WhyJesus

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, WhyJesus! Thank you for your contributions. I am Dolotta and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Dolotta (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOCK checking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are you the same person as User:Jesussavesnotmohammed? I ask because two very old accounts with similar names and virtually no edits making the same edit on the same page the same day with similar summaries is a bit of an odd coincidence. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 01:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's add that edits from both accounts are improperly marked as "minor". — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 03:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I merely made a correction to the phrase "creation myth" to read more appropriately creation narrative. The phrase "creation myth" is used as though creation is verifiably untrue, which of course is a false supposition. Evolution from inert matter to a conscious being however is verifiably untrue. I agree that making that change was in fact a major change, not minor. I was under the impression wikipedia wants to use correct facts and terminology as much as possible. WhyJesus (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet theologians of various faiths talk about various myths in their religions while still believing in their religions. Evolution starts when life starts, no scientist says otherwise. And I can't see how Abiogenesis can be veritably untrue. If your purpose here is to push a religious viewpoint then you might have a rocky road. So would someone here onlyto push any viewpoint. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 03:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pushing religious POV in Wikipedia. There has been a note made on your page about sock puppetry which is not acceptable. Please explain if you are the same user (all evidence points that way so far), and if you are, then why are you breaking Wikipedia's rules. Failure to respond to this accusation will have the issue escalated to a CheckUser for verification and possible block of your account. Please respond before you post any more POV on your particular religious ideas. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexf: sock issue already resolved (admitted by editor, other account blocked). This does not resolve actual content/editorial issues obviously. DMacks (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, the editor admitted to it on my talk page: User_talk:Gamall_Wednesday_Ida. And beseeched me in the name of Christ in the same breath :). The remaining issue sock-wise is how many Jesus-flavoured accounts he might have registered 8 to 9 years ago and would keep using if blocked. He does not seem to have read, or even acknowledged the existence of WP policies so far. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know he had admitted. The other account was blocked for username issues, not socking. This was before I had seen the socking issue. After admitting, he is now on thin ice. I am more concerned with the POV pushing. This is not the place for it. User is one infraction away from being blocked. To the user: if you do not understand, or know about Wikipedia's policies, please read them as they have been pointed to you with links. If you still have questions about how Wikipedia works, please ask at the Tea House. Any more socking evidence, or POV pushing will result in an immediate blocking of your account. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not attempting to go around a blocked username in some sort of abuse of sock puppetry (whatever that means exactly). I was simply trying to respond in lieu of a name change request. If you are concerned about the username (Jesussavesnotmohammed) being offensive to muslims, then it seems to me you should be equally concerned about using the phrase "creation myth" that offends millions of believers of multiple faiths. If you insist creation is a myth, that's your opinion, not verifiable. Regardless, you can look elsewhere on wikipedia to find the word narrative is much more appropriate either way. See - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative. WhyJesus (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of myths, legends or fantasies, the evolutionary idea of molecules to man or inert matter to conscious human being is entirely delusional - a complete fantasy. Quit lying to yourselves and seek your Creator, seek Him. +++ WhyJesus (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"molecules to man or inert matter to conscious human being" has absolutely nothing to do with evolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs)

I doubt debating the fine points of the distinctions between abiogenesis and evolution will prove productive. Generally, I don't see the need to engage in any further discussions, per WP:!HERE and WP:FORUM. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but will make the point that Wikipedia is not censored. We also host images of Muhammad which many, although not all, Muslimns object to. We also have images of nudity that upset some people. We make it clear that Creationism is fringe and that evolution actually happens, which upsets people. And as an encyclopedia we would be censoring ourselves if we didn't use the term creation myth where it's appopriate, as with the images we should not avoid a concept because it might offend people. WhyJesus, if you can't coexist with that then you probably should be somewhere like Conservapedia which is Creationist. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You can continue to live in denial if you want Doug along with so many others caught up in the delusion, but if you claim to be logical or have a reasonable grasp of mathematics, especially in the area of determining probabilities, then use your God given brain to think it through. It is mathematically impossible for such a complicated information system as the DNA molecule, upon which all life is based, to arise on its own. There is not enough time postulated in the history of the universe for that to ever happen. Now where did it come from? Such a magnificent self-replicating, self-correcting information storehouse did not create itself, nor did random (chaotic) chemical reactions - that is pure fantasy. A fantasy only suited for delusional God deniers, that won't or can't face facts. Order out of chaos? Nope, didn't happen. So, seriously ask yourself - are you a math denier as well as God denier? Surely not, and that question goes for anyone else reading or posting on this thread. Now when you come to the inescapable conclusion there has to be a creator, then use your best efforts to determine who (or maybe what) that may be. Happy 4th, and may God bless America! WhyJesus (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Adam and Eve. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 05:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Adam and Eve. Theroadislong (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC) I did not attack anyone. As usual the truth seems to be treated like hate speech these days. Refuting false claims by God denying atheists should be recognized and accommodated. If there is evidence to the contrary then make you argument. Where is my post on Adam and Eve? You deny censoring and yet you do it. There are two kinds of liars in my estimation, liars and damned liars. The latter are unrepentant and damned to hell fire according to my copy of the book. Govern yourselves accordingly. WhyJesus (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

You have been blocked temporarily from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I've blocked you for 31 hours for disruption. You were asked to not attack others. You then called people liars. You were asked not to make those talk page posts, then you made another. As for what this is all about, well, Wikipedia goes by sources and facts. If sources use "myth", then articles use "myth". You are obviously a believer in your god, and so have a strong POV. Please, let's go by facts and sources and keep your personal beliefs out of it, okay? Many thanks. Oh, and if you promise to edit constructively, check our POV at the door, and not persist with all these things mentioned above, you may be unblocked right away. Thank you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)