User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 6
New stuff goes at the bottom, people.
- 1 Award
- 2 blanked page misunderstanding
- 3 Delete page
- 4 Speedy deletion declined: Paper gun
- 5 Speedy deletion declined: Jordan Scott Pace
- 6 Hello!
- 7 Israelite - Scythian connection
- 8 Not copyright infringement
- 9 Christian Humanism
- 10 Angels and Christian Angelic Hierarchy
- 11 Hello
- 12 Help
- 13 Cheers
- 14 Hello
Hey, mr. thomson! even though, I'm, like, still a bit confused over the satanist talk thing, I think you're a great wikipedian editor in general! thanks for talking with me (u were the only 1 to do so without like, saying, ur edits suck, or asking random questions, so its even more cool!)! ^_^
|The Original Barnstar|
|Please, accept this well-earned reward for your efforts here on Wikipedia, Mr. Ian.thomson! May you continue to aid others and devote your fine skill to editing articles here! God bless you! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)|
blanked page misunderstanding
- I did not delete the page, I only tagged it for deletion. Please read the notability guidelines. Just because the site is real does NOT make it notable. The article did not demonstrate that the site in question was notable. Also, please sign your posts with four tidles (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Would you mind explaining what part of the notability guidelines your site meets? If the site does not meet the notability guidelines, Wikipedia does not regard the site as notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I would love to explain: 1. It is the only site on the internet called nolujand 2. It is the only site where you can look at plant pots and share enthusiasm for it
- That is not notability at all. You have not read the notability guidelines. Read the notability guidelines or just quit. Also, please sign your posts with four tidles (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ian.thomson, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paper gun, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: -db: not a test page; reads like a how-to though. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Paper gun is well sick innit and why should it be deleted
Speedy deletion declined: Jordan Scott Pace
Hello Ian.thomson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jordan Scott Pace, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I agree this is almost certainly a hoax but (without your private knowledge) I do not think it is "blatant and obvious" enough for G3. I will look further into it and PROD or AfD - unless you get there first. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Israelite - Scythian connection
Sorry Ian.thomson, I didn't read your edit summary before re-submitting my edit.
The claim in the original source is not valid. Yes, it is in that book. But no, it's not correct. It is not cited within that book. It defies common sense. No one in their right mind would claim from either genetic evidence or from the Bible's genealogy (which is what the Christians during the Middle Ages actually believed in) that there was ANY connection between Israelites (Semitic people) and Scythians (Aryan/Indo-Aryan/Indo-European). If you want to re-insert that, then appropriate care should be taken to remind people they are reading under a heading which says "CLAIMS of descent", and that this is a CLAIM, in contrast to modern evidence and most other claims, though the historical nature of this claim is in doubt because as I said, it defies common knowledge and belief.
One example of a long-shot "CLAIM" which could be mentioned is the Irish claim to Scythian descent. That is somewhat plausible through their own legends and what limited evidence is available. There is NO link whatsoever for these "Lost tribes of Israel" theories. Every race seems to be attributed to one of these "lost tribes" at one time or another and it's about as valid of a claim as UFOs or the Illuminati. It has no business being on a Wikipedia page unless it's one talking about fantastic conspiracy theories.
EDIT: Oops, this should be on the Scythian talk page! I'm posting it there and another edit too. Please respond there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- New stuff goes at the bottom. Wikipedia does allow fringe theories that are notable and sourced, regardless of how stupid they are, and the article does not say anything about John Wilson being correct, just that Wilson made the claim. I understand that it is a fantasy, but it is a sourced piece of information. Wikipedia is not about what is true, but what is just a summary of different sources. EDIT: Also, the heading for the section is already "Descent claims". Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Not copyright infringement
I replied to your warning on my IP's talk page (even though I didn't make the edit in question) because I believe you were wrong to give that warning and should avoid copyright paranoia. According to the lyrics and poetry page how much can be quoted under fair use is open to interpretation. It wasn't placed on a page saying "here is the lyrics of sting so you don't have to buy his song" and was highlighting a notable cultural work relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Although you as an individual may not be the person that placed those lyrics on the page, as can be seen here, the lyrics were put in by someone from your IP address. Simply mentioning that Mephisopheles is mentioned in the song is enough, there is no need to include the lyrics. The lyrics were not being analyzed, they were just being put out there. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who made the changes on Christian Humanism. I accidentally forgot to log in beforehand, but now I am. Anyhow, my main beef is the fact that the category box has the "Happy Human", the symbol of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, an organization which defines Humanism thus:
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
If this is the type of Humanism to which the articles in said category refer to, then Christian Humanism has no business being in it. If you want the category of Humanism to encompass views outside Secular Humanism, that icon really should be removed. If not, Christian Humanism should be taken out of the category altogether. Corbmobile (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just gonna quote C.Fred: "The symbol is part of Template:Humanism. This article is properly within the scope of that navigation aid, so the template should not be removed from this article. If the issue is whether the Happy Human is an appropriate symbol for that box and all the articles within it, that's a subject best taken up at Template talk:Humanism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_humanism""
- Also, the IHEU didn't invent humanism. Their definition of humanism pretty much applies to them. Don't be a fundie. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I find your comments extremely unhelpful. I am not trying to be a "fundie". I don't believe I even indicated I was a Christian or had any particular religious affiliation at all. I just think the symbol might lead to people to confuse Christian Humanism with Christian atheism. Whatever one may think of these standpoints, they are very dissimilar. In any case, that post was not on that discussion page when I checked it yesterday, but now that I am aware I will take it up on the template page. Corbmobile (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Angels and Christian Angelic Hierarchy
Hey, you deleted my stuff because I didn't cite sources. But my claims were never "scholars believe this" so I don't think I should have to cite anything. In "Angel" I simply said that because of the ambiguity of the word angel it is possible that people are misinterpreting passages containing it. It's perfectly rational and so you should judge it on its content, not its origin. Along the same lines is my contribution to "Christian Angelic Hierarchy". Simply read the Bible passage that I quoted. It clearly talks about Christians being against the "powers, thrones and principalities." The whole chapter is talking about how Christians are to be against corrupt human authorities. My point makes perfect sense. Even though I can't quote some scholar who thinks the same way, it is clearly a valid point of view. Hell, it seems like every single wiki on here about religion has some "unscholarly criticisms" within in, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just because someone's idea isn't in a book doesn't make it untrue, and just because some random nobody wrote a book doesn't make them right. I mean, what if you delete my post now, but then I publish a book in a few months that briefly mentions my opinions on angels; can I then quote and cite my own book and have my post stay up on Wikipedia? Or what if I quoted some random sermon a preacher posted on his church website- is that fit for Wikipedia? What if I was that preacher? What if I was some random guy (like I am) and I made some single page essay, then quoted it on Wikipedia, saying, "some people have argued that..."? I mean, come on, there are entire sections and PAGES on Wikipedia lacking sources, but they don't need them, because they are all commonsense or common knowledge. And same thing here: I'm just saying some commonsense things about these topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- "my claims were never "scholars believe this" so I don't think I should have to cite anything" - No, see the guidelines against original research. We're not a blog for you to put your own views. For the record, your additions were plausible, but Wikipedia does not interpret, it only reports that this figure, that scholar, or these persons interpret things this way or that.
- "Just because someone's idea isn't in a book doesn't make it untrue, and just because some random nobody wrote a book doesn't make them right." - Wikipedia is not about what is true, it is just a summary of sources. See Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
- "I mean, what if you delete my post now, but then I publish a book in a few months that briefly mentions my opinions on angels; can I then quote and cite my own book and have my post stay up on Wikipedia?" - Per WP:SELFCITING, citing yourself isn't necessarily a problem, but it still has to be a reliable source.
- "Or what if I quoted some random sermon a preacher posted on his church website- is that fit for Wikipedia?" - Random bits of a sermon on a church website, unless that church is notable or discussing a notable view, would not be a reliable source.
- "What if I was that preacher?" - Being a preacher wouldn't mean shit, even if you were my preacher.
- "What if I was some random guy (like I am) and I made some single page essay, then quoted it on Wikipedia, saying, "some people have argued that..."?" - If your essay was not been published in a source that anyone cares about, then no, it would not be appropriate.
- "I mean, come on, there are entire sections and PAGES on Wikipedia lacking sources" - And adding more unsourced statements is supposed to help how?
- "but they don't need them, because they are all commonsense or common knowledge. And same thing here" - Except that it isn't. What you posted was interpretation, and not common knowledge. It was plausible interpretation, but it is interpretation, and we do not interpret, we only report notable interpretations that are sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying so fast. Look, I understand that Wikipedia doesn't try to add to knowledge, and only reports on what already exists. I brought up all of my little scenarios about being a preacher or author or internet essayist to prove a common point- it's not like an idea has to be written down to exist. I just wrote a lengthy counter argument but then realized that I was essentially restating what I had said before, and so the whole thing would be of no aid. Let me just say this- you think that my interpretations aren't commonsense, but I do- both make absolute perfect sense, but you're just sitting there right now like, "uh, no." I mean, angel means messenger, so how is it impossible that some Biblical passages concerning angels aren't actually speaking about human messengers? Tell me. Prove me wrong. If angel means messenger then how can it perhaps not sometimes be referring to human messengers? Say something better than "the onus is on you", because the argument is airtight- I already proved it. If I didn't then simply say what is illogical in my reasoning. I think that my contributions were blocked mostly because you don't agree with me. And I think Wikipedia's sourcing policy is illogical. I know that if I were to write a book with my opinions in it and then quote it on Wikipedia saying, "page 10 of John Smith's book says..." it would not be blocked, because it is 100% true that my book would have those contents. But if I type something here then it is original research and is therefor invalid. Well, either way I'm the source of the material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Something making sense does not make it commonsense, otherwise, the world wouldn't have near the problems it does and we wouldn't have two different words for sense and commonsense. As I said repeatedly, the interpretations are plausible, i.e. they make sense, but it isn't commonsense (and if it was, it would have already been in the article). I'm not the one that came up with the sourcing policy, so telling me you have a problem with it won't accomplish anything. Again, Wikipedia is not about what is true, but about what is sourced. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but unless you have a source that other people can check with, it doesn't go in the article. One of the reasons that we would want a book is that other people can go to their libraries and verify that it isn't just something someone made up the other day. It also prevents nutters from fucking up the articles on Catholicism, Freemasonry, Judaism, etc, with paranoid conspiracy theories (although it's crazy, in their bizarre (il)logic, their arguments are airtight). Your view is reasonable, but unless there is a source for it, then it does not go in the article. Also, please do not preface your paragraphs with two spaces, it causes weird formatting issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Ian Thomson. There is a saying among Satanists, that only the strong shall and can survive the ordeals of life. And I have, quite recently, been through many ordeals. And yet I live, Thomson, yet I live. Ironic to be contacting you once again after all these months, just after your Christian holiday of Easter, is it not, Ian Thomson? Heh. Funny. Hilarious actually.
- First of all, I will warn you and your new friend, this disgusting Christian cow that has placed unreasonable warnings on my talk page merely because of my personal religious beliegs, to at once apologize to me for this breach of rules. Do so again, and I fear not all shall be well at all, Ian Thomson. This Celestialwarden person...she would dare irk one as great as I with her repulsive messages? Sickening, is it not, Ian Thomson? Thomson, if you wish to change your beliefs, now, I may yet be able to consider...refraining, my friend. You know, some people actually believe that Satanism will one day eclipse this entire sphere and hold sway over all the human societies. Look around you, Thomson, heed well the portents and warnings. You know what is the true path, my friend. There shall come forth a reckoning, and soon. You think not infilitration is not an effective strategy, Thomson? Poor, dear, misguided Ian...you will see one day. I hope then, you will not be too late. Think well before you reply, good Ian, and waste not our time with pointless, if not laughable, efforts to convert me to your 'religion'. I know that you, at least, will be able to understand. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it may shock you that of the users I have thus contacted, one has actually responded to my call, a Satanist, in fact (though on my user page, it seems). You need any further proof that Satanism is waxing in might and influence daily? Shall not even Christianity become a small island amidst a sea of darkness when shadows descend to envelop all? Ponder well, Thomson, ponder well... Iotamikadoshi (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yawn. Sorry, got a girlfriend (spent Easter morning with her instead of going to church, actually, and I know God was quite happy with all of it), so I care even less about Satan than I did before. Also, no personal attacks (again, I really couldn't give a damn, but you might hurt Celestialwarden's feelings or something). I removed Celestialwarden's warning because she did place it inappropriately, and told her not to do so again. And again, I really don't care what everyone else believes, because I am an individual. Meh, fuck all human societies, I know the true path is love, regardless of whatever the whole world believes. As for trying to convert you, "pot, meet kettle" doesn't begin to cover it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Please, Ian, I don't understand why, but this Satanist high priest user is suddenly threatening to ban me...and I barely edit at all on Wikipedia anymore. I mean, I do not even know him. He and Iotamikadoshi are just targeting me because my beliefs differ from theirs? Ugh...please, Ian, I really don't know what to do anymore. What do you think I should do, Ian? Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think everyone just needs to calm down and remember that Wikipedia is not important and that noone is supposed to push any sort of agenda. 02:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- (sigh) I'm gonna be honest, I only skimmed your message. I really don't give a shit (got a wonderful girlfriend, and she's proof enough for me), but if everybody here doesn't learn to be some civil wikipedians (Satanist, Christian, Pastafarian, whatever), I might talk with some folks on noticeboards or something. Well, if I don't have anything better to do (like write religious poetry for my girlfriend). Again, I really don't care, have a nice taking over the world or whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is as I feared. Prejudice and bias at every point. I had thought Ian was more reasonable a person to see that the fault was indeed Celestialwarden11's, but it seems that I was mistaken, sadly. Please, stop harassing me for this minor issue, and I will stop considering suspending even Celestialwarden11's account, or that of anyone's, for the time being. Please, Ian Thomson, you are opposed to me because of your past interactions with this user, also a fellow 'Christian', so I see. It must also be noted that Charlesdrakew has been in contact with Celestialwarden11 in the past. I ask your help for swiftly resolving this small issue, Ian Thomson; even you must agree that Charlesdrakew has clearly overreacted to this, and his report was completely unexpected and unnecessary. I kindly and clearly made one simple request: For the unreasonable warnings directed against me to be stopped, and even that has offended others here... Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In the name of whatever friendship that existed between us two do I so make this pleading request, Ian. Please, I did not realize it would go this far; I am quite young, and less experienced than adults such as you. Please, Ian, help me; I shall bother you no more if you consider doing so. Did I not tell you about the many pressures and difficulties I am facing, from various people? I am sorry it has gotten this far...If you have any pity left for me, and if you believe that I am capable of some good yet, aid me this last time, Ian. I no longer have an interest in editing on such a site due to this, in any case, though. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Dude, I honestly don't care what religion anyone on this site follows. I don't care if people wanna be Muslim, Scientologist, Hindu, whatever. Celestialwarden did inappropriately give you a warning, and I removed it and asked her not to do that (and I have notified Charlesdrakew about this). Knowing that Celestialwarden was a Christian, I did try to offer an explanation to her that I figured would be a little more likely to be accepted. Both you and Celestialwarden were trying to convert people, and I asked y'all not to do that (simply explaining one's view is one thing, bothering others to try to get them to accept one's views is a different thing). That should have been the end of it, but y'all started squabbling again and you called in Rev.Mike to bully, and I really don't care what the three of y'all wanna do. Fight, don't fight, move in together in a small condo in Miami, whatever. I didn't report anyone, people who do not identify as Christians and are completely uninvolved are dealing with this stuff instead because this whole mess is honestly kinda childish (again, religion isn't the issue here, the problem is Wikipedians being uncivil to each other). Again, I really don't care what goes on here, especially with the girlfriend and all. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- My final message: It is most gratifying to know that at least one person's eyes have been opened, Ian Thomson. I strongly advise that you and others keep a close eye on this Celestialwarden11 fanatic, should this user ever again attempt to violate Wikipedia's policies, and prepare to take whatever steps necessary to stop her permanently should this user's disruptive behavior continue. I am sure you agree that such was the harshness of her message and biased tone that it was not unreasonable for me and Michael to threaten to suspend this user's account. Anyway, I shall further...my own interests, elsewhere, shall we say. I take my leave from this Wikipedia, Ian Thomson; fear not, I, Iotamikadoshi, do solemnly vow to not contact Christians here ever again. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed? While one might say that such a statement is ludricous, I shall try, difficult as it has become, to respect your own thoughts. Well, Ian, I suppose this is it. You've chosen your path; I've chosen mine. You may do that which you wish for, and I shall do...I shall do that which I know I have been born to do. Let us just say that my choices are final; no power on this plane, certainly not those of fanatic Christians on Wikipedia, can possibly shift me from my chosen path now, or possibly prevent me from dedicating the rest of my life to making our world a truly, truly glorious paradise. Think not that the power of the Satanists is feeble, Ian Thomson; as long as those whom devote themselves to a cause truly believe it is just and necessary, even the impossible may one day become possible. My last words: Keep an eye on Celestialwarden11; I am sure Reverend Michael can help you immensely in keeping her disruptive edits in check. Well, this is it, Ian. It is time I stop wasting my time here and make more an impact on our world. Trust me, man, it won't be long now. Bye, Ian. Know this, though, before I truly take my leave, and interpret it however you wish: You may think I have failed here utterly, but in more ways than one, success has long since been achieved. You'll understand...one day. Whether it will be too late then, only you can say. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)