UnReAL13D

Welcome!

Hello, UnReAL13D, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Cannabis Jesus theory, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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. Again, welcome! Yousou (report) 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cannabis Jesus theory

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Cannabis Jesus theory, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Yousou (report) 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Cannabis Jesus theory for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Cannabis Jesus theory, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis Jesus theory until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Cannabis Jesus theory has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/jesus-healed-using-cannabis-study-shows/.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Cannabis Jesus theory do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/jesus-healed-using-cannabis-study-shows/.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2010 (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 must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agnosticism and neutralism

(I'm putting this here so as not to clutter up the various agnostic neutralism pages any more than they already are.) I would definitely agree that the issues in the sources you've found warrant a mention on the the Agnosticism page, maybe in an "agnosticism and neutrality" section or something. You've found some nice sources and the article itself is currently disproportionally skewed towards history and criticism. It'd be a shame for those sources to go to waste. Eldamorie (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate you taking the time and effort to investigate these sources. I agree that the main Agnosticism page is somewhat lacking in regards to the overall aspect of "neutrality" or "neutralism". I'm also very pleased to know that these sources are valid, and in fact good sources. Thank you for the recognition.UnReAL13D (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanilla Agnosticism

I think you're confused with the word "vanilla", when you say things like "Okay, am I missing something here? What exactly is "vanilla agnosticism" supposed to be? This is Greek to me. I have NEVER heard that phrase used by a philosopher of any kind.", or, "Plus telling someone that you subscribe to "Vanilla Agnosticism" sounds a lot more ridiculous than saying "Agnostic Neutralism". ".

Nobody is trying to make the term 'vanilla agnosticism' instead of 'agnosticism' or 'agnostic neutralism'. 'Vanilla' is a normal English adjective that means 'without distinction'. So what we mean when we say 'vanilla agnosticism' in that discussion is 'normal agnosticism' or just 'agnosticism'; just making it clear we're not talking about the view under discussion, but the existing view. Just wanted to clarify that. GManNickG (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Understood, but I still feel that "Agnostic Neutralism" describes the essential "default" and "neutral" position of Agnosticism a little better. Apparently you guys decided to delete the page for Agnostic Neutralism anyway, so it seems irrelevant at this point. I'm just hoping that there will at least be a section addressing "neutrality" in the main Agnosticism page. Or perhaps I should bring it up on that talk page. Either way, I still think it's a bit absurd to tell someone you're a "Vanilla Agnostic". Who is really going to take someone seriously at that point? UnReAL13D (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Again, vanilla is just a regular adjective. I understand that might sound weird if you're not too used to it but it's fairly normal in my experience. Also, we didn't delete it, per se, that was just the majority decision and the process ended. Since we're talking about a whole new section now, and not the page, I'll be happy to forget everything and approach this like new. GManNickG (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanna note that I've never heard the term "Vanilla" used in this context, nor can I find a definition describing it as such. This must be an inside term for the realm of philosophers and such, a sort of "philosophical slang". Which is why the term "neutral" seems to make more sense to me, plus it sounds a bit more generalized and serious overall. UnReAL13D (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, not an inside term for philosophy or anything, just a regular English word. Here's one location: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vanilla?show=1&t=1293090792. It's really not intended to mean 'neutral' or anything. GManNickG (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• That dictionary definition actually lists "neutral" as a synonym. Maybe not "intended" to mean neutral, but it certainly is a synonymous concept. UnReAL13D (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh didn't even notice. That's just a coincidence that the term under discussion happened to be, in part,'neutralism'. If we had a variety of plates, where the original color was white, but we also manufactured them in red, blue, purple, etc., a "vanilla" plate just refers to the original plain white plate. GManNickG (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"If we had a variety of plates, where the original color was white, but we also manufactured them in red, blue, purple, etc., a "vanilla" plate just refers to the original plain white plate" --- There's a few different ways this could be interpreted, in terms of a theological sense. Technically white is the "absence of every color", while black is "the saturation of every color". Except a "Vanilla Agnostic" isn't necessarily "lacking" belief, they are simply not committed to any particular belief. If anything the color "black" represents the idea better in this sense as agnostics hold all beliefs as "possible".

In another sense though, the color "white" is considered to be "holy", while "black" represents "death" or "darkness". Light vs. dark, yin vs. yang, good vs. evil, etc. Although I would hardly consider an agnostic to be "holy". At best you could say a Vanilla Agnostic is "temporally non-spiritual".

So it could be argued that there's a certain amount of ambiguity over the term "Vanilla" as to what it really implies. Obviously the sense you're using it in correlates more with the "flavor of vanilla", as in a "plain or ordinary taste". Which sounds logical, but "neutral" is certainly a synonym and captures the emphasis of "without distinction" far more effectively, in my opinion. UnReAL13D (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)