User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 1

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Apollyon, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Apollyon was changed by Ian.thomson (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-01-10T19:16:46+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For any folks reading this, this was an accident, I had capslock on when trying to redirect the article to Abaddon, and we don't have an ABADDON page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

God as the Devil
Ian, thank you for injecting some sanity back into the article. Have any ideas of where else to link the article? I've been thinking of entering it into the God template under Specific conceptions. Do you think that would catch too much flack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WagePeace (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I could see that being done, it makes sense. There could very well be someone unhappy with it, but I think that's just a given with Wikipedia.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hercowhateverabus
I haven't the faintest idea what that's about. However, I did merge the info into the astrological planets article from a separate article (what you took out was that article, in its entirity). So someone wishing to find info on that topic is going to end up at the astrological planets article without anything to show for it. I did a quick Google recon and it seems that Hercowhatchamacallitibus is seemingly tied to the whole "Planet X/Nibiru/2012/Sell the kids, we're all gonna die" thing. Problem is, I have no idea what a "reliable source" would be in this case.  Serendi pod ous  16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Barnard's Star would be a bad idea; it seems connected to the star in name only and any attempt to place it in a featured article like Barnard's Star would tag it immediately for deletion. It does seem far more closely tied to the whole ZetaTalk thing, so it could perhaps link there.  Serendi pod ous  13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been taken down. I figured it wouldn't last long. Better to place it in the ZetaTalk article.  Serendi pod ous  18:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to say, I've read that book (it's short) and, to put it bluntly, that guy's nuts. His ideas make George Adamski look like Gerard Kuiper. Strangely, the book doesn't mention Barnard's Star at all, nor even Hercolobus, really.  Serendi pod ous  16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Emerson
So, just because you didn't know that most people who know a thing or two about Emerson refer to him as the "Concord Sage" (a nickname that goes back 150 years), it can't stay in his article? That's like saying Jerome Bettis shouldn't mention "The Bus" in his article. You might not be a Steelers fan, but the nickname is so prevalent, it would be ridiculous not to mention it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making a completely different argument now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your original argument was: "The Concord Sage" is not a common title for Emerson. Now you're saying it sort of is, and it's okay to say so, just not where you don't want it mentioned. Regardless, I don't mean to be difficult; I actually like the compromise that another editor put in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're really stretching it with the "fanbase" remark. I'm certainly no fan of Emerson, but I've definitely heard the name quite often. Nevertheless, I'm trying to let this go, but feel free to keep aiming for the last word. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD Nomination
Hi, you recently placed an AFD tag on the Razakel article, but you did not complete the nomination process so it will not be listed at AFD and the tag may be removed as an incomplete nomination. If you need any help doing this please let me know, regards ascidian  | talk-to-me  20:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cthulhu
Thanks for digging out a source (I had a look but couldn't find anything) - we really do need to quote something that says "often referred to as" rather than summing it up with a bunch of isolated examples. Wikipedia is all about second-hand sources. Cheers. --McGeddon (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

pages concerning demonics and the works of deplancy
contact the publisher if you like, the information is on my talk page, i have removed the reference but left the information which can be found in other sources, remember fellow just because its not on the internet dosnt mean it dosnt exist... --Tophatdan (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian teaching about the Devil
The section you added here does not contain enough references to indicate the significance of the material. Please add references or it will be removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hail Eris
I enjoyed reading your userpage immensely. Have you seen this? --otherlleft 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

John Todd (occultist)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Todd (occultist), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/JohnToddWikipedia.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just letting anyone see this know that that website had a backup of an article I restored, they originally got it from us.


 * You still can't use it without the attribution history. Otherwise, it is a violation of WP:C. I'm checking with the original deleting admin to see if he objects to restoration of the history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Todd (occultist)
A tag has been placed on John Todd (occultist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  ttonyb (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: John Todd (occultist)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that John Todd (occultist) meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist). Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Cunard (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of paraphrasing of defination of Brahmin
Are you sure current/later subversions of a topic are the only forms of an idea that wikipedia will publish / you will allow. Read the article on 'Brahman' right here on wikipedia, and if convinced, undo yourself, or are you anti brahman or something, and just wish to see the negative corrupted (modern) connotations. What I said can be verified by simply splitting the Sanskrit conjugate word Brahmana. What more reference does one need, than a direct translation. Read related article on Braman in wikipdia, the first few lines, PLEASE, or kindly learn Sanskrit! See talk page too. I am sure there is something that can be kept there. I suggest you do some research on the life of brahmins, past and present, including 27 generations of my own ancestors as per the gotre records kept in Haridwar.

Give it some time :) Read the works of vidyasagar if you have the time, or of Iswara Krishna, or finally Maha Rishi Goutama (Aadi), my ancestral head and major contributor to the Rk veda, and author of Dharma Shaastra (logical of Laws), or P Gautama, author of Nayaya Shartra (logic of justice)

Again I am trying to figure out the formatting thing, I messed, up I apologize sincerely. D. Chakraborty, Gautama Gotre, Shanhka kul

(kul = school of thought, gotre = vedic brahman lineage) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.235.180 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)