User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 14

^{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 3:19 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 (~~~~).

Clean up, everything is in the page history. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Ian.thomson. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Derogatory Responses/Personal Attacks

I have noticed that you have made a few derogatory comments on the Religion talk page such as the following:

-Polly want a cracker? Because, it's not like actually suggesting improvements would be more helpful that just saying "I agree" or anything.

-Because he didn't know what he was talking about, and Wikipedia is not a pulpit for him to preach from.

-You are twisting my words, kettle.

-I will only be able to assume you're either incompetent or a troll.

-Only a troll is pushing an antireligious POV could honestly know and consider that and say "Oh, these need to be merged for balance."

Since this is a recurring issue, I have come to your talk page. When responding to other people's ideas or opinions, there is no reason to insult them in the process. This discourages editors from contributing and serves no beneficial purpose. Please be more considerate in future posts.92.105.113.195 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Consideration would also include reading previous points instead of making others repeat them over and over.

-Noone else familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies agrees with JacoLinks interpretation of WP:CFORK (not just in the religion article, but also with Communist mass killings and other criticism pages), regular editors (familiar with the policies) have agreed that merging the criticism pages violates WP:UNDUE just as much as trimming down the criticism would violate WP:DUE. I did not in any way insult his intelligence, I stated that he simply does not know how things work here, and explained why.

-Saying "I agree" or "I disagree" with nothing more does not help in any way, and that ind of behavior should be discouraged. Talk pages are not forums. That response did not in any way assault their identity, but criticized their actions, which is acceptable.

-You did misrepresent what I said. You said "On the same note, it is obvious that JacoLink did not suggest to merge Communist mass killings into Marxism, only Ian.thomson talked about doing that," which was never something I suggested. You either did not give me the consideration to read what I had said or you knew what I said but misrepresented it, while accusing me of doing that to JacoLink. That's hypocritical, hence my reference to the pot calling the kettle black.

-If someone continually misrepresents what I say, and there is no apparent language barrier, the only reasonable assumptions are that they are misrepresenting me or they are incapable of understanding what I'm saying.

-I'm standing by my point that only someone pushing a POV against a subject would knowingly advocate making the article on that subject %66 criticism, especially when the remaining third is not praise or advocacy. I have not been presented with any explanation how it is not.

This site calls for no personal attacks (which I have followed, I have not made any ad hominem arguments), but does not expect users to phrase anything they say to make everyone happy. To require that artificial niceness would be impossible to tell others that certain actions are not be supported here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and find this response far more respectful!92.105.113.195 (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Schnoebelen up for deletion.

I think the compromise made it too bland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.37.128 (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

English Teacher

I can totally see why you wish to pursue being an English Teacher. It seems to fit your personality, IMO. I dont think there are that many male English teachers, come to think of it. Would you agree ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Message from a long time ago

I JUST received a message about editing the Biblical Magi page, which is dated to March. My ISP may have switched my IP address with someone else's, as I have no recollection of this and the message never appeared before today. Thanks. 108.66.44.228 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok... Well, the IP you're currently on was used to make this unconstructive edit March of last year. As we have no way of tracking who you are (unless you create an account), IP addresses are the only way to handle that. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:TopGun

That couldn't have been me: 1. My internet is broke and 2. I never edit the WP. Please get your facts straight before you make these wild accusations. 218.247.129.7 (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't me. My little brother came over and was using my Uncle's computer! Anyways the internet has been broken all day, so nobody can get to the webpages anyhow. Don;t you know anything? 218.247.129.7 (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You made me drop a dime on you

here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.247.129.7 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Erased and Stalked. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:02, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in ...

... at Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency). - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It's on my watch list, and I'm ready to get reacquainted with WP:SPI. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Happy fourth. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not spam, have you read it before delete?

I think that I have not broken any rule. But no matter. I just tried to contribute on the tarot page with a useful link, but for some reason, does not matter. I apologize if you do not recognize my good intention. It was my first contribution to wikipedia, and the last.

Respect, please.

You're a nobody such as to qualify the work of others as "hogwash". Respect, please. 188.77.69.46 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, hypocrisy much? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You rated my contribution of "hogwash" I've looked over the channel and found nothing but new-age hogwash

188.77.69.46 (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So you were adding your youtube channel? That's makes it even more spam-y. And didn't you say that you were going to leave and not contribute here? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I will not contribute more in the articles of the wikipedia, but I don't consent you disrespect me. A person in good faith, I guess you should be, would apologize for his qualification of "hogwash". You delete the link, I accept it. But I don't accept your disrespect. Now I have more important things to do. Keep giving the image of yourself that you want, but please do not mention me more, right? Otherwise, I'll have to putting in place. Ending, ok?

188.77.69.46 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your freedom to believe that stuff is not separate from my freedom to dismiss it. If I do not have the right to call it balderdash, bollocks, and rubbish, you do not have the right to believe it. Freedom of thought goes all directions. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are a rude and your freedom ends when you invade my right to be respected. Please shut up already, right? Really do you have not better things to do like chasing vandals?

188.77.69.46 (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are being just as rude and way more oppressive by telling me that I can not hold my own beliefs. I am not forcing you to agree with me, I am not keeping you here, and I have quit leaving messages on your page. I'm just trying to maintain this site, and you're the one harassing me! You are the one chasing people and not respecting other's rights. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And you go, what do you not understand? You can delete the links you want, but not pejoratively describe the contribution of any person. Do you understand? I have accepted that you delete the link to information that might have been helpful to many people, but I do not consent to disqualify my work. If for you is "hogwash", so maybe other people would not have been, they would have been useful information than you have been deprived. I will not waste any more time with you. Follow replicating all you want. Have a nice day (if you have any ever). Goodbye.

188.77.69.46 (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not need consent from you or any other would-be tyrant to have my own views about your work. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your task but not your ways. I don't seek enemies, Ian.thomson. Have a good day. Blessings. (finish, please?)

188.77.69.46 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The endless Goodbyes are just tomfoolery. Jasonasosa (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Schirmer Abduction - and unwarranted deletion

Despite the fact that the previous wiki article had been left with no inline citations and unaccurate information for several years I took the opportunity to research the case and provided numerous references and citations with reliable sources from first hand interviews, UFO Researchers who had sudied the case, news headlines from the time and much more. All simply deleted and reverted to the unaccurate poorly written and unreferenced default!!! Is Wikipedia to be no more than an inaccurate version of events with no possibility of intelligent editing? Why delete the entire changes made by myself? I sense a covert attempt to change the reality of the Schirmer Abduction as originally presented for a lesser easier dismissive version of events.Yogiadept (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To recap: You say, Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). I included these?

Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. I met this criteria!

Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. The article changes were neutral?

Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. I provided first hand, secondary and supporting evidence?

Non-mainstream material and material supporting fringe theories may not be cited as a reliable source. I didn't write of anything supporting any fringe or other theory whatsoever, merely provided evidence from the case in question?

Mainstream documentation of fringe theories may be used to discuss these ideas, and from there material supporting fringe idea may be used to further describe what the idea is about, but the non-mainstream source cannot be used as a reliable source on the veracity of it's claims. Again I met this criteria!

I bring this up because your edits to Schirmer Abduction all used unreliable sources. The following sources are almost never considered reliable.

This is simply untrue! Please specifiy what exactly didn't meet the above criteria?Yogiadept (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

New talk goes at the bottom of the talk page. That's a universal format for the entire site. Please pick up on that.

• Regarding sources:

Gods, Demons, and Space Chariots, and The Paranormal in your Backyard are sold next to Chariot of the Gods and other non-mainstream works that the scientific community rejects as unscholarly. Those are not reliable sources.

You used sites by UFO nuts. Those are not reliable sources, ever. Do not use Konsulting.com, Mufon, Cufon, ufomagazine,

You used Youtube, and in other places, Scribd. Those are not reliable sources, and they're often copyright violations.

• Regarding neutrality:

You gave equal weight to the idea that Schirmer might have been abducted, for which there is no physical evidence. Mainstream science does not support the idea of alien abduction. This site does not care about giving all points equal weight, but giving due weight to reliable sources, which you failed to use.

You gave undue weight to Schirmer's account, which (aside from being original research based on primary sources) would only be usable for describing what he believed happened, not what actually happened.

None of the sources I've removed count as reliable sources, and I'm totally fine if you ask other established editors about this. WP:RSN is one place to ask if sources are reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already deleted those references which you refer to. I disagree that Konsulting.com, Mufon, Cufon, ufomagazine cannot be used as these are the main sources for well...UFO Reports and experiences....if your looking for mainstream reports of these things then you'd have a very incomplete and short wikipedia resource indeed. I take offence at you calling such honest, hardworking UFO researchers as 'UFO nuts'. Why because they do have the same opinion as you? Because they report things that you don't like or share?

Yes, i've used Youtube and Scribe....the inclusions do not infringe on copyright laws as the interviews and audio extracts are from deceased individuals and in the public. They show direct evidence from the individuals that you wouldn't find anywhere else and would be included for these reasons. Feel free to check these by the way. Show me the copyright infringements and i'll happily take them down myself!

Regarding neutrality I have not given Schirmer equal weight as an abductee??? The title of the article was Schirmer Abduction for many years was it not??? Actually I presented evidence that the said person had a head injury before which may have alluded to the phenomena...that wasn't there before. As the case IS about an abduction case it would be pretty hard not to talk about abduction!!! I presented relevant material to the article. I remained neutral throughout. I never included examples of physical evidence....in most UFO cases there simply isn't any but the reports by the witnesses themselves. IF there was physical exvidence I'd be happy to include it. I did make short reference to a piece of metal found by 'Herberts' superior as recorded by investigators and several other organisation, including the Air Force themselves!???

Regarding the weight of Schirmers account that, if you check the dating, was already there BEFORE I edited, and therefore I cannot be responsible for other people's edits!

So, i'm still waiting for a REASON for deleting the entire edits I created in the past two days, unless this was maliciousness or carelessness on your part?Yogiadept (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've already explained, every source you used that I removed failed WP:RS, and were WP:FRINGE. The discussion I've started at WP:RSN#Alien_abduction_sources will further establish that the sky is blue and birds sing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at Electriccatfish2's talk page.
Message added 22:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at Cracker92's talk page.
Message added 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please

try to stay at 2RR. You are at 3RR at Schirmer, and it's not worth even a complaint, let alone the risk of a block. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

He's using the same edit summaries as last time, so I had no problem with confirmation, even though he's apparently on vacation and posting from Denmark instead of Poland. Thanks a big bunch! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Here my "answer" ;)
Have a nice day! --Vituzzu (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a shame people think the way he does. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

IP Vandalims

I have given the IP who was vandalising your page an only warning. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Pages

Hi, As stated on my user page, I plan to gradually fade away from Wikipedia. I am still watching some pages, but not as often as before, and the trend will be to reduce involvement. Given that you are one of the bright young editors here, If you could add a pages to your watchlist and guard against vandalism and crazy edits that will be appreciated. Most of these pages are very stable and hardly get any vandalism, but it would still be good to have someone look at them once in a while.

If you are wondering about the reason, it was this. And I will not change my mind. We will AGF and assume that no one objected due to my editing so many Christian pages. But... let us not talk about that. While I will no longer fix computing articles, most of the Christianity articles are in good shape now. I think you have seen that the existence, language and historicity issues have now been clarified in the Jesus page.

The pages that may be of interest to you are the core Jesus pages, namely:

• Key pages: Jesus, Chronology of Jesus, Ministry of Jesus, New Testament places associated with Jesus, Love of Christ, etc.

• The main biblical episodes: Nativity of Jesus, Baptism of Jesus, Transfiguration of Jesus, Crucifixion of Jesus, Resurrection of Jesus, Ascension of Jesus, as well as related pages such as Confession of Peter and Christology.

• The sayings and deeds: Miracles of Jesus, Parables of Jesus, Sayings of Jesus on the cross. There are also other pages such as Jesus' walk on water and Marriage at Cana, etc.

FYI, Google has now started to siphon-off Wiki entries. Search for this and you will see. However, although the Google Knowledge Graph has entries for millions and millions of "notable" people, guess the one person they do not have an entry for? So there are still things to do, elsewhere.

In any case, your help in watching these key pages will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look at adding the articles that are not already on my watchlist. Sorry to hear you're leaving, best of luck. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Abigail.gutierrez

Hi Ian.thomson

I just received your message. I am not anyone else but myself. Today I filed a full report with a steward and on the Wikipedia:Reguest for Administrator Attention for review. Please take the time to read my complaint. Someone here is distroying all the legitimate businesses in Mexico and why? (User Abigail.gutierrez:Abigail.gutierrez) 1:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail.gutierrez (talk • contribs)

I did read your message on the Administrators Noticeboard, and I found it inconsistent with reality. Please see my response there.

Also note that your statement does not help your case, please defend yourself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanburrena. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I just went back and read my notes and see that I did add rxmexicoonline to medicina Mexico and when I did so it was not spam. It is owned by them and the information was true and correct. I also read here that someone claimed that the phone numbers that I gave could not be verified. The phone number to our health department is located on their webpage which is Government controlled and can be located at (Site redacted). Please note: The domain ends in gob.mx which means the Mexican Goverment. Their listed number is +(number redacted). Our government is in the process of a change with the election of Enrique Pena Nieto from PRE. Everyone currently in the government will be replaced once he takes office on December 1 and most people are now leaving to find other jobs. I had a hard time finding their public number for verification. Abigail.gutierrez 10 July 2:26 (UTC)

You looked at the McCarthy citation a second time, ne? Uncle G (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had a hunch based on some past almost-experiences, and didn't find out about McCarthy until just before I asked you about it. I hope I will have time to get on it today. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

List of people claimed to be Jesus

Come on, watch tho 3RR limit. That would probably be considered a content dispute, not vandalism. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't count! My apology for the false warning. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolving differences

Hi Ian.Thomson. I want to try to resolve our differences before starting an RfC against you. Please use the talk page here to discuss reverts before unilaterally conducting them. This is a contentious issue and I'd like to work it out with you in the appropriate venue and not with your constant edit warring. Looking forward to discussing YourPalJesus (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File an RfC over this? That's a little too much knowledge for someone who just joined the site. Your edits, if I wasn't going to follow WP:AGF, would strike me as rather troll-ish. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Over constant reverts and acting like an article is yours to dictate while avoiding consensus on an ongoing issue? Seems appropriate. Thanks for WP:AGF then. Please bring your argument to bear, as it is, on the article's talk page. I look forward to your reasoned opinion. YourPalJesus (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and edit summaries like this one where you call me a troll without reason. Clearly you fail to WP:AGF. YourPalJesus (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to WP:CIVIL? Ian. I was about to template warn you, but you deserve a bit better. Calling someone a troll and a smart ass is anything but civil. Call for a WP:THIRD opinion. Both sides here have valid points, IMHO. This can be worked out. Regards, --Manway 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a troll. I troll Ian's page all the time. lol. Jasonasosa (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Manway, the truth hurts.™ Killiondude (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you. Charles (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for standing up for me at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests page. I had just refreshed the page and seen that he had left me a highly critical message on my talk page, only to find out after searching around that he had slagged me on the assistance page. I just looked up the article history and the edits were 2 months ago, I'm surprised that this would come up now. I swear that I'm just gonna quit wikipedia cause of the crap one day

As an aside, about the national variety of English thing, a lot of the articles I edit on are kinda sensitive about that, and figuring that Robertson is from England, I figured British spelling would be more appropriate. But, if a consensus dictates American or any other variety of English, then whatever.

Rambling aside though, thanks again and happy editing.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't see much basis for his criticism before I started looking, and after I knew he didn't know what he was talking about.

Btw, just some advice, I was under the impression the standard for spelling is use whatever came first or use whatever is most common in the article, and only take nationality into account for something definitively and characteristically a British or American treasure (e.g. the Crown Jewels or Ben Franklin). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the spelling guideline I generally try to follow, but I guess I get a little too carried away sometimes - old habits are hard to break I guess!

The thing that really bugs me though it is appears (based on his edit history) that he created his account for the sole purpose of reporting me. Oh well, as an old addage goes: guess ya can't get everyone to like you all of the time!

Thanks again--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, There is an article about me which is incorrect on many fronts. I would like to submit proof of the same through verifiable documents like passport copy, documents etc. Where do i send this and to whom? your guidance will be much appreciated. Thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindswami (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC) --Arvindswami (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Doowop62

Hi Ian, Re: update to Extraterrestrials. The update I made is my own. Doowop62, is also known as David Dennis Stacey and you may review the almost same update on my web page at http://stacygenealogy.com by scrolling to the bottom of the first page. I don't plant to repost it though. I takes this old fellow too long to figure out how to get it posted. Best regards, Dave D Stacey, aka dabe, Dennis, Dave and doowop62 on youtube and facebook. PS: No problem.Doowop62 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved to bottom, responded on user's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Not a problem with being safe on submissions. One must be careful about copyright. I am posted all over the place on the Internet now and was just trying to add another location. Not to worry about the posting. Thanks for your input.66.173.227.69 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Meta: missing section title

Meta: Arvindswami's entry above seems to be missing a section title. Feel free to delete this message after use (or for any other reason). --Mortense (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Zg026478

Hi Ian. Sorry, I think this is where i should leave my message? I'm a new user in wiki. Glad to know that you are or used to be an English teacher. And I am pretty sure that you know the differences between 'names' and 'attributes' - both have different definition. You can't say Names and in bracket you say (specifically attributes). That's not consistent. In Islam, we only have one specific name for God that is Allah, and we have 99 attributes of Allah but the list is not exhausted. There are many references in google scholar, I can give you many but I am not good with wiki's features and therefore do not know how to add in the link in wikipedia. Pls if you could make it clear as your writing is confusing. My friends are saying that we have 99 gods now and that's not funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zg026478 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(Responded to on the user's talk page.) Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Transdev York

Hi, I've semi-protected the Transdev York for a week in the light of the disruption being caused by the user who is evading his block using IP addresses. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

DrMajestico

I believe that you are incorrect in your classification of the information on the golem and the Velvet Revolution, Both link to pages that have much information on both subject, a function I find highly useful. As you note, links do not increase google ratings, so there in no motivation in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMajestico (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bhgavad Gita talk page

Please see the Bhagavad Gita talk page.BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientology IP and new user

Hi, would you be willing to weigh in on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts#Nicole Kidman religious and political views? The user who started the thread appears to be the same person from the IP address you identified as owned by the Church of Scientology. Would be interested to hear your input on their issues regarding the Nicole Kidman article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:98.185.48.50#July 2012

Hi, Ian. That particular IP appears to be used by different people based on the edit history; subsequent to the last block, which I believe was a mistake, someone used that IP today to commit a clear-cut case of vandalism. That's how I got involved.

I looked at the edits about which you warned this IP earlier this month and they did not look disruptive at all. I was sorry to see that the person was subsequently blocked as a result. I appreciate your vigilance, but I worry that we sometimes scare off potentially useful editors. In fact, our steady loss of editors and admins is Wikipedia's biggest problem; these 3 recent, widely-quoted articles^[1][2][3] spell out the problem.

When you get the chance, take a look at:

• WP:BITE
• WP:AGF
• WP:NOTVANDAL

I very much appreciate your work and diligence here. I hope you will consider taking a leadership role in the future.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See my additional comments at User talk:A. B.#That IP sock about dealing with this chronic vandal.

Thanks again for your help keeping our articles safe and reliable.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote

A hatnote at the top of the article god says the article is in the "context of henotheism or monotheism". Is that a definite or conclusive rule? Pass a Method talk 01:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be a rule, but it should represent consensus and the use of reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You did, of course, notice...

...that Bwilkins cannot/will not be performing the block you requested as they're marked as "Away", right? dangerouspanda 23:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Without any indication of when he will return, it's possible he may return at any time. Since he was the admin who gave Krizpo a extra week to screw with the site before earning a block again, and yet has not interacted with Krizpo since giving the reprieve (which happened more than two days ago), Krizpo's behavior is still something he needs to know about. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Transdev York

Hi there apparantly i am sockpuppet of josh24B but i am not just to make that clear and i am trying to make this page better by adding infomation and links and this is England that this company is so it may not work in america where you are so can not refer me to being a sockpuppet of josh24B as i know that this page has had vandaism but this is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorkshirebus (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're not Josh24B, I'm the Pope, and not the Discordian one. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you must be the pope then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorkshirebus (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, I will give you a plenary indulgence if you kindly leave the articles relating to transportation in York and neighboring areas alone. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I have blocked Yorkshirebus as an obvious sockpuppet per the duck test and semi-protected Transdev York for one month. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)