User talk:KerimF

KerimF, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi KerimF! 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 experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, KerimF. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.H264avc (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sent you short email regarding DSB-SC

February 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Gospel are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the following is just between you and me. You know better than I that what I presented on the Gospel talk page were 'two facts', not mere personal opinions or views. Indeed, I didn't receive any comment about the first fact because it is true and real; so no one denied it. Then, after I presented the second fact, you were the first one to prove, in less than 24 hours, that it is also real and true even before you, or anyone else, heard anything from me. On the other hand, you, by following the rules of Wikipedia I guess, are supposed to act as a good companion and listener to those who express their negative views and opinions (not facts) about Jesus Christ (as presented on the today's Gospel). I am not here to blame you in any way because you are not free in the first place as I am (you have rules to obey). And as I mentioned earlier on your talk page, the Holy Spirit (or Heaven, in case you personally couldn't perceive It) inspired you to react rather quickly in order to remind me what Jesus says {Matthew 7:6} and also what He said to Nicodemus {John 3:12}. So don't worry, I know now that Wikipedia is where the sons of the world only (those who are given a living flesh only to take care of) can be gathered while each of them, while alive, plays the role(s) for which he/she was created; as all other living cells are pre-programmed to do in serving the material world. Obviously, Jesus teachings have no place here. The reason is simple. They contradict the basic human instincts which have to be followed by the great majority in the world. So I will be real surprised if you were able to find any of them being real useful, speaking practically, in your personal daily life ;) Anyway, I am sure you are proud of yourself the way you are and I wish you be so always. KerimF (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If you need a pulpit, I advise you to buy one at amazon.com. Wikipedia just isn't a pulpit for your preaching. See WP:RNPOV: we describe what Christian theology says, but we never endorse it in the voice of Wikipedia. This holds true for all other religions: here Christianity is in no way privileged over Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, since no religion is objectively true. Wikipedia is written by a diverse bunch of people: we don't have the same country, the same religion, the same ethnicity, the same social class, the same income, the same education, the same academic field, and so on. So we have agreed to describe scholarly information, not our personal musings. If you want to improve the article WP:CITE WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SOURCES. If you don't have WP:RS there is nothing to debate there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, if I gave you the impression that I am looking to argue or debate. For instance, even at age 69, I had never the chance to meet even one mature sane person who sees himself wrong. So during my conversations with friends (or strangers, I may meet during journeys), we share just the knowledge that each has; based on personal observations, experiences and analyses. In fact, a mature person can never change the nature of another mature person (including himself). But a mature sane person is always gifted to play any role, before some others, with the hope to reach a certain goal. Sadly, mature persons, if real rich and powerful, are able to raise kids (likely in camps or colonies) and transform them to human-like robots, when adult, that are ready to be controlled remotely (I personally met some of them who were sent from abroad to my city Aleppo). So I was fortunate for being one of the kids who were raised by loving parents. It happened I am a rational logical man. Therefore, to accept, while I was growing up, adding a new idea, scientific or else, into my set of knowledge, it had to be based on the same axioms and logical reasoning on which all previous ideas, I accepted already, are also based. But in my early years, I had to also update both my basic axioms and my logical reasoning as well; fortunately this latter process started to saturate at age 30. Obviously, I had to know Jesus Christ based on reason, not faith. To my big surprise, Jesus (as mentioned on the Arabic Gospel, I have) agrees with me on all what I have personally discovered in my being and the REAL world (exactly as it is, far from the great speeches; religious and political). And Jesus hints also helped me find the 'logical' answers to 'all' my important questions about life and existence. As it is the case for every human baby, I was born with the ‘common weakness at birth’ which is “total ignorance”; like a fresh powerful computer that cannot give any answer yet. So, to me in the least, Jesus came just to give me the chance to have the ‘relative’ perfect knowledge I need; in other words, to save me perfectly from ignorance. I think it is better to stop here... right :D KerimF (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular encyclopaedia

Our NPOV policy means that we do not endorse any religion. Sorry, but if you can't live with that you need to avoid editing anything to do with religion. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy/paste from User talk:Mishael707. Tgeorgescu (talk) 28 June 2019 09:52:46 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. And I hope you don't mind clarifying me what the word 'religion' could mean? To my knowledge, I present/analyze facts which I lived only. After all, I can't be interested in magic, rituals, faith, and formal beliefs/religions of any sort because I am simply a man of reason [and I gain my daily bread by designing/selling various electronic controllers since about 4 decades]. But if you still think I didn't write about facts sometimes, I wish you will be kind and help me find where, as you say, I endorsed a religion. Your care will help me discover more facts about the real world we both live in [you help me update my personal set of knowledge]. Thanks. KerimF (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:KerimF

A tag has been placed on User:KerimF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tgeorgescu, You did very well.

I mean; at last, you, Tgeorgescu, were kind to confirm all what I wrote on a my talk page though it had nothing wrong (and you know it). the irony is that you deleted a page that 1 to 3 persons, at most, among the 10 billions in the world would read it.

About the pretext that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service, you are right; there is nothing for free in the world. And I am sorry because, in the past, I directed, for many years and while talking science and electronics, many friends to visit certain pages on 'your' Wikipedia... for free :(

So, please, you don't need to thank me. As I told you earlier, it is always my pleasure to see someone like you be very proud of himself for being privileged to play the great judge on an ordinary person as I.

Finally, thank you again for giving me the chance to let some others see by themselves the reaction that I predicted for you though it took a rather long time to happen.

Sorry, facts are facts... we like them or not.

Wish you a long happy life. KerimF (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You are violating our WP:RULES. Do you understand that? Even the Friedrichshof Commune had rules, why do people find strange that Wikipedia has rules? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not hesitate in doing what you, Tgeorgecu, intended to do against me (as Jesus said to Judas) while hiding behind rules. After all, I am not better than Jesus, my Lord, who was crucified as a criminal by the honorable Elders of His time for violating rules too (exactly as you are happy to do it to me now, though remotely). Jesus' crime was also telling truths that the multitudes were supposed not to hear. I don't judge you, your words will; I am really sorry for you :( Meanwhile, I wish you have a long happy life. KerimF (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Talk:Parable of the Unjust Steward. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)