User talk:Ice9Tea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The User Formerly Known as kljenni

I got bored with that name so I changed it  ;-)

[edit] Trinity again

Sorry, but personal signed commentary (such as you added to the Trinity article) does not belong on article pages, but on article talk pages. Since basically none of your edits to Trinity have been productive or constructive, maybe you should try to learn a little bit more about how things are done before editing again there in future. AnonMoos 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ice9Tea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Vassyana 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are aware, someone tagged the Jesus is not God Almighty page for speedy delete. I am sure they did not mean to bite. The page you created would be considered a WP:POVFORK. Please take the time to check out the above links in the welcome message. It will help avoid issues as with that article and make your time more enjoyable. Be well!! Vassyana 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: John 14:28

Hello, I deleted this article. Some points:

  • Creating articles about individual Bible verses without any discussion whatsoever is not a very interesting idea; We're not a repository of text. To justify creating such articles, the article also has to have some context. In other words, it's important to also tell what's so important about this particular verse. (Frankly, few verses have the weight of John 3:16, for example!) Usually, we discuss first the book (Gospel of John) and rarely, very rarely, descend below that level. We rarely even need to discuss individual chapters.
  • the {{hangon}} template is only meant to be used if someone tags, for speedy deletion, an article you have created. You do not need to use it on newly created articles. (Unless you, ahem, want to draw the administration's attention to your article creation skills. =)

Hope this helps! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kljenni 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity

Yes, most Christians are Trinitarian, accepting the First Ecumenical Council and the Nicene Creed as authoritative. This includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Lutherans, Calvinists, the orthodox faction of the Anglican communion, and others. Catholics alone are nearly half of all Christians, and combining them with any other group constitutes a majority. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(Keep getting stupid edit conflicts...)

The majority of Christian groups with significant membership (including the largest church group of all, the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and both "mainstream" and "evangelical" Protestants) are Trinitarian. AnonMoos 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See comments directly above -- they still apply, and you haven't given any good arguments against them. AnonMoos 16:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tetragrammaton

Why do you insist on inserting yourself into the editing of articles where a technical knowledge of linguistics and Hebrew is often required to make well-informed edits, when you demonstrably lack such technical knowledge? AnonMoos

But it is you anon who has not the technical knowledge needed to drop your POV editing style Kljenni 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude,
1) I'm not any more "anonymous" than anyone else who uses a Wikipedia username which is an obvious pseudonym. For that matter, you have no idea whether most people who claim to use their real names on Wikipedia are actually using their real names -- and I have no idea whether or not your real name resembles "Kljenni".
2) Pretty much almost all reputable modern scholars who are not themselves JW's agree that Yehowah is a bogus Hebrew linguistic form, and very probably originated in medieval times through a misunderstanding of Masoretic scribal practices, such as is detailed in Image:Qre-perpetuum.png and Image:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png . Therefore your recent edits to article Tetragrammaton are not valid, and not constructive.
3) Since you haven't displayed much Hebrew or linguistics knowledge in past discussions at Talk:Ishtar and Talk:Tetragrammaton, your judgements of the state of other people's Hebrew and linguistics knowledge are not particularly of interest.
4) In general, cutting-and-pasting in the official JW line from the official JW website will not be adequate on Wikipedia. If the article is directly about JW's in some way, and you say that "The JW position is X, Y, and Z", then there's not a problem. But if there's an article about some general doctrinal position or historical phenomenon (i.e. not mainly about JW's), and the majority of Christians hold to a religious doctrine A, or the majority of competent scholars in the field believe that event B happened in history, then plugging in the JW position that Christians shouldn't believe in doctrine A, or that event B didn't happen, and trying to present this as a neutral accepted factual point of view, isn't helpful or constructive, and won't be welcomed by the regular editors of the articles (as you've already discovered several times before). AnonMoos 12:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the J in Jehoshaphat

I explained at extreme length near the bottom of page Talk:Tetragrammaton where the "J" in Jesus came from -- which is the same as where the J in Jehosaphat and Jehovah came from.

The problem with Jehovah is not the "J" -- if the form Yehowah had actually existed in Hebrew, then Jehovah would be a perfectly adequate English reflection of this hypothetical Hebrew form Yehowah. The problem with Jehovah is that the form Yehowah did NOT in fact exist in Hebrew at all -- so that Jehovah is an acceptable English reflection of a non-existent and bogus Hebrew form. This has also been explained at length on Wikipedia articles and article talk pages -- you could start with the images Image:Qre-perpetuum.png and Image:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png I already indicated directly above. AnonMoos 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tetragrammaton (bis)

Why do you insist on trying to correct the information about the scholarly consensus provided by people who directly know something about the subject, when you don't know anything directly about the subject, but instead get all your information filtered at third hand? AnonMoos 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no absolute scholarly consensus about the "correct" pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton (though many would agree that "Yahweh" is probably reasonably close to the original historical pronunciation) -- but unfortunately for you, there in fact IS a rather widespread scholarly consensus that "Yehowah" is INCORRECT (and in fact non-existent in Hebrew until certain medieval misunderstandings occurred), and of course English "Jehovah" is nothing more and nothing less than an English transcription of putative Hebrew Yehowah, as transmitted through a Latin-language intermediary. Meanwhile, since you know nothing directly about Hebrew linguistics, but are dependent on third-hand selectively-filtered information, it would seem to be somewhat presumptuous of you to offer "incorrections" in this area. AnonMoos 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Human evolution edit

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which it appears you have not followed at Human evolution. Thank you.

[edit] Hair

Before you knew about bouyancy (assuming you know about bouyancy), and saw helium balloons rising through air, apparently contradicting the theory of gravity, did you ever suggest it was the "myth of gravity"? Maybe because it contradicts your religious views?

Nobody knows for certain about the evolution of hair. Actually nobody knows how gravity works either--just what it DOES. That doesn't mean the theory of gravity is wrong. Likewise missing some detail on the specifics of human evolution doesn't make the theory of evolution wrong. Yes it is in fact a "theory". But so is the "germ theory" of communicable diseases. Learn what "theory" means. Brentt 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not as a forum for debate. Please do not use them to propound your beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You did ask that, and your request was rejected. This is because the word theory doesn't apply in this context. Theory has a scientific meaning that is different from the lay usage of the term. The Human evolution article discusses the observed and inferred sequence of and relationships among human ancestors. However, there is little or no discussion of evolutionary theory; that is, (roughly) the model of how evolution occurs. That article discusses the evolution of humans without going into the mechanisms behind that evolution. "Theory of human evolution" doesn't really make sense. See, for instance, Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory? and Evolution as theory and fact for more information.
However, the reason for my rebuke was that that was not all you asked. When others disagreed with you and politely explained why, you go quite off-topic, debating the validity of evolution in general, objecting to portions of cosmology, and insulting other editors (such as in this edit). This is not an appropriate use of article talk pages, and further misuse of them may merit a block from editing or other restrictions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abaddon

Hi, Ice9Tea. I once more erased your unsourced statement in the article on Abaddon. I did this not because I am trying to stop you from placing your entry, but rather because if you are going to say something on this subject, it should be referenced. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources to see the accepted way to do this--simply saying that "students of the Bible" or "Jehovah's Witnesses" believe something is not a reference. If you wish to add back your content, simply find a verifiable source for your statement, and supply a reference. In the blue text below every editing page, you'll find ref> </ref buttons. Insert these, put your reference between them, and then make a references section at the end of the article--under this section, add <references/, and voila! Bob's your uncle.Transcendentalstate 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above user. I have reverted the article to a form that gives multiple viewpoints complete with references, rather than one lightly-referenced JW viewpoint. I realize you may not agree with the subject of one of the references, but it is included as a reference to both the minority JW view as well as the fact that this was not always their view (see "Who is the Angel of the Abyss?" section of that reference.) 66.177.5.252 02:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

You have now violated this rule on both Jehovah and Abaddon. Please stop, although you can self-revert your last reverts as a sign of good faith. A.J.A. 04:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with A.J.A. The edits I made to Abaddon were good faith, NPOV, and show both the majority view and the minority JW view, including the fact that JW's once believed the current majority view. I will be reverting them one more time. 66.177.5.252 05:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama Roll Call

Hello, you are currently listed as a member of Wikiproject Futurama though you may be inactive. This seems to be the case for many members so I am sending this message to help renew interest in working on these articles. If you are still interested in working on Futurama related tasks please visit the wikiproject page to see how you can help. If you have time please also join in the recent discussions on the talk page, in particular I would personally appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles. Thank you for your time, hopefully I didn't annoy you too much. If you would not like to receive messages such as this in the future then consider removing yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/List of participants. Happy editing. Stardust8212 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)