User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 10

If I'm not responding, that's probably because It is approximately 1:36 AM where this user lives (South Carolina). [refresh] 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.

If you want to

accuse me of a Christian bias, go here.	accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, go here.	see what a biased editor really looks like, go here.
leave a conversational or non-serious message (wazzup, barnstar, hate mail), go here.	leave me a serious message (about article improvement), click here.	see my contributions, go here.

New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

I appreciate concern during recent events, it's all been humbling. Cleaning up the page again, everything is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._White

By the standards set out in the mentioned policy this bio should not be on this site in the first place, as not all parties concerned agree on the statements made, this is a one sided story and now the opportunity to have another view on it is being quashed. I thought this site was about freedom of speech and the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.187.59 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy cited, WP:CITE, does not say anything about all parties involved agreeing. Unless you can demonstrate that the information in the article is not supported by the sources given for it, or that the sources given are not reliable by OUR standards, the information stays. If you want to present counter sources, I recommend looking over the reliable source guidelines to identify counter sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people claimed to be Jesus

That's not what I meant in my edit summary. Moon is claimed to be the Second Coming, not Jesus. This distinction is in the lede section of the article but not the title. That is why I posted in the discussion on the talk page on the focus of the article. Seems it still needs some refining. Also, the article on Billy Meier does not support any claim of being Jesus or the second coming. Elizium23 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moon fits under the lede text (there's no less reason to include him than Haile Selassie), but you're right about Meier (appears to have been copied from an unsourced addition to List of messiah claimants). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I was curious if the image of Talmud Jmmanuel should also go as it is associated with Meier, though there is a separate article for that (albeit also poorly sourced). KimChee (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that, removed it just now, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith

You said in an edit comment>(Another ref. Due to being tired and hungry, getting a little impatient, and will get back to it later.)<

I wouldn't give yourself a headache trying to input scholarly refs quickly, the article will still be there, and like similar pseudepigrapha/Kabbala subjects is a long haul job. You've done a great job in this article (which seems to be a magnet for POV and trivia) and many others to turn things toward Wikipedia standards. If anyone is going too fast for you to eat/sleep, ask them to slow on the talk page. Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's not a problem, Dreamguy's speed was fine with me. I've started a new exercise routine this year (if I wasn't paying money and getting graded on it... >_< ), and I'm still adjusting my sleep schedule and caloric intake to keep up (and not have random "I'm starving to death" hunger pains come out of nowhere), so I occasionally have to sit back a bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Thanks for the revert! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ophir

I cited my sources well, it was not just original research. Furthermore, if my tone was non-neutral, you could have just changed that.--Avedeus (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, your claim of synthesis is unaccounted for, because each of those sources explicitly supports that view; have you read any of the sources before refuting them?--Avedeus (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll revert myself. In the past in some other articles with similar claims, the use of sources turned out to be synthesis. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats okay, I am glad we understand each other. Thanks. --Avedeus (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

scribal errors of 666 =

If the number is originally written literally as exakosia exinta exi, then it is difficult to have scribal errors. It is more likely written in three letters. Most scribal errors occur in the middle letter. If it was upper case it is Ξ which is much more clear than the lower case ξ. This makes me believe that the number, the very original number written by John was χξς. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.123.7 (talk • contribs)

(signed, responded on IP talk page) Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok I am stopping editing. But your behavior is very strange. Please investigate how 616 is written in greek before threatening me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.123.7 (talk • contribs)

(again, signed, responded on IP talk page) Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is specially dedicated to you. "καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῶ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.123.7 (talk • contribs)

(signed, responding) Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

six wives

So, does the citation claim he had six wives? Perhaps its better if you don't replace it as you are unable to verify it and have not assessed the source at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trust Good Olfactory and his assessment, he does have the source. While I should AGF with the IP editor, I know I can trust GO, and I have been given reason to trust her less than him. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with your comments but considering the there is dispute imo you shouldn't replace the content unless you have verified it yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is an censoring edit-warrior with a conflict of interest, and people caving into her WP:TEND edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically edit warring content you have no idea about, please self revert and allow the user that has access and has made the claim to add the content. Please take this as a 3RR noteOff2riorob (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I should accuse Good Olfactory (a user in good standing who I've worked with before and I trust) of being a liar and give into tendentious censorship based on a conflict of interest? Looking for additional sources now. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No , not that at all, the content has no desperate desire to be in the article and discussion is ongoing, personally imo while the discussion and consensus is assessed there is more value in keeping the content out than warring it back in. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Bryant

You recently made comments on the talk page of John W. Bryant regarding repeated deletions of a quotation from a source. We've been working on this issue on the talk page and I've drafted a proposed addition to the article here. Because you commented on the issue previously, you are invited to comment on the proposal, if you wish to do so. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angels(Islamic perspective)

Hi

I recently tried to remove some content on the Angels page regarding the views on angels in Islam. A disproportionate amount of inforation is left in the form of a poem . The poem in outright conflict with mainstream Islamic teachings, I am not against different groups expressing their teachings on the subject, I do however want to avoid people gaining an understanding of Angels in Islam wholly different to what the majority of Muslims believe. I do not intend to censor said information, just that it is in the wrong place. It should be on the Islamic view of angels page so that a more wholistic view of Angels in Islam is presented instead, with the different views on the aforementioned page.

Thanks

P.S. apologies if this is not formatted correctly, I havn't done this before. Imran tayab (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willfults

Hi. I noticed you've been having a lot of trouble with this editor. Join the club. I've struggled with him for 4-5 months now. He must have ruined a dozen good articles about the SDA church. I've made a note at the NPOV noticeboard. All the best. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toledoth Yeshu

Thank you for taking time to talk to me.81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would've stayed to answer the rest of your questions, but WP:Redheads are more important than Wikipedia, and one decided I'm apparently not creepy. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result! :D Readheads are super-hot! ;) 81.103.121.144 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is called "majority text"

The majority (98%) of the ancient handwritten texts mention χξς. The Novum Testamentum Graece refers to printed editions. The majority text is a Bible Standard at least from 300 AC until now, as long as John Chrysostom is consistent with that text Xicsies (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try actually reading WP:CITE and WP:OR. By calling the NTG "original research" and just saying "reliable source" instead of citing an academic text, you're showing you don't seem to get how things work around here. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See[1]. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. My search on Pickering pulled up his work not exactly being a published source and effectively a blog, but I had to get breakfast. Thanks for the other research and revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a properly published source (published by Thomas Nelson and then by [2]). Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the following link about Max Muller, why suppress truth about injustice? it still continues.

http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/max-mueller-was-a-swindler-william-jones-was-a-fraud/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calador2100 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teilhard

Have you got a source which confirms Pierre Teilhard de Chardin racial origin views? I have read that he belived in evolutionary polygenism, it seems many websites seem to be saying this but apparently the websites are not valid enough, there seems to be many websites attacking teilhards beliefs. Apparently theres some stuff he wrote on it himself in his book "The Phenomenon of Man", i don't have the exact line but apparently he belived different races evolved off different primates, and that the Adam and Eve story was not literal to him, and that he actually believed in more than one Adam. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't have a copy of Phenomenon on me (I've been borrowing my library's copy). I don't quite recall anything to that effect, however, but I've been meaning to re-read it, and I will keep an eye out for anything about polygenism or monogenism. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism Intro

To be honest, I think your intro should have replaced the other one. It's a shame that some articles get taken over by persons trying to make a distorted, inaccurate point, instead of trying to present an objective view of a phenomenon. Your intro is much better. It's too bad that authentic scholars seem to rarely spend time fixing errors in wikipedia articles.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camaël

I'm kinda new to actually adding info to Wikipedia, so Excuse me if I didn't do it the right way;)

I did translate it now for starters.

And I will add the source of the information I got. According to my own research about Camaël, the information I will add after leaving this message is fully correct.

I hope I'm doing it the right way this time.

I will make an account first tho. done. My Account is Mr_GoLd_FaCe

greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr GoLd FaCe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angels

Angels I am just a 57 yr old physician who is well read and I tried to comment on the Angels site but did not know how. I am amazed that the whole angels wiki does not mention the Sumerians. The oldest recorded description of angels is Sumerian. I saw a clay Sumerian angel in a Beijing museum that was dated 4000 BC, that got me more interested in Sumerian civilization. When I found out that the Sumerian great flood story was almost identical to the Jewish story I was amazed. But then everything fell into place when I learned that Abraham was Sumerian, and took his group of people east. When one religion spins off another, it usually takes with it a lot of the old religion. I found this to be true in all of the religions I have studied. The Sumerian mythology predates the Egyptian beliefs and there are too many similarities to call it all coincidence. There is solid evidence that trade existed between Sumer and Egypt before Egypt became a major civilization. Depictions of winged humans from Sumer and Egypt often look identical. The wikipedia site on angels needs to be rewritten. It took me only ten minutes to find a better site on angels. I like wikipedia and I hope you can get someone to correct this. http://www.feedback.nildram.co.uk/richardebbs/essays/angels.htm Dr. Don Woods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.90.216 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that website does not meet our site's guidelines for reliable sources. What we really need are citations from books. While Judaism did inherit stuff from Sumeria, the Sumerians don't appear to have applied the name or title "messenger" to their creatures, which is kinda what makes an angel an angel instead of a minor god. Unless we have a book by a mainstream historian saying "angels are derived from these Sumerian creatures," we can't really go into Sumeria with the angel article. The article Cherub does link to Shedu, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —slakr^\ talk / 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(crossing with the message you left on my page. But this is better here) Hi. While I agree you're right, I also agree with point 2 above. You've brought it to ANI, which now has brought extra eyes on the problem, so I hope this can now be sensibly resolved. ps: if you're interested in related matters, you might be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Time_to_do_a_real_clean-up_.E2.80.93_now.21 and so on William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was always under the impression ANI is a last resort. I'm not going to run there first thing, but I will be more ready to check there in the future. I will check in on that when I can, I'm about to leave for my weekly D&D game. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes ANI probably is, and there is so much churn there that you can be lucky if people notice. But it is better than risking 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the mess Jagged 85 has caused, and... well, I don't know that I can really help. Most I can do is put some of the articles on my watchlist, and keep an eye on them since they appear to be a target for POV-pushers. Sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Regarding your seal of Penemue image

Hi Ian, Well the source for the seal of Penemue was obtained in a terribly long and kinda obscure journey. I did not actually find it, it's more a ask and get thing. Found it at Megadriel Forum(sorry for the redirect. crappy but necessary :-( ). I found it's quite resourceful. And the Admin sure seems to know a lot!

Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelcolt (talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let deletionism get you down

The link to "Nature of Satanism as History" is pertinent and inclusive to the article on Satanism because it encompasses the historical and social perspective of the subject, the essay is in-depth; being scholarly embraces an academic approach. If it was about "advertising" I would have included an author's name. There are already a gathering of links which DO mention authors and merchants, but if you would notice the intended placement of the essay near other parallel works e.g. Description, Philosophies and Justification of Satanism & Satanism of All Types Both Fictional and Actual, you might comprehend the wiki-motivation of information gathering. That essay isn't random, it is on point. If your logic towards what is advertising and what is information had merit, you might double-check all the fraternal links and further question the distinction of Satanism from Luciferianism or even denominational sects of Satanism i.e. Theistic whose external links might be more appropriate on the original articles. I get what you're saying though, "It's a blog.", but seriously Description, Philosophies and Justification of Satanism is essentially Vexen's blog, Satanism of All Types Both Fictional and Actual is misleading it's pointing to Nagasiva's collection of Satanists by rank of popularity and again essentially Yronwode's blog. The external link Theistic Satanism is essentially Venus' blog. What I mean is those are personal pages, but I am an inclusionist and I don't view Vexen, Nagasiva nor Venus as using Wikipedia for advertising they are simply pertinent to the subject of Satanism. Now aren't you delighted I didn't once mention prudence or pretend to be the victim? Oh yeah I almost forgot, go read the essay then I want YOU to add it to the article's external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackson (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the site to see if it fit the external link guidelines, even though anyone that meets the "recognized authority" excemption for blogs typically has the resources to get their own site instead of a blogspot site. Just like Wikipedia does not exist to promote books, it does not exist to promote blogs. The site's author was not notable, just like when you were promoting your book. It doesn't matter what your personal opinions are, your blog does not belong any more than these sites did: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. WP:ELNO, #11. Deal with it, and quit trying to use this site for advocacy and as a soapbox. "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Other editors have let those blogs in because the authors are mentioned in sources used by the article. If you read WP:ELNO #11, it isn't simply 'no blogs,' but 'no blogs except by recognized authorities (i.e. notable authorities).' As we've been over, from Wikipedia's perspective, you do not meet the notability guidelines.

So, no, I'm not adding the site back. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a different link (Joseph McCabe's pamphlet) to "promote" more neutral bias in the article. I also want to ask if you have an idea of citation's needed or outstanding unverified information within the article.Blackson (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more clear? I'm not disagreeing that the Satanism article could stand to be better cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without tagging the article to death right away, I thought to introduce tags for the most obvious and let them sit for a while or at least until refuted, alternate info can surface too, but at first glance there are probably sourcing issues. What's awkward to me is how everyone seems to understand the article sucks in tone, cite & source, but there are no tags? I think once all citations are solid, the verbage can be realigned to set an appropriate neutrality. There is an immature sectarianism emmiting from the article which is a detriment to practitioners new and old. I think it also sets an incorrect example for the casual reader relative to the mass of well presented articles on so many other belief systems. I personally don't appreciate that this article doesn't have an encyclopedic tone because the subject itself is so broad which would demand cohesion of source, yet it reads as manifesto. The one positive element of the article as it exists lies in the root verifications. What it suffers from is superficial social attributes readers or editors "desire" the article to reflect i.e., legit or evolved Satanism (cool-kid Satanism).Blackson (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Weil

From a letter to Father Perrin, Marseilles, "I should betray the truth if I left the point, where I have been since my birth, at the intersection of Christianity and everything that is not Christianity.." So she is as much not Christian, as Christian ? In another letter to Perrin she wrote 'rightly or wrongly you consider me worthy of being called a Christian.." something like that - so do you have the divine and academic right to be surer of what she should be called than she was herself? 92.4.96.236 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Select quotations that do not say she wasn't a Christian, only that she was open and humble. From a divine perspective, this certainly helps the argument. What do you call someone who believes in the incarnation of Christ as being key to redemption? From an academic perspective, giving Christ primacy as she did is what qualifies. Explain these select quotes:

"Christianity is preeminently the religion of slaves, that slaves cannot help belonging to it, and I among others."

"Christ himself came down and took possession of me."

"[http://books.google.com/books?id=AXzoaGToDMgC&lpg=PT10&dq=simone%20weil%20Christian&pg=PT207#v=onepage&q=Christian&f=false I consider the Christian idea... as something that one cannot renounce without becoming degraded."

Weil was a theologically complex individual, who did not seek baptism in the Catholic church because she could not "help wondering whether in these days when so large a proportion of humanity is submerged in materialism, God does not want there to be some men and women who have given themselves to him and to Christ and who yet remain outside the church."

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutrality?

Could you take a look at the Christianity and atheism articles? I think there may be a neutrality issue. The atheism article highlights several rationales for being atheist but there is no such text for the Christianity article. What do you think? DataSmart (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I don't know that those quite compare. Really, theism and atheism would be better articles to compare (since they aren't quite religions but beliefs that form the basis for religions), and Christianity would be held to the same standards as specific religion. There are individual bumps in neutrality, but sitewide, the issue appears a bit more balanced, since individual arguments for the existence of God are given their own articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus of Nazareth

Hi Ian, I noticed that you decided to revert my edit, calling it "smartassery." Please point me to WP: smartassery, which I am assuming backs up your edit? I don't think that pointing out the obvious is unencyclopedic. You'll find many instances of it elsewhere. What say you? 92.24.111.90 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... Ok, if you want me to be a bureaucrat about it, the edit is unsourced, counter to WP:CITE. You'll find plenty of sources saying that Jesus is Jesus, but none that say Jesus is claimed to be Jesus. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about in Acts 9:5, " And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads." 92.24.111.90 (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus is not claiming to be Jesus there, He is stating His identity. To try to represent this as a claim requires hair-splitting that runs counter to WP:COMMONSENSE. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You've failed to justify what you have done. Going to revert your edit now. I'm not interested in an edit war, if you've got a problem still then we need a 3rd party to mediate. 92.24.111.90 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of part of a story I heard. A bunch of professors were talking about Shakespeares plays. One of them, a German, finally burst out "those plays were not written by Shakespeare! They were written by a man named Shakespeare!"

To try to take a statement of self-identity and treat it as a claim of being someone else is such a contrived act of philosophical hair-splitting that it's pointless to include in the article. Red, for the purposes of this encyclopedia is red. It is not that red is claimed to be red, it is red. There are four lights, no matter how much you want to try to imagine the possibility of a fifth. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Edits] made in Hinduism

Hi, I would like to know how do you judge that Sanatana Dharma is not called Hindu Dharma? Please link materials that say so. Your edits are present in a paragraph on Hinduism that ignores lack of understanding of Hinduism from within but points to understanding Hinduism w.r.t. Persians, Delhi Sultanate in definition section itself. To not acknowledge Sanatana Dharma is improper as there is enough evidence available, and this lack of acknowledgment of pagans, pagan authorities and pagan culture wherever is alarming. Considering the sources as self-published, please understand that culture and people have right to declare own understanding. Please check the sources in wiki:Christianity here, here, here and here on just one wiki page and find out how many sources are self-declared and tell us instead of giving excuses to delete source here that state facts. Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my paranoia was caused from a note sent to me about one of Wikipedia editors named Prof. Brian Morris who is deleating edits and contributions that go against his POV. Since your name is spelled with part of Brian, Ian, I thought it may be you in disguise. Please deleat anything you feel like and I will only feel bad for a while and move on. I'm sure you know what it like to be sensored. You know that old saying that if you notice an injustice around you and do nothing, you create your own hell. FYI I'm not a Christian, but am into cosmology, feminism, and reincarnation.Frederick Rhodes (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]