User talk:Logicaltheology

Welcome!

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Favonian (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

I apologize if I previously came across as if I were heated. One could say I was. Moreover, please note that I am a newcomer, and currently learning how to properly utilize Wikipedia's editing characteristics.

Instead of biting, please assist me by informing me as to what is generally tolerated here, and what isn't; and I will have no problem complying. As I stated, I am a newcomer.

I was merely unawares of the implications of a copy-paste in this "Wikipedia circle". Help me, do not hinder me.

Educate me, do not segregate me. Thank You... Logicaltheology (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The principle Ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of "do not bite" and "assume good faith". In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them." - taken from http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Logicaltheology, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Logicaltheology! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

According to your original userpage, this account belongs to an "Antioch Bible Society". We do not permit group accounts of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Incorrect, it does not belong to "Antioch Bible Society". :it belongs to one "Devon Jones", and the user page has never :mentioned "Antioch Bible Society". I do believe what you :intended to say was that the material was mostly copied :and pasted from "Antioch Bible Society"'s website; a :website belonging solely to me, not to any group or :organisation, regardless of the apparent discrepancy :caused by it's title. ::I am not an "organisation", I am 1 individual person which ::may be contacted at bapticostalwarrior@ymail.com. I do ::not even posess so much as an office. You have been ::misled, or perhaps are trying to mislead. :Logicaltheology (talk) 8:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

At first glance I was inclined to assume good faith and unblock this account, or at least discuss the block with Mike on your behalf. However, on closer inspection I notice several worrying discrepancies in your appeal. Firstly, you claim that your userpage has never mentioned "Antioch Bible Society"; this is patently untrue. You also claim that the website http://www.antiochbiblesociety.org/index.html is yours and does not belong to a group or organisation, yet the site itself uses the first person plural throughout and links to a Yahoo group that self-defines as "an online group of Bible believing Christians" (emphasis mine). It's a group with only four members, admittedly, but it's clear that the Antioch Bible Society is in fact more than one person. Add to that the close association between the ABS and the term Logical Theology, and it's pretty evident that, whilst this account may be belong to a single individual, it's clearly been created for the purpose of furthering the ABS's agenda (I note that four ([1], [2], [3], [4]) of your five article edits have been to add links to your website). Spam-only accounts like this are not permitted, and so I endorse Mike's block. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

First of all, there is only one owner of the URL "antiochbiblesociety.org". I have not registered privacy to this URL, so feel free to do a whois lookup. The owner is the same as I said it is. Secondly, the yahoo "group" antiochbiblesociety's messages are not private either. check to verify that there is anyone but myself adding messages to said yahoo group. I am the only person on the yahoo group. Thirdly, the association of the term "logicaltheology" IS tied in with ABS, however this does not indicate that ABS is a group. on the contrary, it validates my claim that the website is MINE. Fourthly, the blog on the ABS website describes the author and only author, me, in detail with a bio, verifying again that it is my website. Fifthly, if you believe you can find a single post from any of the four inactive members of the yahoo group, or evidence from the website that there is anyone other than myself on it, or simply dislike the website for an unstated reason in general, than please simply delete my account. I am not in falsification of any of the facts presented. I have done my best to be honest. I am an amature theologin and philosopher who loves to educate and be educated. No more, no less.

Logicaltheology (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am assuming that I am perspirating for no apparent reason, and that I am am forthwith to be ignored and denied... Or that "we" are going to be ignored or denied? You are causing me undue pressure. There is no logical reason to segregate someone other than 1.) disobedience of the regulations, which we have previously discussed, or 2.) Unvoiced motives based upon concealed motives. Please respond, the emotionless "robot" in me is dwindling rapidly. Logicaltheology (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request is incomprehensible. But at any rate, you seem to be here only to promote your own "Antioch Bible Society", and we don't tolerate this sort of promotional conduct. Sandstein 10:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

note; if you wish to ever decide that I am not a "wikispook", or anything of the sort, I do verify that I will not even make mention ABS on my further edits, if it is hidden somewhere in the rules that cannot. I do not mind this. I am not here to promote anything, except philosophy and theology, and the knowledge thereof. The burdon of proof rests upon the accuser. Logicaltheology (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]