User talk:Ian.thomson

^{Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!}

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil.

If I'm not responding, that's probably because

It is approximately 11:30 PM where this user lives (South Carolina). []

and I may be asleep, job hunting, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond.

If you want to:

say that I should become an admin, leave a message here.	accuse me of a Christian bias, read this.	accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, read this.
leave a conversational or non-serious message (wazzup, barnstar, hate mail), go here.	leave me a serious message (about article improvement), click here.	see my contributions, go here.

New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

I'm back from "vacation" in the mountains of Georgia. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What's your beef?

I carefully read No Original Research again to refresh my memory. It says "primary sources are permitted if used carefully" It also says "all material added...must be attributable...even if not actually attributed" So you need to explain why you delete my posts without considering them or discussing them. Are we to eliminate the self-evident fact that Jesus as the Bridegroom is rooted in the Old Testament since the New Testament didn't exist while he was here on earth? There is clearly a parallel between Rev. 21:2, 9-10 and the use of multiple names for the bride: (the city; Jerusalem; the bride; the wife of the Lamb) and numerous verses in Isaiah.

If you will read carefully my most recent post--A New Beginning--you will find my comments on my extensive experience concerning this and related issues. But let me describe here my experience on WP-- In trying to write on Sustainable systems theory I was rapidly and repeatedly deleted by otherwise brilliant experts on human-designed complex systems who didn't have the slightest insight into the difference between their field and complex sustainable systems in nature (such as ecosystems).--But since I already knew Gregory Bateson had spent over a decade trying to explain this and establish the foundations for a metascience that would unify various fields--and he wasn't understood so why should I feel offended? It's just that it is increasingly and urgently needed to understand the global ecosystem.

Today I also spent a considerable amount of time on Amazon.com. There are over 25 books listed on the Bride of Christ, most of them published in the last 10 years, most of them evangelical but two older ones are respectively Russian Orthodox and Catholic. But none of them a history of the first 3 centuries of the Christian church. This suggests there is a need for a WP entry on the Bride of Christ. (There is a mention that it was Tertullian who first officially used the term Bride of Christ--at least in writing.

Over the last 40+ years I've come across a considerable amount of information on the early church--however I didn't purchase or record it with intentions of citing it on WP. (That Martin Luther eliminated some books of the Old Testament from the Protestant canon after consulting with Jewish scholars on the Hebrew canon is one of them).--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Bride of Christ involved interpretation of a primary source, instead of simply stating "(Book chapter:verse) mentions the Bride of Christ in a verse that reads (verbatim verse that actually uses the words 'Bride of Christ.')" The No Original Research guidelines also say "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Wikipedia does not care for self-evident facts or clear parallels, it only cares about direct sourcing with no interpretation by the editors.

If it is not directly quoting the primary source (without interpretation) or summarizing a secondary source (without addition), it does not go on this site.

The talk pages are not the place to develop ideas relating to the subject, only to discuss how the articles may be improved.

Editor insight does not matter, only neutrally handling sources.

Wikipedia is not the place to right "great wrongs", and it is not the place to push new ideas. Google books may have materials you might be interested in, but be sure to make sure the publisher is not a pay-to-print group, and be aware that sectarian publishers may be disqualified for being non-neutral. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(Stops in at Ian's place and eat's the last piece of left over beef)... Let's just look at this for a minute...

"Note in Rev.21 the bride has other names--the holy city, new Jerusalem, the Lamb's wife. In the Old Testament the bride is referred to in Isaiah, also with other names--the city; Jerusalem; Zion; daughter Zion; the wife; the mother." - User:Margaret9mary

Note from another of Ians talk page watchers, read the post by User:Jasonasosa below this one. This is an encyclopedia, a compendium of knowledge, not a publisher of Original thought or connections. You MUST rely on secondary or even better yet tertiary sources for everything. Primary sources are for direct quotes only. Any other use is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and is not welcome here, at all, period. Ever. Heiro 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, an editor telling the wiki-community to "note" something... is editorializing (WP:EDITORIAL) and is extremely poo-pooed. Further, as Ian pointed out, you User:Margaret9mary have not included any sources for your statement linking Revelation to Isaiah. You can't just post that without a proper academic source. You should immerse yourself in understanding WP:RELIABLE. Food for thought, aye?

Ian's friendly stalker,   — Jasonasosa 06:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

History of ancient Israel and Judah

I'll block if the IP edits again, but you probably know you are at 3RR and there's no exception for this sort of dispute. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, kept meaning to make it complete reverts, but then he'd go and edit another section. Sorry about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Message from JoshAlfred

You say that one of the guidelines of wiki is "not to post anything that is a crystal ball hypothesis." My contribution offered the greater convergence of of machines, with industry, and biology, as a possibility. Over all there have been deducible convergences of these units. What more, transhumanism is a respectable crystal ball hypothesis, and mine is similar to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshAlfred (talk • contribs)

Since that convergence hasn't happened yet, it falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL (don't post about stuff that hasn't happened yet as if it's a fact). Transhumanism is not presented as a fact that has occured, but a notable theory that some notable individuals have had. Wikipedia does not accept personal theories or original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this crap

If you look at who is responsible for this page... then you might know what kind of "beast" we are dealing with... Just look really hard for a wiki User name you might recognize... lol  — Jasonasosa 17:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Saw when checking out his forum deal. At least it's not Sam Moser. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is pretty creepy.   — Jasonasosa 17:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

BW of M thinks that when he talks... "(thunder sounds)" So, I don't know man... too many creepsters around if you ask me.  — Jasonasosa 18:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

dybbuk meaning

I see where you added to the dybbuk article, I did my best to clean it up, but I'm new at this and that bot reverted it to the original. My problem with it is the first part of the article. The meaning of the word is not right. A dybbuk being a evil or malevolent being isn't true. It can be a lost soul or a soul with unfinished business, and not always evil. Its referenced to the Britannica page, but that page has nothing to do with that first part. I'll look again to see where I can find the meaning that I was taught, and it explains in more detail the word.

Cajunnavy (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Cajunnavy

The malevolent bit is also supported by the Encyclopedia Judaica article, where Scholem refers to the Dybbuk as evil. It's not demonic, but it is quite the opposite of kind. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh, growing up I was always told that a dybbuk doesn't have to be a bad thing. It could be a lost soul who still needs to accomplish something in order to pass on. So it can take possession of someone but only to help them reach the same goal that the dybbuk could not it its life. Cajunnavy (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a source that reflects that, we might be able to include that view as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this on anther wiki type encyclopedia. It talks about good and bad dybbuks as I was taught, but I'm gonna make some calls to make sure that there is a difference between the dybbuk and the ibbur. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dybbuk.

Cajunnavy (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok I got it figured out now. The dybbuk is the bad version of a possession and the ibbur would be the good kind. I've just been combining the two in my mind and there is a clear difference. And that webpage I put in the earlier post kinda does the same thing that I was doing. They put the two forms in one group and just call them dybbuk's. Sorry for bothering you for so long on this. But thank you for your patience and understanding.

Cajunnavy (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Oh, by the way, New World Encyclopedia doesn't qualify as a reliable source, since it's a Wiki (any user-generated content almost always automatically fails WP:RS). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured as much when I sat down and gave it a good read, and then looked at there sources. They were using the same GhostVillage one, that I had an issue with in the first place that started this whole discussion. Thanks again for your time and patience.

Cajunnavy (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"properly sourced" in TGD article

Hi Ian,

Can you elaborate more on this subject please? Exactly, what is missing in this edit?--199.164.159.2 (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said over at Talk:The God Delusion, it really needs one or two major sources that overviews all the criticism, such as a whole chapter in a book, or a whole article from a newspaper or journal. A few sentences from multiple books, taken together to say "many authors" usually goes against our no original research policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ian,

I found this book that overviews a lot of criticism toward Dawkins in one of its chapters. Do you think this qualifies for what you were asking above?

Thanks --24.94.18.234 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the fact that this book got a good review here makes it ready to be used for criticism?

The Google books link you send is published by the Wikimedia foundation, indicating that it's a reprint of an old version of the article. That's no different than citing Wikipedia, which is not allowed. The second book, being published by Brill, qualifies as a reliable source, depending on how it is used. While "Religion and the New Atheism" does discuss Pape at length, it does not connect it to Dawkins or his God Delusion, instead focusing on Sam Harris's The End of Faith. Discussion of Pape's studies may be appropriate to add there, but not to the God Delusion article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But I can use the material from "Religion and the New Atheism" that are talking about Dawkins or "The God Delusion" in their corresponding article, correct?--24.94.18.234 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is only summarizing material from "Religion and the New Atheism" that is discussed at length (i.e. more than a few lines), probably. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party Edit

Just noticed you reverted an edit I made to the Tea Party Movement due to no reason for edit being given, Fair enough. I don't want to get into an edit war so I wanted to come here to talk with you before reapplying the change with reasons.

The edit removed the "Tea bagger" paragraph from the "Background" section of the article. The reason for its removal are 1) Undue weight, 2) Defamation, and 3) Contentious label. I'd like to remove the paragraph once again with these reasons provided.Magicjava (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend discussing it over at Talk:Tea Party movement, though past discussion has concluded that the section is simply describing others' discussion of the term, giving the weight due from the reliable sources cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for yor feedback. I'll do that. --Magicjava (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ian(24) Thomson(74)'s fantasies

Ian(24) Thomson(74), your fantasy of overseeing Wikipedia is just that. I AM just as BIG a part of this commnity as you think you are and have, in fact, been editing its articles much longer than you have. The difference between(74) you and I are striking! I AM a contributer and you are a deleter. You are WRONG about so many things, i.e. gematria is NOT numerology, although numerologists can use it. They can also use your low IQ number, but that doesn't make your low IQ numerology either. You've 'crossed the line' with me now numerous times and your judgment will be placed on http://7seals.yuku.com . - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)