2003

2003.03

User:Danny User:Tannin User:Notheruser

Stop deleting my text!!!

How can you be so rude and stupid?!
Stop your hostile stupid activity against me!

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 02:03 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Stop your hostile activity against Holy Prophet Albert Jacher!

Please blatherate against me, too. I'm feeling left out. 66.167.135.162 02:30 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Albert, whether you feel your edits have been changed fairly or unfairly you are going to make few friends or find much sympathy by vandalising pages. I suggest you stop this. Try to get along with people, discuss with them the reasons that they are deleting your work. Don't vandalise pages. Thanks - Ams80 03:01 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hello Ams!

I think you are wrong. I am just doing what other people do here.

I wrote new articles about me and my religion and they just deleted it! There were no discussion, no questions, no answers...
They just deleted my work and treated me as an idiot and not as the creator of a new religion. I do not care whether they assume i am a new prophet from god. But this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, so a magazine for information. And those who keep deleting my work, spoil the whole ideal of free and open web encyclopedia.

I do not know how to delete a whole article, but if they can just delete someone else's work, you or i can open their articles and delete their work, just because it is about some other stupid religion that they believe in...

I came here with quite other hopes and intentions.
But experienced editors of this encyclopedia showed me just this way of behavior.

Thank you very much because you are the only person to react somehow positively. Thank you for editing my text, but now there is nothing to read, because the hostile editors deleted all of my articles including that edited by you...

I am very surprised by their arrogance and hate.

If no one helps me here agaist them, i will not edit more. There is no sense in writing just for deletion...

If you could, please help me find a way how to appeal to some supervisor of them .

I send you many good wishes!

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 03:33 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hello again Albert, I think there probably is a place on Wikipedia for your religion, I don't really think that an article at Albertanism is unreasonable. However, here at Wikipedia we have a neutral point of view policy, generally information which people view as not being neutral will be deleted. Also, religion is a controversial topic, small new religions have a bad reputation and perhaps people act accordingly. Also I think a more friendly tone will help you, if you go and ask the people who deleted your entries why they did this in a friendly way then I am sure they will answer you. I don't think that your diatribe below is the way to get answers.

Happy editing, Andrew - Ams80 03:56 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hello Andrew!

I understand your point of view and understand you well. For me Muhammad is not a prophet from God and Yahu'shuah is not a son of God as they 'self-proclaimed'... Does that mean that we should delete all information about those men from wikipedia?!

You suggest me to ask Danny why he deleted my all and whole articles. But he does not expect any explanation. He wrote that he did it because i am "self proclaimed prophet" and "wacko" and so on...

So who is to proclaim a new prophet from God? A parliament? United Nations Org? As i know the history prophets always proclaimed themselves! Only a prophet can know whether one were chosen by God. It is not a stupid arrogant evil internet service editor who decides about Gods intentions and deeds!

I came here with my name "Albert Jacher" and the proclamation: "I am the Speaker of God" and my word is now against words of nicknames: Danny, Tannin, Notheuser...

Now choose whom you prefer to trust and who will edit information for the rest of the planets population...

The world is so weird, that people prefer to trust anonymous evildoers than a sincere righteous man.

Good luck!

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 04:36 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

PS. By the way... What was not "neutral" in "Albert Jacher was born in..." or "Albertanism was anounced in year..."?

User:Danny User:Tannin User:Notheruser

Stop deleting my text!!!

How can you be so rude and stupid?!
Stop your hostile stupid activity against me!

Stop your stupid, hostile activity against Holy Prophet Albert Jacher!

Who are you to judge me whether i am the Chosen by God Holy Prophet or not?! ARE YOU GOD?!?!?!

I do not suppose i represent YOU!

So stop deleting my articles and my text modifications.

I assume that this encyclopedia is just for humans on planet Earth and not especially for Jews and Christians... If i am wrong about it tell me!

It is not my intention to edit jewish or christian or muslim texts.

But if this medium is intended to be a free medium and magazine of information, then leave me alone and let me inform humans on planet about wisdom unlike other religions did.

It this encylopedia is for arrogant Jews and Christians only then stop proclaiming this wikipedia as "free" because it is simply false statement.

I am not very much surprised that stupidity and evil rule the world, but i admit that meeting so much evil and stupidity right here in GNU wikipedia.org is a surprice for me.

I wish you much more good and wisdom! Xsalom Alejhem!

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 03:34 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
Albert Jacher, Speaker of God

Wikipedia is free to read but not free to write. Additions and alterations must be approved by general consensus. This is the simply the nature of the medium. If you don't like it, publish your material in a forum which lacks a review process, such as usenet or a self-published website. -- Tim Starling 03:51 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Tim!

Thank you for information. It is a weird habbit to "approve by general consensus" by deleting the text to be added...

Could you now discuss what was wrong in my texts about the Wisdom Religion that i published before? No, because they got deleted... How Wikipedia.org wants to approve deleted text?

And by the way... what is my role as a registered editor here in wikipedia? I know that i may not publish anything... so why was i registered here?! Only to read? Is that the wiki genereal idea?

I am still surprised, but i learned a bit more about intelligence of people...

I guess if i were jewish or christian there would be no problems with approving my religious beliefs and text.

Yes, there would be. On a daily basis extreme beliefs are removed from a wide variety of articles on Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It is not racism or discrimination, we just have a neutral point of view policy. I think that if you put a perfectly neutral point of view article (NPOV) at Albertanism, detailing what the religion believes, what it's origins are and where more information can be found, then no-one will try and delete it. Statements such as Albert Jacher is the Holy Prophet of God are likely to be deleted as they are not NPOV. Ams80

I strongly disagree. This opens the door for every made-up religion to start storming Wikipedia. We just go through the invasion from the Fifth World. -- Zoe

OK, I can agree about "Holy Prophet", but is that a satisfactory reason to delete all other text and articles?

Understand, that no one assumes that i am a prophet, because people do not use the Wisdom Religion yet. For people i am just an idiot or swindler, that is all that they can imagine now. Does it influence in any way the truth in my ideas?

I conclude that no matter if God chose me to be the new prophet for you, you want to approve my words and decide whether i teach as God wishes... So who is in fact speaker of God, you or me?...

Good wishes!

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 04:12 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC) Hi Albert, A couple of questions:

How adherents does your religion have?
How many ordained ministers?
In how many nations does it exist?
What are its primary teachings, goals?
Does it organise educational courses?
Are these required for membership of its priesthood?
What is the name of your website?
Has your faith received tax clearance and so is taxed as a charity, not a business internationally?
Is it a branch of the jewish faith? Islam? Christianity? If the latter, which branch of christianity does it most closely resemble?
Is it duly registered for full legal purposes?
Does it run any educational courses? What are their names? Where are held? What qualifications emerge?

Wikipedia is an encyclopædia and so we need to be careful about the information we carry. In the case of a small religion, verification of its authentity is a necessity, as I am sure you, as a founder of a faith will understand. We have to provide fair and balanced coverage of all validly existing faiths. We also have to be careful for 'vanity' religion, which like vanity publishing, is simply one person's do-it-your-own 'non-existent' religion, which you of course as someone interested in religion will understand and will be equally opposed to. Unfortunately unless we have independently verificable evidence to the existence and teachings of a faith we cannot carry it. So if you could give us details of the above, so we can verify the details with the appropriate authorities and sources.

Yours in faith, STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:31 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

None of that matters with this User goes into articles, deletes them and allows only his own work to be included there. -- Zoe

You make a good point. We could block him, or just revert everything he does, simply on the basis of his behaviour rather than content. The real risk behind the "made-up religion invasion" is not the creation of useless articles but the introduction of fanatical and badly behaved users. I would argue that an NPOV article on Albertanism is potentially useful (say, to sociologists), but that Albert Jacher and his kin have the potential to do serious damage to Wikipedia. -- Tim Starling 04:59 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Tim! And what is your opinion about the damages made regularly in wikipedia by the group: User:Danny User:Tannin User:Notheruser ? For several hours they kept deleting my articles and text thus bloking my work. Do you think they are fully entitled to be responsible Wikipedia editors? Please consider that! You are able to think before you act and what about them?

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 05:06 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Dear STÓD/ÉÍRE !

Thank you for your kind interest...

Yesterday i found Wikipedia in internet and i was so glad to find it and hopeful for interestinf colaboration. I registered and wrote my first articles about me, religion that i create, calendar... Those were only short informations, just the beginning of more detailed description.

I hope you would find many answers to your questions there.

You would read that i was chosen by God and i teach people on all the planet about what God wants from people now.

But very soon in the first hour my articles got entirely removed from Wikipedia according to arbitrary decisions of "those who always know better"... The reason was given "wacko, self proclaimed prophet".

So now there is no chance to inform you about my ideas and my situation, because i was primarily assessed as a dangerous swindler or idiot.

God chose me to come to you as God's messenger... you closed the door and offended me...

If you prefer 'established religions', registered and approved by your authorities and your polititians... it is your free choice.

I cannot force anyone into wisdom!

May God bless you all!

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 05:01 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I understand your situation. I'm sure that you also understand Wikipedia's. Wikipedia requires two important conditions be filled.

Independent verification of source material
NPOV - in other words, a neutral point of view.

The pages that were deleted were only deleted because those who deleted could find no independent evidence of your faith's existence. We can 'prove' the existence of the Roman Catholic Church, of the jewish faith, islam, the Jehovas Witnesses, etc not just through themselves but also independently and from their legal status as registered. But if we cannot so prove your existence, then we cannot include a reference to your faith. It is a rule applied universally. If you have registered accounts for a number of tax years for your church, formal charitable designation, educational establishments registered in your church's name, formal covenants, etc and a separately verifiable website then we can at least begin the process of accepting the legitimacy of your existence. But without that, we regrettably cannot.

Many of the statements and pages added in were unverifiable and as such could not stand under wikipedia rules. The independent evidence is an absolute requirement.

Bless you, STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:12 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

=

Dear STÓD/ÉÍRE !

I also understand you and why you think this way. Unfortunately you are fully unaware that you write to a representative of God to you and your approach to me and my religion is much to beaurocratic. I am just a simple Holy Prophet, very poor man. I can hardly find money for bread and you want me to pay taxes?

Would you ask all those questions to God itself? To Muhammad? To Buddha? To Jesus? Would you let Jesus write to Wikipedia when he was 30 yo? Would you ask him: "Yahu'shuah! How many students do you have? Only 12?! Too little! And you are not approved by the Jewish nor Roman Authorities! You may not write any texts here then, regrettably..."

Think it all over in your soul...

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 05:27 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

PS. Albert Jacher is the only source of information about Albertanism and the recent God's revelation... so where else do you want to look for verification?

I understand, Albert, but wikipedia cannot endorse an prophet for divinity, diety, sainthood or martyrdom. All we can do is record their existence. We do have a lot of martyrs on here, one or two saints and one or two who think they are god. But we simply cannot accept unverifiable claims. If we did, we could have one hundred claimants an hour. We already have three people claiming to be pope and two Ian Paisleys. All that we require is that if a religion is accepted in law as a valid religion, then we can give it credence. While I have no doubt but that you are genuine, we do need independently veriafiable documentary evidence. I'm sure if you have the blessing of The Lord, he will offer evidence of your mission in due time. But it the time we cannot help an unverified revelation.

Go in Peace, STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:57 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

--- Dear STÓD/ÉÍRE !

I understand your concerns and i share them a little. But this does not change much. It simply does not depend on whether i am genuine or not. I can be also a false prophet and swindler, unauthorized by any political law. Encyclopedia should just register the information and not censor the information based on official approvement by political laws.

I am the Speaker of God to change the political laws because they are not in accordance with laws created by God. So i will never be approved by human, political laws. They are not compatible with laws of God.

My intention is not to make the recruitment campaign here in Wikipedia. My intention is NPOV type information about the new religion for the new era. Is that too much? Do you know that you are priviledged and you had the information about the Speaker of God and his new religion as the first encyclopedia on planet! And what? In return i got lots of stress and offence and accusation.

I am just very sorry.

If you want me to leave this place i will do this. Thank God there is a web server provider that hosts free of charge my website and i will publish there details of my philosophy. If you are an Important Person in Wikipedia and your conscious and determined wish is NOT to include any information about Albert Jacher in your service... what can i do?

I wish you all good luck in life and lots of Gods blessing!

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 06:26 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

First, get your facts straight, AlbertJacker. I haven't deleted any of the Holy Texts of Jacker. Which is a shame, really, as I like to do my little bit to keep Wikipedia factual and free from silly advertising. No matter: I was too busy with other tasks today, but many others have stepped in and taken care of the problem, so no harm done. Tannin 08:54 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin!

That is right. You was not that much harmful and hostile as Danny and Notheruser. You deleted only once my text in the morning i remember. But anyway you contributed to the whole hostile action to stop the prophet from publishing rather than to try understand "what and why" and correct errors in my texts.

Have you written ever any comment to me about any of uncertain matters or any of my errors? Did you choose the way to discuss or the way to fight? Did you choose to assume that you were wiser than the prophet?

Here comes a man and informs "I create a new religion". And your mental processes are limited to a chain: "Man + new religion > idiot > fight against > delete+ disturb > ban..."

I am glad that the times have changed and i hope Jews or Christians would not burn me or kill me otherwise as they used to do with other wiser humans. Thank God christianity is decreasing on planet.

Wisdom to you!

--
Albert Jacher, Speaker of God 18:46 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source text repository. That is, this is not an appropriate place for the holy books of any religion. Or for public-domain nineteenth century articles, for that matter.

Wikipedia is also not a place to assert one's dislike of other people's religions. Vicki Rosenzweig ---

Vicki!

Instead of writing what Wikipedia is NOT explain us all what Wikipedia IS.

I also guess that Wikipedia is not a dog or car or newspaper or medical prescription. Am i right? So what is Wikipedia? What is the purpose of that internet service and the collaborative work of the Wikipedia editors?

How do you think? Would it be in accordance with Wikipedia purposes to include information about a new religious activity of a man who proclaimed himself as the ChosenByGod, Speaker of God, Holy Prophet and wants to alter the religious behavior of bilions of humans on the planet?

Is a man who will alter your life and the life of your descendants worth a notice in Wikipedia?

With good wishes, -- Albert Jacher, Speaker of God 12:17 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

If this were demonstrated to be truly the case, Albert, yes indeed. However, Wikipedia does not make social movements, it merely reports them, and (as best we can) we try to ensure that everything we report is true, factual, and verifiable. So Wikipedia cannot help you with your quest to start a new religion and further its aims - not anymore than it can help maintain an old and well-established religion (such as Christianity for example) about the existance and social significance of which there can be no possible doubt.

Now I am sure that at this point you are feeling that this position is unfair. Why should Wikipedia (and every other encyclopedia too, for that matter) effectively support the status quo by only publicising social movements which already exist? Is this not, in a sense, discrimination? Yes it is. But this is the way of the world. It is the policy of this organisation (just as it is the policy of nearly all other social organisations), and it is most unlikely to ever change. If it does change, it will change because a consensus has grown up among Wikipedians that it ought to change. Personally, I can't see that ever happening, but I could be wrong, of course

One thing I can be quite certain of, though, it that it will never change from without. Organisations are just like individual people in this respect: they only change when the enlightenment begins within. To enlighten an organisation from withi, one must become a part of it, one must share in its goals and values. Only then, when one has become a respected part of the community, can one attempt to introduce change to it with any chance of success.

In short, if you are sincere in your desire to spread the word of your enlightenment from the pages of Wikipedia, then you must first establish yourself as a valued member of this community by posting verifiable, factual, information on a broad range of topics which, at least in the main, is accepted by your fellow Wikipedians and regarded as a valuable contribution to our common goal; and then second, introduce your ideas for a change of Wikipedia policy from within.

My advice to you is that this strategy is a folorn hope, but so far as Wikipedia goes, it is your only hope. I strongly advise you to devote your energies elsewhere, where they may have a chance of proving more rewarding to you. But if you do want to promote your wisdom through the pages of Wikipedia, and you are sincere about wishing to join this community of dedicated NPOV scholars, then I bid you welcome and good luck.

Tannin 12:51 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

Dear Tannin!

You have written a nice and wiser text. Thank you. Here is some of my explanation.

"[?]However, Wikipedia ~~does not make social movements, it~~ merely reports them, and (as best we can) we try to ensure that everything we report is true, factual, and verifiable. "

All i want is exactly that! I want Wikipedia to report the facts about me, my religion and all that based on truth, facts and verification.

"So Wikipedia cannot help you with your quest to start a new religion and further its aims ?"

No need for that! The new religion was started in catholic year 2001! The 3rd year will begin soon. You do not have to create facts, just report them!

"? - not anymore than it can help maintain an old and well-established religion (such as Christianity for example) about the existance and social significance of which there can be no possible doubt."

It is OK. Do you have any doubt that i have a specific, different from the all others religion that is named Albertanism - Natural Universal Wisdom Religion?

Do you have any doubt that i am Albert Jacher?

Do you have any doubt that i proclaim my self an publically annouce to all the nations on planet and the new planetary representative of the real god whom i name Wakan Alo?

"But if you do want to promote your wisdom through the pages of Wikipedia, and you are sincere about wishing to join this community of dedicated NPOV scholars, then I bid you welcome and good luck."

My intention when joining the Wikipedia community was to contribute to that great idea of creating free, open encyclopedia for all people. I decided to start from the topics that i and ONLY i know well - Wisdom Religion, Theory of Wisdom. I do not need to build albertan religion THRU Wikipedia!!! I have my own albertan website(s) and i have quite a lot to do there. I have usenet group and forum for discussion in my website also. There are many emails in my mailing list from people who want to read my texts.

If i proclaim myself as the prophet from God, please treat me as an intelligent man. I came here to treat you with respect and to HELP you edit Wikipedia and not HINDER or disturb (just as i was treated here). I came here openly with my name 'Albert Jacher' and description of my mission 'Speaker of God'. Do you really think it would imply that i want to do here some bad activity?

I have just got some messages that i was banned from Wikipedia. So i am not sure if that text comes to you. I will write about that Wikipedia incident in my web site where those evil doers cannot delete my texts. I invite you to read more there.

My good wishes go to the good humans here in Wikipedia!

Albert Jacher, Speaker of God 14:27 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)~

Hello again Albert, I hope you are well. I've been pondering your situation, and I think that, through no fault of your own, you unfortunately will have intrinsic difficulties in maintaining a NPOV in anything you write about Albertanism. I don't think that people who are heavily involved in things can very easily write from a neutral point of view. Consider if you will:

A report of a football World Cup final written by a Brazilian fan who has just seen their team lose because of what was in their opinion an unfairly given penalty.
A fundamnetal Jew writing about a suicide bombing in Israel.
An article on homosexuality written by Fred Phelps.

While all these people may bring passion and enthusiasm to the articles I think they would stuggle to maintain a NPOV. In the same way I think that your underlying beliefs in Albertanism would, despite your best efforts, come to the surface in your writings. Personally I think that there is a place in the Wikipedia somewhere for Albertanism but I don't think that you are the man to put it there. And I'm sure that in time if, or when, Albertanism achieves its righful place among religions then there will be Wikipedia coverage of it. Happy preaching -- Ams80 17:33 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hello Ams80!

We could better discuss my writing style and my neutral style towards Albertanism and other religions when my texts were not deleted.

Now you and others can only theoretize about that matter.

I came here to bring information and my intellectual potential to Wikipedia. I met predjudice, hostility and hatered towards me just because i use another religion. I can see no other reasons. Judaists and Christians just attacked me and deleted all my text because their religions assume that they and only they and for all times are right about the real world and no other religion is acceptable. That hostile action against other religion was done under the slogan of Neutral Point Of View - such that excludes albertan point of view.

In Prophet article i ADDED!!! only texts about albertan matters. I added a section named "Albertan views" . I did not delete or alter any other sections although i saw evidence of the lack of NPOV there and in other places. For instance the prophet Yahu'Shuah is not named neutraly "Yahu'Shuah" but "Jesus Christ" (!) I ask: for whom was Yahu'Shuah the Christ? Not for Albertanism! Not for Judaism. Not for Islam. Not for Communism. Not for Science! So why Danny deleted text about albertan views and left other texts about views of other religions and did not correct the subjective outlook about the Christ? Because albertans views are shared by less humans? Is that a wise reason? Is wikipedia a magazine for views of the majority only?

I inform you that Wisdom Religion is based on the Theory of Wisdom. The Theory of Wisdom teaches that wiser outlooks, views, behavior will always be a minority! I conclude then that thus Albertanism will never be described in Wikipedia, because it is simply too wise. Too little humans will share albertan outlooks...

Let's have a look at facts... Before i came here Albertanism was not even mentioned in Wikipedia. So you have 2 choices. Take the information about Albertanism from the source - albertan prophet or take the information from... i do not know where?

In my opinion NPOV is when people describe the same thing from different points of view and not when a Jew describes Islam and a Communist describes Capitalism or an Atheist describes Christianity.

Information is just information. Treating the source of information the way i was treated in Wikipedia as user of alternative religion leads to NPOV= No Point Of View...

With kind regards,

Albert Jacher, Speaker of God 21:19 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

2004

2004-01

01-25

I'm sorry, but your mode of editing, (promoting mainly your own personal religion) is not in accord with the general consensus of how to edit on Wikipedia. You are going to have a lot of trouble with that approach here. Please realise that people are just tying to do what they think is right; including only knowledge that is generally recognized, which your various assertions are not. Fred Bauder 22:06, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I agree with you partially and understand your concern. But the problem is that i have very important information to be publlished and no one else has that information. I am in a very poor situation now and i am in a danger. I just want to publish that important information, before some one else will start to interpret and falsify my work and revelations and the story of my life.

Look at the many examples like Copernicus, Jesus and others, who could not speak when they lived and after their deaths other people quarelled about them, who they were and their opinions, histories, etc.

My situation is like a situation of e.g. Confucius or Darwin, who would like to publish some of their opinions, but their texts were repetedly deleted, because no one could understand the significance of those humans...

I ask you kindly to help writing about me and my outlooks on the world.

-- Albert Jacher, Messenger of God 22:50, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

01-26

Today on 2004-01-26 i wanted to give some replies to many accusations and false objections toward me in wikipedia. But i noticed that my access to some pages got restricted (Votes for deletion) and i am not allowed to discuss in wikipedia about matters concerning me and my outlooks.
I am surprised for another time with the behavior of the most wikipedians towards me. I am very sorry to be treated with such hostility in Wikipedia.
I want to thank those of wikipedians who have more open minds and more friendly attitude towards me. I appreciate your help and your input.
-- Albert Jacher, Messenger of God 20:04, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)

2004.02

Add topic