Talk:The Thunder, Perfect Mind

Changed page

Changed the page to refer to the scholarly work done by Bentley Layton on the test, and to include references to the contextual literary forms of the time. Also made ref to modern usage of the text, and included a footnote reference to the text in The Gnostic Scriptures. This entry, I hope, will be more useful in scholarly pursuits, as the old entry has no references and made many unverifiable statements. Visual Error 12:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from "On the Origin of the World"

86.140.169.77 added this below to the references section on September 26, 2006. It was deleted the same day by User:Nilfanion. Maybe someone can tie this in better to the article. If it merits it. It looks interesting. Or maybe just link to the source for this with a short explanation of the similarities. The similarities need to be drawn out. Maybe quote similar passages from Thunder, Perfect Mind. Or... --Timeshifter 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Eve speaks in a similar way in On the Origin of the World

'It is I who am the being of my mother

And it is I who am the mother

It is I who am the wife

It is I who am the virgin

It is I who am pregnant

It is I who am the midwife

It Is I who am the one that comforts the pain of birth

And it is my husband who gave birth to me

And it is I who am his mother

And it is he who is my father and my lord

It is he who is my power

What he desires, he speaks in the word

And I am the one who is becoming

Yet I have given birth to a man as lord'

It has been suggested this quotation is from the lost Gospel of Eve

Aestheteka

You do not solely decide what is and is not spam here. The link was added to promote a website, which already discolours it. I've looked at it as well. It seems like a glorified personal website for Edward O'Toole. The site fails under the following conditions, ELNO #s: 2 ("use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"; no footnotes, unverifiable research); 4 (undeniable); 11 (as Edward's personal website). Moreover, 2 persons think this is spam, while you are the only one defending it. You can't decide to keep this in the article because you like it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this here rather than through edit summaries. You are discussing guidelines but not linking to the guidelines. Please be more specific in your guideline linking and quoting. Otherwise we can't discuss the guideline in context.

The article in question: The Thunder, Perfect Mind - Gnothi Seuton. By Edward O'Toole. October 5, 2005. Phenomena Magazine.

I believe you are referring to external links guidelines. This link does not violate those guidelines. There is no conflict of interest on my part. I am not associated with the website or the author in any way. User:Aestheteka added the link originally. See this diff: [1] If they have a conflict of interest, then they should have used the talk page.

But that has nothing to do with my addition of the link. It is a thoughtful article about The Thunder, Perfect Mind, and so it is a good link for the external links section. If you or others continue to remove the link, I may report you to WP:ANI. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally removed this link as spam, because User:Aestheteka had added links to aestheteka.com to multiple articles.

As Carl says, this appears to fail WP:ELNO #11; "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". I see nothing to suggest that Edward O'Toole is a recognised authority on 4th century poetry. If Phenomena Magazine is a reliable source, we should be using it as a reference to actually mention some of the points raised in O'Toole's article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing newbies about WP:COI.

Read the article, though. It is thoughtful and relevant. WP:ELNO #11 is a guideline, not a policy. External links do not have to meet the same high standards as references. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked up Phenomena magazine, and couldn't even find a proper website for it. I wouldn't consider it anything meeting reliability, so I wouldn't use this as a source. Yes, ELs do not have to meet the same standards as refs, but we still don't allow everything under the sun into EL sections. Just because ELNO is a guideline and not a policy, doesn't mean we disregard it. (For precedence, see discussion on Ketchupworld at Talk:Ketchup.) Guidelines are meant to be followed. Its original placement (that by Aestheteka, not you) was a violation of COI. I have no interest in rewarding persons who spam WP. There is no compelling reason to add this to the article. Yes, it is well written. But, it is well-written OR. There are no real references in it, it is the opinion of Edward O'Toole. Without an indication, as McGeddon said, of his being a recognized authority, I do not support including this EL. And please, quit the ANI threats. I brought it to the talk page rather than reverting you outright. You're starting to act as though you have ownership problems with this page. If there is not consensus for this EL to be maintained, it ought to be deleted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you've made no effort to further refute our position, I will be removing it shortly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "I have no interest in rewarding persons who spam WP. There is no compelling reason to add this to the article. Yes, it is well written."

Please see my previous replies. I did not spam WP. That is a personal attack. As you said, it is well written. There is only one external link. Leave it alone. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware you did not spam WP. I've not accused you of doing so. But the spam-status of the link is independent of who added it. The link in and of itself is unacceptable, and is spammy. I have not made a personal attack on you. And please own up to your selective quotation of my words. The crucial next sentence after "it is well written", is "But, it is well-written OR." I don't care how beautifully a person writes, if the content of their writing is not up to snuff. Now please, realize that there is no consensus to keep this link. You are the only person supporting its inclusion. Three persons have indicated something to the effect of there is no compelling reason to keep it. I will again remove the link. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:KEEPCOOL and avoid personal attacks.

The article was most definitely spammed here against WP:COI.

I see no compelling reason to keep it. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, you have a habit of wiki-stalking me. Please stop. Also, I added the link. Therefore there is no further WP:COI. Because the article link was originally added by someone else is not justification for you to delete it now. That is a personal vendetta on your part against the original person who had the COI.

Carl. You are using the same reasoning as used by Ronz. You also are not justified to use your personal vendetta against the original person who added the link to justify removing the link that I added. Because I have no COI.

You two need to go back to warning newbies about WP:COI. You have done that. You left a message on the offending user's talk page. So be happy. You told them to use article talk pages. You have done your job. You are talking to me now. So stop discussing COI when you talk to me.

I will return the link in a few days when you two have cooled off. When you tell newbies with COI to use article talk pages, but then continue to delete the external link when added by a regular editor of an article, you are telling the newbie that you don't really mean what you say. You are telling the newbie that you now have a personal vendetta against them because of their initial mistake. You are personally attacking the newbie, and interfering with the regular editors of articles. I don't see either of you editing this article. Please go edit some articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CON if you want your viewpoints to be considered as a part of the consensus-making going on here. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeshifter, you've offered no justification for why the link should be added. Your argument seems to be "I like it". That doesn't cut it. There is no good reason to include this link on the page. This is not a matter of "cooling off". Unless a truly good, compelling reason for this to be added is proffered, I for my part will continue to oppose its inclusion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all your points already. Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you had, I would be convinced already. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Edward O'Toole

All 3 of the tag-team spam fighters are trying to block the ONLY external link in this Wikipedia article. This discourages newbies who try in good faith to edit Wikipedia, and make the mistake of going against WP:COI.

So User:Aestheteka gets continuously slammed by 3 rude editors who do all in their power to punish this evildoer for making a mistake (going against WP:COI).

So now that User:Aestheteka has got this useful link to the attention of one of the regular editors of the Wikipedia article, the 3 spam fighters pile on against the inclusion of an obviously relevant external link. Anybody who reads the external article can see that it would be of interest to readers of The Thunder, Perfect Mind.

Edward O'Toole is a published author (in print). Look it up. But that isn't necessary for external links. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are trying to portray our argument as some sort of conspiracy, that is patently false. "Tag-team spam fighters"? I can't remember having ever before encountered McGeddon or Ronz. We are three editors who happen to have stumbled across the same page, and interpret the EL guidelines similarly.

Your emphasis on our blocking the "ONLY external link in this Wikipedia article" is similarly misguided. From WP:EL, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia", and "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." It is not necessarily bad to have no ELs on a page, and I've just provided proof of it. It precisely says you are not to add ELs just because there are none on a page. That is not a sufficient reason to go about doing so.

This was not a case of being rude to a newbie who was trying in good faith to edit WP. Aestheteka had spammed WP before, created articles about his NN organization, and been warned about it. He was aware that he was contravening policy. Even though he has not been active for over a week, he was promptly indef-blocked today by an admin. Noobs working in good faith don't get that penalty from admins. When noobs do things in good faith but poorly, I gently correct them and give them a welcome template. Please don't sacrifice our efforts to keep WP from becoming a link repository to your IAR-just-for-the-sake-of-it attitude.

This is not a relevant EL. I've read through the article; it is the opinion of Edward O'Toole, and nothing more. It seems his works have been published, but by a press he founded; yes, very reliable and notable.

We do not link to personal web-pages, and this is a simple matter of a personal web-page being inserted into the EL. The link in question fails WP:ELNO, and it is as simple as that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually he has not been active since Dec 16 2008 according to his user contributions. See also: User talk:Aestheteka. It says he was blocked for his username.

And I added the article link because it is a good article. Nothing more, and nothing less. I am a regular editor of this page, and you are not. All the other stuff you mentioned about User:Aestheteka is just drama about that bad boy, User:Aestheteka, and has nothing to do with my addition of the link. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a good article; if it was, I would be fine with your having added it. I did nothing to suggest he had been active since 16 December, so I don't quite know what your point is. And it is irrelevant that I am not a regular editor of this page. The very fact that I am not lends me a bit wider vision, and better judgement, than you have. You, in fact, seem to be the only regular editor of the page. Suggesting that the opinions only of regular editors to a page have value sounds like ownership. Do not suggest that because I am not a regular editor to the page, I ought not have a say in whether the link is added or no. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "And it is irrelevant that I am not a regular editor of this page. The very fact that I am not lends me a bit wider vision, and better judgement, than you have." That is not logical. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're too invested in this page, is what I meant. You don't have the ability to stand back and look at it from an outsider's perspective, as have I. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Because you are not as invested in the page does not necessarily mean you have a "bit wider vision, and better judgment". I have the ability to stand back. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Getting back to Edward O'Toole, he has published some books. Here are some:

• http://www.amazon.com/Grimoire-Bestiae-Edward-OToole/dp/1591466660
• http://www.amazon.com/Sophia-Bestiae-Wisdom-Edward-OToole/dp/1591460751

The publishers are

• Aestheteka Press
• Crystal Dreams Publishing

I just noticed this description of one of the books: Sequel to Sophia Bestiae, a practical working guide to the Dark Rites of the Bestian Order of Aestheteka, focusing on the Abyss, Satanic archetypes, the Luciferi and the Shadow Self. Progressive Luciferian Gnosticism. Includes: Rites of the Unpardonable Sin, Rites of Nightmares, Invocation of Satan, Rite of Necromancy, Rite of Daemons, Rite of Revenge.

I think maybe you, Carl, might step away from this discussion and let others take care of this decision. You may have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. On your user page is this: "I am pursuing an MA in evangelization and catechesis at the Augustine Institute in Denver, CO." No offense of any kind is intended by this comment of mine.

I don't have any particular religious of spiritual ideology. So I think I can be a little more objective about whether this article should be added as an external link. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My religion is irrelevant here. I would come down every bit as hard on a Catholic spammer as I have on O'Toole. My primary concern is keeping anyone, regardless of what they're pushing, from pushing their own websites onto WP for self-promotion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a spammer. I am not pushing my own website onto WP for self-promotion. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How freaking many times have I told you I don't think you're a spammer. You are trying to add a link that was added by a spammer, and is therefore spam. Not once I have I called you a spammer, Timeshifter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Cool. A link added by a spammer is spam. The same link added by me is not spam. You really don't get it, do you? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to add a link that doesn't meed the EL guidelines, which is the basic problem. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. It is from a published book author. It is a thoughtful article. It is on-topic. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is nothing but opinion. It is not verifiable, so it falls afoul of using "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". It is "mainly intended to promote a website." The whole issue stems from O'Toole trying to promote his website. This whole debate is a continuation of his attempts at self-promotion, regardless of whether you are affiliated with the site or not. It is a personal website; we avoid "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". He has written two books, one of which is obviously published by his own organization. He is not a "recognized authority". This fails the guidelines. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong on all counts. There is no officially approved and accurate interpretation of The Thunder, Perfect Mind. All articles have authors, and one could say that all links to articles on a website promote the website and/or the author. This is a specious argument. I am not attempting to promote the website. And it is not my website so it is not self-promotion. Most websites could be called personal websites. Another specious argument. It is not a blog. Most external links for almost any Wikipedia article would fail to meet your personal interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines. I looked at your recent user contributions. You seem to make very few additive edits to Wikipedia articles. You seem to mostly just remove stuff. I hope you are not as incorrect in your editing of those pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Were I incorrect, the other persons involved would be supporting you rather than me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true or logical. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Author?

There is a contradiction in this article (looked at 23.8.2014)concerning the author: the text is said to be of a female author and later on it is stated that author is unknown. 46.244.251.244 (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I see, there is no source for such a statement. I'll get rid of it. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)