User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 18

Interesting

I see you've come across many of my edits. As usual, I will find myself in a position where a Wikipedia user is going to use the process of "find, dislike, delete" rather than "find, dislike, research supportive information or make corrections, implement." Get my point? Twillisjr (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Syntax of Annoyance:

How many Fallen Angels does Satan command?

---

Wikipedia - "Nothing Here!" TWillisJr - "Aha, an 1800 year old religious text, lets add it!" Ian.thomson - "Click around, hmm, Right Click, Select All, Delete, Enter!" World - "How many Fallen Angels does Satan command?"

^ You are really not helping anyone. If you want to do something useful, locate something more accurate and replace it. Or, try changing the information to say, "According to X, which is X, etc, etc." Nazi's burn books and Wikipedia is not a Nazi platform. Twillisjr (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually read why I reverted you instead of slandering me. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gail Riplinger stump article

I read the rules and I don't see that I'm violating them. I didn't see a prohibition against youtube videos and the only ones I used were primary sources (which are the best sources), Riplinger and Waite proving that what is reported about them is accurate. It's called "verification". It's call "history".

Below is what the article should look like:

You've posted this a dozen other places, I don't need to see it again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
G. A. Riplinger is the author of "New Age Bible Versions", published in 1993, a book which attracted a some attention in the King-James-Only movement. The author is Gail Riplinger, born as Gail Anne Ludwig, born on October 1947 in Columbus, Ohio. She married Michael D. Riplinger at the age of 36. </ref> http://www.avpublications.org/records/gail-riplinger-marriage-3.jpg.</ref> Gail Riplinger earned a B.A. (Interior Design), M.A. (Home Economics), and M.F.A. (Art) degrees. She served as an instructor at Kent State University, under the name Gail Kaleda, for interior decorating and home economics courses. In 1993, Riplinger wrote a comparison of modern Bible translations to the King James Version, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion. It was self published under the name A. V. Publications. Riplinger wrote that the underlying manuscripts of the modern versions of the Bible were corrupted and that the men who collated them were often involved in the occult. She writes that some words and phrases in the New King James Version (NKJV) and other versions are errors, comparing them to the KJV text.[1] She cites NKJV's "sexual immorality" as supporting "relative/subjective standards" compared to the KJV's "fornication" (Mt. 12:32). She purports to have some of her material by immediate revelation from God, claiming in one instance that God refers to the New American Standard Version as the "NASV", a claim she uses to show that that version and the New International Version (NIV), using what she calls "Acrostic Algebra", spell "sin."[2] "New Age Bible Versions" was received with acclaim by much of the "King James Version Only" movement. King James Only advocate, David Cloud, notes that it gained "a far-reaching audience". [3] Jack Hyles (September 25, 1926 – February 6, 2001) pastor of the large First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, presented Mrs. Riplinger with an honorary doctorate degree from Hyles-Anderson College for her work on the book.[4] Critics say she has misquoted and misused the works of others. [5] [6] Reviewing her book, S. E. Schnaiter wrote, "Riplinger appears to be another of those who rush to [the KJV's] defense, alarmed by the proliferation of its modern rivals, armed with nothing more than the blunderbuss of ad hominem apologetic, when what is needed is the keenness of incisive evaluation." "For whatever rationale on Riplinger’s part, she has produced not an exposé but rather a diatribe, often quite vitriolic, based on dogmatic, predispositional, and, more often than not, blatantly fallacious propaganda techniques rather than real evidence, carefully weighed and judiciously presented." Even fellow "fundamental Baptist" pastor David Cloud concludes, "is filled with illogical and improper statements which have the effect of discrediting everything the author says that is true." [7] Leading King James Version Onlyist Donald A. Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society, held a King James Bible Conference at Straightway Baptist Church in Princeton, New Jersey, January 10-11, 2008, at which Riplinger was invited to participate. During a question-and-answer session, someone asked if Riplinger had ever been divorced, to which Waite conveyed that Riplinger had assured him that she had not. He later discovered that she had been twice divorced. On July 22, 2009, Waite publicly exposed Riplinger at his annual Bible Conference, accusing her of "lying".[8] [9] Aletheia O'Brian claims Riplinger has frequently misrepresented and exaggerated her academic credentials.[10] Bibliography: O'Brian, Aletheia. "Who Is Gail Riplinger", http://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/WhoIsGailRiplinger.pdf Riplinger, Gail (1993). New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion. Monroe Falls, Ohio: A.V. Publications. ISBN 0-9635845-0-2. Riplinger, Gail (1998). The Language of the King James Bible. Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications. Riplinger, Gail (2004). In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible Its Mystery and History Letter by Letter. Ararat, Va.: A.V. Publications Corp.. ISBN 0-9635845-2-9. Schnaiter, S. E. "New Age Bible Versions." Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 2 (Fall 1997): 105–125. Thomas, Robert L. (1994) "Book Review: New Age Bible Versions." Masters Seminary Journal 05:2. p. 229-234. The Lockman Foundation. (1994) "The Lockman Foundation's Reply To New Age Bible Versions". White, James. "New Age Bible Versions Refuted." http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html [edit]References ^ Riplinger, Gail. (1998) The Language of the King James Bible, p. 151. Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications. ^ "Gail Riplinger vs. James White, 1993, KRDS Radio Part II", at about 3:00 point, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdld8KGEm7E&list=PLDFD630FFA4AD77B4&index=2. ^ David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, Inc., "THE PROBLEM WITH NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS", http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html. ^ "The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the King James Bible", The Jack Hyles Home Page, http://www.jackhyles.com/Hyles-stronger-KJV.htm ^ Schnaiter, S. E. (1997) "Review Article New Age Bible Versions." Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 02:1. p. 125. Thomas, Robert L. (1994) "Book Review: New Age Bible Versions." Masters Seminary Journal 05:2. p. 229-234. The Lockman Foundation. (1994) "The Lockman Foundation's Reply To New Age Bible Versions". ^ White, James. "Why Respond to Gail Riplinger" http://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger. ^ David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, Inc., "THE PROBLEM WITH NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS", http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html. ^ "Reason For Exposing Gail Riplinger", http://avpublications.org/articles/reason-for-exposing-gail-riplinger.pdf. ^ "Waite gets all bent outta shape over former compatriot Riplinger", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSeiVc98-Zk. ^ Aletheia O'Brian, "Who Is Gail Riplinger", http://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/WhoIsGailRiplinger.pdf. Yeoberry (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)yeoberry@yahoo.comYeoberry (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit]Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Yeoberry (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

1. There is no real, reliable article on G. A. Riplinger. The book that made the subject well-known was published as from "G. A. Riplinger" and would therefore be the name that a curious reader of the book would search looking for more information about the author. The page on "Gail Riplinger" is an unreliable stump, missing serious, pertinent information, poorly written, with undocumented material (such as accepting Riplinger's self-description from a self-published book without any other supportive documentation) and it should be deleted and the editor who has militantly maintained it as such should no longer be allowed to edit. For example, the "Gail Riplinger" article leaves the reader with the impression that Riplinger's education is in a relevant field of study. The editor who has been maintaining it has repeatedly deleted the facts that her degrees are in home economics and art and has simply accepted her own word that she has post-graduate study at Harvard, etc., and that she was a "professor" (when in fact she was only listed as an "instructor" at Kent State.) Therefore, the "Gail Riplinger" article that exists does not constitute a serious Biography of a Living Person and is highly misleading. I tried correcting it on several occasions but the editor engaged in a edit war and simply removed all my additions, returning it to its incomplete, misleading, stump condition.

2. I have not attacked the person (Riplinger). In fact, in my edition, I noted people who acclaimed her work, even citing that she was given an honorary doctorate -- again more pertinent information omitted from the "Gail Riplinger" article. I refrained from any editorializing, cited reliable, scholarly secondary sources and incontestable primary sources in the manner of the best historical scholarship. I have an accredited Ph.D. in history, have published scholarly articles on history (especially history of Christianity), and written a doctoral dissertation. I have some knowledge in this field and I believe I understand the controversy. The original editor of the "Gail Riplinger" page seems to be intent on leaving the casual reader with as little useful information about Riplinger as possible.

3. I have not been trying to create a "POV" page but have been trying to augment with the relevant facts, with full and verifiable documentation for every statement. I even supplied documentation for a statement the original article said it needed a citation for but what I supplied was still deleted.

4. The purpose of this page is to give the pertinent information about the subject. The original editor is apparently militantly committed to obscuring the facts and leaving the casual reader with incomplete and misleading impressions. Further, his article is poorly written, poorly structured, and even contains misspellings of American English (for an American subject) and misses basic facts both positive for Riplinger (such as the honorary doctorate) and very significant (such as the falling out with perhaps the leading KJV-only scholar in the world (D.A. Waite).) In no way does the "Gail Riplinger" page amount to a serious or generally complete treatment of the subject. Please delete the "Gail Riplinger" page and replace it with the "G. A. Riplinger" page and advise the editor of the "Gail Riplinger" page to cease from obstructing the improving of wikipedia pages by scholars in the field. Yeoberry (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Yeoberry (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Yeoberry (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Yeoberry (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As I and others have explained, despite you ignoring them, Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on secondary sources and does not give a tenth of a rat's turd about credentials. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. We don't know or care if you have a Ph.D. If you do not understand that, you either have not read the rules, or you have not considered the least bit about how they apply to your edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Which denomination?

Which denomination are you? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Baptist, for the most part (not a member of the Southern Baptist Convention). I jokingly call myself a Zen Baptist because I (personally) prefer experience over dogma, but also reject anti-intellectualism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Baptist for how many generations? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Several on my mother's side (my grandfather is a Southern Baptist minister, and some of my Colonial ancestors converted within a generation), one on my father's, but most Baptists would probably agree that it is only my generation of being Baptist that concerns me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Converted from what -- another Christian denomination or other religious denomination or atheism? Since you live in the Bible Belt, you probably have met people in your area who are mostly Christians. Have you ever thought about moving away from the Bible Belt and lived in a non-Christian area without a church and without any intent on proselytizing the locals? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My ancestors mostly followed Methodism, Presbyterianism, and Anglicanism when they weren't Baptists (which includes my father's side, as far as I can find). I do not know of any admitted non-Christians in my family before the 20th century, though it is possible some of them were quiet deists, atheists, or agnostics.

Despite living in the Bible belt, I live in a somewhat metropolitan area. There are Bahá'ís (my home state has the only Bahá'í radio station in the nation), Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Neo-pagans. With the exception of Bahá'ís, I've either been friends with or studied with members of other religions (aside from my own general religious studies), and I can find the nearest services for each religion. Since I (of my own choice) am a Trinintarian monotheist who believes in the Incarnation, Cruficixion, and Resurrection of Jesus; and rejects Pantheism and magic, I don't fit into any other religion.

I have considered moving to a less conservative state, however. Another reason I call myself a Zen Baptist is that it prevents a lot of people from assuming I reject (theistic) evolution, LGBT tolerance, ecumenism, and government aide for the poor.

I'm also looking into spending a few years teaching English overseas, but not to actively proselytize (I'm really disappointed that the quote "Preach the Gospel at all times, but only use words when necessary" is only apocryphally attributed to St. Francis of Assissi). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yezidi reference

The reference that was probably being suggested was Late Antique Motifs in Yezidi Oral Tradition by Eszter Spät. Ch. 9 The Origin Myth of the Yezidis section The Myth of Shehid Bin Jer (page 347) etc.--Vidkun (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That would explain why searches for "Szpat, Ester" turned up nothing. Adding it now. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The trick was to google Shehid Bin Jer. Having spent a few days in Kurdistan during the war, and hearing about the "devil worshipers" I've had a passing interest in the article, because of wanting to see why they were erroneously called that.--Vidkun (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Dear Editor,

I saw your name in the edit history of Richard Dawkins article/talk page and you seem to have a lot of experience in history/religion related articles. I therefore invite you to join the ongoing discussion in the talk page of the article. In the interest of keeping the discussion focused, I would appreciate it if you also specifically, mention your opinion on the inclusion of this edit. It is from a secondary source that received positive reviews and is written by an academic fellow. In general if you have any recommendations for using secondary or primary sources for criticism please do not hesitate to mention in the talk page.--User 99 119 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support during my "block". It wasn't very pleasant, though it seems to have done me some good to a degree because I seem to be out of practice leaving messages. I'm not sure I really deserve a barnstar for it. I appreciate the revert on my talk page while I was gone, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Upstanding* editors who make a mistake and accept it should not be beaten over the head about it.

*currently dealing with some others who are not and may try to quote this against me, hence the emphasis

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

...

Colossians 1:15-16

Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And to you, and a Happy New Year! Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

sorry to bother you again

If you have time, please take a look at Richard Dawkins's talk page. Thank you.--User 99 119 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have removed it from my watchlist since the last time I was involved. Looking over it, I don't really have an opinion. Sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand; it is indeed frustrating and I hope the admins one day decide to take away the redirect from criticism of Richard Dawkins to stop this war. If you are wondering why I came to bother you, it is because the last time you brought up a good point as the criterion of inclusion of a piece of criticism in the article; the fact that the text should be from a reliable secondary source. I was therefore hoping if you could evaluate it--User 99 119 (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Close vs close and archive

When Huon closed that thread, his close was reverted by Human public. Is there a policy that says you can not also archive it now that it has been closed? Is that why you did not archive it? History2007 (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Huon's closure and Humanpublic's reopening to begin with. I'm not seeing anything saying we can't do it... But I'm inclined to wait for now. If he reverts again, we'll immediately reclose it, manually archive it, and bring up his WP:IDHT behavior at ANI or RFC or something. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was this, that was why I "moved to close" rather than close myself. I do think he has taken up enough time, so I do not relish 2 more days on AN talking and talking again. I wonder if he is Cush in fact... But anyway, let us wait and see. Then can manually archive if there is nothing that says we can not do it, given the cyclic nature of this. History2007 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to be the one to file the ANI report. He can't exactly say "unauthorized" this time (really couldn't last time), since it's clear that one does not have to be an admin to close a discussion. Reminds me for some reason that I need to get to work over at Kahen at some point. Merry Christmas Eve, btw, Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but these things just eat up time, so let us hope it ends smoothly. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring against three different editors (would you mind being the third editor to close?) to reopen a one-sided mantra chanting should be good evidence, though, and he should be off Talk:Jesus for the ANI discussion. Plan is to start off with links to his reopening the discussions, links to every single time someone has told him it's over or said "we've already explained this," for the first post; and after to reply with any content-based argument he makes with "See (links to threads), and read WP:IDHT;" and any policy-based arguments he makes with "How did you not go against WP:IDHT?" I should probably be able to do it from my phone even at the family gathering tomorrow. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

But remember that this is a SPA account that does nothing else. So no fear of a block there. The thing is not to let him cause us to breach policy. We have not done so yet, and I have left him a WP:HEAR notice before. I do not think he has any fear, he just does this every few days to deal with some "inner personal issues" probably. But technically speaking, he can not undo the talk page actions of other editors, so he will need to be told that as well at some point. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually now that I have marked it off, it is easier to let i remain marked off, and wait half a day to see if he wants to avid WP:3RR - which I hope will do and resolve it peacefully. I have given him the WP:3RR link, so hopefully he will stop and we do not have to spend Christmas on WP:ANI. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still saving the report just in case he does start up tomorrow. I'll be saving it and a few prewritten responses, so it'll be no trouble for me to post via my phone (TBH, my extended family is not the most enjoyable company, but this might actually give us some common ground for discussion). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, in any case, he is on WP:3RR now, if not crossed it, and is aware of it. If he reverts then he does it knowingly. History2007 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You warned him. You warned him. But oh, no, it's just a harmless little rabbit. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that he would have stopped... Anyway, I will fortunately have to be off for some time now. It is Christmas eve after all... History2007 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

May yours be as enjoyable as he was annoying. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and to you as well and a happy new year! Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Message from someone who clearly doesn't know how Wikipedia works

Why did you delete my entire account? I'm reporting you Ian. 124.186.125.91 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what account you're talking about. Also, Wikipedia doesn't delete accounts. If you would tell me what your username was, I can help you find your account and its contributions page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You are a liar. I forwarded the email, and reported you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.125.91 (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's true: it's not possible to delete a user account (as in, there is no way in the software to do it at all, for anyone). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gee, it's odd that you had anything to forward, since I avoid using the site's email unless emailed first. Since you haven't filed any reports, I'll go turn myself in to the administrators on your behalf. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor

Hats off to you for what is probably the funniest ANI posting I have ever seen! (In all seriousness, they need more smiles over there sometimes). Back to being silly: I hope you don't delete my account over this, or drag me to ANI so I can get indeffed for abuse of admin privileges that I don't have. (Oh, and please don't forward the email that I didn't send). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request Evolution

My reply was not answered on the talk page of evolution and I was hoping you would. Do you care to? --173.66.184.34 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing that you requested that I respond to your reply, and then left the reply. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)