User talk:Emico/Archive06252005

Hi Emico

Please when you write something on a talk page can you sign it. You can add your name, date and time by putting four tilde characters like this ~~~~. Three gets just your username. DJ Clayworth 04:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• I told you so. Mr Ray went from an atheiist impartial advocate of non-partisanship to a defender of bereans. Hat's off to you, at least you did try to hide your true color. Emico

Presumably this means you think that anyone who disagrees with you must be biased. You should think about what that means for you. DJ Clayworth 02:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop living a lie DJ. Admit you are a member of a sect based in teh philippines. Your support for them on wikipedia is undeniable. Emico 02:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I had never heard of this group until I read about it in this article. DJ Clayworth 02:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Emico. You have now reverted Bereans three times in 24hrs. As I am sure you are aware, reverting more than three times is against Wikipedia rules. Please read Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule. If you revert this article again I will ask that you are blocked from editing. DJ Clayworth 02:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I did'nt know that. Is that why you and the other guy are tag-teaming. You know, if you would just admit to be biased towards the Bereans based in the philippines, we probably find a common ground. As I've stated many times over, the facts are the facts and are in the sources I provided. I't a good thing everything is recorded on wikipedia. You won't be able to deny you biases. Emico 03:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • You have no right to insult DJClayworth. The man uses his real identity, says that he lives in Canada and has contributed useful articles and edits, which is far more than I can say for you. You come here and try to inject personal opinion into everything you write and raise hell when someone calls you on bias. Nobody has the time to waste to tagteam on someone like yourself, those gentlemen are doing their duty as Wikipedia users to defend the Wikipedia from the likes of people like you. Unless you stop and adhere to Wikipedia rules, I will support your ouster from the Wikipedia.--Onlytofind 04:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Facts. You can't defeat them. The truth is the truth is the truth. Even being ganged up by 3 losers, the truth remains. Up to this point, 3 men(?), or is it 1 person using 3 names, cannot get over the facts. That authoritative source states the trinity was decreed by the catholics, and that it is not biblical. Their post reveal what's going on in their minds.

They're in a quandary! They believe in the trinity, and at the same time they hate the catholics. They profess to believe in the bible, yet the cornerstone of their faith is not biblical! ouch. Emico 06:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • You are obviously delusional and paranoid, thinking that all three of us are the same person. I'm not joking- you need to seek professional help. Maybe there, you'll find the truth. --Onlytofind 08:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone from corprelay.ph.inter.net ([203.176.2.24]) sent me a virus. It's a good thing hotmail stopped it. Emico 15:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, what does your post in my talk page have to do with G4 (television)? If you are gonna post, post in the right place or add a new comment by pressing the [+] button beside "edit this page". Now with that out of the way, you asked me: "Do you have a problem with the facts about the trinity being decreed by the catholics? If you claim to be fair and unbiased, then show it."

I don't know what you are talking about. Nor do I care. I made the revert so that Onlytofind won't get the Bereans article locked. Just like User:DJ_Clayworth told you, Wikipedia has a three revert rule, which can cause either you to be temporarily banned from Wikipedia, or the article you're reverting to be locked. It's what Wikipedia does, and whether or not is fair doesn't matter. Also, I reverted it because the original edit contained more repuatble sources than yours. Removing large parts of the article without good reason and consensus is not what you do here. Why did I bother answering your question, when you'll just believe I'm either wrong, biased or bent on ruining your Wikipedia experience, regarless of any proof otherwise? You do the same with everybody else you disagree with here. Just because YOU think it's right, doesn't mean it is. Everybody who writes to each of your main articles say the same thing. Let me remind you that your attitude toward other wikipedians will eventually get you referred to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committe.

PS. I sincerely doubt anybody here at Wikipedia sent you that virus intentionally. Viruses get propagated all the time, without the sender even knowing it. You're best off leaving it alone, and hope the person who sent it gets anti-virus software so that he/she doesn't send another one to someone else. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}

I am obliged by the rules of Wikipedia to inform you that someone has raised a Request for Comment concering your behaviour here. You can follow this link to discover what has been said, and you have an opportunity to write a response. DJ Clayworth 01:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, well

There should be more 3 day weekends!

And what's this: I come back to contribution and it's totally different. 3 losers and a juvenile conspiring and ganging up on me, making threats left and right. did you notice though, that's about all they do. that's ok. too bad i have others thing i need to do, it would have been a good fight, so to speak.

• If we were threatening you, we are now acting on it. You call us losers, but who's the one pointing false accusations of being part of organizations which nobody even knew or cared about before you brought it up? Who's the one baiting and attacking other wikipedians? Who's the one not caring for Wikipedia's rules and writing whatever they feel is right for them or someone not associated with Wikipedia? I can go on and on. It's not all about the Bereans and the INC, Emico. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 21:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• • do whatever you want to, you're the elected judge and jury. and tell the juvenile to stop posting nonsense Emico 22:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • If you have a point, then there's no need for hypocritical insults to get it across. I challenge you, if you're so confident about your "contributions," to defend your edits, statements and user conduct here. --Onlytofind 23:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I know what they don't like about my contribution, this:

"Among doctrines practiced by protestants is the catholic doctrine of a Triune God or the Trinity. This Trinity doctrine was affirmed as an article of faith by the Roman Catholics only after the issuance of the Nicene Creed in AD (325). Before that, there was no concept of the Trinity. Indeed, the bible, accepted as the authority for divine teachings, and attested to by bible scholars, never mentioned this word or the idea of a Triune God or Trinity. The early christians worship only one true God, the Father in heaven."

"The Nicene creed was introduced at the First Council of Nicaea, during the reign of the Emperor Constantine."

This is backed up by the sources I provided. Like what I said above on 06:29, 29 May 2005, they're in a bit of a quandary. The basis for their faith crumbles because of the above statements, and they justs don't like it. They remove this fact and and notice how they sneek in "Sola Scritura". Pretty sneaky, don't you think. Do you see it. They say they are 'scriptures alone', but their trininty doctrine is unscriptural. The losers even took out the source link from Eason's spelling out that the trinity is NOT in the bible. I'm not done yet. Let me deal with my personal stuff first, then I'll be back. Emico 15:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well. I do have to attend to my personal stuff. So, in the meantime I copied my original article to http://thebereansnet.blogspot.com. Emico 17:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• If you whole heartedly believe what you are doing is right for Wikipedia, then you can defend your claims for the admins to see.

• You are on the verge of being expelled from Wikipedia, and you have dug yourself into an even bigger hole with your baseless and immature comments. It's good you started a blog, that's where you need to keep your POV and not here at the Wikipedia. If you want to stay, then apologize to those you have wronged, and start following Wikiquette and the user rules. The ball's in your court, Emico.--Onlytofind 21:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Those know-it-alls

They don't even bother apologizing. Or correct the the wrong that they did. They actually blame me! They claim the the other guy had better source, but I could'nt find where it says John Barclay was disaffected! Granted I did'nt look hard, but at this point I don't have the time. If you find it, point it out. Anyway, I really should be doing my other stuff. Here again was my contribution: [[1] http://thebereansnet.blogspot.com] Emico 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico. The source you quote is a posting by an unidentified person on a web forum, so it is not very reliable. Moreover it is an exact copy of what you posted at Wikipedia. Plus the person who posted it to thebereansnet said "this is what I posted at Wikipedia". In other words the person who posted this is you. You can't use something you wrote as supporting evidence for your viewpoint. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DJ you got it backwards. The 'before' is what's on http://thebereansnet.blogspot.com which WAS on wikipedia, the 'after' is what's currently on wikipedia. What I'm asking is, the 'disaffected' part, find it on the sources provided. If you find it, please point it out. If it's not there, then the know it all's are wrong. Emico 17:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disaffected just means he was unhappy where he was. Given that he went off to found a different church it doesn't need much evidence to back it up. DJ Clayworth 20:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it in the sources? If not, then it's a personal opinion. Let's see how the righteous ones deal with this. Emico 20:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico, you have to understand that sometimes people use different words to describe the same thing. If I find a source saying "Hitler killed himself" and I write "Hitler committed suicide" am I wrong because the word suicide isn't in the sources? DJ Clayworth 01:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not. of course, the definition of suicide in 'killing one's self'. Whereas, leaving is not the same as getting fired. You work, don't you? --Emico 23:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This guy is still blaiming me? What a loser. He looked dumbed doing what the juvenile tell him to do, when he got burned, he turned on me! Next time, think before you act. He does'nt find offensive what vile the juvenile post here and elsewhere, but find offense in my post. maybe, they're the say person. Who cares, they're all from the same mold anyway. Emico 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I whole heartedly apologize if my reversion was made recklessly, but your continuous destructive-critisism of other Wikipedians and myself are the cause of my involvement to this day. For the last time: Onlytofind did not provoke me, your bragging about the Bereans article at the INC article did. Let me repeat that: your bragging about the Bereans article at the INC article did. Read you edit summary; "Wonder why this guy is suddenly nice? Could it be my Berean article?" I came to the Bereans article to figure out what you were talking about. Although I'm now more watchful of Onlytofind's attacks (thanks to you), your attacks don't seem to stop. They need to stop, because it's not fun anymore. If you want to, I'm willing to put all the issues we have behind, and assist you in becoming a better contributer to this site. As I said, I'm not bent on ruining your Wikipedia experience, but I WILL NOT TOLERATE someone else ruining mine. If you do not agree, Appearently, Wikipedia's policy will not meet your standards. I highly recommend you begin using the Wiki based encyclopedia Wikinfo. Its rules are much more lenient than here and it's POV basis is sympathetic, instead of neutral. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm way ahead of you. look at the dates of my "continuos" destructive criticism. I did not come here with the intention of offending anybody. My actions were reactions to yours and others actions. All of this would not have happened if the people involved did not abuse wikipedia's freedon to edit, paid a little respect to fellow contributors and remained fair and unbiased. I really don't care about what you or anybody else can "TOLERATE", do what you want. I made the mistake of trusting and respecting some of you once, I'm don't intend to make that mistake again. So, go ahead with threats of banning, arbitrating and whatever, and reverting my edit, and I'll continue with what I do. Have a nice day --Emico 14:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • From now on, I'll assume good faith about your posts. But you should note that all articles are subject to WP's guideines and policies. As far as I'm concerned, my primary reason for disupte is now resolved, since I expect no more trash talk (at least toward me). But that doesn't prevent anybody from taking further action against you for any other reason. Remember each action made is part of the Resolution process, just as I said that the RfC. Arbitration is only another form of trying to get our issues settled. -- Just look at the WP entry for the term "Arbitration". The Arbitration committee may react in your favor, if your future edits to WP are in the best interests of WP. Also there are other Wikipedia-like sites which you may find more productive and enjoyable. Wikipedia isn't the only "free encyclopedia". --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 21:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll take your word for it, and expect that from now on, you will do onto others as you would like others to do to you at the Wikipedia. Hopefully this will be a fresh start for all of us, but keep in mind, that we will hold you to the exact same standards that you are holding us to regarding respect, fairness and neutrality. Regards, --Onlytofind 02:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The arrogance of these people! You don't tell me what to do. You won't tell me that face to face, so why do it here? I suggest you stop what you're doing and start fresh. --Emico 14:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hall of Shame

The juvenile for being sneaky. From now on he's gollum to me. Hey, gollum, even Satan quoted the scriptures. So don't think that'll make you a good person. What a loser. Emico 20:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know what's up with this guy. Is he for real? After what he posted, he thinks saying sorry and olive branch is enough? Go ahead, read his post. --Emico 14:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Emico, after all we can't be as tolerant, forgiving and as reasonable as you.--Onlytofind 04:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The big cry baby is at it again. He's stalking me!! Every post I make, he's sure to be there. He's probably writing his complaint right now. I wonder how long he can manipulate this system and some contributors. He is quite manipulative. He spews out vile on one post, then quote bible verses on another in the same night. Sneaky. --Emico 14:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's come down to this.

Emico, your actions regarding editing, reverting and your treatment of other users are grounds to refer you to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, who might ban your username and IP address from editing Wikipedia temporarily or even permanently due to your wanton violations of Wikiquette. Before I and the other users take that step, I would like to extend you an olive branch, and appeal to your sense of reason and decency by asking you to stop personal attacks on others and to work constructively, and not belligerently with others to achieve neutrality in editing and adding information to the Wikipedia. If you choose to do so, I'm sure the others as well as myself are willing to put our conflicts in the past and work together for the sake of the Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I've been a perfect Wikipedian myself, and I believe that I've come a long way since my first edit to the INC article. You can do the same- the choice is yours. --Onlytofind 03:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Final chance.

I've already agreed to stop exchanging personal attacks with you, and lo and behold, you had to bold my comment on the Erano Manalo discussion page. You're not innocent yourself regarding insults, and what you're doing is called baiting- against Wikipedia rules. You were doing well after LBMixPro talked with you last time, until you let your anger get the best of you. I reverted the page, added my response, and will give you one more chance to abide by the rules, and no more before I take this to arbitration.--Onlytofind 07:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have been reported to Wikipedia Arbitration.

You can leave your comment regarding this matter on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration page.--Onlytofind 03:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please make this your last post on my talk page. Thank you and have a nice day. --Emico 04:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• That will be at my discretion. Whatever the outcome, it's quite clear that you need to read and abide by the Wikipedia rules. Keep in mind that I've stopped my insults while you've kept on with yours.--Onlytofind 20:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Random Thought

Note to self: Continue ignoring trolls. --Emico 16:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The clique is now severely disabled. It's death will soon follow. --Emico 17:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)