User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 12

^{Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!}

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil.

If I'm not responding, that's probably because

It is approximately 2:09 AM where this user lives (South Carolina). []

and I may be asleep, in classes, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond.

If you want to:

say that I should become an admin, leave a message here.	accuse me of a Christian bias, read this.	accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, read this.
leave a conversational or non-serious message (wazzup, barnstar, hate mail), go here.	leave me a serious message (about article improvement), click here.	see my contributions, go here.

New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

Partial clean up, stuff is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars.

Actually, I agree. An encyclopedia has to be about reliable sources. I like your User/Talk page and I am borrowing part of the format for my talk page. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How'd I miss this? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Took these to SPI

Ran into one of them today in an article on my watch list, then found the ANI discussion plus another editor's comments in an edit summary, so [1]. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I kinda forgot... >.> I'l be watching. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Partial undo

FYI, I partially undid your edit to ANI, here. I think you accidentally hit the "Gallery" button on the editor, and inserted an example gallery in someone else's comment. Just wanted to let you know. All the best!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I usually don't click near there, weird. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

187.21.139.252

Just to let you know that 187.21.139.252 (talk · contribs) was obviously a sock of Jackiestud (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'll keep that in mind if I run into that sort of stuff again. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

my apologies, I had apparently misread your edit. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Ian.thomson,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for replying to User_talk:Benjy1966 regarding the question he posted on my talk page. I have been so utterly busy that i just couldn't find the time to write a decent reply to his questions, so i would say it was a very welcome sight to see you step in there. So, thank you very much for taking care of that one for me! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

re:You got some 'splainin' to do

Can you try again, but this time actually link to the discussion? Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wellness Layers Inc

Thanks for responding back about why my page could have been deleted. I did post outside sources from other written work that was independent of the company and the sources were respected bloggers/writers. The company has also received coverage at health tech events and they have notable clients on their client list. I want to create a bunch of pages on health tech start ups that are starting to become notable but just not as much so as the big health tech giants, do you have any suggestions as to how I should go about this without having the pages deleted? I'm relatively new to the site, as I'm sure you can tell. OZak29 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)OZak29

Wheres Dan

May need to be dealt with other than at RSN. WQA at the least, maybe ANI. Wikibreak for me in a few hours. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... He's just on the end of the rope for WQA, 3RRNB, and ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with that guy, let me know if he pops back up next week. That is the kind of editor that keeps us as the punchline on Jon Stewart and Colbert, the likes of which we don't need here. It's hard enough policing the "I luv boobies, nooB" IP vandal nonsense without someone adding inaccurate WP:FRINGE pseudohistorical nonsense with what might look like actual sources. Looks like Doug, who usually makes the heroic effort of keeping these hooligans in line, may be on wikibreak for awhile, so I'll try to help keep this one in check as much as my schedule will allow. Cheers, Heiro 21:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Your recent editing history at Spartacus shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your most recent addition to the 3RR report - it's been closed for 2 hours already - if you're creating a new one, create it ... nothing further will come from a closed report. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI edits

Hi, I know nothing requires you to do so, but it would be helpful if when you made edits to noticeboards like ANI, you edited the section rather than the page. It's already hard enough keeping track of topic changes because Wikipedia has no technical provision for doing so. This is not meant to be offensive, just a request from a fussy editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrators

Hi, I would like to let you know that your edits are being discussed here

thank you 94.194.34.10 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Qigong article

Thanks for your interest in the quality of the Qigong article. Note, discussion on page User talk:Ottawakungfu. Vitalforce (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at Ottawakungfu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello singularitarian

I noticed your userbox.

I've been working on Outline of transhumanism, and I'm looking for editors familiar with the subject to improve it.

Please take a look.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

More Hindu fundamentalist edits at Advaita Vedanta

Now they are saying that Buddhism came from the Upanishads instead of the Shramana movement. 72.92.118.63 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the Robert Haralick wiki page and give me some suggestions as to possible editing changes to make the biography entirely consistent with wiki. Thanks. Haralick (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Robert M. Haralick

From edit summary

Dear Ian thomson.I have read what you wrote about yourself. May God bless you to be a good christian.I am aslam. m aslam raj and i did not Edit or deleted any thing I read from Wikipedia,s Articles about Gospels or about blessed Mother Virgin Ma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslammaslamraj (talk • contribs)

Yes, I have seen your actions on this page. I was just giving some advice that new users often need. May you have a pleasant experience on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

External links

You maybe should add external link http://www.indigochild.com. It looks like valid author page who is mentioned in text. Anyway there already is link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Carroll so there is no reason not have i also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.18.77 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Same as we have on or wiki ;-) http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigov%C3%A9_d%C4%9Bti ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.18.77 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that was smile worthy

Hello Ian.thomson. For whatever quirk of editing the "Scottish Play" gets a regular amount of test/vandalism edits but the one you reverted tonight (my time anyway) was among the most esoteric I've seen. Your edit summary brought a smile to my night so I had to drop a note of thanks. Cheers and thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 03:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Format

Hi, i think you're supposed to put the percentage symbol after the number rather than before as you did at Islam. I have corrected it Pass a Method talk 03:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Previous

Considering there are now many sources for 80%; [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], as well as more for 75% [9], [[10], do you mind to change it back to the "over 75-90%" version and delete the "most figures between 85-90%" part ? Pass a Method talk 22:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Haralick wiki page

I added in what I hope are sufficient references. Please look at the page and let me know if I should put in more. If the page is ok then perhaps the comment at the top of the page about the lack of references can be deleted. Haralick (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Robert Haralick

Christmas

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

About the King James Version

On the King James page i removed the following:

in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.[99]

I see you or someone restored this. I dont know how to add sources but this claim was refuted by people such as David Cloud, D.A Waite in their books which could be used as sources to refute that statement above. So shouldnt that part be removed then since the statement is false?

Fromtheold (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Fromtheold

If the work of David Cloud and D.A Waite were not under WP:FRINGE (as most KJV-onlyists are), but under WP:Reliable sources, then their views would be mentioned as their findings, not as THE one and only truth. The source you removed was David Daniell, who has access to the historical manuscripts and has demonstrated that he knows how to engage in historical criticism (instead of twisting around facts to advocate a religious bias against trying to accurately translate the Bible). Unless you have sources specifically countering him, its unlikely that that point will be removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ian, but the Oxfordian theory of authorship for Shakespeare is not a "fringe" theory. Many prominent public writers and intellectuals have supported it. Read Mark Anderson's book on Edward de Vere. Talk to Derick Jacobi. The Oxfordian theory may be wrong, although I don't think so, but it is not a FRINGE theory. This is what the Stratfordian editors of these pages want people to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good debate

I appreciate the points you made; I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to reply. Happy New Year. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You too. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Could there be a clarification of what articles "related to Fascism" implies for the topic ban on ChristianHistory?

I think there needs to be clarification of what articles "related to Fascism" implies on the topic ban proposal vote and discussion on ChristianHistory's personal attacks. Just so it is clearly known what this means.--R-41 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Pope Benedict on the issue of related to fascism? He was conscripted as a member of the Hitler Youth as a child. Pope Jean Paul II was a Pole who was opposed to fascism and communism.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I included critics, opponents, and victims of fascism in the "relating to fascism" definition. Despite my protestantism, I enjoy papal history, and I think that it would be wise to have him not edit articles about critics of fascism either. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you want "remorse" shown to ChristianHistory? He/she says Jews are unreliable sources on fascism - meaning that Holocaust survivors would be "unreliable".

As said above: Why do you want "remorse" shown to ChristianHistory? I checked the block issue on ChristianHistory's page. ChristianHistory shows no willingness to accept responsibility for the situation that he/she has brought herself/himself into. He/she simply blames the entire Wikipedia project as "the majority" as being at fault. Remember He/she says Jews are unreliable sources on fascism that means that Holocaust survivors would be "unreliable" for testimony about the Final Solution policies of Nazism - the thought of excluding Holocaust survivors' testimony on Nazism because they are Jewish and thus in ChristianHistory's term "unreliable" because of their cultural background reveals that he shows either no serious awareness of the fallacy of deriding Jews as as "unreliable" (and this is the most innocent explanation of his positions) or that he holds no sympathy or respect for Holocaust survivors and victims in proposing that Jews are "unreliable" sources. He/she may backtrack if he/she sees this, but there is no reason to believe that ChristianHistory would be honest in doing so - he/she had the nerve to say that all Jews are unreliable sources on issues pertaining to fascism without even mentioning Holocaust survivors who have an inside account of the racial policies of Nazism. It is skin crawling and disgusting to any knowledgeable and moral person to say the least, I don't see why leniency should be shown.--R-41 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. I told ChristianHistory "I recommend changing your unblock request to show any sort of remorse or regret, or at least the reluctant willingness to accept a topic ban if you want any hope of being unblocked." I meant that if he wanted to pretend he had any hope of being unblocked, he would have to show any remorse about having those horrible views. I also pointed out the unteneble nature of the claim that everyone but him was biased, and challenged him to provide any other description for his actions other than racism. I left that message on his page before MaxSem (rightfully) denied his unblock request, so I think you got the context mixed up. Please reread my message as a reponse to his unblock request, not its denial. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR Transhumanism

I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dravidian peoples

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.--MThekkumthala (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

m

i open a subject in this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamashtu

if you cant prove that the info is incorrect then i will get back my previus edit.

--Papardilas (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, you are supposed to prove the info is correct using reliable sources. You have no provided any. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I addressed the "obscene flag" statement on the flag of Israel by ChristianHistory on her/his talk page, could you please respond at the talk page to this inquiry

ChristianHistory in response to the Jewish anonymous user said that the flag of Israel was an "obscene flag" - which in combination with the website he posted for the Jewish anon user to read, indicates that he was attacking the anon users' Jewish heritage and that ChristianHistory obviously hates Jews - and plus his demand that all scholarship by Jews, British, Americans, and people who are deemed by her/him as "anti-fascist" be removed clearly indicates that his whole purpose on the Fascism talkpage discussion was to promote an anti-Jewish and pro-fascist agenda.--R-41 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, my intention was never to assume that you were on ChristianHistory's side

I am sorry if what I said implied that you were on ChristianHistory's side. I know that you are not, you were the one who applied for her/him to be banned for violations of Wikipedia policy. I think that the issue of ChristianHistory's attack on the anon user's nationality by saying that the flag of Israel is an "obscene flag" needs to be addressed though.--R-41 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)