Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:16, 4 June 2014

Misplaced Pages does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Misplaced Pages 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.

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

Book of Revelation

2 IPs from the same location, probably the author. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I'll treat the next revert as edit warring, then, unless they make some other mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Oannes

Do you want me to separate the article from Adapa, I personally would have prefered that, but since they were put together I worked that way. I would also like if you commented on what I wrote. You can take your time. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your interest is preaching your beliefs instead of simply summarizing what sources state. That is in direct opposition to Misplaced Pages's goals.. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You do have a point, but I did that in a talkpage, what I had actually added in the article was actually supported, and there I did not preach anything at all. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Human sacrifice

It is written in the Bible, and it is belived by nearly every priest and even the pope, that Jesus is God in the flesh. And that he died for our sins, taking it apon himself and atoned for it. I don't understand what your problem is, and if you can't refer to the bible, that are the holy book of the christians, what can you refer to? Then you can't write anything about religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olehal09 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Certainly, the paragraph implies Gardner discovered Wicca, when he actually created it. I suggest a revision as to two points, Gardner created Wicca and, not all of Pagan Witchcraft originated in Britain. The main issue I had with the previous revision is that it conflated Pagan Witchcraft with Wicca. Even Ethan Doyle, the scholar who was quoted in the previous revision states the following as to Pagan Witchcraft pertaining to his origin theories, "arguing that this particular religion's early history can only be understood if it is viewed as a movement with branches developing independently across various parts of Britain and the United States around the same time, rather than the currently widespread view that it can all be traced back to Wicca's founding father, Gerald Gardner."

To be precise, there are other branches of Pagan Witchcraft such as Feri, the Cultus Sabbati, etc. And not all of them trace their origins to Britain or Wicca. As an example, Feri developed in the United States before Wicca gained its spotlight. Therefore, Pagan Witchcraft is an umbrella term and Wicca is one of its branches.

I edited the paragraph once more. Instead of Pagan Witchcraft, a better term would be Modern Witchcraft. I am baffled in that the previous revision uses the term Pagan Witchcraft underneath the subtitle 'Wicca and Modern Witchcraft'. Using the term Modern Witchcraft is more consistent with the wiki article on Modern Witchcraft and the header title. I also wrote that Gardner created Wicca, this always opens a can of worms. I prefer there was a way that traditional witchcraft could be mentioned in this paragraph, as a reflection of other witchcraft traditions aside from Wicca, and Feri, as an example of a tradition that did not develop in Britain. Nevertheless, I think this is decent for now. Thank you. Sabbatian (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved from graffiti page since it concerned Misplaced Pages

Dude u should quit editing my posts...your dad doesn't own wikipedia, neither do u....so keep your wikipedia police business away from me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezzy147 (talk • contribs)

Responding to on his talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Unintentional disamb link in Muhammed article infobox

Hi,

You have reverted some edits by Zwanzig 20 in Muhammad. One of that user's edit remains and says Ishmaelite as ethnicity in the infobox of that article. As you can see the link points unintentionally to a disamb page; it should point to Ishmaelite. Technically, the claim is unsourced because it's not made in the body of the article. Please take a look at it and see if it should be removed like some other Zwanzig 20's edits, or fixed to point to the correct article. I cannot edit the page myself because of protection level.

Finnusertop (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hello. According to your most illuminated edits on Italian cuisine, I have to infer, from an exquisitely logical point of view, that you'd be, uhm... bold enough to say the English language has been influenced by the Anglo-Saxon language? :)

I've proceeded to flush your contributions down, where they belong to. --80.181.235.120 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"- including Etruscan, Ancient, Greek, and Roman."

That nonsensical sentence fragment is what you left in it's place, and you have the gall to call me out on language use? Semi-literate hypocrite. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This mafia site doesn't allow me to post my full answer, even after I've purged it of all things a bot seemed to regard as non-nice. Is there another way to show you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.235.120 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There, done. Enjoy. Only wish I could have saved it for the place it was meant for. --80.181.235.120 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:80.181.235.120#For_Ian

Remote Viewing

The research of the US intelligence agencies into remote viewing was not, in my opinion, a waste of taxpayer money. It was a zero-times-infinity or very-low-probability-times-very-high-gain proposition during the Cold War. It was worth spending money on something that mainstream science said wouldn't work, because if it did work, it was of great value, and much science (not all science) starts as fringe science. It doesn't change the fact that his posts are tiresome, and that he doesn't realize that he is in a small minority. Although the spending of money on remote viewing did not yield any results, other research does not always yield results. If you knew it would work, it wouldn't be research. Taken to your talk page so as not to feed the troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Before and during the research, it wasn't a waste, but after the fact (after 23 years of no results) it's a different matter. A few years under adequate controls? Sure, not a waste. But 23 years with almost no controls? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Are they still spending that stupid money, when the Cold War is over? If so, I agree. It was reasonable during the Cold War, but then it may have become self-perpetuating with little or no check due to its secrecy. I also wonder whether the defender of remote viewing is (possibly unintentionally) leaking secrets. Any such research should be secret, because any successful development of remote viewing would be a secret weapon. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alchemy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

there is one of Administrators Treats others by religious intolerance, See Talk:Abrahamic religions --Islam90 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 (Reply)

Ian.thomson, I apologize for deleting from the Saint Peter talk page. I was unaware that this is considered bad practice. By the way, for your information, I've come to agree with your stance on the Saint Peter and have stopped arguing for its "de-Romanisation". I misinterpreted the page's author's intentions. Thank you for letting me know about this aspect of talk protocol. --Noldoxis (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Brian Josephson

Hey, this is a bit aggressive. Can you possibly cool it? --John (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed you had edited without responding to the above. That is perfectly OK. Can you please take note of this? Making false allegations to win a content issue is something I am always looking out for. Be aware that if you do this again you could get hit by the boomerang. Best wishes, --John (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

After this post, it was made clear to him that using claims of libel as a chilling effect is unacceptable. His response to the block was to threaten to contact the media, again trying to deliberately bully the site into giving him his way based on a remote threat of outside interference. He has since gone even further with the quasi-legal provocation. Even if the threat was not that he was going to sue, the implication of his posts was "Misplaced Pages could be taken to court for libel over this," with the clear intention of getting his way in the discussion. You can't deny that.

Other users who are more familiar with him know that he's a disruptive editor with an unmitigated WP:COI that causes him to push a WP:FRINGE POV on a number of articles. Ask @Goblin Face: or @AndyTheGrump: (who, despite him filing a duplicate report, you've yet to discuss this matter with). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I might well do. It was your aggressive message that called you to my attention. Speaking from experience, when one starts using language like that, sometimes it is a sign that it is time to walk away from the area for a bit. The main thing is that you understand that your complaint was dismissed as being without merit, by people like me who had read the history. I think you do, don't you? --John (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Allen B. Reed

You may be interested to know that much of the content that everyone else worked hard to cut down for a more encyclopedic presentation has since been restored. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw crap. I only added it because my mom does geneology. I'll try to take a look at it at some point, thanks for notifying me. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... I honestly did not know that his strategy was to simply wait until nobody was paying attention to revert it all back. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, because that's totally honest, cooperative, mature, and scholarly of him. I mean, why bother actually trying to find reliable secondary sources and discussing the matter? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Occult Project

I joined it today, after I saw you joining it. So what you will be doing? In my view, List of Occultists needs some attention. If you know any names(even those who don't have wikipage), you may add them to the list. OccultZone (Talk) 19:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I get the impression that they're lacking in active members.

*shrug* Maybe the page would better arranged by tradition instead of era, shuffling off many entries to pages like List of alchemists and List of astrologers, then just listing articles according to their categories? The only issue then would be individuals who are listed in multiple categories, like Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, but their articles usually list what they're most known for first (like Agrippa being primarily known as a magician instead of an alchemist). I've put it on my watchlist, and may ogre it someday if nothing happens.

I've been working off-and-on on an overhaul of the List of demons in the Ars Goetia article, with most of that material hopefully going out to individual articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, which probably isn't much, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Occult/Encyclopedic articles and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal/Encyclopedic articles and similar pages probably contain some information regarding at least some occultists. I could probably add much more information, if I had a clearer idea as to what does and does not qualify as "occult". I know Rosemary Ellen Guiley has several encyclopedias printed, and others exist as well, but I have always been unsure where to put lists of such articles as they may have because of the problem of the definition of "occult," "paranormal," "parapsychology," etc. And I myself don't apparently have ready access to any good, lengthy "Encyclopedia of the Occult" type works. At the very least, though that page might list a few other articles which might be notable that don't exist yet. And great to have you back, Ian. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I've got a few of those somewhere, as does my local library, I'll try to keep them in mind. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the merge proposal and 'semi-active' tag. Both are irrelevant because I had assessed all articles of Occult. @John Carter: It is good to interest in such non-controversial(no possibility of bias) subject. Occult is different than Paranormal. Paranormal is something which is unknown, but occult is evident. Ian(never knew him before this year) has been around for a while now. OccultZone (Talk) 11:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I could see merging the two into some generic "supernatural" category (but also see that opening doors to New atheism advocates trying to shove religion and mythology into there as well), but I do think the two need to be kept as separate for the same reasons mythology and pseudoscience are separate. Part of the reason I did start work on an overhaul of the Goetia related articles was that I have caught the occasional bias sneak in there, usually from fans of the Joy of Satan website. I wouldn't care, except their positions aren't historical or WP:DUE in the articles' current states, and I wouldn't want people putting stuff from even the Golden Dawn unless clearly labelled as such. John and I have been here since about 2007, and I've been way less active last year than I was any couple of months before then. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That would work too, and I guess I should clarify that I was thinking about where to put lists from , for instance, reference books on ghosts, vampires, demons, and whatever. And Man, Myth, and Magic has some useful content too, although sorting what articles are relevant to what topics there is a bit of a pain. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been trying to get that one. I recall that there's my local library has a few copies, though they probably only have them remaining in the reference section since I'm probably the only person to have picked up their (now missing) copy of The Book of Abramelin without the intention of stealing, censoring, practicing, or destroying it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's probably moot by now but....

Thanks for noticing my attempt at generosity. For the record, there were four reversions in today's batch, not three, although the inability to count was probably the least of this editor's challenges. Thanks though! __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, after seeing his reaction, I was ready to suggest that he be given a cool down block until well after the topic ban discussion was finished (but then the topic ban went through while I was writing a response). Nice to have passionate new editors and all, but the gains/effort ratio doesn't look as good with him. He knows how to prove me wrong, but that doesn't appear to interest him so much as being "right". Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree. (Although, as far as being a "new editor", his talk page said he's had accounts for years. Maybe they all ended similarly. Ah, we'll probably never know and it probably doesn't matter in the end.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I honestly didn't realize that was 4, not 3. Seemed like a pointless thing to be reverting, though. My other edits were one-time things that never attracted much attention. Although I did get into an edit war once that we worked out amicably. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)