User talk:Navnløs: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:50, 20 November 2009

Due to personal issues, Navnløs will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time.

Navnløs is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Template:Long Wikibreak Welcome to my talk page.
Need to add a comment and don't know how? Click Here Template:Archive box collapsible

Jeremiah 2:20: "a saeculo confregisti iugum meum
rupisti vincula mea et dixisti non serviam in omni enim colle
sublimi et sub omni ligno frondoso tu prosternebaris meretrix."
- Light-Bringer

I'm fed up with wikipedia's hypocrites always talking about POV while instituting their own.
User:Navnløs/Reply to accusations from User:Twsx
Hilariousness: #1
Revert the Reverted Edit!
Kill the white rabbit before it kills you. - Morbid Saint

Haven't gotten on this account in forever. Not that anyone cares.

Mostly do some very very small edits on an anon every now and then. Mostly spelling/grammar errors and the such. I have new addictions. Working with some bands. Enjoying friends. Still working like crazy and doing school. Hanging out with my amazing gal. Not that anyone cares. I just wanted to give an update. At this point it looks like I may very well not come back. Ever. But you never know. I might go through some wiki-binges. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, and I saw Rotting Christ!

Beat that. They ruled. The guys from the band were hella laid back, too, and were going around talking to people and whatnot. They had super thick Greek accents. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you, buddy!

Fart.

File:Doing what I do.jpg

Alternative counter

I noticed on User talk:Interiot that you were experiencing the same problems with the edit counter as I was. I've located another edit counter that you may want to try. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about that! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Doing what I do.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Doing what I do.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal articles

... just aren't the same, knowing you're watchfull eye is absent. 86.46.214.214 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure if that's sarcasm or not. I'll assume it isn't and, if that is the case, thank you very much. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sarcasm, man. Will you ever edit wikipedia again, like as much as you used to?86.46.214.195 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the late response, but I don't ever really get on anymore. I use anons, though, every now and then and edit through those. To answer your question, though, I don't believe I will. Even if wikipedia or the users on it never upset me again, I still have way too much to deal with in my life. Trying to come up with rent evert month is a big thing right now. But I have a school and work and all manner of projects to deal with. Not to mention when I did tons and tons of editing during that one period in the past, I didn't have a girlfriend. I'm curious to know, though, if I know you or not. Are you just some user I've never talked to before or not? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 04:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might remember me. I left to edit pages anonymously as well though, after causing a shitstorm with another user. But yeah, this place get's worse every day with shitty users with their own agendas. You were seriously one of the few users who I believe spoke their mind and didn't bullshit others, even if you were a bit abrasive, I'd rather that than some idiot user/mod repeating rules verbatim like one of the damnable bots. I don't suppose you edit Metal Archives at all?86.46.197.149 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well I really appreciate your kind words. I think I was more abrasive in the beginning. I tried harder to work with others more over time. I agree with what you're saying about the rules. I mean, they're obviously there for a good reason and I do believe they work a good deal of the time, but some amount of flexibility and ammending from time to time should be allowed. Discussion is important. Although a lot of times you end up trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is a complete idiot. No I don't really edit metal archives. I use that site (among others) from time to time as a research tool to discover new bands or look up an album, etc. I've edited it a few times when I saw an error or something, but that's it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new article.

I'm not back. I don't think I ever truly will be. But I'm gonna add some new articles in the near future of things that aren't on wikipedia and I might make some other edits. We'll see. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Elysian Blaze

A tag has been placed on Elysian Blaze requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Deadly∀ssassin 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMF. Dicks! I just made that article earlier today and I specifically said I would add more info in the edit summary at some point soon! Goddamn. Impatient sons of bitches. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 04:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet joyous vindication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_libs/Archive
Smells like success. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 08:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez

Guess who? Yeah, that's right. Rory. Look who left. RoryReloaded 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Here is some news: I have been the lawyer for my former Floridian client's Estate (including the catalogues of both of his former bands) since September. This deceased genre innovator's sister/mother contacted me to make it happen, in a sort of karmic whirlwind. I am floating on air, it is so cool. Anyway, hope you've been OK and that the health is on track. ;) A Sniper (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone needs to say that you are quite the intelligent young guy. I appreciate your support and will do the same.

Yes, all of the stuff I'm doing lately (in the real world) is quite exciting for me. Just this morning, The master disc & artwork for ''The Sound of Perseverance'' arrived at my door, sent from Germany via FedEx. I have to pinch myself. Talk to you soon... A Sniper (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Judaism is

Navnlos, Judaism is not exactly a religion. See, for example, Humanistic Judaism which is nontheistic. "A system of beliefs and practices," as was in the article before, is probably a better description of what Judaism is. In my country, a plurality of Jews are agnostic or atheist. Many are still involved in the practices of Judaism and go to synagogue, where they acknowledge the Jewish beliefs and pray. Judaism isn't quite the same as Christianity or Islam in that respect. --AFriedman (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are getting at. But what you are talking about is Judaism as an ethnicity, which is a different article. The Judaism article we are editing is about the religion. The evidence is on the Judaism talk page. I'm really not changing a single thing about the article. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism

I saw on another user's page you wrote, "I get their argument that Judaism is a religion AND ethnicity." If you genuinely believe this, I just have to say that this was not clear. But also, I think it is missing the point. I really hope you know when you read these words that I am taking you at good faith, I do not ant there to be any argument between us and I do not want to frustrate you. Is it possible for the two of us to communicate without rubbing each other the wrong way? I hope so! And I am trying. If you think I am not trying explain why to me and I promise to try harder.

There are two reasons why I did not think you were making the "this AND that" argument, or that you were acknowledging this argument. The first is that the other article is on "Jews." Jews refer to people, Judaism refers to something abstract. In other words, I do not see as you seem to, two articles Judaism (religion) and Judaism (ethnicity) - this would be two articles on two aspects of the same thing. I see two articles on two different things - Judaism and Jews. I think there is sense to this, since there are Jews who disavow Judaism.

The second reason is that I think that something very important would be lost if we had two articles (Judaism - religion and Judaism - ethnicity). What we would lose is the various ways in which national and religious aspects of Judaism cannot easily be separated, that they are from the start intertwined. Somewhere you commented on your desire to call Judaism a religion because Christianity and Islam are called religions. But Christianity and Islam are not nations. Christianity in fact claims to be a religion all people can belong to. Jews on the other hand consider it impossible to practice the Jewish religion unless you are also a member of the Jewish nation (Judaism = both). In this Judaism is very much unlike Christianity and Islam. I think calling Judaism a religion minimizes or obscures this crucial difference.

Be that as it may, I have added some reliable sources that inform my view. But I wanted to make it clear to you that I see that you made your change in good faith, and that I am disagreeing with you for reasons I have thought over a good deal - they are not capricious or trivial and I did not restore the earlier version because it gave me some pleasure to revert you, it was because I thought the previous version is more consistent with the sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but you are missing some crucial points. First consensus was ALREADY gained on the Judaism article. You are the only one who keeps changing the article. Everyone else agrees with the edit I made. Second, you keep talking about what YOU believe and your OPINIONS. Here on wikipedia, opinions do not matter. I'm sorry, it's just that simple. It clearly says on the Judaism article, "For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." It doesn't matter if you think the Jew article is about the people and not about the ethnicity or culture. According to wikipedia it is. Which makes your argument completely pointless. Please comply with consensus. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried being reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have concensus on the lede in Judaism?

Can you point to anywhere on the talk page that doesn't have at least two people arguing the other way? Please, for the time being, revert your own change (as suggested by others on the talk page to avoid a new protect due to edit warring). We don't want to change the lede until there is clear consensus, and I'm not seeing a clear one yet. As my own entries on the talk page indicate, I don't particularly care about the outcome, but we're well past the point at which WP:BRD is appropriate. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was already achieved before. If the issue is being brought up again we can discuss it. However, I don't think I need to change it back as I changed it to "religion" before and it was agreed it would be left that way while we are discussing it anyways. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion's been reopened. In fact, after you left the edit war on this issue became so intense that User:Abecedare protected the page from further edits until people could agree not to change the lede before consensus was reached. There's still a heated discussion about the subject happening on the article's Talk page, if you'd like to see it or join in. --AFriedman (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. A while ago. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 :I understand what you are saying but you are missing some crucial points. First consensus was ALREADY gained on the Judaism article. You are the only one who keeps changing the article. Everyone else agrees with the edit I made. Second, you keep talking about what YOU believe and your OPINIONS. Here on wikipedia, opinions do not matter. I'm sorry, it's just that simple. It clearly says on the Judaism article, "''For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew.''" It doesn't matter if you think the Jew article is about the people and not about the ethnicity or culture. According to wikipedia '''it is'''. Which makes your argument completely pointless. Please comply with consensus. [[User:Navnløs|<b><font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast</font></b>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Navnløs|<font color="#666666"><i>$ODIN$</i></font>]]</sup></small> 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
+Okay, I tried being reasonable. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]   |  [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 == We have concensus on the lede in Judaism? ==