. But just because I was wrong in one thing does not make me wrong in everything. --Andrew from NC (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not anti-Christian, it's merely not PRO-Christian, and that's all you really care about. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eptalon's Response[change source]

Have you actually read what I wrote above?
  • Evolution does not contradict the Christian Faith, see Encyclical Humani Generis; see the Evolution article for the later confirmation by Pope John Paul II; I will also just point to my contribution above as to working together with people of different faiths/opinions (I found out it works surprisingly well..)
  • I am not Catholic (I am a Reformed Calvinist) and I believe the Pope to be anti-Christian. I should clarify that I think macro-evolution is wrong. Micro-evolution does not necessarily contradict the Bible. --Andrew from NC (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to my knowledge, there are still big questiond as to macro-evolution (the evolution of a species as a whole, rather than individuals being better adapted to the environment); in my opinion, it is therefore still early to judge whether it is wrong. As to the Pope - he's a learned Theologian; all he does in the encyclical is show that Evolution does not contradict the Christian Faith, from a theologcal standpoint; whether you believe that what the Pope says is infallible (as per a Council in the Mid-1800s) is irrelevant to the question - look at it as a "theological argument to say that Evolution does not contradict the Christian Faith".
  • Darwin was a deeply religious man
  • People need to know how sex works, before any "ethical standards" can be applied - we are trying to tell them. The pictures used in the respective articles show the respective parts of the anatomy - they are not pornographic.
  • Speaking about sex is a taboo; many parents feel awkward speaking about sex to their children. These children therefore need a reliable, good source as a backup - Thats one of the aims of Gwibs Wikiproject.
  • I agree that most parents do a rotton job of educating their children in sexual matters. But it is still the parent's job. Wikipedia, or any other website for that matter, cannot take the place of a parent. The child would be better off knowing nothing of sex than getting the warped views that Wikipedia offers. --Andrew from NC (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you prefer a miserable mother and a child growing up in bad conditions (because the parents can hardly cope)? - For the first few months of pregnancy the "unborn child" is nothing more than a lump of cells; many such lumps die because there are problems with genes or other things - And if a miserable teen mother now decides that she won't be able to give the child the background she'd like to, and that lump of cell dies, you call this murder? - If condoms or other contraception is used, no child is born; however since condoms are bad, we'd rather see that the children (in Africa, eg.) starve, rather than using contraception?
  • Some pregnancies are the result of rape; sex with underage people (as despicable as it is) does happen; finding and punishing the offender is just one part of the story; guaranteeing the victim can have a normal life and not be traumatised is something else; In short, abortion can not always be wrong; there are certain cases where is the lesser of all evils.
  • It is sad that some women are raped, but someone cannot go murder a child just because something bad happend to them. It would be a challange for them to raise the child but they must do so anyway. Sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes life is hard. Welcome to the real world. --Andrew from NC (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to anal sex: If both partners agree that this can be pleasurable and engage in such practices why should they be condemned?
  • Should it then not be God who judges, rather than men?
  • Marriage is a contract between two people (to decide on heritage, and such things). The idea that these two people have to be of opposite sex is antiquated.
  • As to Jesus, most of his deeds were only written up by his followers. The Romans only list "bookkeeping info" (We crucified that many people that day, they were named ..., they were crucified because ...); And yes, there were many other similar movements at that time.
  • You only get one source;there is no way to factually cross-check the info
Just so you know, I also come from a Christian background, yet I have no troubles contributing here. --Eptalon (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eastern Orthodox Church allows married priests (but not bishops), so do many Protestant chucrches. - If I believe that married priests are ok I do not have much of a Christian background, because unfortunately my parents picked the wrong Christian movement? --Eptalon (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bible never tells us that pastors cannot marry. And it even goes so far as to require a deacon to be married (See 1 Timothy 3:12). The Catholic ordinance stating that a priest cannot marry is a doctrine of man, not of God. We are not to follow a particular Christian movement, we are to follow the Word of God. I attend a Reformed Church because they adhere to His Word better than any other church I have attended in the past. But I would leave the church if they strayed away from God's Word. It's not about picking the right movement and sticking with it. It's about sticking with the Bible. --Andrew from NC (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question[change source]

Can you edit in a such a way that your edits are not from the point of view of a Christian? -- Creol(talk) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But shouldn’t the Christianity articles be edited by someone knowledgeable in Christianity? Most of the problems other editors have had with me have been on talk pages (where some amount of POV is allowed), not in article space. --Andrew from NC (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised, it appears to me that you consider yourself "knowledgeable in Christianity" however it's apparent that you are an incredibly conservative Christian. I'm sure by now you're aware of homosexual and female priests etc. Your "knowledge" extends as far as your open-mindedness. This Wikipedia is designed to provide a balance view on everything, not a bigoted view on one thing only. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.[change source]

I do not care about the user's Christian views, especially considering I'm a non-practicing Christian. To be called "anti-Christian" is offensive, as many of my friends and relatives are devout Christians, but praise Jesus they're not ignorant like you. This is an encyclopaedia, not a bible-thumping seminar. Wikipedia is NOT designed to teach people about Christianity, it's about teaching people about life, the universe, and everything. It is, indeed, the JOB of an encyclopaedia to teach people about anatomy. Parents may use diagrams to explain anatomy to their sons or daughters, so they may use Wikipedia articles on anatomy. But children NEED to learn about sex, and if a parent doesn't do it, it's at least enough to know that there exists resources to teach people what needs to be learned - safe sex, the anatomy of the opposite gender, etc. If the images contained in the articles were of an attractive woman with 42DD breasts or a man masturbating, you would have a point in saying that this is too excessive for an educational article. But there's not - there are pictures of breasts in a non-pornographic context, and pictures of a penis in a non-pornographic context.

In spite of your claims of having not insulted anyone, the way you're calling people "pornographers" and that whole comment about other religions. The fact of the matter is that you don't want this Wikipedia to not be ANTI-Christian, you WANT it to be PRO-Christian and anti-everything else, which invalidates any claim of antagonism. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you learned the art logical discussion, but you didn't learn it very well. Yes, I do want Wikipedia to be pro-Christian. I’m glad you’ve picked up on that, seeing as that is what I have been arguing for since I arrived here. Saying that that “invalidates any claim of antagonism” is completely illogical. Being anti-God is completely illogical. Teaching about "safe sex" is completely illogical. Being a Christian is not illogical.
By the way, there is no such thing as a “non-practicing Christian.” Faith without works is dead (James 2:20). Sorry if I insulted you by “thumping” my Bible again.--Andrew from NC (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't need someone as backwards as you to tell me about my learning.
  2. No, you've been whining about anti-Christianity, not lack of pro-Christianity.
  3. And why the Hell are you talking about anti-God to me? At what point am I anti-God, because I don't think that everyone who doesn't praise him is an asshat?
  4. And yeah, I guess letting teenagers, who WILL go have sex, know about being safe, is silly. We should get everyone pregnant and/or sick with AIDS and HIV! I mean, after all, there's nothing more awesome for Jesus than someone dying from a sexual disease.
  5. No one's attacking you for your religion, everyone's attacking you for making your religion look like the laughing stock of religion. Your religion is being attacked by you for associating yourself with it, I have never once attacked Christianity, only you for tarnishing it.
  6. Uh, okay? So I need to go every Sunday and read my Bible to be a Christian? Huh, I guess having the basic beliefs in Christianity just isn't good enough, I guess I have to stop having my Friday ritual of eating meat while having gay sex, I'm sure that'll be enough, won't it? Not good enough that I believe Jesus died to repent for our sins, gotta thump that good ol' Old Testament. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Teaching about "safe sex" is completely illogical. Being a Christian is not illogical." - this sums everything up to me. I'm glad you've summarised it so succinctly for me so there's no shadow of doubt that I should ignore absolutely everything you have to say. Once again I'm shocked and dismayed by a so-called "Christian" attitude. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Final Responses[change source]

I do not want to cause this page to be re-protected, however, a conversation is a two way street. A Link to the Past communicated with me and I am responding to his communication. This conversation does not affect anyone who does not choose to be affected by it. That being said, here are my responses:

To A Link to the Past[change source]

Here are my numbered responses to your numbered questions:

  1. Calling me backwards is just as insulting as me telling you about your learning.
  2. I have not been whining. I have spoken when spoken to, which has been a lot lately.
  3. Someone who doesn’t praise God is, by definition, anti-God. I have never said anyone was an “asshat,” nor have I said that you should think anyone is.
  4. Saying that we should give teenagers condoms just because they will have sex is like saying we should give a murderer a gun just because he will murder someone. Instead of giving teenagers condoms, why don’t we teach them to not have sex? Not all teenagers have had sex. I haven’t, nor have a lot of teenagers I know.
  5. You have attacked Christianity. You just did by implying that it is okay for someone to be anti-God.
  6. If we don’t have works than we don’t have faith. That is the point James was making when he wrote it nearly 2000 years ago. If you believe that it is okay to have gay sex instead of worshipping God than that is very non-Christian.

To Everyone[change source]

I would like to point out that there are some users who are being very uncivil. If I was blocked for calling users “pornographers” then A Link to the Past should be blocked for calling me an “abortion clinic bomber” and “an ass.”

I am willing to let all of this go. If you quit talking to me, I will quit talking to you. If you keep talking to me, I will keep talking to you. It’s that simple. I just want to wait out my block and then contribute to Wikipedia on occasion. So if you don’t want to hear from me, don’t talk to me.

I know that there are some users who are pushing for an indefinite ban on my account. I have been blocked for one week because of vandalism, and I agree that the block is fair. But there is no need to block me indefinably. Other than my vandalism, I have not pushed my point of view on article pages, only on my talk page. That is not against any Wikipedia policy that I am aware of. --Andrew from NC (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I get blocked, I would gladly accept it, because you warranted the claim in the very first place. All you've done is apologize and then insult everyone again by using backwards double talk. "I'm sorry that I was vandalizing, I'll just leave your Hellish Wikipedia alone and watch you burn for it" is essentially what you're saying. If you can't be a contributing member to this Wikipedia without alienating everyone else, you may as well leave. Your hate speech is no better than a Klan member posting his opinions that black people shouldn't be on Wikipedia, as it distracts them from cotton picking. He would be indefinitely banned for such shit, and you should be banned for openly creating a negative atmosphere to non-Christians. If non-Christians are wrong, it doesn't effing matter, because THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA. Your attempts at vandalism serve to negate the SOLE purpose of the encyclopaedia, and by that fact, any attempt at censorship or attempt at making Wikipedia pro-ANYTHING is bad. Images that exist for educational purposes are not porn. Do you also think that doctors are perverts because they see nakedness on occasion? Or how about video taping a birth? Sure, that may be a miracle of life, but vagina's are Satan's tool, apparently.
And to say that not following the Bible word for word is being non-Christian is being... well, non-sane. The Bible has been retranslated like 15 or 16 times, how can you attest that it's still accurate to the original Bible? Maybe the original Bible says that homosexuality is okay, evolution is real, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago? And regardless of all that, I'm guessing you got the whole "homosexuality" BS from the Old Testament, like most people do. Do you also take that a woman has no right to divorce a man from that? Or that eating meat on a Friday is a damnable sin? Or that slavery is okay? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this isn’t the end of it after all. I never said that I wanted to watch you burn for anything. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I used to be against Christianity myself. I am capable for having compassion for non-Christians. By the grace of God I was converted to Christianity and I hope that someday you might be as well. It greatly saddens me to see you and others taking my words out of context. I didn’t write the Bible, God did. So when you make arguments against me because of the Bible, you are making arguments against God. Why don’t you take it up with Him?
The original Bible did not say that homosexuality was okay. The Bible has been preserved by the Hand of God. Why would He give man his Word and then let it be perverted by man? The King James Version of the Bible is His infallible Word. And other versions (such as New King James, NIV, etc.) come very close to infallible. Non of them tell us that homosexuality is okay. And if you had read my comments above, you would find that homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. See 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:27 for New Testament references. --Andrew from NC (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, as to whether you should be permitted to continue editing Wikipedia after the expiry of the current ban, the issue for me is not your personal views. I am more interested in whether you feel you can edit articles fairly. I differ from Creol in that I don't think it's necessary for you to avoid editing articles from the point of view of a Christian. Certain articles may benefit in having some mention of Christian views in them. However, I think you need to assure the Wikipedia community that you will be respectful of other views that are expressed. Where controversial matters are concerned, the goal of Wikipedia is to try its best to summarize the major positions on the matter. At the end of the day it is for the reader to decide which views are most convincing. Therefore, it is not acceptable for you or me or anyone else to slant articles to suit our or their own opinions. And if you feel that, say, a particular image used in an article is "unacceptable" or a particular piece of information is unjustified, you may raise your concern on the article's talk page so that the matter can be discussed and consensus reached on the issue. It goes without saying that going around vandalizing articles or user pages is absolutely unacceptable, not to mention puerile. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 05:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that vandalizing articles and user pages is not the way to go. I do not plan on doing it again. Other than my one vandalism spree, all of my beliefs have remained on talk pages. Thank you for seeing reason. --Andrew from NC (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Archive This is an archive. Do not edit this page! If you want to talk to me, click here. That would make more sense.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Kelly/Archive_1&oldid=8904613"