User talk:Viriathus

Welcome to my old talk page! I am not logged anymore: Retired

Harold Aspden

Despite your statement just above, Viriathus (talk · contribs), I see that you seem to be recently active as of October, 2006. Have you come out of "wikiretirement"?

I have some concerns about WP:VAIN-WP:NPOV-WP:OR regarding the cited wikibiography and some other edits you have recently made. Are you IRL Harold Aspden?

TIA for clarifying these points.---CH 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns. My answer is already at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience#Another set of pages to watch?. Regards.

Unfortunately, you didn't answer the question. Please note that the only user doing any "guessing" so far as I know is myself, and please see WP:SOCK for why experienced Wikipedians tend to feel that evasise responses are not a good sign in cases like this. I repeat: are you IRL Harold Aspden? Please try to give an unambiguous answer. TIA---CH 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your subtle way of trying to intimidate, or challenge, whoever you regard as a "fairly isolated anti-relativity crank" (your words)? Or those who adhere to alternatives, since according to your philosophical blindness "mainstream belief is inherently the most stable and plausible"? State clearly what do you expect from me or else please leave. This much I may offer to you: my sincere compassion, the way I am able, for your current pride born from your own intellectual arrogance (a major sin common to our current-day world in decay). Bye. --Viriathus 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriathus, intimidation is not my style, although I should think it is obvious that I am not trying to being "subtle" either. Rather, I have a concern (unfortunately not unreasonable in light of extensive past experience at Wikipedia), which led me to ask you a simple question. I tried to point out to you that experience has shown (to repeat, see WP:SOCK) that when a user who has made questionable edits responds evasively to a polite but direct query, this indicates the likely answer to the question. If you have no intention of answering my question, I will stop asking it. But IMO you should certainly review polices like WP:VAIN-WP:SOCK before editing Aspden-related articles again. Fair enough? ---CH 02:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor Hillman, your words here are indeed polite but your previous comments about me, as already noticed by another fellow editor, were likely an Wikipedia:Civility vio. If you regard any of my edits as "questionable" please refer to the discussion page of the related article (as eg. Talk:Harold Aspden). As other editors have already realized, during the past two years (since 5 October 2004, initial nick ...), I have never refused to discuss details of any of my editions. I think it is quite clear that I am not Dr. Aspden, however I am honored that the insight that I have brought about this physicist work may have caused such [erroneous]assumption, a sign that the article conveys a correct sintectic overview of his work. I must apologize for my previous (above) hard words; still they contained no anger but just sadness for this current unnecessary situation. About my wikiretirement, I hope that after our discussion here it may finally start (this time for good). Thank you. --Viriathus 03:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nikolai_Aleksandrovich_Kozyrev.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nikolai_Aleksandrovich_Kozyrev.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ConceptionsofGod

Did you bother looking at the relevant talk page, Template_talk:ConceptionsofGod? The template was moved to the bottom of the "Trinity" article in the first place because of the Template's somewhat large and visually annoying nature (contrasted with its relatively minimal relevance to the "Trinity" article), and particularly because of the use of the problematic image "Image:Franz Anton Mesmers Grabstein 05 Mesmers Zeichen.svg". These issues had actually become somewhat mitigated until your edits brought them back in full force... AnonMoos 11:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I am glad that I have "brought them back in full force" and my hope is that the work done in re-creating the article Conceptions of God may somehow serve to balance my sometimes impulsive past editions. About having a Symbol at the mentioned template, as a great Mystic once said:

"Divine symbols which have been given to mankind from time to time speak to that forum of truth which is within our hearts, and awaken our consciousness to divine ideas entirely beyond words."

Just two brief notes from my own perspective:

the all-seeing eye, the Eye of Providence, unlike the symbols of specific Traditions (some of them[symbols] which would not be recognized so easily) is currently perhaps the most universal Symbol which may be immediatly perceived as implying a representation of God (keeping watch on mankind) by every follower of any Religion or Tradition worlwide and even by those who have lost, or not yet found, their faith;

the mentioned file "Image:Franz Anton Mesmers Grabstein 05 Mesmers Zeichen.svg" is an electronic graphic image, created by a German editor, of the all-seeing eye that for some enigmatic reason is blessing the grave of the Rosicrucian Initiate (!?) Franz Mesmer.

Regards, --Viriathus 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may love the "Eye of Providence" symbol, but others hate it, and think it's symbolic of an Illuminati-Freemasonic-Trilateral-Bilderberger conspiracy to rule the world. Furthermore, insofar as it is used as a religious symbol, it is strongly identified in historical use with Christianity, and in current use with Cao Dai. Muslims and Jews would most definitely be suspicious of it if the use of a triangle in the symbol is meant to imply any acceptance of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. And finally, the particular image Image:Franz Anton Mesmers Grabstein 05 Mesmers Zeichen.svg is BUTT UGLY, and using it in the way that you're using it bloats the "Conceptions of God" template to a larger size than it needs to be. That has a lot to do with why the "Conceptions of God" template is at the botom of the "Trinity" article... AnonMoos 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image (as inserted a while ago by fellow editor User:Cunado19), of the total eclipse of the Sun, the "donor of Life", moving its Eye (umbra) through Earth inhabitants is also fine from my point of view. ;) --Viriathus 13:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]