The Jesus Saves Gospel

July 2019

Hello, I'm Dr.K.. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Eastern Orthodox Church have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Dr. K. 23:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Eastern Orthodox Church. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ST47 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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).

The Jesus Saves Gospel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not know that I cannot link to my webpages, such my site easternorthodoxchristian.com. At the time I thought it was relevant to have a link to a site about the Evangelical / Protestant perspective on the subject. I now realise that everyone would be doing this kind of thing if it was allowed, and I therefore admit I made a mistake and I promise never again to link to any of my websites on Wikipedia no matter how relevant I think it is, and I respectfully ask you to please lift the editing ban as I will never make this mistake again. Thank you. The Jesus Saves Gospel (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is clear that your only purpose here is to promote a point of view, which is totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Furthermore, it is clear from what you have said above that you are unable to understand what is wrong with what you are trying to do, which means that you will not be able to avoid making the same mistake again. (The nature of the point of view in question is amply indicated by your linking to web pages expressing themselves in such idiotic terms as "daughter of the mother of harlots" in referring to those with whom you disagree, but even if that were not so it wouldn't make much difference, as editing to express any opinion is not permitted, even if it is expressed in rational terms rather than as childish and melodramatic attacks on those who disagree with you.) You also do your case for an unblock no service by your rants and unsubstantiated accusations against other editors. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 13:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

You have a clear conflict of interest (see WP:COI) related to the Eastern Orthodox belief, Catholicism, and religion in general. Now that you are aware of this, what subject areas will you write about instead? Do you agree to refrain from writing about religion, broadly construed? --Yamla (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what kind of "conflict of interest" do you think he has--to "religion in general"? I have never heard of such a thing. Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the links this user has been adding to articles. --Yamla (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

So it would appear that this user is expressly not affiliated with the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church in America. That is the opposite of a WP:COI. They have promised not to add their links to articles. If they abide by their pledge, I see no reason they should not edit in such topic areas. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I would not unblock them on that basis, as I believe they will treat Wikipedia as a battleground (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). However, another administrator is free to do so. --Yamla (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this how I get to reply? My site "Eastern Orthodox Christian.com" is the biggest internet site examining the Eastern Orthodox Religion from the Protestant perspective. I have another called "Orthodox Church America.com" I thought at the time a link was appropriate, however I now realise that was wrong and have said I will definitely never link again. To accuse me of using wikipedia as a "battleground" when the Eastern Orthodox Religion and Evangelicalism simply have entirely diametrically opposing views about sacerdotalism issues is unfair. I cannot see how to bring other editors into this. The splash page of DrK, the original blocker. seems to have heavy links to Greece, an Eastern Orthodox country, which means he is very likely to be partisan, and if so would himself have a conflict of interests. It seems that a Roman Catholic called Elizium23 has said positive things here in my defence. Thank you for this but can you please act on this and the block. I feel I am being discriminated against because I am Protestant and view the Orthodox mass as a transformation that does not occur. I respectfully ask that someone lifts this draconian total block on all my contributions. I have apologised for linking and will not again no matter how relevant one of my sites is to a subject under discussion. I also make entirely positive websites like "Jesus Really Loves You.com." Please lift this block as I feel it is so harsh it looks like discrimination on grounds of religion, and the further suggestions about my theological intentions are purely speculative.

Can one of you please drag and drop even one line from Wikipedia itself I have written that is not a reasonable expounding of the subject in question? Surely you can see that this ban is very excessive. Is it not true that if any true Protestant editor here saw what was happening to me he would uphold my right of freedom of speech in order to give a balanced view of these subjects? I quoted the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Sacerdotalism, and linked to a pertinent and germane quotation by Scofield as to what the origin of a second priesthood claiming to offer up repeat sacrifices was, with him in turn linking direct to the bible, and qualifying his quotation with reference to the literal interpretation of the Greek word Nicolaitan as meaning "higher than the laity". A life long ban for a link to a website? This is unfair. Surely someone will agree and help me in this matter. Please lift this ban.

Do I get an email telling me when this judgement is finalised so I can appeal if there is such an option?

The page of DrK who blocked me is being marked as faulty by other editors. How can I get a draconian life long block simply for "a link" on a wiki page, when the editors own page is considered spurious by other editors? As I am perhaps the world's foremost expert on the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism/Evangelicalism (with 2 two massive websites to prove this) and as I have only made a simple mistake that I apologised for, I wish to take this further. Can the editors who have commented here please appear to answer these issues thanks? I request if the user Yamla state if he has any conflict of interests in this, such as being Orthodox himself. How did he locate this particular case? And how do I refer the case to others? It strongly appears that DrK is linked with Eastern Orthodoxy as his page is full of Greek links, and that he/she is opportunistically taking out of the wiki environment an expert at the subject for partisan reasons.

You have requested I state whether or not I belong to the Orthodox faith. I am not Orthodox. I don't mean to be overly specific in my wording. I do not belong to any sort of Orthodox faith. As to how I found your page, I regularly patrol the requests for unblock. You requested an unblock. That is how I found you. I do not believe I had ever edited either of the articles you have edited, though it is possible I have previously reverted some vandalism (note I have approximately 93,000 edits). I do not regularly edit articles about religion at all. Everything I've seen from you, before and after your block, demonstrate to me that you have no place on the Wikipedia and I very strongly oppose your unblock, but other admins are free to act as they see fit. You have requested an unblock; that is sufficient to refer the case to others. It may take some time. --Yamla (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not also that the behaviour of DrK is not relevant here. You weren't blocked by them, you were blocked by ST47. Your, and only your, actions are relevant here. See WP:GAB for more specific information. --Yamla (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yamla you just do not like to be proven draconian and unfair. I am suffering discrimination on the grounds of religion. Your comments about "battleground" were outside of a reasonable context when it is clear Protestants and the Orthodox simply have diametric points of view on the subject of sacerdotalism. To this day there is NOTHING on wiki giving a proper view of the Protestant side of this entire discussion under the word sacerdotalism. The aim of wiki is to give a balanced view of the various sides perspectives.

I didn't block you. I didn't even decline your unblock request. I simply didn't act on your unblock request. Come on now, that's hardly draconian. Regardless, I don't believe further discussion here will be fruitful. I oppose your unblock but other admins aren't required to agree with me. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I am informing you now that the unfairness and extremist nature of this block has affected my health.

If DrK initiated this block, and he/she is later proven to be Orthodox and thus partisan, and if his/her page is in itself spurious, and has been challenged by several wiki editors as such (it has) and if his reason for deleting posted material is that it is "not constructive" when no one ever said diametric religious interpretations of sacerdotalism have to be able to be described as "constructive" why should I be given a life long ban, when I apologised for a link to one site? I simply never knew the linking criteria. Someone please lift this excessive ban. All my other links were to credible scholastic sources. Why is it fair to allow Catholics and the Orthodox to post fake history in the form of lines of Apostolic Bishops based on tradition not evidence, then ban a Protestant substantiating Nicolaitanism as having links with sacerdotalism and priestcraft via sources like OED or the scholar Scofield? I ask an editor to lift this ban as it is unfair and partisan toward Orthodoxy over Protestantism.

I therefore feel it should be my right to be informed if Dr.K. is Orthodox or Roman Catholic and therefore biased in his evaluation of Protestant theology.

I would like to point out that the actual "moment of my block" was when I posted two links on the page called "sacerdotalism". I find it quite incredible that these links are being called "advertising or promotion". One link was to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of sacerdotalism, the other was to a Schofield Bible note in the Book of Revelation. This can be proven by going to the page on wiki "sacerdotalism". This was viewed apparently as "promoting" a Protestant belief. Sure it was if reasonably saying what you believe is that. It was promoting what we believe to be the truth about how priestcraft evolved. The fact is Dr.K. simply does not like Protestant theology, fine, but it is discrimination to report it as "promotion" which surely must have been taken out of context for what Wiki intended. Is it really ok for the Orthodox to promote metousiosis all over Wikipedia, but Protestants must be blocked for "promotion" if we try to prove the practice has links to the Nicolaitan heresy??? Do you know the Orthodox and Catholics without any historical evidence whatsoever say in Wikipedia itself that the Nicolaitan heresy was a sex cult started by a man called Nicholas who is actually in the bible? Without a shred of evidence!! There is actual evidence however that the Greek word itself means "higher than" and "the laity" which Schofield links to the priestcraft salvation ideas evolving. So the only thing I did wrong to get a life long ban was a past link to a website of mine about Orthodoxy I freely apologise for posting. A life long ban? It is discrimination and draconian. Will some editor please take the time to look into the facts of this and lift this ban please? And will ST47 please look again at the facts surrounding this theology being seen as "promotion".

Because I was blocked the page sacerdotalism presently looks messy because I was cut off from completing the post right in the middle of the edit.

I am requesting that you post here the material removed from wiki described as not "constructive". I will be taking this further. I believe I am being discriminated against. I am once again asking Dr.K. to state his religion to get this in context. A catholic editor already said here how wrong some of the things said against me posting are.

Talk page access revoked

Enough. Wikipedia is not therapy. I'm sorry if this block is affecting your mental health, but that's your problem, not ours. And your continued use of this talk page is long past abusive. I have revoked talk page access. You have an open unblock request which will be reviewed in due time. If your request is declined, this leaves you with WP:UTRS as your final avenue. I'll warn you, if your request there looks anything like your request here, you'll lose that venue, too. You'll need to thoroughly familiarise yourself with WP:GAB before taking advantage of UTRS (and only if your unblock request here is declined). --Yamla (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)