User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 5

Cleaning up the page again, everything is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 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. Also, Iotamikadoshi was attempting to convert me (I didn't convert, though). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Remember, to REJECT the temptations of the devil! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 18:36, 17 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!)! ^_^

questions
but, mr.thomson, you have to admit, the satanists are pretty creepy, sad, maybe, but creepy, still. once, there was this guy saying he worshipped the devil and who said he killed a cat (OMG) and a baby next (OMG! OMG!). sigh...it really is sad, though. mr.ian.thomson, wait, by the way, did you answer my questions, by the way? ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't see those.


 * why the heck you talk to satanists much?


 * I try not to hide my light under a bushel.


 * also, mormonism, its like, part of christainity, yeah?


 * Mormonism does not accept the Trinity (it believes that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three different gods), it believes that Jesus became a god during the resurrection (and was only human before), and it believes that God the Father became a god because He made some other God happy by being a good Mormon on some other world. Mormonism did split off from Christianity, and it calls itself Christian, but whether it is Christian is a different issue. The Community of Christ is an exception: they are otherwise regular Protestants that happen to accept the Book of Mormon.


 * 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?


 * There's some debate about what church is the original church. The Greek Orthodox church claims it is the original church and that the Catholic church split from it (the Catholic church claims the Orthodox church split from them).  My personal opinion is that any denomination that accepts the basic beliefs of Christianity is a branch on the same tree.  The Orthodox church and the Catholic church branched from the same tree, and later the Protestant church branched from the Catholic church.


 * so, like, why break up, rather than stand together and beat up satanist freaks than argue over small stuff and separate?


 * I agree that Christians should not worry over the small stuff, but I think that a Christian should go to whatever church that helps them worship God and helps them feel closer to God. Also, we're called to love others, even Satanists (even if we don't agree with them). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, mr.thomson, I totally get it. It's just this iota guy is really creeepy, and so are the guys he hangs out with if hes not lying, I mean, is he serious about the sacrificing...um, nv mind, too graphic, too creepy...so...sigh, forget the whole freaking thing about this satanist guy...

Mr. ian.thomson, please, I want to talk to you about this:
 * There was yet another user whom I had never spoken to, and his only comments were to complain about me for sending a few WikiSmiles and Barnstars, saying I should not give them to users whom I have not frequently interacted with. I mean, like, what is with him? I tried to calmly and civilly talk to him and calm him down, even giving him a WikiSmile and Barnstar myself, thinking he was a decent editor and thus deserving of one from his edits, but he removed them, called them 'misguided and insincere' and basically strongly implied that I should not do so again. I mean, please, he spends his time on Wikipedia telling random users not to WikiSmile? That's just...so sad, no offense, even sadder than that Mikaboshi guy or whatever he was called. I mean, if it's a real problem, he could go complain to an admin (which he's, like, not) if he wants...but to bother me over minor issues like this? I mean, does he keep track of every user less experienced than him who WikiSmiles? I mean, YOU at least deserved the barnstar, I'm sure of that, but I really did look at the others's contributions and didn't just randomly hand them out to everyone. I'll be way more careful, though... Not really worth it, pal, you know? Could you, like, give me some advice. I mean, it's, like, really weird; when I'm mad, I actually write more calmly, you know? And, yeah, I drank another Snapple, but I'm still so, like, un-energized, totally? Anyway, thanks for the answers, mr.thomson. Have a great day! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just avoid him. If you are looking at different editor's contributions and giving them barnstars based on that, and if he bothers you for giving those people barnstars, explain that you have looked at their contributions and are not just handing them out at random.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks, mr.thomson! talking with you is always totally awesome! have a great day! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, about john milton's poem Paradise Lost, what was it trying to convey, really? That God is imperfect and that we should all follow Satan or something? Was Milton Anti-Christian or something? What did he really believe? thanks, Ian! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Milton considered himself a Christian and there isn't much to question it. With Paradise Lost, he just tried to tell the story from Satan's point of view to warn against pride.  In the article for Paradise Lost it says 'Milton's purpose, stated in Book I, is to "justify the ways of God to men."'  He did view God as not entirely a cheerful figure, and a bit overwhelming and dreadful, but still good. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

coolio, mr.ian! thanks again! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Having your own page deleted
If you create a page, and before anyone else edits it you decide to have it deleted, like what seems to have happened with User talk:92.25.240.239, please put a db-self at the top of the page, in stead of blanking it. This will attract an administrator to it to have it deleted. User talk:92.25.240.239 has already been deleted, or marked for deletion; next time, however, it could take a while before someone finds it to tag it or delete it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Farmatarian
Hello Ian.thomson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Farmatarian, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What?
What is this nonsense?:"Bolegesh is talking about you behind your back over at WP:WQA

Hello, Zhang He. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid he's now moved on to WP:ANI, and is make some rather absurd claims there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolegash (talk • contribs)


 * You're supposed to notify users when you report them at places like WP:WQA and WP:ANI. Says so right on those pages.  Also, please read the guidelines about vandalism before you go accusing others of doing it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Demonology#Christianity
Hey Ian, it's been a while, and I we last discussed the cleanup of the Christianity section of the Demonology page. I just visited to see if anything had been done (and if there is anything that I can do now), and saw your removal of the part about Latin. I'm not entirely convinced that it should have been removed (I should go read it to be sure). Anyhow, while Latin has more to do with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, it is also the official language of Catholicism, and from what I have been told, is very handy when dealing with demons. I have a good friend (OFM Conventual Franciscan) who has done several exorcisms, and has said that Latin is the best language (and form of the prayers) to use. I believe there are other sources that could corroborate this, I just have to find them. I won't make any changes until I hear back from you, and until I have some solid sources. P.S. Feel free to bring this over to my Talk page if you don't want any clutter on yours. Hr.Vanker TalkContrib 01:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's been a while, could you point out when I removed those? (I'd look myself, but I've got a paper due tomorrow).  If you've got a mention in a book or article or something that Latin is considered a favored language for exorcism, that'd probably be a good reliable source.  A manual for exorcism (which I'm guessing your friend would have) would be a good source.  Don't worry about cluttering the page, I've just taken to deleting older material.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Michael1963
Hello Ian.thomson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Michael1963, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's a userpage, not an article. Thank you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

offensive
i am personaly offended by this page where it says satinists r creepy i am a satanist and im personally offended by this i demand that that comment be deleted immediatly --Kevin 711w (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin 711w (talk • contribs) 03:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not in charge of other people's opinions (however, article talk pages are not the place to casually chat about the article's subject), and I don't need to clear up the page just yet. Honestly, just get over it.  I'd expect the whole "I'm offended by this, remove this" attitude from other Baptists, but a Satanist?  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Blu (Artist)
Hello Ian.thomson, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Blu (Artist) - a page you tagged - because: There are credible claims of significance in the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

.
I want you to ansewr me and tell me what Am I supposed to do because iam not going anywhere I told u multiple times your information is wrong and you cannot just continue to block me or ignore and expect me to smile IAM EITHER GNNA EDIT AND ACT IMMATURE CAUSE UNFORTUNATELY U ARE!

1. the Isaac page should support the Isaac side of the story you cant have two pages supporting one side ... because the Quran doesnt mention who so both should be accountable and on the Isaac page were the source provided and a USER ACCEPTED MY SOURCE AND HELPED ME WITH THE EDITING SO I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH YOU SIR I REALLY DONT!

2.I EXPECT A CLEAR ANSEWR WHY WAS ANYTHING I DID REFUTED SEEMS TO BE U ARE STALKING EVERY MOVE I MAKE! SO I NEED U TO TELL ME WHY THIS AND THAT AND PROVIDE ME WITH ADVICE

3.STOP BLOCKING ME AND TALK TO ME! because iam providing my sources and copying what the editors did and many USERS ACCEPTED WHAT I AHD TO SAY SO I DO NOT KNOW WHATS UP WITH YOU ... YOU WANNA USE YOUR STATUS TO SUPPORT YOUR VISIONS AND FANTASIES THATS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

have a look at the Abraham,Isaac and Moses page and provide me with advice,answer and tell me what to do because ive provided sources so know u need to appeal your senses to them and stop supporting your fantasies BECAUSE THESE CHANGES U MADE ARE WRONG CLEARLY PERIOD! and scholars and people and users have supported my claim u have nothing supporting u except ure immature blocking and wrong info in arabic which i really would like to know since when do u speak that tongue to make a decision concerning it!82.194.62.25 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Highdeeboy,
 * 1. Show me where a user accepted a source of yours and for what edit, because I can see every action you take here and I'm not seeing anything to support your story about another user accepting your exegesis as a source.
 * 2. I and other users have answered you multiple times why your edits keep being undone, and you have refused to listen. You just keep screaming.  Bring in secondary sources.  Don't just mention that they exist, but bring them in.  Quit removing referenced information (the stuff with ).  Quit screaming.
 * 3. I am not blocking you, I do have a life outside of this site (which means I will not be here to answer you immediately whenever you want), and if you keep screaming at me without bothering to listen when I say that I am not enforcing my views on the article, I will report you. I am not enforcing my interpretation on the Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael related articles.  I am not a Muslim, I have no reason at all to believe that it was Ishmael.  I am only enforcing what the sources available say: that most Muslims believe that it was Ishmael that Abraham was going to sacrifice.  That does not mean I believe that Ishmael was even there at the time.  If you cannot get this in your head, if you cannot listen to other people, you do not need to be editing this site.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Highdeeboy
Hey, I have reported the IP and Highdeeboy to WP:SPI. Here is the SPI. Regards, SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

mini appleal from ginister
you warned me i was disruptivley editing on a page i saw on /b/. i prevented the offensive comments aforementioned and you blamed me. i asked the forum to revise it as I dont know how. Thanks, you suck >:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginister (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This was what made me think you were part of the vandalism. When undoing edits, go to the history tab up at the top, and click "undo," or click on one of the dates to pick a particular version of the page. If you try to undo them manually by reinserting good text, it's possible to reinsert some of the vandalism as well. The article is not the place to put discussion like "fix this please." Also, please sign your posts with four tidles ( ~ ). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Shane Dawson
Hello Ian.thomson. I am just letting you know that I deleted Shane Dawson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your message
Thanks for reverting that stupidity on John Amos and for reporting that user. I assume it's the same IP user who I pissed off earlier. Thanks again and happy editing!  Pinkadelica ♣  02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Rorschach revert
If you're gonna take Rorschach out of supervillains take Ozymandias out too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.127.248 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ozy bahaves like a classic villain, even if he is a good person. Rorschach just isn't a good person, but he is a hero in the story and not a villain.  Rorschach doesn't fill the villain role, and he's one of the protagonists.  Anti-heroes are not villains.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A true antihero actually is closer to a noble villain(like Magneto or Black Adam), so if anyone is the antihero it is in fact Ozymandias. Rorschach is a pure evil right wing monster who when he did kill people did it either for fun or because he didn't perceive them to fit his view of morality. If Hitler was a superhero he would be Rorschach.


 * You're confusing hero and villian with good and bad. While we both agree Hitler was a terrible person, in Nazi propaganda, he was a hero.  Heros are not necessarily good and villains are not necessarily evil. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Name on heroic thing thing that Rorschach did, he is nothing more than a serial murdering lunatic who somehow became glorified by the other superheroes like I said if Ozymandias is the villain then Rorschach is defiantly the villain.


 * The issue isn't whether or not the reader thinks that Rorschach is a good or bad person, it is whether or not the story depicts him as the villain of the story, which it does not. You only think that it was wrong for him to butcher the child molester, but the story depicts him as a hero for it (even if it does not say he is moral).  If you can find a reliable source that argues that Rorschach is a villain, fine.  Otherwise, Wikipedia will not accept your interpretation. Also, please sign your posts with four tidles ( ~ ).  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of RedandNater.com
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is RedandNater.com. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/RedandNater.com (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)