User talk:Atethnekos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Tool Labs tools down[edit]

Howdy. It looks like your tool labs tools are offline following the data center migration. I suspect all that's needed is for you to follow the instructions at wikitech:Tool_Labs/Migration_to_eqiad#Tools_webpage_shows:_No_webservice. Cheers. - TB (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

A content dispute resolution process has been started at [1]. Please participate and contribute to a resolution. Wdford (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The American Religion[edit]

slakrtalk / 02:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Cfflowtest3.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:Cfflowtest1.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Cfflowtest2.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Cfflowtest5.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Cfflowtest4.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the source help, I appreciate it! :bloodofox: (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Genesis creation whatever[edit]

Thank you for taking the semantic issues there seriously. It's heartening but all too rare to come across editors who understand that words have meaning and that meaning matters. Regardless of how it comes out (I'm betting on "no consensus," as always), discussing it with you is the kind of experience that makes editing here worthwhile to me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Matthew external link removal[edit]

What gives? Seems like wikihow would be ok.

50.242.132.209 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, numbers 10, 11 and 12. WikiHow is fine for what it is, but external links for a topic like the Gospel of Matthew (which is subject to much serious, academic literary, textual, and religious study) should just be links to the relevant primary texts and to mainstream, scholarly secondary literature and other such work on the topic, not to user-generated web content. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 05:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, take care [2] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. [3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. [4] But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

50.242.132.209 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscientific astronomers[edit]

Category:Pseudoscientific astronomers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, along with two related categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Muhammad calligraphy.svg[edit]

Copyright-excl.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Muhammad calligraphy.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 17:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Tool Labs tools down again[edit]

Genesis 17:15 produces this URL: http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=Genesis&verse=17%3A15&src=
which resulted in:

No webservice
The URI you have requested, /bibleversefinder/?book=Genesis&verse=17%3A15&src=, is not currently serviced.

If you have reached this page from somewhere else...
This URI is part of the bibleversefinder tool, maintained by Atethnekos.

That tool might not have a web interface, or it may currently be disabled.

If you're pretty sure this shouldn't be an error, you may wish to notify the tool's maintainers (above) about the error and how you ended up here.

If you maintain this tool
You have not enabled a web service for your tool, or it has stopped working because of a fatal error. You may wish to check your logs or common causes for errors in the help documentation.

The labs service has fallen far short of being reliable since we switched to it back in November. Do we need to explore other options? Is there a labs forum somewhere?
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Telpardec: The web service crashed. I'm thinking the access log became too large. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 19:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be working OK again. Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  19:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

robedbrim[edit]

YOU MAY USE ALL THESE INFO THERE

YOU ARE PROTECTING AN INCORRECTLY PREPARED ARTICLE or TEMPLATE whatever you call it!!!! just very FUNNY[edit]

THERE ARE A LOT OF MISLEADING DEFINITIONS[edit]

| list5title = Denominations[edit]

You cannot call Fist of all Islamic schools and branches as SUB-Denominations[edit]

| list5 =

You cannot equate those listed above with the following tariqah/party/club/whatever the name you call[edit]
THIS TEMPLATE IS NOTHING BUT JUST AN INSULT TO 2 BILLION MUSLIMS[edit]

68.100.172.139 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

68.100.172.139 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population". Pew Research Center. October 7, 2009. Retrieved 2010-08-24. "Of the total Muslim population, 11-12% are Shia Muslims and 87-88% are Sunni Muslims." 
  2. ^ "Religions". CIA World Factbook. 

ISLAM IS DIVIDED INTO 3 MAIN SECTS[edit]

Five-Percent Nation, Mahdavia AND Ahmadiyya is not amongst them.... 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

THE OTHERS ARE MISLEADING, less than 1% AND SHOULD BE WRITTEN DIFFERENT PLACES, THEY ARE LIKE Babism & Bahaism[edit]

YOUR TEMPLATE IS awkwardly PREPARED & ILL[edit]

68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AHMADIYYA[edit]

This is something like Bahá'í Faith and Bábism which is not Muslim belief. Ahmadiyya is a NEW RELIGION with its own prophet...similar to Bahá'í Faith and Bábism which have their own prophet. Otherwise Judaism and christianity are supposed to be the same religion.. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Since its inception in 1889, the Aḥmadī movement has been one of the most active and controversial movements in modern Islam." — Friedmann, Yohanan (2014). "Aḥmadiyya". In Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John et al. Encyclopaedia of Islam (Third ed.). Brill Online. Retrieved July 8, 2014.  --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 05:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
IT IS A SUB*GROUP OF WHAT:

YOU CAN PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE with these Five-Percent Nation and Mahdavia..wherever they belong to!! otherwise YOU ARE CREATING new CATEGORIZATION???68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

ISLAM IS DIVIDED INTO 3 MAIN SECTS[edit]

68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IF YOU BELIVE THAT THEY ARE PART OF A MUSLIM COMMUNITY CLASSIFY THEM UNDER one of these[edit]

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij

if you write ahmadiyya then YOU HAVE TO WRITE Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari as well!!! 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IF THEY ARE MUSLIMS THEY SHOULD BE WRITTEN TO APPROPRIATE PLACES[edit]

in your template:

  • Alevi & Alawi ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE 1% OF ALL MUSLIMS
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% OF ALL MUSLIMS

BIGGER COMMUNITIES AND MADHHABS ARE NOT SHOWN.....

  • but SMALL GROUPS LIKE ahmadiyya ARE WRITTEN AS IF THEY ARE A MAJOR BRANCH OF ISLAM
  • THESE ARE WRONG AND MISLEADING, YOU NEED TO CORRECT THEM AND STOP PROTENCTING THIS TEMPLATE SINCE YOU DONT KNOW THE TOPIC68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

INSTEAD OF THESE BIGGER GROUPS LIKE Alevi & Alawi AND Druze & Nizari[edit]

You are putting less important and small communities LIKE

as if they are MAJOR branches.... 68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij[edit]

  • Any group or sect which cannot be classified under one of these is not a part of Dīn of Islam.
  • If you believe that it is a part of Dīn of Islam, so place it under any one of these: Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
  • In addition, Alevi & Alawi are a part of the Dīn of Islam and THEY HAVE 1% population, then place it into template clearly
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
  • IF YOU CANNOT, I.E. YOU ARE NOT EXPERT ON THE TOPIC just stop it O. K.

68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that they are major branches. You say that they are not part of the Dīn of Islam. That's great, maybe they aren't. We don't take a position on that. It does not matter what editors say nor even what the truth is. We just follow what reliable sources say; see the core policy WP:V. Friedmann, Yohanan (2014). "Aḥmadiyya". In Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John et al. Encyclopaedia of Islam (Third ed.). Brill Online. Retrieved July 8, 2014.  That's a citation from a reliable source which says that Aḥmadiyya is a part of Islam. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

THEY SHOULD BE ON PROPER PLACES IN YOUR TEMPLATE[edit]

The following groups have larger populations...

Dīn of Islam[edit]

  • Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
EVEN THE FOLLOWING SECTS[edit]

HAVE more members than Ahmadiyya, BUT YOU NEVER MENTION ABOUT THEM IN THE TEMPLATE!!!

ON THE OTHER HAND, MINORITY PARTIES LIKE Five-Percent Nation OR Mahdavia IS BEING PRESENTED LIKE / THE EQUIVALENT OF Sunni & Shi'ite
therefore your template is absolutely WRONG and should be CORRECTED

68.100.172.139 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Which reliable sources say that those groups are parts of Islam and not parts of Shia Islam or Sufism?
Why is the template absolutely wrong?--Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 20:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

YOU HAVE TO CLASSIFY ALL SECTS UNDER ONE OF THESE:

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij

WHY DONT YOU MENTION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING:

Dīn of Islam[edit]

  • Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
EVEN THE FOLLOWING SECTS[edit]

AS YOU DID IN Ahmadiyya 68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do I have to classify all sects under one of those three? Under which of those do you think Ahmadiyya should be classified?
And I'm not sure what your question is asking. All of those things are mentioned many times throughout the encyclopedia. Are you asking why they are not included in this template? There is no expectation that every sub-grouping be included in this template. Shia Islam is included. Those sub-groups are largely included in the Template:Shia Islam and the Template:Ismailism templates. The Bektashi order is included in Template:Sufism. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 23:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

THERE ARE BIGGER GROUPS/ SECTs than AHMEDISM[edit]

  • Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template

WHICH ARE NOT IN THE TEMPLATE WHY DONT YOU PUT OR LIST THEM IF AHMEDISM IS ANOTHER SECT PUT IT SOMEWHERE BUT IT ISNT THE EQUIV OF sunni more than a billion nor equiv of shi'ite more than a 100 million

according to your logic?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.172.139 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Similarly you have a private template of Ahmadiyya[edit]

Similarly you have a private template of Ahmadiyya as well. Therefore you cant put them there otherwise you have to put Druze & Nizari ++ Alevi & Alawi as well they are on Ismaili template O.K. Ahmadiyya is on Ahmadiyya template do you understand?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.172.139 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that "Ahmedism" is the "equiv" of Sunni. Members on the template are not determined merely by the size of the associated population. I've never read a single reliable source about the Gülen movement, so I certainly wouldn't try to put it on this template. No, I do not understand everything you've written. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

please See French Template for Ahmediyye and Others[edit]

Template:Islam (FRENCH) SO THAT you may perform the necessary corrections68.100.172.139 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What are the necessary corrections? And why are they necessary? --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Aḥmadī movement IS NOT A MAIN BRANCH OF ISLAM[edit]

THE MAIN BRANCHES ARE[edit]

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij

if you claim that it can NOT be put under one of these titles, then it is a new religion, but not islam.

Since you are able to put all the following groups like

Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari, Assasins, Gulen movement under one of these THREE main branches, namely Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij, in a similar way, you can classify Aḥmadī movement under one of them. If you claim that it is so special and cannot be classified under one of the 3 main branches of Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij; then the members of these groups, namely Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari, Assasins, Gulen movement CAN CLAIM that they are very special as well. In that case, the names of Gulen movement, Alevi, Alawi, Druze, etc. SHOULD BE written besides the Aḥmadī movement, this is my opinion.

After examining this Template:Islam (FRENCH) Template:Islam in French, I've seen that they moved Aḥmadī movement under NEW MOVEMENTS, you may prepare a similar section and place Aḥmadī movement, Din-e Ilahi, Khojas, Nation of Islam, Five-Percent Nation, Malcolm X, Mahdavia under the title of NEW MOVEMENTS IN ISLAM. French template listed all these groups under Courants non reconnus par l’orthodoxie:

SEE: Template:Islam (in FRENCH) 68.100.172.139 (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of what members of groups can claim. Members of groups can claim whatever they want. It's not even a question of what reliable sources can claim. It's rather a question of what reliable sources do claim.
No one is saying that the Aḥmadī movement is a "MAIN BRANCH OF ISLAM". You say that if I claim that it cannot be put under one of those three titles, then it is a new religion. That's just original research and is not allowed on this encyclopedia. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 06:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

LOOKS ABSOLUTELY WRONG[edit]

yOUR Aḥmadī movement is just an equivalent of the following:

And you are just missing them..THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, YOU HAVE TO LIST THEM AS WELL..AS THEY DID IN Template:Islam (in FRENCH) you are just incorrectly copying from other sourses 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ACCORDING TO YOUR TEMPLATE, ISLAM IS A PART OF Aḥmadī movement[edit]

YES ISLAM IS A PART OF THESE THINGS:

BECAUSE YOUR TEMPLATE JUST GIVES THEIR NAMES AS ISLAM...THAT JUST SHOWS YOUR INADEQUACY IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE ONLY THESE

REPRESENT ISLAM GO AND READ A LITTLE BIT OF THIS Template:Islam (in FRENCH) 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC) YOU ARE ASKING ABSCURD QUESTIONS AND EVEN THIS SHOWS YOR INCOMPETANCY IN THE AREA IF YOU ARE GOINGTO PREPARE IT DO IT PROPERLY YOU ARE NOT THE ONE WHO WILL DECIDE ON THIS JUST LESS THAN 0,1% OCCUPIES YOUR TEMPLATE: THIS

CAN YOU TELL ME WHO ARE THESE GUYS AN WHY SHALL WE LEARN ABOUT THEM??? 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

otherwise delete sunni[edit]

we have a template for sunni as well you can delete it since totally abscurd!68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

you have to put these as well because I m telling you[edit]

The following groups have larger populations...

Dīn of Islam[edit]

  • Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
EVEN THE FOLLOWING SECTS[edit]

COMPLETE answers to your RECENT questions[edit]

ahmadism SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER OF OF THESE GROUPS[edit]

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
IF YOU CANT PUT UNDER THESE GROUPS
THEN EITHER (1) IT'S NOT ISLAM
OR (2) IS A NEWLY EMERGED TARIQA WHOSE PATH IS A SPECIAL WAY probably undivine one i.e. it's divinity is an open ended question..
YOU HAVE TO THEN RE-GROUPS THESE SPECIAL so-called TARIQA
what you have to do is to invent a new TITLE for these residual groups
WHO CLAIM THEMSELVES AS A PART OF THE Dīn of Islam
A PROPER TITLE MAY THE unclassified tariqah of islam
QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE RESIDUAL GROUPS
ANSWER: According to your template is the following ones

68.100.172.139 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Five-Percent Nation, Mahdavia & Aḥmadī movement[edit]

Quest:WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT THESE THREE GROUP-SECT SO YOU LISTED THEM SEPARATELY?
Quest:WHAT WAS YOUR CRITERIA NOT TO PUT ANY OTHER GROUPS LIKE Din-e Ilahi, Alawi, Khojas, Druzes, Alevi, and Gulen movement?
ANSWERS: Because it is completely RANDOM because you are incompetent on the subject of discussion!!

ahmadism SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER OF OF THESE GROUPS[edit]

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
IF YOU CANT PUT UNDER THESE GROUPS
THEN EITHER (1) IT'S NOT ISLAM
OR (2) IS A NEWLY EMERGED TARIQA WHOSE PATH IS A SPECIAL WAY probably undivine one i.e. it's divinity is an open ended question..
YOU HAVE TO THEN RE-GROUPS THESE SPECIAL so-called TARIQA
what you have to do is to invent a new TITLE for these residual groups
WHO CLAIM THEMSELVES AS A PART OF THE Dīn of Islam
A PROPER TITLE MAY THE unclassified tariqah of islam
QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE RESIDUAL GROUPS
ANSWER: According to your template is the following ones
EVERYTHING IS RIDICULOUS ON THIS TEMPLATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Five-Percent Nation, Mahdavia & Aḥmadī movement[edit]

QuestION:WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT THESE THREE GROUP-SECT SO YOU LISTED THEM SEPARATELY?
QuestION:WHAT WAS YOUR CRITERIA NOT TO PUT ANY OTHER GROUPS LIKE Din-e Ilahi, Alawi, Khojas, Druzes, Alevi, and Gulen movement?
ANSWERS: ........Write Your Answers Here


These are my answers (Dont copy and dont repeat them ) just give your answers[edit]

you already failed!

ahmadism SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER OF OF THESE GROUPS[edit]

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
IF YOU CANT PUT UNDER THESE GROUPS
THEN EITHER (1) IT'S NOT ISLAM
OR (2) IS A NEWLY EMERGED TARIQA WHOSE PATH IS A SPECIAL WAY probably undivine one i.e. it's divinity is an open ended question..
YOU HAVE TO THEN RE-GROUPS THESE SPECIAL so-called TARIQA
what you have to do is to invent a new TITLE for these residual groups
WHO CLAIM THEMSELVES AS A PART OF THE Dīn of Islam
A PROPER TITLE MAY THE unclassified tariqah of islam
QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE RESIDUAL GROUPS
ANSWER: According to your template is the following ones

68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I m the person who prepared french template[edit]

in case of help dont hesitate to ask me but you should make the necessary corrections instead of getting angry

you dont also have to ask the same quest again and again
just do necessary corrections you know what yor mistakes are68.100.172.139 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're discussing the template, just keep it to the template talk page. That's why I'm not responding here.
For the record, I haven't been angry in years. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification (no troubles)[edit]

I mentioned you at ANI, in regards to the IP spamming on your and Dougweller's talk pages, as well as a template talk page and general... confusion on his part. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Atethnekos. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Userspace drafts. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Equating COI editing to driving while intoxicated and potentially killing people is entirely inappropriate. Please do not restore the image.--v/r - TP 03:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

this all seems somewhat past, although the sting is still lingering. Atethnekos i am a bit surprised by your behavior. Granted that TP was aggressive and grumpy. Nonetheless, as a philosopher and someone who participates in DR, surely you can step back and see what is going on. TP feels stigmatized for having admitted paid editing and feels hounded across WP for doing so. Its a sensitive thing. Maybe you were unaware of the drunk driving ad campaign underlying "friends don't let friends..." and just thought it was kind of funny, tongue-in-cheeky. You've been made aware that the joke stung somebody. By the person whose feelings it hurt. Instead of actually hearing the other guy you just stuck to your rights. Which you are free to do. Is that really who you want to be? Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised too. I disagree with so many things you've said here, I guess I just don't understand things well at all. For example, you link to [2]. Well, what does that comment have to do with me? If I'm to assume good faith—and I always try to—I would assume that that is not talking about me. Because then it would be saying that I was equating COI editing with drunk driving, when I had already expressly communicated that I was not comparing COI editing with drunk driving. In that case the comment would be merely gainsaying my testimony about my own intentions without an argument as to why that testimony is false, and doing so without being forthright about it, and doing so when the case was already closed. Well, that's not a good faith assumption. So I don't assume it. I just assume that I don't know what that comment refers to.
Maybe that gives some insight into my the general principles behind my behaviour? This probably doesn't answer your question or concerns. I am of course willing to elaborate. There's just so much I could say in response to your comment here, I'm just afraid of saying too much at once. But I can give you a specific response to any part of your comment or to any other questions. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 08:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You did make it clear that it wasn't your intention to equate COI editing with drunk driving. I never said it was. But as you must know, once you say or write something, others will interpret it as they will. TP (and others) have explained that the phrase "friends don't let friends X" has its roots in a 40 year old and ongoing public education campaign about drunk driving and and that other uses arise from, and get their charge from, that campaign. Hopefully you are a big enough person to see that it is not a far leap for someone - especially someone who feels stigmatized over paid editing - to interpret the words in the framework of the drunk driving campaign. Now there are countless examples of people saying things that unintentionally hurt other people - this happens all the time. The question is, now that you know that your words hurt somebody what do you do? That is the character question here. Not your intention when you said it but rather what you do now. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't deny that it is not a far leap for someone to do that. I don't know if it is a leap at all. Here's maybe an example: An editor objects to someone's behaviour and says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" [3].
Do I deny that it is a far leap for someone to interpret those words in the framework of stoning women to death? I wouldn't deny that; that's actually one thing of which I myself think when I hear that phrase, since that's in which its roots are.
Could someone think that it's possible that the editor meant in some sense to compare the behaviour being decried and stoning women to death? Well, that's pretty harsh, but I suppose someone could do that. In that case, one could ask if that was what was meant. If the editor then responds that that was not what was meant, then I would think that the misunderstanding should thereby be sufficiently resolved.
Now, could someone not just think that it is possible that that is what was meant, but go farther and conclude with an assertoric statement that that is what was meant? That's, I would say, very harsh, but, again, someone could still do that. If the editor then responds and says that that is not what was meant, and then shows many examples from well-reputed, peer-reviewed, academic publications (etc.) having equivalent usages of the phrase which show that it is normal in mainstream, English-language civil discourse, then I would think that the misunderstanding should thereby be sufficiently resolved.
I think that that last case is equivalent to what happened here. You add to this that I now "know that [my] words hurt somebody". This is news to me. From what I can tell, the objections said nothing about being hurt. They said rather that my comment was "a polemic statement meant to piss people off" [4], that there was a "major ad campaign against drunk driving and [I've] tailored it to COI editing" [5], that it is has an "obscene" meaning and that I "intended that meaning all along" [6]. Those objections said nothing about what the objector felt, but only about what I meant and what I intended (the objector supposedly having greater insight into those than me, which is false). Now, if what you're saying is true, then I apologize: I never meant to hurt anyone. Even if no one was hurt by my comment, I would avoid the phrase in similar contexts in the future. If what you're saying is true (and I don't deny it), then I would be even more careful in such avoidance of the phrase.
Also, I would have no problem with someone replacing the sentence with one with a similar meaning like "Someone who actually wants to help another person should not enable that person to do something which is destructive, including editing with a COI." I'm not sure if changing at this point would be helpful or could be done within the WP:TPG, so I wouldn't try it myself; but, again, I'd be completely fine with such a change.
The principle though that users' comments can be edited by others merely on the basis that they contain phrases that are supposedly or actually hurtful when those phrases are part of normal, civil discourse within academia, is a bad principle. Especially when done so without even an indication on the page that the comment was edited by someone else. It harms any rigorous grounding for determining what is civil and what is not, and this would exacerbate the problem of intractable disputes about civility. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You are making this way more complex than it needs to be. This is not abstract and theoretical; it is just a messy interaction typical of humans. You said something intended to be witty and what you said hurt someone's feelings. That person expressed their hurt in anger, as humans tend to do. You have reacted defensively, as humans tend to do. The simple thing for you to do is strike the comment and say:"hey sorry, didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings". It is a simple thing. You of course are under zero obligation to do so and are free to be any kind of person you want to be. Good luck to you, however you choose to proceed. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Just want to add here... thanks for your patience in engaging with me. I said this in my first post above, but let me say it again to be sure. Editing for pay is a topic that raises intense emotion at WP. You probably know that. What you may not know is that about a year ago, TP mentioned casually on Jimbo's talk page that he wrote an article for pay and had someone else post it. Some editors immediately jumped on him for that (especially as he is an admin) and he feels that they have been harshly hounding him about it ever since. (I have heard this from several editors who have edited for pay - when they have disclosed their paid edits, some other editors have reacted harshly, personally, and sustainedly.... paid editing is evil in some editors' eyes and they pursue paid editors with some vengeance.) It is a very emotional issue here. TP can in general at times be harsh, and on this issue, (in my eyes) I have seen him act well, and act badly/harshly. Again, in my view, he mostly reacts badly when he feels he is already being judged harshly before the other person has even engaged with him and instead are engaging with an "evil paid editor". So yes he took your witty post very personally and very negatively and yes he deleted it. In my eyes, that was an over-reaction out of hurt and built up frustration and anger at other people. I think he could have handled that much better. So that is the background for his behavior, as far as I can see it. Perhaps you didn't know all that.
Your "friends don't let friends" comment was indeed sustained at ANI and is still on the Talk page and you are totally within your rights to keep it there. You are the "winner". Now... I am sure you have seen lots of disputes at DR where neither party did a great job explaining clearly where they were coming from and neither party tried very hard to hear where the other guy was coming from. And where neither party is willing to do the simple things it takes to move forward and leave the dispute behind. I hope this longer explanation was more helpful to you in understanding where TP is coming from (at least as far as I understand it). again, I came and wrote on your Talk page to say "hey, this is a festering thing and you could make it go away by simply striking (like this) your comment and making a "hey sorry didn't mean it that way" apology in your edit note. That's all. Is the comment itself so important to you? Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Hi. Please read up on WP:OUTCOMES before nominating articles for deletion. You may be able to yourself and other editors some work. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what this is in response to. I haven't been to AfD since this edit which does not seem related. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 08:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

The following message left on my talk page may be of interest to you too:

"This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)"

Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Springer Link?[edit]

Hello! I saw on WP:SHARED that in 2012 you mentioned you have access to Springer Link. Is that still the case? If so, would you be able to provide me access to this article? I want to verify that all the information from Sexual dysfunction that's attributed the source is actually present in the article. A pdf would be ideal, but any kind of access would be wonderful. I do have email enabled, or you can reply here. Thank you! :) cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)