User talk:The Rhymesmith/Archives/2007/August

re my request for help
Hello there. One major issue with your work i sjust that- it is your work. Please read Wikipedia:Original Research. We cannot accept arguments, regardless of how convincing or legitimate they may be, if they have not been peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal, or as a book. If you have any questions do drop a note on my talk page. Have a nice day, The Rhymesmith 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not my intention to finalize my presentation unsourced, but rather to compose and then later go back to sources that validate the information presented.

Granted, I am aware that I, like the many scholars who have attempted to offer a generic description of Gnostic belief systems, may have taken on more than I can chew as it were, because as I see it, literally every author who has been published has failed.

That is not to say that, the idea that Gnostic teaching are related to, or mean a special knowledge of, or insight of the of the individual in relation to an immortal soul is to some degree already supported from within the Wikipedia data base, for example, associating Gnostic teaching with the tenets and system of Pythagoras by which certain vices and virtues were to be punished and rewarded after one’s physical death, because that would be an erroneous assumption.

The position I have attempted to present is supported, for example, by the book “Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category” by Michael Allen Williams and Paul-Hubert Poirier’s statement that Michael Williams’ “questioning the very definition and description of this phenomenon”, and his “detailed analysis of the clichés”… “shows convincingly how they have contributed to a distorted and biased approach to the sources.”

The problem is that while I am not published within the Wikipedia data base, I am a published Journal author, and in the body of my publications I too had used the term “gnostic” in association with the mystical traditions and in association with the subject of redemption. I, like other all other people who do this, using the word in its modern context, did so in error. Such that, I now know that my past usages are an oxymoronic use of the word given its original or correct meaning.

As I explained to Nixdorf, I have already received permission CCG.org Secretary Erica Cox to support the position presented with quotes from their publications like, "Anyone who said that when they died they went to heaven, showed by that statement they were a Gnostic and not a Christian (see Justin Martyr, Second Apology). " And, Nidorf responded:

Hi Bill, the problem with you edits surely isn't permissions to quote someone, you generally do not need permission for that. To expand on the problem in your edits, I get the feeling that you are a religious person and want to uphold Christianity by denouncing what you percieve to be fallacies (heresies), and in the question of Gnosticism you most certainly take sides with the established Christian church. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to carry out such debates. Also, in rewriting the introduction to Gnosticism, you entered much duplicate information (such as the fact that Gnostics were inspired by Plato) for no good reason, the introduction is very nice and concise as it stands in my opinion, and your additions would do under som sub-heading such as "Christian reaction to Gnosticism". Nixdorf 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus, the Gnostic vision of redemption involves the mistaken philosophy whereby by a Shade is called a Soul and the ultimate reality is represented by only one of the various dimensions within the context of string-theory or M-theory, and in that dimension life and all matter simply ceases to exist. As such, I now know my use of the terms like “Jewish and Christian Gnostic Redemption claims” is an oxymoronic use of the word given its original or correct meaning. My error can be seen in online documents like this one:

"…the principals involved are presented by the various religions as an opportunity for growth and evolution in a glorious partnership with the infinite manifestations of creation; a process leading up to a time when all mankind is united in the Word of God (Acts 17:22-23; Apocalypse 15:12b). It is the essence of Jewish and Christian Gnostic Redemption claims, and is prophesied to be utilized during the prodigious period of human ascent. This common bond of mankind, so that redemption may occur, is symbolized by a time when 'michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people' (Daniel 12: la)…"

And, while I’m sure that the site administrator would be more than willing to allow me to insert a disclaimer, my error is also present in publications like:

"Greene, W. (1987). An essay on the quantum field-theory concept or conversion and redemption: The function of contemplative exercises as a parallel distributive processing system, effecting quality of life and longevity (life-everlasting). The Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 10 (4), 217-226."

And, there is no way I can ever fix that, so my only recourse is to present the case that people need a clear definition for the proper use of the word so that others might not make the same mistake in the future. And, so, now I find myself here at Wikipedia.

Blessings, Bill--Wmgreene 16:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the event that your major issue with my work was a comment on the words from my user page rather than the work presented in my sandbox, I deleted the verbiage offered on the user page. I really am seeking some kind of comments and directions which might assist me to bring my submission up to a level whereby it would be Wikipedia acceptable.

Thank you again in advance of your consideration.

Blessings, Bill--Wmgreene 23:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems strange that you have invited me to this page to discuss the subject, but as yet have not responded to my correspondence. Oh well, I’ll continue to return for the next few days to see.

Thank you again in advance of your consideration.

Blessings, Bill --Wmgreene 23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
I'd love to be adopted! I'm somewhat nervous about changing articles and doing stuff and it would be great to have someone help me out. Make sure I don't delete wikipedia on accident or something like that... ;) Peregrinebee 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adopting me. ZordZapper 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mandated Adoption, or whatever:
What do you think that status is on this? I'm wondering what's the status at this point.-- HAL2008 HAL? talk 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles with no sources that have remained on Wikipedia
I'm just wondering how an article for Jarah Mariano hasn't been deleted due to lack of refrences? I'm a huge model fan so I know a lot about underground model's like her (so I'm not saying she doesn't exist or anything) but I noticed her Wikipedia article only really has her MySpace page and some website as the links, and no refrences at all. Surely that's grounds for deletion? Again, I'm not suggesting it be deleted, I'm just confused as to why that particular article has remained on Wikipedia for quite some time without being considered for deletion etc, whereas other articles or contributions are removed due to lack of sources? Struck me as odd and I wasn't sure of the reasons behind it. I've only made 3 articles in my Wikipedia life time, two of which havent been deleted, one was because she was losing reality contestant (not notable!)

I havent been a user as long as you and you have more knowledge about it, was hoping you could explain why the article is considered acceptable! --Rosario 09:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation case
Have you come to a conclusion to this case?  Singu larity  01:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)