User talk:129.24.95.222

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.

Contents

[edit] Brain-washed

Thanks for contributing! I want to point out, though, that WP:ISNOT a dictionary (that distinction belongs to our sister project Wiktionary). I've made this article redirect to brainwashing in the meantime, which you're more than welcome to edit. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

Howdy. I have reverted your edits to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion because I can't tell what your complaint is. VfU is for undeletion requests for entire articles, and your edits seem to concern the reversion of a single edit or group of edits to another article. In addition, they appear to have nothing to do with the undeletion request for the Speak Freely article, which is where you placed your edits. If you want to re-insert your changes to a specific article but there has been resistance from other users, please use the relevant talk page for that article – VfU is for an entirely different type of dispute. Thanks, android79 19:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to do so, "Android", but the discussion page referred me to the Un-deletion page, so I went there instead. I would like to see my articles on "promise" (to Abraham, Sept.), and "evil spirits" (Oct. 1) undeleted. (Oct.)
Evil spirits was never deleted. It was merely redirected to Demon, probably because someone thought that the material you submitted was already covered well in that article. You may want to discuss that at Talk:Demon with other editors.
As for the "promise" article, unless you can give me an exact article title, I have no idea which article you're talking about, and neither will anyone at VfU. There's nothing in the contribution history for this IP that has the word "promise" in it. Either this article was deleted, or you were editing from a different IP when that article was created. android79 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The article I wrote, which was attached to the "promise" page, has been deleted by a user, I can't remember his name. I still disagree that the article I wrote for "evil spirits" was adequately covered in "demon"; that's why I wrote it. I read the "demon" article first, but didn't like it, and so I wrote the "evil spirits" article two days ago, and someone has already erased it. Both deletions or "re-directions" (the end result is the same; my articles either got erased, or by-passed; where nobody can read them; so, what's the difference?) were without any discussion that I can see. I don't like it. I am not going around, erasing anybody else's articles. They don't need to do it to me. I'm being censored, by somebody who doesn't like my input. (Oct.)

  • You're not being censored by somebody who doesn't like your input; you're being edited by an editor who doesn't like your edits. That's how it works here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be the edit: [1]. It was reverted by Uncle G because he felt The promises to Abraham are covered in depth in that article as he wrote in his edit summary. Whether that's true, I don't know, I haven't read that article, but that sort of content definitely belongs in Abraham rather than in Promise. You might try discussion at Talk:Abraham if there are certain points about the promises made to Abraham that you feel that article doesn't address.
I see a pattern here: your edits are redirected or reverted because there is material elsewhere in the encyclopedia that other editors feel already adequately covers the subject matter you are writing about. As it says below the edit box, If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. This is a collaborative project, and other editors are free to alter or remove your contributions, just as you are free to do it to theirs, as long as it is done within well-established guidelines. I would suggest you better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia by reading some of the links supplied above in the welcome message, and also that you edit established articles rather than creating new ones, to start. Since you appear to have an dynamic IP, I would also suggest registering a username so that your edits are easier for you to track. android79 20:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not very interested in fighting over every comma and sentence with other editors, who already wrote their articles first. Why should I? That's why I am looking for new places, where I can write my own articles. Even my talk on the discussion page is being edited. How's THAT for free speech? For instance, somebody has twice head-lined my "talk", calling it "babble", and "non-germane" to the subject. ("Babble" is something that doesn't make sense; from the "Tower of Babel"). I make sense; and I also write and communicate effectively and clearly. What I am arguing about, is what happens to my articles IF SOMEONE DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME. Do you understand? I am complaining about harassment, and about my stuff getting erased. What does that have to do with "procedure"? "Procedure" merely covers up the fact that somebody is trying to edit my stuff out of existence. I'm not stupid, or naive enough to believe otherwise. Is that clear enough for you?
  • I consider myself to be primarily a writer, not an editor. Most of the editing I have been doing has been to correct misspelled words, or poor grammar, such as in "dependent clauses" (it is customary, I learned, to set them off with comma's). In other places, if I don't understand what the writer meant, or if the meaning is ambiguous, I will usually edit it, if I have time. But, if I was a successful writer/author, I could simply write my own books; and I probably would not be trying to contribute anything here. Some of your editors are trying to quickly put an end to my career, such as "Uncle". Whatever happened to "discussion", like I am doing, before getting erased? Don't try to snow me with talk about "procedure". Somebody has been "proceeding" to erase my stuff, without much or any discussion; that's what I'm complaining about. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? You never know; somebody might actually LIKE some of the stuff that I have written. I thought that my articles were excellent, and written concisely and from a unique perspective. Does that sound like "babble" to you?
  • If I DO create an account, some wiseguy editor will only use it to follow me around, and to erase my stuff more thoroughly and effectively. (Oct.)
    • Actually, just the opposite. Editors (even wiseguy ones) can tell immediately from their watchlists when a non-registered account has changed an article; it doesn't take any following around. Anonymous editors get far more scrutiny and have almost no way to establish credibility. Get yourself a userid and you'll get more respect. Oh, by the way, please sign your "talk" posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You say their articles, my own articles. On Wikipedia, nobody "owns" an article – it's all collaborative. If you're looking to write the first pass at an article on a common topic, such as a Biblical concept, you're probably out of luck, since something has probably already been written about it. Writing your "own" article on a topic that already has an established article is considered a duplicate article (or sometimes a "fork"), which is generally a bad thing to have – imagine having half-a-dozen articles on Jesus in a paper encyclopedia.
Your work getting erased isn't harassment; it's par for the course here, especially if something is out-of-place (such as the section on Abraham in the Promise article) or if there's already a suitable article on the topic you're writing about. If your talk page comments are getting ridiculed or modified, that's not kosher; there are various places where you can register a complaint for incivility such as that.
As for commas and grammar, Wikipedia has a manual of style that is generally followed pretty closely.
Uncle G certainly isn't trying to "end your career"; he's one of the most well-respected Wikipedians I know, and you have something in common with him: he did a substantial amount of editing as an anonymous user before he decided to register an account. He merely saw an out-of-place change in an article he was watching and removed it – no more, no less – nothing personal at all.
"Wiseguy editors" can easily "follow" anyone around by clicking on the User contributions button in the left-hand column when accessing that editor's user pages. It's how I tracked down what edits you were talking about earlier, and it doesn't matter if you're anonymous or logged-in. Mine and everyone elses' are open for all to see. android79 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Many of your edits are adding a personal POV to articles; these are being quickly reversed.

While I'm at it -- please slow down your crusade to add large numbers of commas to articles. They are generally unnecessary edits. Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magus

Do you have a source for the several recent edits you have made to the Magus article, many of which appear to be folk etymology at best, and others of which would be better placed in articles such as Bible-related articles and others, rather than this one? I will revert to the last version before your edits until you explain. -EDM 21:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. (By the way, please put responses to people's commentary on their User Talk page, not their main User page, if you choose not to respond here on this page. I moved your response to my talk page accordingly.) The Bible is not an encyclopedic (historical) source for information other than information pertaining to Bible stories and myths, Biblical literary devices, etc. If your edits to articles are sourced in your philosophy that, as you put it, you can't keep the Bible and Judeo-Christianity separate from the rest of civilization and literature; secular literature cannot possibly explain the world, apart from the truths contained in the Bible. All secular attempts will fail. ... The Bible is the foundation of all knowledge; especially Western, you are surely going to find your edits reverted quickly by many editors who adhere to the neutral point of view policy. -EDM 23:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
How "neutral" of you. I'm so relieved to hear that you wikipedia editors don't have a point-of-view. Also, that it never comes through in your editing. By the way, there is no such thing as "a wall of separation between church and state"; 'church' people also have some secular views, and 'secular' people also have some 'church' views.
Please explain which "church" views I, as a "secular" person, hold. Andy Mabbett 15:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This is going to get way off the topic very quickly. '222 (I may call you that, may I not? Hope you don't find it too beastly), my caution above has nothing whatsoever to do with issues of church and state; don't bring red herrings to this discussion. The point is, to treat the Bible as history or as the "foundation of all knowledge" is POV. Discussion of the contents of the Bible has its place in Wikipedia, but this article isn't that place. -EDM 16:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Couldn't handle the arguments, so you erased my reasoning on the "discussion" page, eh? How noble of you. It merely proves my point.
    What on earth are you talking about? Nobody has erased any of your comments on the discussion page, which hasn't been edited in two months. And please sign your comments with four ~ signs. -EDM 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I was answering Andy Mabbett, and the screen went blank. Why don't you ask him? I'm not the one going around and erasing peoples' stuff.
    Sounds to me like you got caught in an edit conflict—when two people are editing the same section at the same time, not something malicious.

On another note, please preview your edits before saving. You are adding quotation marks inside links (e.g., changing Edward, the Black Prince to Edward, "the Black Prince") which redlinks the link and decreases the usefulness of this project. -EDM 16:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • By the way; I don't think there's anything wrong with my having a "point of view" on my discussion page; isn't this where people go to "negotiate" their views? Supposedly, the idea is to keep as much of our points of view out of the articles as possible. ````
    Yes, a POV is fine on your discussion page. That's how you can explain edits when people challenge them. Nobody's removed your POV from this discussion page. But if the consensus is that your edits in articles are POV, they are going to get reverted. -EDM 16:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently, all it takes is a "consensus of one", sometimes. Some of my articles are getting erased with no discussion at all. The last one I wrote, that got erased, was "The Day of Pentecost". A single editor immediately erased the entire article; right after I wrote it. All that was left was an empty page. There was no "reversion" to anything else. I had written the article on a vacant site. Furthermore, the editor said that the article was "empty"; not that it was POV. Since he so-zealously erased the article; there is nothing left for me to discuss, except the title, and the fact that there was no "discussion" about erasing the article at all. I don't care how many times you guys try to deny it; some of your "editors" are unfair. None of you guys has even acknowledged that I have a right to complain. I don't expect you guys to listen to me: you can't even hear what I'm saying. You're so sure you're right; enjoy yourselves on your "cloud of superiority". 129.24.95.222 17:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit puzzled. I can find no evidence of an article called "The Day of Pentecost" was ever created or deleted. When did you do this? Of course you have a right to complain. And, yes, deleting obvious POV edits just takes a "consensus of one", since that's Wikipedia policy. So does everyone. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you put a link here to the Pentecost article? I can't identify it from your User contributions list so I can't comment on what happened in the instance you're referring to.

Also, I'm going to echo Jpgordon's comments above. Please stop adding eccentric punctuation to articles, including the many internal hyphens (e.g. over-all, out-numbered [both from War of the League of Cambrai], and others too numerous to mention), quotation marks, weird semicolons that leave the coordinate clauses fragments, etc. These edits decrease readability and usefulness. You might want to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. -EDM 17:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • When I try to answer, you guys keeping knocking me off-line. That's twice now my answers have gotten completely erased. First you write to me; I see the "new messages" sign; then you answer for me, excluding me from the conversation. 129.24.95.222 17:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Edit conflict might shed some light on that problem. In any case, no one is purposefully removing your comments here. With many people editing this page at the same time, if someone saves an edit to a page while you are actively editing it, the software detects it, and you should be warned about an edit conflict and given a chance to save your work. android79 18:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless this is what's happening. -EDM 18:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NM

How's the weather in NM ? Scott 14:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

Please stop making such rediculous comments on the Talk page. Yes, it makes your point clear, but as you must realise, it does nothing to improve the article. -- Ec5618 19:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/2/9/User_talk%7E129.24.95.222.html"