User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 4

Clean up time, everything is still in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo, Thomster
sup, ian? look, im just wondering...what IS ur personal opinion of my...religious conversion? didnt u find my reasons justified, at least? u always seemed to favor christians more than...other ppl of other faiths. i mean, don't u get a little tired of christain preaching at all? i mean, at least admit satanism holds no little power here in america. There IS a difference between belief and fact. We BOTH know which side is eventually going to win. As i said b4. STUDY THE PATTERNS, YO. ty, :):):) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are only using Wikipedia as a social networking site, I am going to be blunt: I think that you converted to make you feel special without actually having to be special. There is something missing in your life but you may not want to face it so you claim to have power from worshipping what you haven't really read all that much about.  You became interested in me because you believed that I was a crypto-satanist since I know about some subjects that Christians aren't actually forbidden to study (unless you ask a fundamentalist).  This, combined with your assumption that Satanists have any need to defend Harry Potter (a book written by a Christian and using Christian symbols), and your proselytizing to me so much makes me feel the same way I do around most conservative members of the Southern Baptist Convention.  I think it is hypocritical to talk about swaying people to freedom while saying I should convert to your views.  I think it is hypocritical to talk about rising from the crowd while insinuating that the crowd is going to eventually become what you want me to become.  If I was not on Wikipedia, I would have calmly explained my views without demanding acceptance (as I did on my userpage), but right after I would have have asked more about your religious views so that I could point out philosophical flaws (and don't expect I show members of the would-be Christian crowd any favors, I treat them the same way).  My faith in Christ is unrelated to the behavior of the crowd, whatever religion the crowd plays at following.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ian Thomson. We are...very shocked by your response. The Satanist cause is not weak, Thomson. I think you really should consider your final decision with great care. We strongly urge you to think again, my friend. I shall provide basic evidence: See: [www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Kids.html] (it is an impressive site designed specifically to guide children and teenagers into abandoning your Christian God and seeking the devil's aid instead) and its partner site:, which has 2535 members currently, in vast contrast to the meager three dozen members of the Anti-Satanist group: [groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti-Satanism_Group/]. Is not even this small piece of evidence indication of how powerful Satanic worship has become? Please, Ian, I...we...are doing this for a very specific purpose, which soon, with luck, many, many societies and communities, lost and misguided as they are now, may realize. 'Faith in Christ', you say? Heh. Very well, Ian, we shall soon see how strong your faith in 'Christ' is, and at that moment, perhaps I will have no more need for continuing to speak with you thus. Your friend, :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a note, of this 'crowd' you always seem to make mention of, we have acknowledged that the Christianity religion is indeed worthy of our notice. I have planned my strategems well, Ian, and I have been acting, Ian, to promote my own cause and to weaken the foundations of the force that I have sworn some time ago to oppose, no matter what the cost, and I will, I must succeed, even if I and others of my belief all perish in doing so. At least you can sympathize with the fact that it is for love, if nothing else, that drives me to do that which you possibly may support not. Even now, though we two have been parted, she (the female at the school I once attended years past) and I shall always remain as one in the heart, and it is with a passion that I affirm my conversion: I shall die for my cause, if I must, and I shall die before I foresake that which I now know to be right and true. Best wishes, Ian Thomson, :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ian, know this: Never shall harm come to you, through words or otherwise, for you have done me a great favor in providing me with the list of Satanists on Wikipedia. I have tried to contact some of them, and I shall continue to do so, to further my aims. Thank you, Ian, for everything you have done for me. I swell with pride and gratitude at the honor of having known one as you. My thanks, and my best wishes, your friend, :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to continue being blunt: I have seen the Joy of Satan ministries website before. It was created by a racist group that calls God (which is just a placeholder term for whatever created the universe) "Satan" (which originally was a title, anothe placeholder term for whatever happens to oppose whatever created the universe), it engages in revisionist history, and it thinks that other religions were created by telepathic aliens (Zacharia Sitchin, the fellow who they're ripping off, really didn't have any evidence that isn't more rationally explained by Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious). I have no need of them to become god-like: all humanity, including Semites (who Joy of Satan blame for the problems in the world), are potentially little Gods. I don't need to join others to gain power. Being able to refuse to join a crowd is real power. It was not a Christian that did the inquisition, but a crowd playing at being Christian (just as the crowd could have played at being any religion or lack thereof). I never believed at any point that harm would come to me, and now I am sure of it because my previous thoughts have only been confirmed. I'll be praying for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, pray, Ian Thomson, and I, too, support prayer greatly. Yet my mission is to ensure that you pray to the one being I and many others pray to, instead of the one we hate most. I mean, according to Satanic belief, LUCIFER created Yahweh, not the other way around. Must I provide you with more evidence of Satanism's waxing strength? Long have I stroven to respect your own beliefs, as queer as I deemed some of them, yet it is my turn now to speak that which you may deem blunt: What evidence have you that it was Jehovah who created Lucifer? Hmm...any at all, Ian? Please, you must understand how hard it is for me to try to achieve my goals, even though I am now assured that I am on the winning team. Perhaps you should come to join me, and MY patron? Best wishes, your friend, :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

YHWH and Lucifer are just names given to God. It is only because of misreading of one verse in Isaiah that Satan is refered to as Lucifer (otherwise, Biblically "Light Bearer" refers to the title a Babylonian king claimed for himself, and then to refer to a star or to Jesus). Satan as a light bearer or inspiring genius is a result of the literary Romantics taking Milton's Paradise Lost at face value instead of contemplating it. While Satanism is increasing, there are multiple growing religious minorities in the west, including Atheism, Wicca, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, that are more likely targets for the crowd to play at. If the crowd quits playing at being Christian and starts pretending to follow some other religion, that's only going to make things easier for me. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So you DO think the prospect of worshipping Satan is appealing? Then, my friend, there IS much we may yet discuss...Speak on, Ian, speak on...for the time may be nigh...FOR THE FINAL EXTINCTION! Iotamikadoshi (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ian, seriously, if you're thinking of joining...then I will, let us say, speak far more with you. And that which must be done may be yet achieved. :) Best wishes, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ian, you mention on your User page that you believe your God saves everyone. I wish to cause no offence, but, um, what if some people...how should I put it, my friend...? Hmmm...DONT WANT TO BE 'SAVED'? What say you to that, Ian Thomson? Iotamikadoshi (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So, I never said that Satan worship is appealing to me. What I said was Satan being viewed positively as an inspiring light bringer is the result of a misreading of one Bible verse and a single poem. I said that religious minorities other than Satanism are more likely to take over in the west. I said that if people quit playing at my religion, that's only going to make things easier for me to follow my religion. If people don't want to be saved, that's their problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh...A strong one, you are, Thomson. But more often are those deemed 'strong' merely maintain the illusion of strength than not. Though we may not agree on certain crucial points, and I shall admit that our friendship because of certain of your views has not been strengthened greatly, that does not mean I cannot admire your resolve, misguided as you seem to be. Ian, I'm serious: You cannot think how freaking MUCH Satanism has grown in influence. Each year, more and more people find true glory and pleasure in practicing it. I am not sure how to put in too succintly, but let us put it this way: Though I know quite well that Theistic Satanism is actually more common than one may think, and I cannot deny with certainity that some of its practices are perhaps questionable still, as you said, it is an aspect of what you call 'Creation'. Besides, you thought EVERYONE is going to be saved, so even if I engage in devil worship with cults here every week, how would that negatively affect me? Ian, Ian, so blind to the truths before you...Know that everything now is clear before me. I see everything taking place around me almost like a game one could play, you know. Heh. I've always enjoyed playing chess. Especially when it is time to, ah, let us say...re-set the board for a new game, if you know what I mean. Best wishes, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How you end up dealing with God's burning love taking away all that is illusory so that only an authentic individual remains is on you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, whoa, was that an attempt at a threat? Heh. You think I've going to hell, Thomson? Ian: Be cool. Remember that I do have many powerful connections, perhaps even here on Wikipedia. Some have chosen to resist the efforts of those to 'expose' Satanism. Some contribute more to such articles to enable a wider range of people to learn more about it. Some try to exploit the weak, the lost, the vulnerable, seeking to introduce them to a cause that they can help, a cause which can help them. Why did I come here on Wikipedia in the first place? To show that Satanism is not weak, and is worthy of great respect from all, as well as show others the True Path as best as I can. The net we have been slowly tightening is almost ready to be revealed; struggle as one might, all will blunder into this net in time. You have no idea how glorious are my motives and goals. I say this only, my friend: I fear we can tolerate little attempted meddling in our own designs. The last steps are nearly in order; if I am not mistaken, many whom now oppose us will understand soon. It's actually brilliant, how we have managed to appeal to those in power, quite, quite brilliant. My people have access to the United Nations, have influenced its decisions at the Security Council subtly, have met with and befriended quite a few of your Presidents, and been invited to the White House for dinner, as well as having been granted some level of diplomatic immunity whilst we are are in America. Because of my unique status in America, I have been able to go to other countries and catch glimpses of their own societies and cultures, all according to the Plan: China, Russia, Japan, England, France. Those whom rank higher than I have seen even more; I am confident, however, that, with time, I, too, will earn myself a higher position in the midst of these affairs and exert what influence I may over them.
 * We are not weak, Ian. However, believe me or not, as you wish: There is another reason to why I have converted, and this reason may be more unbelievable than the first. However, I know what I have seen, and what I have heard. Let's just say I'm pretty convinced that the power I fight for is very real, and very strong, very strong indeed. How can you say that God is omnibenevolent when so many people worship God and suffer still? He slew those whom opposed him in the Bible, and allowed the massacres of entire cities.
 * Look at the sky, Ian. Lightning occasionally cleaves through the void of the night, yes, but only so very briefly before dying away; it can only spark for moments before it is absorbed by the shadows. Light and Darkness, Darkness and Light; we grow weary of this eternal struggle. Only by embracing the Path of Power can we truly embrace ourselves. I seek to break the cycle, so that my master, whom I truly believe is real and is greater than any other power in all existence (regardless of the irritating views fools beneath us seem to hold), may claim dominion over all. The End Times are coming, Ian; of that at least I am convinced. It may not come the way you expect, but it will come, and when it does, when the Darkness at last comes to descend and conquer, we will rejoice. Best wishes, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol, melodrama. If you want to call having the dross removed hell instead of salvation, that's your problem.  Bwahahaha! *pulls cape up to face and dashes off to deal with people messing with articles without following guidelines*  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mock me as you wish, Ian Thomson. I know what I know, and when you finally realize how foolish you have been, I fear there shall be very little laughter indeed, at least from you. My master is both beautiful and glorious, yet scorned by much of humanity. That is why I have dedicated myself to removing all those whom oppose the will of that which shall conquer all. Ian, tell me this: Have you truly never even considered joining a Satanist cult? Ian, I cannot achieve my aims with your continually rejecting my offers so. Be forewarned, good friend: Not all those of my order are as patient and tolerant as I. However, answer me this: What is WRONG with Satanist practices? Yes, some practices are outlawed, but does not history show that even law can be flawed in itself? Would you obey the will of the Communist leaders (China and Russia spring to mind) merely because they consider it their law? If indeed you think nothing is wrong, and that your God shall one day 'save' everyone and everything, then why NOT join Satanism? Just saying, Ian... Good day, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course law is flawed, its a human construct and nothing more. If the figure most people call God does save everyone (as I believe), then there isn't any need to worship anyone.  I'm not joining Satanism because I haven't seen any evidence for the existance of such a supernatural being, just a metaphor for rejecting excellence in favor of praising the self (and selves are why human constructs like law are flawed).  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Then what evidence do Christians have for their one God? Do not you deem your own views to be biased, favouring one side over the other just because of whim? When my master comes to do that which must be done for his devoted followers to rise above all, you will understand. You believe that Satanists shall be able to reach your 'heaven': does that mean that you believe certain Christians may be doomed to hell? Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian, Ian, my good friend, once I was like you, foolish and blind, unbelieving in the power of the prince. Clearer has mine sight become, Ian Thomson. I ask you yet again: Shall you aid my cause? Though it it strong, it may still require the aid of those of talent such as you. Consider well my offer, good Ian, before declining yet again. Know this: Even my own patience...has an end. Thank you, and good day, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea of some white bearded invisible father figure in the sky seems just as unlikely to me as Satan as an actual being. However, causality means that everything has a cause, including causality.  The cause of causality is generally what is meant by the word "God" when refered to by many Jews, Muslims, Deists, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and Christians.  As for Satanists in heaven and Christians in hell, to me heaven and hell are the same thing, it is only how one reacts to it that makes a difference.  There will be plenty of people that called themselves Christians in life that will not have a good time in heaven.  If your cause is strong, it does not need me.  If I am talented, I do not need your cause.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Strength can always feed itself upon more strength. It is very true that my cause is strong, but more willing participants will surely bolster our might and influence even further. As I have said, I am working upon a very specific goal. Why do you think Satanists band together? For mutual strength, support, and protection. For only then can they resist those whom have sworn to oppose them. Talent also can build itself; you have not yet reached your full potential, Ian Thomson. With my help, doubtless you can hone your skills further. I understand that you are in a difficult position, struggling against the 'temptations' of the power you have vowed to defy at all costs, but, you see, you are not the only one with such doubts and confusions. For instance, when I met a Satanist for one of the first times, I realized that, to my shock, it was actually I whom had invited him, albeit by accident. However, this Satanist makes even me stir with discomfort at times, despite his claims he has slain no one. However, if I were to use my power to banish him from our community, I would be betraying myself, and that which I stand for; I mean, it was because of me who founded the gathering in the first place, and I admit that I have had less luck in finding members than other branches: Each and every one should be valued with care, regardless of my personal opinion of them. You see, life is full of complex ordeals and trials, as well as difficult decisions, but you MUST choose the right path, Ian, the path which I and many, many people, have chosen to walk. Good day. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't vowed to oppose anything. I just see no point in opposing excellence in itself, which is all that Satan represents for me.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh...this IS getting confusing. You're a Christian, but you think Satan is sick, BUT you still won't join? I'm not sure how my superiors will make of this, Ian... What harm would it be to practice Satanism? Any, at all? Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, by "opposing excellence in itself, which is all that Satan represents for me," I meant that to me, Satan only represents the opposition of excellence. I like excellence, so there just isn't any point for me to follow something that I don't believe exists except as a symbol of opposing what is excellent. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian. Choose. Please. Soon. God or Satan? Against my master or for him? Until such time as you affirm the right choice, I fear our friendship must cease to exist, perhaps as much for your good as for mine. Good day. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If it isn't obvious, I choose the excellent cause of causality, what I use the placeholder term "God" to refer to. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask one more time, the last, LAST time I shall ask this, Ian Thomson: DO YOU TRULY WISH TO EMBRACE THE TEACHINGS OF THIS 'CHRISTIANITY'? Ian, Ian, why don't you freaking understand? Life was always so difficult, so violent, so confusing, for me. Conversion was the ONLY FREAKING WAY for my sanity to survive!! Ian, Ian, let's both be calm, both be reasonable. I shall not give up on you. Ian, yet if you cannot...do that which I know to be beautiful and glorious, to be truly good and right, then...we are enemies, Ian, no less than that. Enemies. I only wish to make one last point, pose one final query, before I leave to pursue higher interests and more rich pleasures than devoting myself to this Wikipedia: Do you choose to accept the one you call Satan? Are you certain you wish not to change your mind? Can you understand how desperate my aims and designs have become? Some say that darkness will only bring bondage, but how are you so sure that light shall not shackle you either? Ian, please, for our friendship's sake...answer this: Are you willing to convert to Satanism? Yes, or no? Please, PLEASE, make the right choice, the choice which I have made, please, Ian, please... Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol, more melodrama! I've got meatloaf, peas, and potatoes, I couldn't be calmer on horse tranquilizers.  Seriously dude, I'm sorry that you cracked under fundamentalist christendom, but that wasn't Christianity.  And you haven't exactly left evangelical fundamentalism.  Again, there is no point in me bothering to follow what I see as a symbol of unexcellence in order to acquire power.  I don't think that darkness brings bondage, darkness is an excellent symbol for Negative Theology, the idea that God cannot be accurately described but must be understood through what God is not.  I'm not converting to Satanism.  I've found no reason to do so.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm praying for you, Thomson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enc23 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Simonblaen"
You're totally right about it being an attack; it just wasn't as clear to me initially and I tend to err on the side of caution. Good call though. AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, he's gone, so that's all that matters. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

guyver
I'd like to ask why you undid another persons revision on the guyver page. your reason was that it required a source but the source this person was using is the manga; the source the article itself is based upon. it was not any type of 3rd party information that required any additional source. this seemed like a rather random "undo" to me and i would like to know why to avoid any misunderstanding in future.Drag-5 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Judicial Shamanism
There is a difference between "do not modify" the existing text and "do not add a comment" So here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism / I just added a comment without modifying the previous text. This is completely in accordance with the deletion policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It says "No further edits should be made to this page." It does not invite comments.  "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."  You can't selectively choose one part of the rules to ignore the rest.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

re: As always, you do not understand the rules. The rule says: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it." The word "it" refers to "the following discussion". The word "page" also means the "discussion". It means that comments can be put down. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." - You are completely ignoring this part. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that is you who does irnore the first part - read once again: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it." The word "it" refers to "the following discussion". The word "page" also means the "discussion" - the word "page" covers only the text that is in the FRAMES. Do you understand the word "frames"? Everything that is under the frames is not a part of the page that is not a subject to modification. Moreover, to close a discussion of TWO undercompetent admins in 7 days is an obvious abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Page means page, as in webpage. They would have said discussion if they meant the discussion.  You don't know what Wikipedia's conventions are.  The word page refers to page as a whole.  You are just upset because you made a mistake.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please rease WP:RS. Mentions of a subject ("The concept of "judicial shamanism" is explicitely mentioned", "is mentioned at page 42", etc) are not considered appropriate sources. Also, please point out what rule you are citing instead of just saying it exists. Plus, the only other edits by that vandal were vandalism that were reverted as vandalism, and that guy's objection was nonsensical at best (but you have a habit of not reading the last half of something). And finally, you have no authority to say what I have or haven't heard of. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

to Ian.thomson - the problem of Wikipedia is that people like you who never heard about "postmodernism" or "critical legal studies" are allowed to have a dictatorial opinion. I would consider only the opinion of the person who has experience with Critical Legal Studies as important, and your as undercompetent. To your last point:

1) How to put into your head that the concept of "judicial shamanism" is not simply mentioned in the 7 sources? "judicial shamanism" is a TITLE of those articles, it is a CONCLUSION in the article of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania, it is a TITLE of CHAPTER in the Brazilian book. I do not know how it is possible to maintain a meaningful conversation with such undercompetent people who do not even know what the words "title", "conclusion" and "title of a chapter" mean.

2) Even if some editions of that guy really were vandalism - it does not mean that he always posts only vandalisms. You cannot apply the presumption of vandalism for a person forever. In this case I believe that you, Ian.thomson, are a vandal - you never heard nor about "postmodernism", neither about the role of "shamanic ritual" in the theory of simulacra of Jean Baudrillard. You do not speak French. You do not speak Portugease. You do not speak any other foreign language, and you are proud of this.

3) Ian.thomson does not understand what is "reliable source". The article of President Paksas that accuses the courts in judicial shamanism is published at the official website of the President. The statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court is published on the official website of the Court. The article of Stanislovas Tomas is published by the World Congress of Philosophy of Law. The book of professor Shirokogoroff is published by Cambridge University Press. The books of Jean Baudrillard is always published by the best French publishing houses, but you do not know their names because you simply know absolutely no French publishing houses. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

4) Ian.thomson writes about himself "I am a college student working on getting my English major (I plan to be a high school English teacher)." And he deletes articles about law and postmodernism written by law professors from Germany? This is ridiculous. I vote for disclosing the degree level of the admins! STOP THIS UNDEREDUCATED ANARCHY. Dear Ian.thomson, go back to your English literature. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard of postmodernism? You seriously need to quit assuming so much.  I just finished a course on postmodernism where I corrected the professor multiple times and I did quite well with my papers on Borges and Angela Carter.  You need to read WP:VAN, you have no idea what a vandal is according to Wikipedia standards.  The vandal I pointed out had only 3 edits - two reverted as vandalism, and the objection which went on about bunnies ruling the world.  What mental imbalance do you have that competely prevents you from seeing that part of that guy's objection?  As for me deleting articles - I haven't deleted any of yours yet, but welcome to Wikipedia - the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit provided they know how to follow the guidelines.  By the way, I'm not an admin.  That you did not know that, and your general incompetance and ignorance of Wikipedia, show you have no idea what you are doing on here.  If you think that people shouldn't mess with what they know nothing about, you should leave Wikipedia to the people that know what they are doing.  If you aren't capable of paying attention to simple stuff like "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," "What's wrong with Judicial Shamanism or Giant Bunnies ruling the earth?" "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page," then I really don't care how educated you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not abuse your administrative power, and note that in a real world all your arguments would be simply ignored, because you do not have a sufficient qualification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have no idea what Wikipedia is and you refuse to hear anyone out. I am not an admin, and I did not delete your article, you are only showing your ignorance by continuing to refer to me as the admin that deleted your article.  That you repeatedly refer to my actions as vandalism also shows you do not know (or care) what the definition of a vandal is according to this site's standards.  That you think this is some sort of academic site also shows you have no idea what this site is at all.  This site is just a summary of sources that anyone can investigate for themselves with little previous understanding, this site is nothing seriously scholarly.  Your degree in itself means absolutely nothing here, you have to show sources that speak for themselves like anyone else.  If you can not produce such sources, that does not reflect well on your degree and university.  Your repeated elitism and lack of civility only further show that you do not belong here.  I can actually follow the guidelines, such as bringing forth sources that stand on their own and don't require the help of someone claiming to be well educated.  I am capable of following simple instructions such as "do not add anything to this page."  I do not made repeated ill-informed assumptions such as the idea that no hablo no lenguas pero ingles, or that I (someone who studies literature and whose userpage makes repeated references to postmodern author Philip K Dick) know nothing about postmodernism (which has more to do with literature than law).  I do not behave like a drunken sports fan that verbally assaults fine institutions he knows nothing of during a childish temper tantrum.  You have not shown that you are capable of any of these things, probably because you have your head shoved so far up your degree that you don't actually know how to operate in the real world outside of a university.  I feel sorry for you.  You need to leave Wikipedia alone until you grow up, start playing nice, and learn to follow simple rules and listen to suggestions.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Ian. All those whom find the prince of attraction is worthy of my notice and aid. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Angeldramos
Hi Thomson,

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldramos (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly new to this, but bored. I just want to make a page. Because I'm notable.

Angeldramos: Satanism
Ian, I will be concise to the point: Please REFRAIN from removing my messages sent to the user talk pages of others, such as those of Angeldramos, as that is not quite within your authority to do, administrator though you claim you are. Though I have little more to say to you, there is still some time for you to make another decision, if you are interested; we shall turn our attention on those whom have spurned our generous offers AFTER we succeed in achieving our aims for numerous other more prudent people...I have high confidence that, once you immediately place my message back (which I must demand you do with speed; yes, Ian, you removed my message, now YOU put it back, not me, not him, YOU), this user, likely more clear-sighted than you as you, will doubtless consider my offer with greater care. Good day, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone that's curious can look at Angeldramos talk page's history and see that I did not remove any sort of message. And I have never claimed to be an administrator. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And I suppose this fits in with your 'Liberal Christian' beliefs, as well? Very well, Liberals, non-Liberals, Fundamentalists, all are set against Satanists. And you still claim you are unbiased, not a hypocrite? Yet the larger force does not necessarily imply a superior one. Why would Angeldramos delete the message without explanation, though? Perhaps he was secretly influenced through your privately contacting him, mayhap with the aid of e-mail? Ian, must our friendship and association be the price of your holding true to your religious beliefs? Do you not wish for freedom and power? Ian, Ian, I really thought we could be friends, sharing in a beautiful future under the reign of a beautiful master; you and I don't have many friends, but at least we can have each other. It appears that I was wrong. Fear not: I know a lost cause when I see one; yet from now on, my protection can no longer be provided, my friend. Good day, Ian Thomson, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the links I put on your userpage ( and ), they're proof that I didn't delete your message. By and large most liberal Christians are not set against Satanists anymore than any other religion (I have far more a problem with Pat Robertson than I do any Satanist, and I'm not alone in that). If you look at Angeldramos's talk page's history, you'll see that he removed your message within a minute of receiving it, that is nowhere near enough time for me e-mail him. A lot of people just don't want to bother with Satanism. I am willing to hold both friendship and my religion, I see no problem with both. I have freedom and power as a Christian, without being forced to serve, it is my choice to serve as simply by trying to be a good person. Actually, I do have many good friends. While I thank you for intending that I be protected to begin with, I'm just shrugging my shoulders and going on with my day since you're withdrawing it. I don't really see what you could have been protecting me from (I mean, what, demonic magic? I don't see that happening). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor Ian...Some forces even Satanists require some measure of protection from, however much they find beauty in them. I meant it not as an implied threat, merely a simple statement of fact: Protection is quite necessary, against a Satanist and as a Satanist. Let us just say I am...quite convinced that even forces whom you hail as master may have their...more dangerous and fickle moments at times. Ian. I offer my protection not against demonic magic, but, yes, against that which may do great harm, not just to you, but to many people, no matter Its beauty and might. Good day. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize the page, I'm just unsure how to use the talk. How dare you? You will regret warning me

 * With your attitude, it's only a matter of time before you are banned. Talk pages are labelled TALK right at the top, like this one.  And just because someone isn't from your country doesn't mean they can't revert your bad edits.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Forever storm
Hello Ian.thomson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Forever storm, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Institution of Technicians & Engineers (Kashmir) - Recreated?
Ian, I was doing a bit of NPP and adding a few clean-up tags to the above article created by User_talk:Alam_bakshi on Feb 7. I noted that this editor had been notified by you that an article with the same subject had been tagged for CSD on 6 February. I'll leave my tags on the article and leave it unpatrolled if you'd like to follow-up. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support I think our organization is not a profitable one ,and it belongs a professional body;so it is requested kindly help me how i complete the same  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alam bakshi (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible
Although I appreciate the citation needed tags on The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible, the use of "some theologians" violates WP:WEASEL. Woogee (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Ian, why do you find such amusement in my own words? You have no idea how my own life is now. Ian, ever since I sent out a call for all Satanists, I have at first felt...neutral, perhaps even pleased to some extent. However, things have gotten...more wild than I have expected. Though I loathe myself for such weakness, I cannot help but feel somewhat more...uneasy with what I have been doing over the past few months. True, no threat has been made to my own life, perhaps, as of yet, but as for others...I cannot be too sure. Ian, please, I am not sure what my actions have resulted in, but it seems that some of these people are really more dangerous than I thought. Please, Thomson, this is not a joke. Like, maybe it was lol at first when these people boast of sacrificing someone and having a fun time, and I didn't take them seriously at first. I mean, who would? But, Ian, I'm just by myself a lot of the time, away from my parents, with no other friends, and, look, I'm just a little uncomfortable now with some of the things these Satanists are doing. Ian, please, I just want your advice on what to do if this situation really gets out of hand. Please. Try to help me. Please. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you feel uncomfortable with your religious peers, you may want to consider if you really want them to be your peers. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. This, Ian, is where I go LMAO. What if, say, I'm just a little too deep into this whole thing to back out now? I mean, it's not like I can just quit, lol. True, it was I who helped gather them. But as I have delved more deeply into this new religion, power and authority has since been shifting from me. Seriously, the things I've heard, what they've told me...they say they even have agents in the police and government. Look, I'm not here to force you to pity me or do anything for me, but to just pray for me. Pray to whomever you may choose, but, like, just pray. Just this once. I really am getting more desperate here. I'm not even sure if I can hide what I'm writing from them, actually...But your God...even if such a being did exist, with what I have done, what I have said, do you really think God would really want me? Someone as filthy and weak as I? I've made some serious mistakes, Ian. Deadly serious, even. Look, Ian, I'm really grateful for talking with me the past few months. I suppose I will have to make this choice about what I'm going to have to do soon enough, but either way it might cost me much more than I can pay. Much more. Bye, Ian. You've kinda been annoying sometimes, but it has been nice, I guess, knowing you, no matter how briefly. Thanks. Bye. :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My belief is that God has forgiven everyone already, it is on each person how they will deal with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of International Church of God's Grace
I have nominated International Church of God's Grace, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/International Church of God's Grace. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis
I disagree with what you wrote on my talk page. I did not add any commentary or my own personal analysis. Quit fabricating falsehoods. The level of biased analysis and commentary against the historicity of the Book of Mormon is overwhelming in this article. It's accuracy is disputed. I am making it more neutral and less biased against seekers of honest, valid research. I did not remove sourced material. I removed sections that were poorly formatted and which inaccurately quoted, i.e. misrepresented the author's remarks. There is a lot of garbage in this article which when taken out of context completely distorts the reality of what modern research is showing. I will gladly remove distortions of the facts and I will continue to add notes that keep this article neutral. IT looks like its been overrun by people who don't know how to take a neutral stance. You are one of them.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Also, do not removed sourced material just because it does not support your point of view. Wikipedia does not condone censorship of reliably sourced material. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What I left on the userpage was a template warning for violating the neutral point of view policy. You removed sourced information that didn't support a particular POV, and that is a violation of the NPOV policy.  You added unsourced information to "clarify" stuff to enforce a particular POV, and that is a violation of the NPOV policy.  The article does not support the historicity of the Book of Mormon because the majority of reliable sources say that the Book of Mormon doesn't match up with history.  You did remove sourced material, as can be seen here (those things that in the tags?  Those are sources.) Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Who cares if I removed "sourced" information, the sources some are providing and you are defending are a one sided, biased perspective that has nothing to do with so called "mainstream archeology". I added sourced information that was a continuation of Bennett's article.  The Barley information as you have maintained it is inaccurate and if you are so narrow minded to think that future discoveries and even valid existing scientific research cannot be added, then know one is going to believe the crap out here on wikipedia for this subject.


 * You think that because you pretend to be an enforcer of these policies that I will just back down and allow half-truths and one-sided to be placed out here. It's people like you that make Wikipedia an unreliable source.  Don't go messing with my changes again or you will find out what the policies out here are, and it won't be from some weak sauce wannabe science based false christian wikipedia monitor.  You will find out in time and it will suck to be you.  Jaredkunz30 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, with your lack of civility and demonstration that you do not care about the reliable source or NPOV policies, you have shown you have no productive reason to be here. Wikipedia does not tolerate censorship for any reason.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lack of civility"? Get over yourself. Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't tolerate a lot of things, eventually it won't tolerate you.  I've read all the remarks from others who say you're going around starting edit wars with your bogus referencing NPOV policies.  Who are you dude?  Nobody. You're a nobody.  A nothing.  Stop pretending to be something you're not.  How old are you any way dude?  Try graduating from high school and college before you go trying to enforce NPOV policies.  You are a disease.  I'm going to provide my scholarship to more reputable media outlets than this bogus article.  I will take pity on you the day you are humbled and brought to know what it means to be a true christian.  Until then you're just another one-sided, narrow minded empty vessel. adios Jaredkunz30 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I am nobody, you're the one assuming you're special by thinking you don't have to follow the site's policies. And I have graduated from high school.  And if you've been to college, you'd know what sources were, because you have to include them in papers (you've gotta write at least one when you're in college).  If you knew anything about Wikipedia, you would know that we honestly don't give a damn who any of the editors are as long as they follow the rules.  You are a nobody just as I am, your scholarship means nothing, all that matters is being able to produce sources for what you bring in, and not making personal attacks.  And by the way, bragging about being a better Christian when someone disagrees with you?  Not exactly humble.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Ian, you missed this part about being an overzealous self appointed enforcer. Actually you're more like a WikiBully than enforcer:

WikiBullying is the act of using the Wikipedia system and the power of editing to threaten or intimidate other editors. Doing so violates the civility principles of Wikipedia and is not tolerated. There are essentially two forms of bullying on Wikipedia: attacks against the individual editor by targeting a single user, or giving the perception of power aimed at the entire Wikipedia community at large. On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing of all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less are at a lower level and are not entitled to their point of view. Stating a real policy when it is necessary is not considered WikiBullying. But going beyond an editor's call of duty to enforce policies can be. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have removed sourced material from an article. You put in unsourced information against the sourced material. You have said that you do not care about sources. You have make personal attacks to the person who undid your edits. You and I have equal right to edit, but you are not following the rules. I am just enforcing the rules. WikiBullying would have been threatening to get you banned after your first edit or because of some possible future constructive edit (one that actually follows site guidelines), or telling other Wikipedians that the rules do not apply to me because I'm a scholar. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
Hi! Mr.ian.thomson, plz, tell me more about this book. you said wikipedia was a good place to learn more about it yourself, so... but does it have anything do with christianity? At all? Because I like to learn about christian stuff, even online! have a FANTASTic day, mr. thomson! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

hey, mr.thomson! I have got to bring this up with someone whom has talked to me on Wikipedia here. but, like, no matter what I do, I can't seem to make any friends. I welcome dozens and dozens of newbies, I go to random Christians, I go to talk pages, but still no one but you have really tried to talk to me...sigh...like, there was this japanese guy/gal, the first person whom came to me, sortie, i think he/she was called, who randomly came to my talk page, and asked weird questions, and when I totally tried to ask them back, and like, who the heck are you, and, like, another user, went all, like, ditto, and HE(or she) said...oh, sorry, can't remember what she (he, she-he? ha!) said. so sorry, mr. ian.thomson, i just have loads of energy pumping thru me, maybe its the peach snapple i drank, I know it wasnt diet, but my family, like, goes to costco and buy, because they think its the hottest store ever, and I was all like, um, no, not really, and they were all like, lol, yeah, and I was like, okay...weirdness much, but its your dough, so, ha HA, joke's on you, babies!. oh my gosh, I am so sorry to go off topic, I juyst get like that sometimes, so ssorry, I just can't sit at a computer and focus on 1 topic for a long time, I'm better at editing articles, but I have to lots of exercise on treadmill to calm down bfore, so...get it, mr. thomson?

kk. here's my questions:
 * why the heck you talk to satanists much? I mean, don't let their crap get to you, mister. I can see you told that freak to f off (nicely, too, well done! good christian morals, mr! wait, are u a christian?) I mean, he just sounds...messed up...heh. mikaboshi, he was called? ugh. even his name sounds really evil....that sounds japanese...omg, japanese people on wikipedia are not giving me the most coolest impression, mr.t, first the random gal/guy and now this depressed satanist, few are christians, right? well, that should explain it, I guess.
 * also, mormonism, its like, part of christainity, yeah?
 * I went to both catholic and baptist churches, but I'm not sure which faith to adhere to, mr.ian.thomson! personally, I like catholics better, I mean, it was original church, right? protestantism...sigh...sorry, mister, but if christianity breaks up again...that would be really bad. it's already much broken as it is, ian.thomson. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (quoted straight from the holy bible, yeah!) so, like, why break up, rather than stand together and beat up satanist freaks than argue over small stuff and separate?
 * anyway, God bless, and have a fantastic day, mr. thomson! thanks for your long response! sorry I couldn't respond earlier, mass, you know. bye! fantastic day! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV warning
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been warned. And yes, as you wrote, "Richard Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion," he's a pretty good authority" for the argument that God doesn't exist. There a lot of wikipedians who would back me up on this one. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough is enough Ian. I am reporting this to ANI.--Charles (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

please, charles, don't report mr.ian, I'm sure he's really a nice guy (though he does talk to SATANISTS a bit too much for my comfort zone, no fense...) Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it was the other guy he was reporting. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Award
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!)! ^_^