Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:17, 2 April 2011

If I'm not responding, that's probably because It is approximately 10:31 AM where this user lives (South Carolina). and I may be asleep, in classes, 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.

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

I appreciate concern during recent events, it's all been humbling. Cleaning up the page again, everything is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: url http://en.wikipedia.org/James_T._White

By the standards set out in the mentioned policy this bio should not be on this site in the first place, as not all parties concerned agree on the statements made, this is a one sided story and now the opportunity to have another view on it is being quashed. I thought this site was about freedom of speech and the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.187.59 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy cited, WP:CITE, does not say anything about all parties involved agreeing. Unless you can demonstrate that the information in the article is not supported by the sources given for it, or that the sources given are not reliable by OUR standards, the information stays. If you want to present counter sources, I recommend looking over the reliable source guidelines to identify counter sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

List of people claimed to be Jesus

That's not what I meant in my edit summary. Moon is claimed to be the Second Coming, not Jesus. This distinction is in the lede section of the article but not the title. That is why I posted in the discussion on the talk page on the focus of the article. Seems it still needs some refining. Also, the article on Billy Meier does not support any claim of being Jesus or the second coming. Elizium23 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Moon fits under the lede text (there's no less reason to include him than Haile Selassie), but you're right about Meier (appears to have been copied from an unsourced addition to List of messiah claimants). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, I was curious if the image of Talmud Jmmanuel should also go as it is associated with Meier, though there is a separate article for that (albeit also poorly sourced). KimChee (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I missed that, removed it just now, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Lilith

You said in an edit comment>(Another ref. Due to being tired and hungry, getting a little impatient, and will get back to it later.)<

I wouldn't give yourself a headache trying to input scholarly refs quickly, the article will still be there, and like similar pseudepigrapha/Kabbala subjects is a long haul job. You've done a great job in this article (which seems to be a magnet for POV and trivia) and many others to turn things toward Misplaced Pages standards. If anyone is going too fast for you to eat/sleep, ask them to slow on the talk page. Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's not a problem, Dreamguy's speed was fine with me. I've started a new exercise routine this year (if I wasn't paying money and getting graded on it... >_< ), and I'm still adjusting my sleep schedule and caloric intake to keep up (and not have random "I'm starving to death" hunger pains come out of nowhere), so I occasionally have to sit back a bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalking

Thanks for the revert! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ophir

I cited my sources well, it was not just original research. Furthermore, if my tone was non-neutral, you could have just changed that.--Avedeus (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, your claim of synthesis is unaccounted for, because each of those sources explicitly supports that view; have you read any of the sources before refuting them?--Avedeus (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll revert myself. In the past in some other articles with similar claims, the use of sources turned out to be synthesis. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats okay, I am glad we understand each other. Thanks. --Avedeus (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

scribal errors of 666 =

If the number is originally written literally as exakosia exinta exi, then it is difficult to have scribal errors. It is more likely written in three letters. Most scribal errors occur in the middle letter. If it was upper case it is Ξ which is much more clear than the lower case ξ. This makes me believe that the number, the very original number written by John was χξς. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.123.7 (talk • contribs)

(signed, responded on IP talk page) Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

ok I am stopping editing. But your behavior is very strange. Please investigate how 616 is written in greek before threatening me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.123.7 (talk • contribs)

(again, signed, responded on IP talk page) Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is specially dedicated to you. "καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῶ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.123.7 (talk • contribs)

(signed, responding) Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

six wives

So, does the citation claim he had six wives? Perhaps its better if you don't replace it as you are unable to verify it and have not assessed the source at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I trust Good Olfactory and his assessment, he does have the source. While I should AGF with the IP editor, I know I can trust GO, and I have been given reason to trust her less than him. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your comments but considering the there is dispute imo you shouldn't replace the content unless you have verified it yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is an censoring edit-warrior with a conflict of interest, and people caving into her WP:TEND edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are basically edit warring content you have no idea about, please self revert and allow the user that has access and has made the claim to add the content. Please take this as a 3RR noteOff2riorob (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So I should accuse Good Olfactory (a user in good standing who I've worked with before and I trust) of being a liar and give into tendentious censorship based on a conflict of interest? Looking for additional sources now. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No , not that at all, the content has no desperate desire to be in the article and discussion is ongoing, personally imo while the discussion and consensus is assessed there is more value in keeping the content out than warring it back in. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

John W. Bryant

You recently made comments on the talk page of John W. Bryant regarding repeated deletions of a quotation from a source. We've been working on this issue on the talk page and I've drafted a proposed addition to the article here. Because you commented on the issue previously, you are invited to comment on the proposal, if you wish to do so. Thanks. Good Ol’factory 08:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Angels(Islamic perspective)

Hi

I recently tried to remove some content on the Angels page regarding the views on angels in Islam. A disproportionate amount of inforation is left in the form of a poem . The poem in outright conflict with mainstream Islamic teachings, I am not against different groups expressing their teachings on the subject, I do however want to avoid people gaining an understanding of Angels in Islam wholly different to what the majority of Muslims believe. I do not intend to censor said information, just that it is in the wrong place. It should be on the Islamic view of angels page so that a more wholistic view of Angels in Islam is presented instead, with the different views on the aforementioned page.

Thanks

P.S. apologies if this is not formatted correctly, I havn't done this before. Imran tayab (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Willfults

Hi. I noticed you've been having a lot of trouble with this editor. Join the club. I've struggled with him for 4-5 months now. He must have ruined a dozen good articles about the SDA church. I've made a note at the NPOV noticeboard. All the best. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Toledoth Yeshu

Thank you for taking time to talk to me.81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I would've stayed to answer the rest of your questions, but WP:Redheads are more important than Misplaced Pages, and one decided I'm apparently not creepy. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Result! :D Readheads are super-hot! ;) 81.103.121.144 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is called "majority text"

The majority (98%) of the ancient handwritten texts mention χξς. The Novum Testamentum Graece refers to printed editions. The majority text is a Bible Standard at least from 300 AC until now, as long as John Chrysostom is consistent with that text Xicsies (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Try actually reading WP:CITE and WP:OR. By calling the NTG "original research" and just saying "reliable source" instead of citing an academic text, you're showing you don't seem to get how things work around here. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

See. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. My search on Pickering pulled up his work not exactly being a published source and effectively a blog, but I had to get breakfast. Thanks for the other research and revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He is a properly published source (published by Thomas Nelson and then by ). Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the following link about Max Muller, why suppress truth about injustice? it still continues.

http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/max-mueller-was-a-swindler-william-jones-was-a-fraud/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calador2100 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Teilhard

Have you got a source which confirms Pierre Teilhard de Chardin racial origin views? I have read that he belived in evolutionary polygenism, it seems many websites seem to be saying this but apparently the websites are not valid enough, there seems to be many websites attacking teilhards beliefs. Apparently theres some stuff he wrote on it himself in his book "The Phenomenon of Man", i don't have the exact line but apparently he belived different races evolved off different primates, and that the Adam and Eve story was not literal to him, and that he actually believed in more than one Adam. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have a copy of Phenomenon on me (I've been borrowing my library's copy). I don't quite recall anything to that effect, however, but I've been meaning to re-read it, and I will keep an eye out for anything about polygenism or monogenism. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Gnosticism Intro

To be honest, I think your intro should have replaced the other one. It's a shame that some articles get taken over by persons trying to make a distorted, inaccurate point, instead of trying to present an objective view of a phenomenon. Your intro is much better. It's too bad that authentic scholars seem to rarely spend time fixing errors in wikipedia articles.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Camaël

I'm kinda new to actually adding info to Misplaced Pages, so Excuse me if I didn't do it the right way;)

I did translate it now for starters.

And I will add the source of the information I got. According to my own research about Camaël, the information I will add after leaving this message is fully correct.

I hope I'm doing it the right way this time.

I will make an account first tho. done. My Account is Mr_GoLd_FaCe

greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr GoLd FaCe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Angels

Angels I am just a 57 yr old physician who is well read and I tried to comment on the Angels site but did not know how. I am amazed that the whole angels wiki does not mention the Sumerians. The oldest recorded description of angels is Sumerian. I saw a clay Sumerian angel in a Beijing museum that was dated 4000 BC, that got me more interested in Sumerian civilization. When I found out that the Sumerian great flood story was almost identical to the Jewish story I was amazed. But then everything fell into place when I learned that Abraham was Sumerian, and took his group of people east. When one religion spins off another, it usually takes with it a lot of the old religion. I found this to be true in all of the religions I have studied. The Sumerian mythology predates the Egyptian beliefs and there are too many similarities to call it all coincidence. There is solid evidence that trade existed between Sumer and Egypt before Egypt became a major civilization. Depictions of winged humans from Sumer and Egypt often look identical. The wikipedia site on angels needs to be rewritten. It took me only ten minutes to find a better site on angels. I like wikipedia and I hope you can get someone to correct this. http://www.feedback.nildram.co.uk/richardebbs/essays/angels.htm Dr. Don Woods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.90.216 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that website does not meet our site's guidelines for reliable sources. What we really need are citations from books. While Judaism did inherit stuff from Sumeria, the Sumerians don't appear to have applied the name or title "messenger" to their creatures, which is kinda what makes an angel an angel instead of a minor god. Unless we have a book by a mainstream historian saying "angels are derived from these Sumerian creatures," we can't really go into Sumeria with the angel article. The article Cherub does link to Shedu, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —slakr 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)