Erichansen1836

• Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Wiki is not supposed to be a biased community) --192.136.195.233 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe I have as much right to edit on wiki as any other registered contributor. Why should I be limited to the TALK page? When I have made contributions to the TALK page, I have received similar responses at wiki that wiki is not a general discussion site, even though my dialog is relative to the wiki page. This prohibition is a circular logic of LOSE LOSE, not WIN WIN or LOSE WIN/WIN LOSE. Erichansen1836 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're completely missing the point. You are welcome to add material to articles that cites mainstream academic sources without interpretation, modification, or elaboration. You are not welcome to use Wikipedia as a pulpit for your personal beliefs, and you do not sign your article contributions. You are welcome to post stuff to talk pages that concerns article improvement and maintenance. You are not welcome to use those pages as a discussion forum for your beliefs. I've explained most of this already in the above summary of guidelines and policies, and my previous message says not to add commentary to articles -- it doesn't say to not add anything to articles at all. If you didn't understand any of that, however, you probably should avoid adding anything to articles right now.

Basically, Wikipedia is not a blog, we're not a pulpit, do not preach your beliefs here (whatever they are). You should probably avoid articles relating to religion until you learn how to edit neutrally.

Also, Wikipedia is not about winning or losing. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Get off your high horse. Ian. You acting as a very biased representative of Wiki. Pulpit? My guess is that my logical contributions are against your personal belief system, and thus you are opposed to new ideas/information. That seems to make Wiki a biased community, pushing only the beliefs of those wiki employees/volungteers patrolling new posts. Am I right? Erichansen1836 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

No--Personal websites and blogs may be used as forums for us to espouse our personal beliefs and theories. Wikipedia articles and their talk pages are not to be used for that purpose. Cheers, 107.77.70.30 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

107. is correct. We don't let anyone use this site as a forum for their personal beliefs. We only summarize non-primary mainstream academic sources. Your posts on religious pages did not do that. Assume good faith and do not accuse editors of malevolence without evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

So posting religious ideas/facts on a religious wiki page is not allowed? Then how did the page get there in the first place. I support my ideas with Bible verses ACTS 1:3, ACTS 1:11, Jesus feeding the 4000 + 5000. These are all established references. Perhaps I need to prove I am a clergy member or something? Erichansen1836 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Posting your personal interpretations of those verses is not allowed. You need to cite non-primary mainstream academic sources without elaboration, interpretation, or modification. In other words, stuff like published books by university professors, from academic publishers. If you'd bother to read the articles, you'd see that that's mainly what is cited there.

We don't care who you claim to be, we stick to sources.

Do not post your personal interpretations on the talk page again or I will report you to the administrators. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ian, whose personal interpretations do you want me to post? Any interpretation is going to come from some individual.Erichansen1836 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've already explained over and over that we only summarize mainstream academic sources. The peer-reviewed assessment of ideas by scholars who have professionally studied the relevant fields as well as the works of other scholars is more than one user's personal interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so what you are saying is, for example, that if the medical profession documents here by their research, that there is no cure for cancer, but some believer comes along and writes that there is perhaps/likely a cure, because Jesus demonstrated in the Bible that he heals all matter of sickness and disease, then that testimony would not be allowed because of the medical research? Is not that a biased means of exclusion of the facts (like claiming that evolution is the only scientific and verifiable explanation for the species, and not a Creator having made them which is unverifable)? 209.253.149.94 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's a straw man argument, since the medical profession would say that they haven't found a cure for all types of cancers yet, but are still working on it. When Wikipedia discusses science, it gets its information from scientists. When it wants to know about the history of religious doctrines, it consults scholars of religion. They are different types of truths. Science is concerned with what is observable and reproducible (such as this), while religion is concerned with philosophical truths that must be experienced. The distinction is between objective and subjective truths (though Wikipedia only documents objective information, and objective documentation about notable subjective beliefs). They can be quite compatible if one does not believes that the creator of the world intentionally filled the world with lies about it's nature or that Satan is close enough in power to God to effectively remake the world.

Believe whatever you will, but Wikipedia operates on the assumption that science and religion are distinct. That distinction does not mean that one is better or worse, just that they're different. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Statue of Liberty for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Statue of Liberty, you may be blocked from editing. BusterD (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did add improvements for the page. If you are having a problem with sin in your life and are afraid of this discussion, we can discuss this one on one and you may contact me at my email. This is nothing to be ashamed of. We have all been there. Erichansen1836 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Glane23. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to What would Jesus do?— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Abomination of desolation for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, Wikipedia does not accept original research, as has been pointed out before. If you do not have mainstream academic sources backing a suggestion, do waste space with suggestions that are never going into the article. This site is not a pulpit. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Microsoft Jet Database Engine. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The section "Joint Database Technology - DBM and Flat File Databases working in tandem - an ISAM-like, NoSQL implementation" that you solely wrote in the dbm article appears to have no other purpose than taking over the deleted article Joint Database Technology in order to promote your personal project (since you are the "Database Technology Inventor" of the "Joint Database Technology" according to your LinkedIn page).

A personal project or idea that no other than you is referring to is the perfect example of what we call "original research". Creating a section on Wikipedia and inviting everyone to read it, as you are doing here and there on the Internet (perlmonks, stackoverflow, etc.), is exactly what we call "self-promotion".

You talk page history shows that you have already been informed many times what Wikipedia is and what it is not. I'm here to remind you one last time that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If you persist, you are going to be blocked. — Xavier, 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply