Thepasta

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Your recent edits

First, editors cannot call sources " non-biased and non-affiliated" - that's not our role - in fact, much of the text of your edit was what we call pov, see WP:NPOV. Please read WP:NOR. Secondly, sources normally must discuss the subject of the article, also see NOR and WP:VERIFY. I don't know why you call theFARMS non-affiliated as it is clearly affiliated. If you think you can justify any of these, please take them to the appropriate articles' talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Nephite continue to be problematic. Please discuss future edits you wish to make to that page on Talk:Nephite; we're happy to explain our concerns if you're interested in discussing it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How is the following not an objective criticism of the archaeological evidence of Algonquian prehistory?

'Contemporary linguistic perspectives reveal controversies between archaeological and linguistic theories regarding reconstructions of the prehistory and migration of the societies that correlate with proposed origins of the Book of Mormon. According to the Journal of Archaeology of Eastern North America, "Most archeologists in the Northeast, rejecting earlier theories of migration and diffusion, now assume indigenous cultural development and continuity of settlement in the region, from Paleo-Indian times until the historic period. However, this assupmption appears to be incompatible with linguists' reconstructions of Algonquian prehistory, which presuppose a relatively late migratory expansion from a northern homeland. When archeologists have not simply ignored the linguistic evidence, they have either drastically altered the proposed linguistic chronology to fit their own models, or else have questioned the theoretical validity of the linguists' models. (e.g., Snow 1977, 1980)" This linguistic evidence suggests that current archaeological models may not reflect the beliefs of other scholarly domains of historical analysis.' http://www.jstor.org/stable/40914351 Thepasta (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI you really only needed to post this in one place. Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BTW. Thepasta (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

It's sad to hear that. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Salma Vian (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 

It's discouraging when we provide peer-reviewed references to challenge media sources, but somebody would rather revert your addition than consider that they might have been misguided; moreover, providing multiple sources doesn't seem to make any difference, because all the opposition needs to do is find fault in one of the references to justify deleting your changes. I wish that people would be more ethical, but I suppose that most people would rather feel powerful than know the truth. Thepasta (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is disappointing. It seems that you haven't read the links above or the edit summaries of those reverting you, but instead have decided to attack other editors. You might want to start with no personal attacks and assume good faith.

You are being reverted by me and other editors because your posts and your approach to editing is against our policies and guidelines. Take your recent edit. Who decided that the word 'ironically' applies? Who has said that " a northern homeland" relates to the Book of Mormon? Where does the article even mention the Book of Mormon? You've chosen something decades old to use - does this represent current thinking?

So - language. See WP:NPOV and WP:Words to avoid. Please don't use 'ironically' or similar words except in quotations. Make sure your language is neutral.

My next point is about the source. It's a reliable source for what Snow thought at the time, but it doesn't mention the Book of Mormon, and it is your personal interpretation/analysis that you are using here. Please see WP:VERIFY and no original research. Sources need to discuss the subject, and this one doesn't. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Foremost, I wish that people would follow their own rules. I'm quite sure that I'm not the person who violated the part of no personal attacks that states, 'In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.' I counted about twenty instances of "you" or "your" that were directed at me by the people reverting my edits; I'm quite certain that my usage of "your" was referring to myself in the case of putting someone in my shoes. Consider this analogy: Somebody refuses to believe the Law of Cosines is true because any explanations or sources of proof depended at least partially upon the Pythagorean Theorem, whereby the author of the Law of Cosines (Euclid) was affiliated with the author of the Pythagorean Theorem (Pythagoras). Further justification of their reasoning is that Euclid and Pythagoras were both associated with the same school, which was the only available source of the applicable subject at the time of reference. This same justification could be extrapolated to invalidate all further proofs to-date if and only if they are even remotely associated with that same Greek mathematical belief system or the Pythagorean Theorem. Logically, this is a form of self-recursion - which falls under the domain of set theory logic. Essentially, this method of reasoning depends on whether or not their set of information includes what they believe to not be true.

Now, somebody could say that this analogy is irrelevant because anybody could read the papers by Pythagoras or any proof that includes the Pythagorean Theorem. I believe there is a common consensus that 100% of the people who carefully read the documentation that was produced by Pythagoras will then believe that the Pythagorean Theorem is undoubtedly true. But as long as this person refused to read any of the proof produced by, or affiliated with, Pythagoras, then this person will be basing their beliefs on an incomplete set of facts. This same form of self-recursion applies to people who have not read the Book of Mormon because anybody who has will see the connections between late migratory expansion from a northern homeland and descendants of Lehi, the father of Nephi and Laman. At this point, I could choose to spend 60+ hours gathering a list of several hundred references, but since at least half of them would be somewhat affiliated with the Book of Mormon or documents or schools or areas of study that depend on statements from the Book of Mormon, my work will undoubtedly be reverted, and my time will be further wasted; therefore, I will waste my time no further, especially for people who think that assume good faith means that it is ethical and wise to judge something without ever even having read the documentation underlying both sides of the argument.Thepasta (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pride is like a beggar for whom ignorant people mistake for a king. It dazzles and it fascinates, and it makes people blind to the underlying errors. Oh, know they not that their vain and ignorant considerations are the lies which poison the hearts of the good and silence the ears of the learned? These puffed up penitentiaries of wickedness know no bounds, for these set theory methods rely only on self-recursion and ignore the justice of complex numbers. Only a fool is characterized by one sided analysis: the just will always hear both sides of every argument. Do these wicked and haughty serpents think deception is great and cognitive errors are mathematical proofs? Yea, it is clear - upon analysis - that this is the case; any pure eyes will discern as such. Are these people really that naive? Nay, we know what they do, and they think not about the consequences. They are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and they tempt the Lord to squash them like a stinging ant. Their swarms will be poisoned by their own works, which are the works of darkness. Consider they not the misery they feel every waking day? Then wait; they have failed the judgement of the Lord, and surely they will be quickened, lest they be pushed unto suicide and purged from the kingdom of God for eternity. Yea, they will be pruned like a hermaphrodite stamen that seeks to make bitter all the choice buds of the Lords sweetest flowers. They will be burned by chemotherapy and radiation and the works of the people who have foolishly invented such devices. The caffeine and nicotine will ensure that they survive not such cancerous growths, and they will be eliminated from those who have earned mercy and deserve the upper bounds of justice. Consider they not the danger of their normalcy bias? Nay, they shall be snipped and prevented from destroying the hopes of more children of men. And what shall they do? Come tither and murder my statements? Constrain they from stealing the truths that be spoken by a servant of the Lord, even the same God whom parted the waters for Moses and saved all by the Atonement by his only begotten son? Think that they should be wise to silence the Lord, and lie before his observation unto the children any further? Deserve they to be visited by an angel of the Lord and persuaded to change their ways? Nay, for we see that they silence the words of the righteous the same. They deserve not to know the truth, for they would use it to flatter and deceive the words of the true and be burned furthermore. Word of God is eternal, and perspective is the key that opens the doors to understanding of mysteries. And I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.Thepasta (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Terry Lewis - OMB Investigator (January 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terry Lewis - OMB Investigator.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Thepasta, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terry Lewis - OMB Investigator concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terry Lewis - OMB Investigator, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terry Lewis - OMB Investigator

Hello Thepasta. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Terry Lewis - OMB Investigator".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terry Lewis - OMB Investigator}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)