User talk:Osip7315

April 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Historicity of Jesus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ari (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

you would have to be crazy to claim a scholarly conseus over the historical existance of jesus. i assume you are

happy chest beating! Osip7315 (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ari, i think you are a bit of a hypocrite, look at your own words on your talk page

"What is bothering me right now is that Christian scholars publishing in academic press can no longer be trusted. Truly ridiculous"

you and your wikipedia entries are mutually deserving i am afraid

don't look at the wide world of the web out there like http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

makes wikipedia look like stale noodles i am afraid Osip7315 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you understand the word hypocrisy if you are accusing me of such here. Congrats, you found a website. I also found one: http://zapatopi.net/belgium/. Time to edit Wikipedia to reflect this. --Ari (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

very weak. do you see how you are being an apologist and not editing wikipedia objectively? a hypocrite is one who says one thing and does another and thats you.

why do you do it? follow the road of consistency and walk out of the mad house! Osip7315 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're just another conspiracy nut. My mistake for expecting some sort of intelligence here. --Ari (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

you are schizophrenic ari Osip7315 (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Osip, there is overwhelming scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. Read the scholarly literature. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

dream on, its easy to say things. if it means so much to you do a paper on it and put it up on the web! if you were half way honest you would never get past the first research but you are not. i mean scholarship in the broadest sense not a few deranged academics in some theological colleges. a more indirect route is academic work on the origins of the gospels Osip7315 (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

i see you have all shut up! everyone knows the gospels are fake and have very extensive plagiarism.

if jesus was an historical person then the gospels are authentic. if he wasn't they are fake

take

your

choice

Osip7315 (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no point talking to a ranting child who refuses to look at the actual scholarship on the issue. The gospels are not 'fake'. Most secular scholars believe them to be exaggerated accounts of the life of a real person, which probably contain true events mixed up with fantasies. There's nothing very unusual about that. Many historical characters have developed magical stories around them. Paul B (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

god you are ignorant paul. what does redacted mean? are you even familar with the gospel of thomas? what is its role? why have the various christian "governments" been so keen to get rid of the "wisdom of jesus son of sirach" out of the bible?

what you call scholarship are the rantings of a select group of schizophrenics employed by those mental institutions called theological colleges

you are good confirmation of my theory of christians really being atheist

if

god

and

jesus

were

true

what

are

you

doing

arguing with

me

its

because

you

doubt

and

need

to confirm

your

belief

by

disputing

with

me

look

to

god

you

hypocritical

swine

Osip7315 (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

interesting web page on "paul barlow"

http://1excurry.net/wikipedia-paul-barlow-addict-eccentric-racial-theories-ethnology.html

replace the 1 with r as this site is blacklisted by wikipedia, paul has censored it?

Osip7315 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please become familiar with our policies
To add appropriate external links, you need to understand WP:EL, particularly WP:ELNO (what links are not external). Blogs are pretty clearly not one of them - they are singled out specifically. You should also see our guidance on medical sources (WP:MEDRS) which is more prohibitive regarding links.

Also, judging by the rest of your talk page, you might want to read up on WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:CIVIL. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits
OK, this earns you now this:



also added as:


 * http://members.tripod.com/mueller_ranges

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

You were explained the situation on the talkpage, yet you choose to include your link without discussion in violation of (amongst others) our external links guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

well theres no arguing with an admin so i am just going to state the situation which is that the link is not spam or a blog which is quite apparent on reading it, nor is there any conflict of interest and both WLU and beetsra have no clues on the subject at all and are pursing some sort of "medical political correctness agenda" and wikipedia is the loser

the link in question is http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/links/compendium/chelation.html

these perseverative ignorant young men without life experience or in depth knowledge who patrol wikipedia as "thought police" for various factional viewpoints are the ruination of wikipedia

my original comments on the issue are as follows :

wlu reverting the well known anti chelation page link

This is one of the most well known anti chelation pages on the web and very pertient to this wikipedia link, really the removal is not understandable. i would suggest that WLU read this very well researched page in its entirety if his attention span is that long !

there is a large contemporary chelation practice by naturopaths and some doctors like the DAN group in the usa, this "cultural" area is not really touched on by the article except in an indirect way by the anti-chelation link in question and the "photon" link just before it, this practice is entirely relevant and indeed the bulk of the concern of the article since it is what is actually happening and the safety or otherwise is of extreme interest.

if you have no practical experience in this area the sensible thing to to recognise that lack and place your attention on subjects you are able to bring useful skills to!

i don't know why people think they can jump into a subject with no experience or knowledge and think they can make useful contributions.

wikipedia needs to be alive and informative and where applicable, currently relevant and the "thought police" who roam some of these entries with wilful prejudgements hurt wikipedia by not just reducing article quality, but have the flow on effect of alienating readers and reducing the funding appeal base which is not an insignifcant issue !

i don't know enough about WLU to say wether he is one of these but i have seen others for sure !

extreme editing activity can be one sign.

i have seen a lot of parents with children with deveopmental disorders, especially those who have autistic children become strongly pressured by the DAN doctors and various naturopaths and thier own need for quick fixes to chelate their children and my experience is the result in an inevitable worsening and permanent low ceiling placed on recovery potential.

therefore it important for them to have access to the other side of the story which is why that page was made and it has certainly earned the writer the ire of the pro-chelation community !

---

well i have said it pretty much and its obvious that you and others cannot see the sense in it so the conclusion that follows is an intellectual limitation on your part with an overconfidence in your own viewpoints

we look at each other across a chasm and i go my way and you go yours and if you are interested you can look back in ten years time and try to match what i have said with changes in your life and wikipedia and see if i was correct or not.

144.139.19.8 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks, please
I appreciate that you have a different view of what "needs" to be linked to the Chelation Therapy article. However, please do not engage in personal attacks like saying my views are the result of my "intellectual limitation" as you did here:. Always feel free to feel your views about what should or shouldn't be a part of Wikipedia, but please do so in a civil fashion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

i really get annoyed when people like you jump in without doing any in depth reading on what you commenting on and your supreme self-confidence about being right when you are not. for instance the quackwatch page is also self published and really quite quirky when you have some familarity with it.

the bottom line is that wikipedia enforces an attitudinal bias called "medical political correctness" which is why quackwatch is acceptable to most wikipedia editors.

also this bias does not permit the article to cover the actual real practice of chelation therapy which a true encyclopedic article on the subject would do

do

a

wikipedia

search

on

"pornography

actresses"

then look at the way the chelation therapy

article

is

curtailed

i

suppose

you

still

can't

see

what

i

am

saying

any

wonder

i

use

the

term

"intellectual

limitation" ?  Osip7315 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

no

reply

just

run

away

you

see

what

they

are

made

of

don't

you ?

Osip7315 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Remark - warning
Above, I left you a level 4im warning regarding spam links. here (which you self-revert here) and here you insert links (actually, in the end you re-re-insert the link that was removed per our guidelines). This link fails our guidelines, OK, it passes what should be linked #3, but you did not address why it should be removed. Again, read our external links guideline, and I suggest that you also read 'what wikipedia is not - not a repository of links' and 'what wikipedia is not - not a directory'. To be short, I strongly suggest you to stop re-inserting external links which are challenged, and discuss them on their merits. As a side remark to this, I have noted your tone in your talkpage posts, and I also ask you to discuss in a civil manner, assuming good faith on others, and discuss content, not the editor. (and please, click on all the wikilinks in this post, and read the policies and guidelines before commenting. This is a final warning, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, and I am, now kindly, asking you to be a bit more cooperative, as I think that you are knowledgeable in certain subjects.

Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

-

well i am not interesting fighting attitudinal bias so if this link is going back it will have to be put up by someone else !

however it does seem to fit WP/EL which states

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is RELEVANT TO AN ENCYCLOPEDIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

i did give up on the toni packer entry a while back and made a mistake re-entering the "fray" so to speak because if it's not you and WLU, its the buddhists who try to change the article so it looks good to them

toni packer left zen buddhism and there's quite a bit of friction there which is why that talk link was particularly relevant as she discusses her zen experience

i know tonipacker personally and have years of experience in this area but obviously that counts for nothing to young men like yourself and wlu who inadvertantly or otherwise excise of the best parts of an article

however i always thought that link would be removed, not by you and WLU but by the various buddhist apologists that descend on the page occasionally since it is a really good talk and they need to remove anything that makes toni packer look good !

do yourself a favour and listen to it for the entire length boring tho it may seem, the perspective is "life enlarging"

http://www.springwatercenter.org/mp3/ToniPackerFeb04Day6.mp3

i

take

an overall

look

and

pornographic actresses

are

acceptable

and

years of

experience

in certain areas is not

so

i

take

my

leave from

editing

both you and WLU are strongly autistically traited as i am, life has some hard lessons and one is to be willing to be look at were we are wrong

i am doing

that but i'm not wrong

and my experience is that consensus and group opinions are in the ultimate analysis

always

wrong

now there, i have taken quite a bit of time to tell you something useful, don't rubbish it, just sit back and think a bit and try to put the pieces in place which i am afraid is the work of a lifetime

Osip7315 (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Toni Packer for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

you are welcome to kill any creative and useful content on wikipedia, just have to wait for a change in management i guess

wikipedia has ceased to be a wiki and is controlled by incompetent and narrow minded admins

wales has got to go, but until he does and some sanity is restored to wikipedia, myself and others are boycotting editing

Osip7315 (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)