Talkback (User talk:Sitush) (TW) |
|||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
{{talkback|Sitush|ts=19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)}} |
{{talkback|Sitush|ts=19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
[[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
[[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
== February 2012 == |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Shramana]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[WP:CONSENSUS|try to reach a consensus]] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> |
|||
Please be particularly aware, [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Wikipedia's policy on edit warring]] states: |
|||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ''Have it you way.'' [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 20:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:02, 10 February 2012
Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!
Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil.
If I'm not responding, that's probably because
and I may be asleep, in classes, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond. |
New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).
Clean up, everything is in the page history. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Message
i did not post yesterday...that was not me. jamiejojesus 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)jamiejojesusjamiejojesus 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC) and just for you information just because most christians or other yahoos do not consider jesus a seperate entity or even if he existed at all is not a valid source more than mine, which happens to be gnosis, experience, genetic memories. i, like your self, am not here to justify myself. i am just saying that the sources excerpted from questionable books such as the bible,written by very qeustionable men with most often nefarious,evil political agendas are not neccessarily the TRUTH and mine may very well be. and i am never rude, but please stop being condesending to me. Thank you ian. love and peacejamiejojesus!~jamiejojesusjamiejojesus 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC) a road less traveled has never been an easy way for those who make remarkable changes for this world. alright...ian thomson...if you will go to wiki thomas didymus judas and see that they each mean twin...as in twin brother to jesus. and since he was his twin he could of easily looked like him and well...and i beg to differ...i believe it would b e to wikis best interest to have qualified scholars...but speak for yourself...love you...mean it! the name ISjamiejojesus 07:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)jamiejojesusjamiejojesus
- When did I say that you posted yesterday? Do you realize that messages I leave, say, a month ago, are saved on your talk page for the next time you log in, right? At any rate, I haven't contacted you in several months. I have contacted several IP addresses, and overly protesting readily gives the impression that you did something while logged out that required my attention.
- You're still expecting there to be a picture of a peasant from before the invention of photography? Paintings and sculptures require a lot of effort and money, which is why you typically only find such portraits of rich people. Jesus wasn't rich, ergo, it's unreasonable to expect a period picture of Jesus.
- Ok, wait, you say you're not here to justify yourself, but then go on to say that your "truth" might be "the" truth? Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth. At any rate, Wikipedia is not concerned with personal "truths," it simply reprints what the sources say. The mainstream Biblical sources are the closest to the period in question, and though later officials used them to their own political ends, scholars generally accept that the early church documents were written in earnest (even if there are mortal errors). We also don't use those source sdirectly, but interpretations of scholars who have studied for decades the historical, linguistic, and archaeological contexts of the works. This site is not a forum, nor a place for original research or ideas, but a place that neutally summarizes reliable sources. "Truth" has nothing to do with it.
- As for the whole twin issue, the idea that Thomas was Jesus's twin doesn't appear in any text until over a century after the mainstream Biblical texts (which don't say who Thomas was twin to). The first text that does mention Thomas as a twin to Jesus (Jesus actually a pretty common name of the time), contradicts earlier sources and all sources not influenced by it, which do not mention Jesus having a twin. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
How do you start a discussion page anyway? Regarding the Lilith article, how does one reach consensus on such an issue as whether the Collier painting is better than the Rossetti painting for this article on terms of merit?Nanib (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Never mind actually. I literally just realized that each page has a readily accessible talk page attached to it.Nanib (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
NNU Class Project - Winter 2012
Please consider adding your name at: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Lilith
Your claim in the caption is just plain wrong. According to Burney Relief, "Frankfort himself based his interpretation of the deity as the demon Lilith on the presence of wings, the birds' feet and the representation of owls." The identification was not solely based on the translation, and the line in the article that claimed that it was and had therefore been invalidated was not properly supported by citation, but rather only a direct citation to a translation of Isaiah. Please remove the misleading claim from the caption. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Read the next line: "He cites the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh as a source that such "creatures are inhabitants of the land of the dead"
- Also, "Gadd, the original translator, writes: "ardat lili (kisikil-lil) is never associated with owls in Babylonian mythology"." My point about the misreading still stands. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- And my point that the identification was made for several reasons, not just the owl imagery, also stands. Invalidating one of several reasons for an identification in no way implies that the identification has been disproven. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Yworo's case above doesn't explain Sundays or todays deletions on Talk:Burney Relief. I'm all in favour of giving the full case for the 1936 identification with Lilith. But it needs to be balanced with more up to date sources.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- And my point that the identification was made for several reasons, not just the owl imagery, also stands. Invalidating one of several reasons for an identification in no way implies that the identification has been disproven. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Another message from someone who doesn't know what a "bottom" is
Your claim that an "increasing number" of people believe that the Secret Gospel is a forgery is simply false, and you cite no evidence for it. Scott Brown and others have demonstrated the deep improbability of this point of view. You have debased Wikipedia by removing my post. I shall not bother with this pathetic entry any further. But you are dishonest and should recognize the fact. Timon1902. Timon1902 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did you try looking at the references cited by the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you tell me the formal process?
I want to drop officially in Spanish Wikipedia. How is it the formal process? How can I officially sign off and I erase all my data? Sonia Murillo Perales (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Upanishads
Simply have qouated out the of the book, please refer to the book refered , or please talk in the talk page before undoing anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is totally unacceptable to re-label Textual criticism as "misunderstanding" and replace scholarly materials with your own interpretations of the original work using incomplete citations, please see WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Shramana article
Guy adding all sorts of Shaman stuff to Shramana article in the "Etymology and Origin" section. Can you do something about it?SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The guy is going nuts. Now he created an entire new section. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is a lot of warring going on, and a little bit of canvassing also. There are also threads about the issue scattered just about everywhere except where the thing should be discussed. I have therefore asked SaibAbaVenkatesh and Mayasutra to discuss the matter on the article talk page. I have no opinion on the subject, nor indeed a great degree of knowledge concerning it, but some sort of order has to be obtained. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- So you ignore my request, ignore the article talk page and resume edit warring. Just great, absolutely great. I am not going to template you but I am sure that you know the drill. Continue this and you will be blocked for edit warring. Now, I suggest that you self-revert and discuss it at Talk:Shramana. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is a lot of warring going on, and a little bit of canvassing also. There are also threads about the issue scattered just about everywhere except where the thing should be discussed. I have therefore asked SaibAbaVenkatesh and Mayasutra to discuss the matter on the article talk page. I have no opinion on the subject, nor indeed a great degree of knowledge concerning it, but some sort of order has to be obtained. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The guy is going nuts. Now he created an entire new section. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sitush (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
February 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shramana. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Have it you way. Sitush (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)