—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. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.
If I'm not responding, that's probably because
...And I'm teaching or working on lesson plans (8am-5pm), sleeping (8pm-6am), or trying to figure out whatever it was that I got that tasted like fried cheese.
New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~)
Church of Satan
- ...Would you like to edit Wikipedia in your native language?
- Also, a sources cited in the article matters more than a source that has only been mentioned but not even named. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
- Thanks, and to you and yours as well, and a Happy New Year! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
seems to be evading the block: Special:Contributions/188.8.131.52, Special:Contributions/184.108.40.206 (edit warring in support of user Beshogur). 2003:77:4F10:EA80:61C7:DAD7:ACEA:5759 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi The dealing started since Trump took the Mexican subject as a campaign. The end of the deal, what will happen, we dont know. If you dont see that, I understand. But every thing in this subject has being part of the Deal Trump is negotiating. he is a great negotiator, he is doing that. In time you will see the result. There are 2 points of view in this and 2 possible outcome, I took the experts of each side, give the options of that by the experts. There is no possible side the result has not happen. Is a negotiation in process. The options are there of what experts say can happen. The sources please check them. They are the most credited in the subject, there are no better ones. Trump, the Mexican President, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the NAFTA, New York Times. I am not saying this is the case, but I did a previous Article on a person that did much in history. The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, he said, the sources, that the person did not do that, etc. when I demonstrated every thing was correct, that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it. has a page with stars, he is a publisher, etc. I just want to contribute Wikipedia if good information is welcome. What ever you decide, is fine for me. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- No no no no no. Wikipedia doesn't say "great negotiator," "wise investor," and other praise you've been giving in the article. Wikipedia is neutral, and if you cannot or will not abide by that, you need to leave. Also, Wikipedia does not engage in speculation about the future, so "2 possible outcomes" is two too many.
- Also, your claims regarding someone else "publishing" stuff and insulting you appear to contradict the page history for the article as well as those of the talk pages for everyone you've interacted with. Have you edited under a previous account? If so, what was the name? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Ian.thomson I did not say that. What I said is that in the past I did an other Article, a (other) person, market for deletion, etc. Not the person you are saying of whom I dont have an opinion at this moment. Please keep communication according to Wikipedia. I only try to contribute to Wikipedia. The article does not have any description from me you mention: "great negotiator," "wise investor," and other praise you've been giving. What it have is experts expressions and the links if read confirm that but dont have any "great negotiator," "wise investor," for no one in the Article. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- You current account is only a few days old, and the only article you have tried to create under this account was the Trump-Mexico Deal. What was the name of your previous account? What was the previous article? And how is that relevant to the Trump-Mexico Deal?
- Your Trump-Mexico Deal article did call Carlos Slim a "wise investor." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Ian.thomson!
- Sorry, just woke up. I'm guessing they've left that IP by now. As was concluded at ANI, it's looking like protection might be a better option. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
myth VS legend
1830, from French Mythe (1818) and directly from Modern Latin mythus, from Greek mythos "speech, thought, story, myth, anything delivered by word of mouth," of unknown origin.
Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]
- @Lostubes: So, the definition you're using is unique to you, three incomplete "citations" to two hundred years outdated scholarship, and a total misinterpretation of the word "trivial" from a modern source. See Myth and Legend to understand how the terms are defined by modern scholarship. Did you not even read the Oxford source that you cited? You've got to be joking to suggest that a global flood is trivial. Also, the deity Yahweh is involved in the story, so by the very definition you cite, it is a myth and not legend. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Original research is original research, facts and defactos are facts and defactos.
Attempting to refute a fact or a defacto merely because you are a scholarly fellow having spend your life in theological sessions but without any dunk of linquistics, anthropology, or for that matter, wence it has come, does not imply that original research would be research, but merely a defacto.
Wikipedia might not care about scholarly attitudes, then again, what it might not care about is a scholar whom makes presume that all defactos must come from his name, or, a defacto, that it would want all scholars to give them their copyrights, to you, or the ´house´ of copyrights.
- Your "facts" are original research. They have no sources, and they go against cited professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources. I'm not a Scientologist, and you are being presumptuous. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Didn't you know? Ceres was discovered by "reverse" astrology! The charts suggested an unseen "planet". Doug Weller did some refinement and "discovered" Ceres! Jim1138 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I have opened a SPI case last week: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. But it seems that i have malfiled it. I have problems regarding my computer and my mobile restricts me for making proper edits. Would you please correct it? Sorry to bother you. Bests. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think I see the problem: did you edit the page directly, instead of using the submit feature in the "How to open an investigation:" tab? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I did exactly what i did on other Wikipedias. I rarely edit en.wiki. It seems that the procedure is a bit different, since i did not face such problem before. Thank you, Ian. I hope this long-term vandal is going to be range-blocked by the admins/checkusers soon. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)