User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 9

Cleaning up the page again, everything is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks![edit]

It would seem that I had a hacked-off meatpuppet messing with my page earlier today. Thanks for stepping in on my behalf. I am truly lucky to have you at my back. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, I'm speechless. :) Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching edit comments to edits[edit]

Know you have other things to do... After reading some comments on a page I was "watching", a user made a small edit and it appeared that when he did he attached his reasons for making that edit (like - "The previous version had the Minnesota Twins winning the pennent in 1996 when they actually finished in last place in the AL Central. This was corrected."). I'm not talking about making a "Discussion" thread. It would appear to me that reasons for the changes one made would help out you editors rather than thinking someone is a slash and burner, biased, or malicious. If you could point me to where it explains this in the help section or wherever, I'd be greatly appreciative. Ckruschke (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Oh - that's what that's for... Thanks again! Ckruschke (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

They just don't learn, do they?[edit]

Especially since I happen to have the power to block vandals, heh, heh. :) Thanks again, my friend. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Ian, thank you for your help and advice. Regarding my edit to the "Lucifer" entry, I think you may find a quick look the entry for the book of Isaiah will in fact back up my edit of the book being a prophetic work. To that extent, while I may have worded my edit incorrectly, it was in no way biased but based upon solid historical fact. I will work on new verbiage for the edit and attach a citation to the book of Isaiah entry on my next try. Again thank you for your help.Kraze21 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wisdom has been Noted[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o) Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. :D Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BC vrs BCE[edit]

Thank you for clarity on that... I never got around to checking that out. I will have to make some corrections on other pages where this problem is common. Jasonasosa (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no real rule either way, except that it's supposed to remain regular throughout the article. I believe the article on various Saints use "AD," while the one on Muhammed probably uses "CE." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about when it is appropriate to use BC vrs BCE... my first thought was... to use BC for christian doctrines that occured before christ... but then I thought... wait... how can a christian doctrine occur before christ when christ is the starting point? A paradox!? or is it really secular vrs christians?! Jasonasosa (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of preference. BCE can also mean "Before Christian Era" so there is no "appropriate" time to use BCE over BC or CE over AD... this is all prefence. CE (Christian Era, Common Era, Current Era) Its all how one looks at it.Jasonasosa (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010[edit]

(Warning struck out so people don't think it was directed to me Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)) Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Azrael, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because you are religious or just it does not have a source? --144.122.124.93 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesseee... Your edit didn't have a source... The notice says "be prepared to cite a reliable source..." And you have no evidence that I even believe Azrael exists (it's not hard for a Jew or Christian to believe he doesn't exist, Azrael isn't God)... Assume good faith, don't assume I'm a religious bigot. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding another editor[edit]

I just got home from Midnight Mass, so that is why I am awake. I probably won't be on here until after the holidays. Unfortunately, we have had to also deal with my aunt passing away recently. Editing off-and-on has been a fairly decent distraction, but the holidays are for spending time for family. Anyway, I would like to get your input in dealing with Educatedlady. I have gone out of my to show some compromise with editing an article, but she just attacks me when I have not attacked her. I have already stated in seeking arbitration, so that is not the issue I want to ask you about. I have another user who is helping editing the generation pages, and I am also asking for his opinion on the matter. However, I would appreciate your input as well since you have dealt with her yourself. Do you think Educatedlady is out of line? I do not want to engage in senseless arguing. I would like to know if I wrote something inappropriate on the discussion page for her to respond the way she did. I only said that she kept referencing one book by William Strauss and Neil Howe, and not the countless books Howe has published since Millennials Rising was published in 2000. Would you read the comments on the Generation Y talk page, in the William Strauss and Neil Howe section? If you could respond on here or on my talk page under the section "Help with another editor" (unless you'd like to comment elsewhere), that would be appreciated. Hope you are having a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your aunt, mine (a fellow Catholic) passed in August. Not taking a stand on the articles but on editor behavior, I can't say that anyone's behavior is actually wrong. She may be frustrating, but she's not actually being uncivil. Sorry. Best bet is getting outside editors to comment (I'm not really viable since I haven't read the sources, and all the sources seem viable, it's just figuring out how they should be incorporated into the article). Sorry I wasn't much help. Hope you and your's still have a Merry Christmas and happy new year. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British are coming[edit]

Do you know the wiki rules about word usage when editing?:

color vrs. colour
honor vrs. honour
gray vrs. grey

If not, its cool. I just dont know. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, basically, use the same word throughout the whole article, except for topics especially tied with a nation (The American Civil War article will alway use American spelling), and try to stick with what was there earliest. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jasonasosa (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatia[edit]

Hi Ian.thomson

I am a Wiki novice, and don't intend any further activities in the field, but the image of Hypatia became important to me and I signed on to Wiki to try and maintain the Fayud image for Hypatia.

I have posted my reasons on my user page, please let me know if this is sufficient/insufficient or correct/incorrect ....

Best wishes, Barroncd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barroncd (talk • contribs) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about what is "true," but verifiable: Cite sources because original research is not accepted. Neither picture can be verified to truely look like Hypatia, but there is no verification that the ancient picture represents her, while it is verified that the Raphael picture is accepted as representing Hypatia (as shown by the contents of the <ref>references tags</ref>). If you can find a reliable source to cite (with <ref>references tags</ref>) that say that the ancient picture is indeed supposed to represent Hypatia, then it probably would be used instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatia to Hipparchia[edit]

Hi Ian.thomson I have read your page and where you're coming from.. as a clergyman's daughter (not quite in the Orwellian sense) and with a maintenace still in the areas of theos and alchemy, I can identify with Nietzchean leanings (great poet!) and Gehenna/Abaddon curiosities. I became interested in the last decade Minoan human sacrifice made at Anemospilia at the time of the volcanic activity, a discovery made by Sakellarakis who has just died. The eternal return. Re. Hypatia's image.... I have been thoroughly ticked off for that, unreasonably I think. It was like a swarm of hornets descending, and I thought my case quite reasonable. The three-reverts rule that has been quoted to me by Fur.Perf. doesn't apply to me. The rule states 3 changes within twenty-four hours, and I have not changed more than once within 24 hours. As already stated, I'm caring for my husband with altzheimer's and have already more time on Wiki than I should. He's a good man, and worked all his life in third world aid. If I had the nervous energy of twenty years ago i might consider sticking around, but as it is, I'm going to move on from Hypatia to Hipparchia. It seems the right thing to do. I tried to message Fut.Perf. but he seems not to be taking reply. I also posted another plea on the Hypatia talk page without changing the image, so it will probably not be seen. Keep up the good work!!! Best wishes - Chris Barron Barroncd (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion at indigo children[edit]

I added references to the scientist who discovered aura and other things. Steelmate (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waldensians Changes[edit]

Hi friend, not trying to start an edit war here. In regards to today's edits, I to my knowledge have not removed any material regarding the Catholic viewpoint, so I'm not trying to axe grind. (although I moved some Catholic material to other section(s) which I thought more appropriate). In addition I added a large deal of sources which took some time to do. Also stating that the founding date is disputed is not POV, it's quite factual as there are two differing opinions (one Catholic one Protestant), both with many supporters. Continual undoing may constituent edit warring which is against wikipedia policy and thus should not be done. Willfults (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some people contest the date of the founding for their own ecclesiastical politics does not mean it isn't established. A lot of the sources you used are outdated Nijhoff, De Pressensé, Martinet, Faber, Allix... Uriah Smith's work is nothing but SDA propaganda. Robert L. Odom's work is not an academic work, it's more denominational propaganda. Your version presents what secular academia and the Waldensians themselves say about their founding as buying into Catholic out cries against the group. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like you[edit]

You are very disrespectful to new users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.225.66 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly know what you are doing, and you deliberately introduced false and libellous information into articles. That is vandalism, and there's no reason to respect that. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am brand new today and I was just testing out stuff, you don't have to be so harsh about the whole thing. Its not like your getting paid to do this.. your pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.225.66 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first warning said that your edit was reverted, and that "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." You could have tried that instead of restoring the material that was labelled vandalism. You could have tried actually looking at the article to see that what you messed up was undone before undoing my revert and restoring the vandalism I removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Forsyth[edit]

"Not on anyone's watchlist?" – Actually it wasn't easy to unpick all the threads of vandalism and individual manual corrections to get to a valid version, hat to Off2riorob for his forensic skills. There were a dozen warnings needed, too. - Pointillist (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panspermia[edit]

The disagreement about panspermia.org might best be discussed at the external links noticeboard, so please have a look at the report I created at WP:ELN#Panspermia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small Indian Civet[edit]

in response to article removed in the section small indian civet, the article i posted is from my own experince and i have seen civets and studied them. please see my video of a civet in my own home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnChOWTGDsQ but if you still see it as copied no defense..i respect your view..thank you Irvin calicut (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not accepted as a reliable source (click here to learn about reliable sources). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Monkey-gun.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Monkey-gun.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I just want to apologise for the recent vandalism coming from my page - I stayed logged in and some friends got on and caused havoc. This doesn't appear to be the first time, either, so thanks for telling me. I'm staying logged out now. Thanks again. -- User:Jzadek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Karate[edit]

you removed my edit from karate. and you comment is incorrect All Karate contains grappling. Every kata in karate has grappling moves in them. Core kata such as Naihanchi (tekki) is almost all grappling. Do your research more on kata and you will see everyone contains grappling.

Regards SenseiJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiJ (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All examples I can find show punches and kicks. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

read the book the way of kata by lawrenence kane and the book shotokan secrets there are many books on the subject. even the book bushido. has exampled of karate grappling. you cant find examples because you haven't looked. and no i dont mix styles i never have — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiJ (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC) there are several good articals on this link now i just have to figure out how to add it to the other page http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/articles regards SenseiJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiJ (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, could I gently warn you also about 3RR? Let us keep this on talk pages for a while. Cheers! jmcw (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here tekki bunkai with grappling, and no this is not just the way i trained. the jka admited in the 1950 to try and remove grappling from karate, and it blow up in there face. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txP8vWt3xQE search for bunkai not just kata — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiJ (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anko Itosu pointed put in several letters that karate has grappling he wrote these letter back in the early 1900's the videos you posted has no bunkai. why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txP8vWt3xQE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-pkxqTu6Jw&feature=related

regards SenseiJ SenseiJ (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Karate. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Karate. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ian.thomson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not revert after Reaper Eternal's warning. I am willing to submit to a check user. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:13 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm not sure what checkuser has to do with this. I count five reverts on Karate - you've been around long enough to know that's not acceptable. TN X Man 03:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm afraid I have to agree, it's a good block. I think I'd walk away from that article, it's clear that no one seems to care about the fact that the argued-over text is cited to a book by Bishop. The way it stands now I suspect it doesn't relate to the source very much. Just enjoy your break and find something interesting to do. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes[edit]

Ian, I am sorry to see this sad state of affairs. I noticed your first revert on karate when I got home from the karate dojo last night and considered dropping you a line about the extent of grappling in karate from my own experience. I was however quite exhausted from doing a lot of grappling and picking myself up off the floor numerous times. In my style, Shotokan, the philosophy is to take out an opponent with one blow (ippon) so as to be ready for any others, but we still train in grappling and escapes quite a lot. The movements in any kata can be interpreted in many ways, from the obvious to very complex applications from apparently simple movements. There is no way of knowing if the ancient masters who composed the classic katas had these in mind.

I hope this block will soon be lifted as you are an excellent editor and I urge any admins reviewing this to do so.--Charles (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

i didn't realize about the 3 rev rule, and by the time i did it was too late.

Karate i'll add more sources in a little while. the kata you posted has no bunkai kata. i add some videos with bunkai. what many people interpret as strikes in kata are not strikes. in the book barefoot zen, it shows the original or as close to the original version of naihanchi as possible. naihanchi was all one kata and a two man kata at that. where you are manipulating your partner in various joint locks in one continuous series with out losing contact. in the book the bubishi, it explains karate came from grappling and striking was add later. and in the book the way of kata by kane, it says all kata has grappling. kata is the manual for the style and all techniques come from kata regards SenseiJ (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Ian.thomson, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Ian.thomson. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]