User talk:Debeo Morium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk to me baby!

Contents 1 User warnings 2 Accident 3 Protect 9/11 conspiracy theories page 4 Magic POV 5 About Enochian 6 Links you are adding

[edit] User warnings

I've noticed that you've been reverting vandalism on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Take a look at Template:uw-vandalism and Template:uw-delete. They are useful for warning editors for vandalism. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, i was wondering if there was something like that Debeo Morium 07:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Im a bit unclear on how the various warning levels work though :( Debeo Morium 07:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is unclear to you? Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was unsure as to when i should use a perticular warning level. But i managed to track down the page that describes it since then. Thanks anyway. Debeo Morium 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accident

I think you have violated the three-revert rule with your last edit. It might be a good idea to revert yourself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh did I? I apologize if that is the case. let me go through and count. The clear acts of andalism i reverted dont count do then? I certainly dont want to violate the rule, but im not sure what to count and what not to. Id imagine the reverts i did of very clear vandalism earlier dont count right? Debeo Morium 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And which edit are you refering to, im not sure, cause i made a modification recently, but i dont think i did a revert that wasnt obvious vandalism. Just point me int he right direction and id be happy to. Debeo Morium 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 17:25, 22 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:24, 22 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:57, 21 August 2007 restoring "Jones points out that..." removed by User:Arthur Rubin at 04:58, 21 August 2007
• 4th revert: 18:40, 22 August 2007 restoring "and analyzed by FEMA, who was unable to determine...", removed by User:weregerbil at 22 August 2007

Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, i figured it out before you replied the "bias POV" one, the one before last. Debeo Morium 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There we go, i think i saw what youw ere talking about (fixed it before you even had to reply, sorry you replied)., it was the edit before last (bias POv) Debeo Morium 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah, someone beat me to reverting my own entry, i tried to revert it, but the guy i reverted re-reverted. Ill just not touch the whole thing. I was trying to be contious of not getting into a revert war with anyone. and only expand, not revert. But i just wont touch the whole thing for 24 hours to be safe. Debeo Morium 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Im trying to also revert the 2nd one you mentioned, just to be safe.. but i keep getting an error.. ill keep trying.. expect to see a self-reversion up soon. Debeo Morium 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protect 9/11 conspiracy theories page

Thanks. Do you think we should we ask that the page be protected from editing by anonymous users? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Well i know today i cant remember how many times i reverted vandalism from anonymous IPs. And it is a very heated topic. It seems reasonable to me, would save a lot of headaches. You have my support on that. Debeo Morium 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic POV

I'm answering your questions here, as I don't think the conversation is relevant to Talk:Magic (paranormal) anymore. Now I don't think I was being harsh at all; you started the conversation off by effectively saying that the editors who wrote the article were either deluded or unscrupulously money-driven and by clearly stating your point of view that magic doesn't exist. I'm sure you expected this to evoke some kind of response, and of course I responded. But I didn't respond with any harsh words; I merely pointed out that in fact you were making unsupported and unsupportable statements, and that you should pause and familiarise yourself with WP policy before making drastic changes to the article. My intention was certainly not to be insulting, and if you can find a way of interpreting what I said in a more charitable light, please try to do so. You were pointed to the policy WP:AGF, and I urge you to read it, because failure to assume good faith is one of the biggest causes for edit wars here.

I'm really happy to discuss science and magic, truth, verifiability, etc., in fact I enjoy that kind of conversation, but I don't want to be drawn into a discussion of who is insulting whom. If we talk further, lets both just stick to business. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. (in fact i had you confused with someone else in the same way)... You seem to attribute the statement that started the thread: "This section is written in an in-universe perspective. Magic does not exist and it is for the better that its existence is consigned to the pages of history. Let's try and clean-up the article and remove the parts that deal with magic as if it really exists and is not a fabrication of over-active imaginations or over-hungry wallets." To me. I did not write this. In fact, my initial reply was under the impression that you wrote it (sinc eit was unsigned and you were the one who replied to it i though it was part of your statement). Now that i look at it i see you didnt make this statement, and neither did I. So i think we both just mistook each other for the wrong person. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! Great! I'm very sorry for being party to that confusion. I was responding to that unsigned post, and I thought you had put your hand up as the author of it!!! That's wonderful. *grin* OK, next time I see you I'll smile. And I'll probably see you around a bit since you seem to be watching some of the same articles as me... Best wishes, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, shit happens. Im just glad we figured that one out. Or else we would be bumping heads every time we disagreed. I certainly look forward to dealing with you again. You seem to be focused on NPOV, one of the main reasons im here. So hopefully we can do some good. See ya around. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Enochian

When I first saw the Enochian alphabet, I recognised it instantly and when you come to it without any preconceived ideas, you can read it instantly. I correctly intuited that it is the written form of the language used by the likes of Adam and Enoch, despite knowing nothing about it at all. I've been reading about it, and what I have read has confirmed what was in my head. I'm really pleased to have found this page and I'm very happy to share how Adamic works with anyone who wishes to know.

I should explain that it is the first language. Because the other languages came out of it, there are traces of all of them within it. Consequently, you don't need to read the Enochian text. Once you are shown how it works, you can find it for yourself in alternative meanings in any language. I have only previously learned English, so I can only give you the English interpretations. I should also explain that I am not talking about the magical side of things. Just what you can find out when you have been shown, and it's so simple, anyone can do it. Whether or not you are writing anything, I am happy to explain it, having done it for quite a few people already. Please contact me directly by email at Snowball@ukfreeisp.co.uk

By the way, God's got a very unexpected sense of humour and kids around a lot. The mystery of making gold is actually a reference to going back to speaking Adamic. I'm afraid it's all a lot more simple than we thought. There's a bit of a quest going on on my part to find more information, but maybe we can swap a little information too. Examples of Adamic inlcude God in a garden that he later put a guard on before he moved father away. Did he plan it? The word Planet says he did. This is just a tiny fraction and not even 1%, because it's a living language that can talk about anything. Inlcuding modern subjects. Dump all notions of separate words, spellings, and any timing tone and inflection, and you'll find it's all there. We shouldn't be surprised that it's phonetic and poetic with a multitude of possible meanings. So are the Torah and Qu'ran.

Please pardon the way I've interupted you here. I'm very new to all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.218.23 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links you are adding

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since 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 rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)