User talk:Immanuel Thoughtmaker

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Immanuel Thoughtmaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. OccultZone (Talk) 06:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veilleux79? ;) Anyways, thanks. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was copying the same text from one page to another. I have just fixed it. Have fun. OccultZone (Talk) 07:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Thoughtmaker, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Immanuel Thoughtmaker! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Drmies (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe it is clear to everyone that articles can be edited while an AFD is on-going thus I feel very justified in everything I've done. I remain unchanged in my views." Of course it is clear to everyone that articles can be edited while an AfD is happening--but it is equally clear to most everyone that if one is reverted a couple of times then clearly the community does not agree, and any boldness becomes obstinacy. Now, let's let that AfD run its course. Please. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Thank you for your time. I will follow the related guidelines in regards to reverts but I will continue to contest the quality of the sources of this article. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt Truth to be a Liar

It's available for PDF download on scribd. It's cheap, but there's probably no need to pay. I'm guessing you're a student somewhere, your institution likely gives you downloading privileges, and if not any of the younger faculty are likely to have accounts. It wouldn't really be a stretch for them to provide it to you free as educational material if it's relevant to your studies. Cheers. 67.188.123.216 (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (Ra material) (3rd nomination)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (Ra material) (3rd nomination)

WP:POINT Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's relevant. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Your recent editing history at The Law of One (The Ra Material) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One

Hi there,

I am as disappointed as you are that the article was kept as I think secondary sources are simply not around. However, I'm willing to give it some time and we continue to ask on WP:FTN for help to see if it is possible to write a neutral and well-sourced article.

One thing we need to do, though, is stick closely to the secondary sources and literature. Using the primary source is fine for simple and straightforward claims, but the esoterica that descends into pseudophysics should not be expounded upon without some indication that this idea is well-developed and can be subject to fact-checking. In other words, the danger is that Wikipedia start explaining self-published original research of the book which we are expressly forbidden from doing.

So, that's why we're removing the big chunk of pseudophysics. However, if you know of some independent sources that can help, please let us know.

Thanks for your help and work.

Best,

jps (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good show. This works. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Life's a bit complex around here! Articles about plants and animals should be either at the English name, if this is common and unambiguous, or at the scientific name. There are strict rules about article titles – you need to read WP:AT. So you shouldn't have moved Dracaena braunii to Dracaena braunii (Lucky Bamboo). Parenthesized bits in article titles are only used for disambiguation. It needs an admin to move it back. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And disambiguation is what I did. Good day, sir. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back - we don't do double-barrelled article titles. Some of the material you removed is true, but as wikipedia is not a how-to-manual it would have to be rewritten, and you are right it does need sources so sources can be checked later and material added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia "disambiguation" has a specific meaning. If several topics have the same name, like for example "Iris", then a parenthesized word is used to separate (i.e. disambiguate) the articles. Thus there is Iris (anatomy) and Iris (plant). By definition there's only one plant correctly called Dracaena braunii, so it doesn't need disambiguation. "Lucky bamboo" alone wouldn't be a good title because (a) the plant isn't a bamboo (b) it's not clear that everybody uses this English name for exactly the same species.

Don't let all this put you off editing Wikipedia, but you do need to study Wikipedia policies and practices. I'm always willing to help if you ask at my talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Your recent editing history at Shooting of Michael Brown shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You have forced your version of content into the article three times, against the objections of two editors. Please gain consensus for your edit and follow WP:BRD. - Mr X 21:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. That's not a very helpful response. I strongly urge you not to edit war as it will probably result in you being blocked from editing.- Mr X 21:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. There has been no edit warring. I have no idea why you are here. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:EW, which in part says "that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring"." I hope that helps.- Mr X 22:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everythingism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Everythingism. Since you had some involvement with the Everythingism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]