User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 35

Just saw an eclipse

Photos are really only good enough for keepsakes, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello Ian, is there a proper way to deal with WP:NOTHERE users that have made 0 edits outside of RefDesk, and uses the RefDesk for purely opened ended questions? Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 23:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I know who you're talking about. If it wasn't the RefDesk, sure, there'd be plenty of options to discuss while another admin blocks them before I finish saving this post. But the RefDesk is a weird policy limbo thing that no one fully understands. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories in lede

Hi Ian, I stumbled upon the Giuseppe Siri article after dealing with the St. Gallen Group, and I was wondering what your thoughts were re: the final sentence of the lede in his article regarding the Siri thesis. To me it seems like it gives a bit too much credence/weight to an extremely fringe (but notable) idea. I think on Mark Dice or some other article you worked with the wording in the lede, so I thought I would ping you. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My knowledge of Traditionalist Catholic conspiracy theorism is that it might exists but I'll keep the tabs ope-- Wait, yeah, that's definitely WP:UNDUE weight for a WP:FRINGE position. Adding to watchlist to help you tag-team. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I am normally the only editor active on articles related to conclaves, I always like to get a second look of eyes before I do anything that could be controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ian, thank you for your replies to my query. As a first time Wiki editor there was a lot I didn't know. Here is my exact situation: I do part time admin work for a freelance business consultant. The co CEO of one of the companies he works for was involved in the development of Eftpos (that's why he collected the articles cited), particularly mobile eftpos. His current business has nothing to do with eftpos and he will gain no further business or acclaim from the edits I made, he was just in a position where he saw a gap in the knowledge on the page and wanted to fill it. As far as I know it is a one off edit and if he had the time to do it himself he would. My paid involvement would come under the heading 'asked to do extra work on top of what you are being paid to do'. Regarding the user name, I justused my employer's name in case he wanted to use the account again in future when I was no longer working for him, but I am the only person using the account and am very happy to put in a username change request to change it to my own. There is one more tiny edit he wants done and that is a sub-heading added to the page of 'First Mobile Eftpos' above the section pertaining to mobile eftpos. I think he wants to point out that australia was leading the world in the technology. Regarding the references, I still have a press release, a press article with no identifying information and a Singapore Pizza Hut advertisement that I would like to reference, can I add them to Wikisource? Thank you for your time, Jane Ede Thank you NPharaoh (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@NPharaoh: That still falls under our paid editing and conflict of interest guidelines. "Asked to do extra work" still falls under "indirectly compensated."

Press releases are not always accepted as reliable sources except for general announcements that no one could interpret as an advertisement. We try to stick to mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about a topic but independent of it. Wikipedia does not tolerate promotionalism of any sort. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian, In that case with admin permission I believe it would be ok for me to: A)Put in a username change request to change the account to my own name B) add in the paid disclosure to my (new) username page C) add in the 'First mobile Eftpos' heading Is this correct? I would still love to get the Pizza Hut advertisement into the references as I think it is an important piece of the Eftpos history and has. O commercial ties to anyone other than Pizza Hut, who were the first company to use the technology. Thanks, jane ede NPharaoh (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• No commercial NPharaoh (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Censorship

Please do not refer to edits with which you disagree in a point of view dispute as censorship. Pushing pseudoscience is against Wikipedia policy, but it isn't censorship. The other editor wasn't censoring your edits; they were pushing a non-neutral point of view. It is popular but incorrect to shout "censorship" in order to "win" a content dispute, but it doesn't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not refer to their attempts to push pseudoscience as censorship. By censorship, I meant their initial attempts to remove sourced information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the recent copyvio block. I believe this IP is used by OurMine. I've been trying to avoid getting too involved on that article, but I have edited it and then added some semi-protection, as I've had enough of the endless spam and self-promotion. Instead of bothering lots of people by offering a review to ANI, I offer you the opportunity to review the protection as you see fit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I could imagine an uninvolved admin protecting the page (though I was gonna wait until a second IP showed up) and we were undoing copyright violations, so I would think this all qualifies as one of those "straightforward cases". Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Brahmin

Hi Ian.Thomson: You have removed my edits, because you thought there was no permission from the original source. You are mistaken. Dr. Vepachedu had given permission a long time ago for this material and any other from his foundation web pages. This material was one of the original contents of this Wikipedia page. However, it was replaced by the prejudicial material, which I seriously object to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bittertruth: Unless those materials have been donated to the Wikimedia foundation, we can't use them without paraphrasing them. But that's not the only issue.

You need to discuss your proposed changes on Talk:Brahmin and acquire consensus for them before trying to add them again. Blanking the lede just because you don't like it is unacceptable Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission/The Vepachedu Educational Foundation [1]

Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've unrevdelled the material but you still need to gain a consensus on the article's talk page, stop edit warring, and stop blanking the lede. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What kind of consensus was there when you first removed the paragraphs that I am trying to put back? It looks like you like the prejudicial material without proper referencing rather than my edits to incorporate deleted material which was based on the real census data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You were reverted by Ms_Sarah_Welch, Utcursch, Arjayay, Flyer22_Reborn, and Mike Rosoft, in addition to me. Per WP:BRD, consensus favored the prior version and you need to acquire consensus on the talk page.

For you to say the existing material does not have proper referencing indicates that you may not know what proper referencing is.

It's a bit hypocritical for you to ask for deleted material to be incorporated. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I had permission from the Vepachedu Educational FOundation Inc.(VEFI) in 2005. The material that I have tried to insert was removed later. I didn't pay attention until recently. The current material that you dutifully put back is erroneous information put in by Sara and was put in place after removing the materials that were incorporated in 2005 with permission from VEFI. Sara's material was not correct and it was prejudicial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs)

The Vepachedu Educational Foundation does not own Wikipedia or the article. All their permission means is that, if you had consensus here, you could possibly add material from it. Ian.thomson (talk)

Who said VEFI owns wikipedia? THis is a very interesting argument from consensus builder.

If you consensus from those veteran European writers who interpret the cultures of others as paganism, please go ahead and consensus for the census data.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs)

Well, the census itself (or better, the census as interpreted by an academic institution) would be preferable to religious propaganda quoting the census. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, except that the census is more than a century out of date. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's talked about impartiality fella

You just deleted my entire contribution. The spellings as per your wikipedia common spelling are wrong. The "fatāh" on the M of Makkah and Madinah within arabic pronunciation means the next word has to start with "A". As with the "h" at the end. The Arabic "at" turns to "ah" when stopping on the word.

I aint even a Muslim but wikipedia is meant to be about impartiality. The guy before me wrote the Muslims lost at uhud. NO THEY DIDN'T. It was a stalemate. But ibvs you put that sentence back in.

You even deleTed the Arabic and I know you know nothing about Arabic Peaksnary (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Peaksnary: you've also edited under the account R2d212345, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No i havent and why did you delete the entire contrubution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaksnary (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No? Then why is it that your account was registered right after R2d212345 received a final warning, and that, like R2d212345, you've engaged in comparable problematic behavior, largely targeting evolution and atheist authors (particularly implying that Richard Dawkins was influenced by communist dictators)? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Martyrdom of Barsamya

Do you have a better way to type the following content: Though the setting of the text takes place during the reign of Trajan, scholars have deduced the historicity as fictitious and composition to the early fifth century AD. Biblical scholars also associate the Martyrdom of Barsamya with the Acts of Sharbel because the historicity and composition of Sharbel has been deduced by scholars to that of the Martyrdom of Barsamya. Scholars often compare the texts to more considerable authentic Syriac Christian writings such as the Acts of Shmona and Gurya and the Martyrdom of Habbib in order to determine historicities. In account of the martyrs themselves, Gurya, Shmona, and Habbib's names are present in a Syriac martyrology calendar manuscript dated to 411 AD which list names of martyrs from Edessa as the names Barsamya and Sharbel are not.[5][6][7] I'm really having a hard time putting all this together. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Um... I was just doing some technical writing and I don't have the sources in question, but I'll try.

• Though the setting of the text takes place during the reign of Trajan, scholars have deduced the historicity as fictitious and composition to the early fifth century AD. - Should probably be "Scholars have deduced that the work was written in the fifth century AD, after the reign of Trajan it fictionally portrays."
• Biblical scholars also associate the Martyrdom of Barsamya with the Acts of Sharbel because the historicity and composition of Sharbel has been deduced by scholars to that of the Martyrdom of Barsamya. - "has been deduced [...] to that of the Martyrdom of Barsamya" sounds like it's missing a word (i.e. "deduced to have ripped off" or "deduced to have been ripped off by"). I think the meaning is "Scholars associate the Martyrdom of Barsamya with the Acts of Sharbel, due to similar composition and history. This similarity may be because the Acts of Sharbel was at least inspired by (if not written by the same author as) the Martyrdom of Barsamya."
• Scholars often compare the texts to more considerable authentic Syriac Christian writings such as the Acts of Shmona and Gurya and the Martyrdom of Habbib in order to determine historicities. - Should probably be "Both of these texts were found to be less authentic in terms of historicity than other Syriac Christian works such as the Acts of Shmona and Gurya or the Martyrdom of Habbib."
• In account of the martyrs themselves, Gurya, Shmona, and Habbib's names are present in a Syriac martyrology calendar manuscript dated to 411 AD which list names of martyrs from Edessa as the names Barsamya and Sharbel are not. - Probably should be "A Syriac martyrology calendar manuscript dated to 411 AD, which lists martyrs from Edessa, includes Gurya, Shmona, and Habbib but not Barsamya or Sharbel."

But again, I haven't checked the sources so I can't be 100% sure that's what was intended. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: Forgot to ping. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson That was fast, Thanks! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Brad Watson's latest IP

See Special:Contributions/2601:589:4705:C7C0:9538:8A0D:ED0C:868E. I put the IPsock template on his talk page. Hellbus (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hellbus: Thanks for spotting him. With the IPv6 addresses, we'll probably need a range block and I don't even know how to do those the wrong way. @Doug Weller: You've done rangeblocks on Brad before, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hellbus: See User:Doug Weller/IPv6. See [3] and the block log - I've blocked the range before. You can do the block on the contributions page. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned you ...

here, but malformed the ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oddly, my ping notification says it was successful, I don't know why. (In any event, I agree with your actions although it might not sound that way - I am troubled about other issues). --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought there was an impersonation account with that name (one troll made a few before I became an admin), though I can't seem to find one.

And yeah, I'm just kinda ready to call "he don't want it, we don't need it, WP:IAR, WP:DGAF." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Busy

Started a part-time job and am filling out other job applications. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN notice: Jesus

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked a troll

The one you were talking to here.[4] - see their edits on their talk page. Obvious troll. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ben Steigmann sock-puppeting again

Just in case you are interested Ben Steigmann is sock-puppeting again on the Oswald Spengler article and others. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Another sock found: [5] is also Ben. (evidence in this edit on his Wikiversity Project against Wikipedia [6]). 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting that an SPI was raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blastikus. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ian.thomson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Ian.thomson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Why

Why did you revert some information over at wild kratts episodes page. They were not vandalism, for example if you pay attention season five actually started in July 2017, and there were 3 new episodes in 2017,CoolIndianTiger (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to answer the questions I've already asked you, to give me a reason to not block you as yet another sockpuppet of that user. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that Wikipedia's line?

I have a very low tolerance for bigotry, stupidity, and bias. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That level of irony is hard to find outside of Twitter. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

May be more (or less active) soon

Got an interview for a better job at the end of the month, leaving my current job a couple of days before it (as my ascetic spending habits will let me coast on savings until the next job starts). Yes, I'm that confident about the interview (getting it was the hard part).

Assuming the interview goes well, I'll have more free time and might be active again. Or not, as the job is on the other side of the planet (again) and I need to help my folks get their house in order.

If it doesn't go well, then my time will be spent applying for similar positions... On my computer, probably with this site on another tab (or twenty). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Universalizing religion

I have added references from Google Books. Is it sufficient now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say that it is not so much sufficient as it indicates that it could be sufficient. You need to stick to sources that focus on the concept of a universalizing religion, rather than ones that assume the reader knows what it is. [Colonial urban development: culture, social power, and environment This source], for example, doesn't really explain what a universalizing religion is. You also need to trim inadequate sources and remove material that is not sourced. I'll look at gathering what sources I can find when I can. Article deletion discussions usually last a week or so (barring something extremely inappropriate), and it's not unheard of for someone to see if an article could be written and to do so during the discussion.

Remember, Google books is not the source itself, it is only a place to find the sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for taking pain of searching the sources for "Universalizing Religion" article. I have taken liberty to copy it in the article. Realphi (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Blacklist...

Hi, Ian - a little memory refresher "Scrapbookpages.com"_-_Holocaust_revisionism_website,_spammed_in_around_100_articles see this, and then my question here, and Richie's response that led me to RSN here. What is the procedure for blacklisting a poor source, and is it something I can do? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I don't think I've gone through the process of getting a site blacklisted before (it's possible I just don't remember it). I remember a couple of years ago we had to have a huge RfC to get the Daily Mail blacklisted. The bar should be quite a bit lower for Scrapbookpages.com. Has it continued to be spammed across dozens of articles? If it's only been a few articles that have used it, it'll be harder to make a blacklisting case (from what I understand). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gee, Ian...I don't know - I found 3, one of which was in an article I reviewed either originating in the NPP queue or AfC. Anyway, see this discussion. The link was deferred to XLinkBot and added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList and User:XLinkBot/RevertList back in July 2012. The hopes were that it would catch additions in the future including refs & ELs, and would also tag associated accounts/IP's. If that failed and abuse continued, which it has, then it could be added at Spam Blacklist. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

E-Mail

Hello, Ian.thomson. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EtienneDolet (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sjakkel

Saw your Wiki Talk pages and methinks you are a bit angry at life and everyone. Why? Last saw a message (I missed it in 2014) from your re-editing the Waldensian website. I admit the comments were personal, because the people I spoke to are no longer alive. However, that does not disqualify my father OR my grandfather as sources. About the family history. On my father's(-father) side. But reading your Wiki Talk entries, you seem to be very angry at the world and everyone else. Do you think that kind of anger qualifies you as a major editor of Wikipedia sites? Are you impartial? Sjakkel (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Sjakkel: Please thank Ian for his kind consideration in fixing your edit in question. Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS. We can always find more "angry" Wikipedians to confront you about poor edits, if that's what you prefer. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you please help me write an article so we can be placed in the Notable People section for Dothan, AL.I am 78 years old & am not very good with computers. Here is info about my Wife & I Click on the links and you will be able to see perhaps we both should be in there. THANKS• 02:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)02:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)~~Carol (Juriga) Hardin, horse trainer/exhibitor, was inducted into The Palomino Horse Hall of Fame in 2013 as an exhibitor. http://www.palominohba.com/the-association/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-inductees/ • Clifford S. Hardin, Long distance Hiker and Horse Trainer/exhibitor. Received the Triple Crown Award from The American Long Distance Hikers Association in 2005. This award is given to recognize those that have hiked the full length of the three major trails in America, The Appalachian Trail, The Pacific Crest Trail and the Continental Divide Trail. http://aldhawest.org/page-18139 • Was inducted into the Palomino Horse Hall of Fame in 2013 as an exhibitor. http://www.palominohba.com/the-association/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-inductees/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldhiker (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Good morning I would like to ask for your help in editing the draft: Israel lucas Gois, the article is very good, could you help me put it on the air? I waited for return

André Luiz nogari (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a Question

Hello IAN I am John David Valazquez, I just joined today, exactly how long do you have to be on this site to request Administrator status, I know I've only been around for a few hours but I'm just planning for the future, because I want to make Wikipedia great again (don't worry I will make it great not hate like a certain someone in the White House) thank you for your understanding.John David Velazquez (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @John David Velazquez: Let's assume that you'll never be an admin on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and you can help us! There's much to do. Perhaps someday we'll let you know if adminship might happen. Assume it won't. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was here about a decade before it somehow happened (and I'm still not sure what people were smokingthinking). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and hopefully we can keep Wikipedia great John David Velazquez (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Response

Hello IAN: You called my edits disruptive and threatened to close my account on my talk page. The edits were properly cited, and did not constitute an opinion. Your own removal of the added content is actually more representative of disruptive editing as defined by Wikipedia, by impeding "progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." I added citations, links and properly referenced sources. Please do not let your biases react rudely; the beauty of Wikipedia is that it allows for collaborative development. Your editing goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Hjaqpnu (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)hjaqpnu

This edit summary of yours is a lie, plain and simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Part of Wikipedia is allowing presentations from multiple sources. For example, I changed the word "cult", as the main citation used to cite this is the following link: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3912810/inside-the-bizarre-cult-pretty-belgian-backpacker-elise-dallemange-joined-before-her-mystery-death-on-thailands-murder-island/ Looking at this article, which is from the Sun (you call that a reputable source?), the article is alarmist and written with typical tabloid-style exaggeration. Quoting the Sun, one might as well quote an equally biased article such as this one: "https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20110509-sathya-sai-baba-an-iconic-godman-passes-away-745872-2011-04-29"

A good example of an unbiased citation is seen later on in the article http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/24/india.spiritual.guru.death/ which describes the philosophy as a "movement" rather than a cult.

Moreover, as Wikipedia itself notes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult, the use of the word "cult" is controversial. In an unbiased article that presents both sides of the story accurately, a controversial and biased word such as "cult" detracts from the objectivity of an article.

As I mentioned earlier, please don't let your own personal biases and hate influence the ability of the Wikipedia community to present both sides of a story fairly. Hjaqpnu (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)hjaqpnu

Once again: This edit summary of yours is a lie, plain and simple. Further explanation on your talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Unification Church changes

Hi, I made changes to the Unification Church page and you said that my edit gave "undue weight to smaller factions". I want to refute your statement. I don't know where you are possibly getting numbers from (since there are no reliable figures of membership), but the numbers of members in other factions (namely, Sanctuary Church, Family Peace Association and others) are substantial within the Unification Church community. They are not "small"; and they are the subject of academic study today. Also, as a new religious movement that is still defining itself theologically, it would be premature to define the Family Federation (FFWPU) as the "Unification Church" (which is what the founder specifically said he did not want). Please consider these points and I am open to dialogue and to providing sources for any statements. Thank you. 181.120.67.50 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎181.120.67.50 (talk • contribs)

The infobox is generally there to summarize the intro, which in turn summarizes the article. The intro describes two movements in particular as the largest sub-sects. The infobox should probably be changed, but whether it should say "in dispute," or list both of those groups, or list just one should be discussed with a wider audience. I'll start a section in the article's talk page. During these discussions, the article generally keeps the status quo version. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dientboy

Hi! I've been catching up on the issues around Dientboy and Gregorybarry, and it seems that there was a lot of confusion and some significant mistakes by new editors, but nothing malicious. I'm inclined to consider unblocking Dientboy to see how things go, but I was wondering where you sit on that. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bilby: With what's come up since then, I'm open to letting you handle it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're happy with that. :) I think it is worth another shot with the editor. - Bilby (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence schmevidence

Where are your references? Comet11 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Comet11: If you look, you'll see that I've not tried to create an article about me. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your suggestion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginsal (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the help!! Higginsal (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Three sources u need

1. Ankur Javeri | Hindi dubbing wiki | fandom powered by wikia 2. Behind the Hindi voice on Facebook :- Dragon Ball Z 3. YouTube Channel, Black Hill Studio :- Dragon Ball Z hindi voice actors Abhishek Juyal (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

OK

Ok Abhishek Juyal (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability of low-profile people and their brush with the media

I'd like to get your opinion on WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. My reading is that the former indicates that, despite coverage that would otherwise pass GNG, if the subject is low-profile and is known for only 15 minutes of fame, then the article should be deleted. In at least one case, the community says otherwise. BIO1E, however, doesn't read that way but I've felt that ought to be the case, that there has to be some significant coverage about the subject and yet some editors don't see it that way. I'm getting hung up on these low-profile people that get a dozen mentions; Wikipedia seems to prefer having an article than not. What's your opinion? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chris Troutman: Hm... It seems to me Antoine Dodson is really only notable for one event. However, he continued to receive coverage that was really just "what is 'hide yo kids' guy up to now?" I've not had dinner yet, so don't quote me or anything, but I think the issue is "is this individual going to be mentioned in the news one, two, or five years from now, even if it's just 'what is that one-event, 15-minute celebrity up to now?'" A year later, maybe; two years, probably; five years, sure. This does make it harder to determine BLP1E during their 15 minutes of fame, though. I think this is where the community prefers to keep the articles rather than not, just in case they do become famous. However, I feel like that does need to be balanced with an openness to AfDing the article when no further coverage comes up. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand that editors want more room to write their narratives, not less. The AfD about Dodson squeaked through on MUSICBIO because his words were put into a song that people bought. Without the single, I think deletion would have resulted. I recently withdrew a deletion nom because the community felt there was GNG for a man known only for submitting young Corporal Hitler for the Iron Cross. Do you think it would be wiser to propose a "15 minutes of fame" clause to prevent these cases? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I get the impression that it would codify the inclusionist vs deletionist feelings of the community, and perhaps only one side (counting the middle as a third side) would probably stand to be satisfied. As it is, it is instead a grey area where people "win some and lose some" (WP:BATTLEGROUND aside). Though that's also a case for codifying it, even if many would stand to be dissatisfied with the result. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV

...was a damn good essay and a pleasure to read. Thank you for writing it! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

And another thing...

Trying to mediate a dispute is far more good-adminny than trying to put an editor in their place. Don't think that stuff doesn't get noticed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Kbmnj

I had thought that maybe this was an editor who has difficulty in communicating in English. I think instead that what we have is an editor who communicates so little and so sporadically that they have difficulty in communicating using electronic media. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Your question about the advertising is well taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Over and out. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks for the article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :):):):)

THEGREECEPEACE 02:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ian

Can I ask why did you revert my edit which I did on King_of_Mask_Singer? --H.S Warren K 21:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howd Warren (talk • contribs)

@Howd Warren: May I ask why you removed the links to the Korean Wikipedia articles from that article? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Because the links that I removed weren't exist(It means they didn't linked to any pages.) (like here: page does not exist) --H.S Warren K (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You removed the links to the Korean articles, which do exist. Click the (ko) next to each of the names. Red links are appropriate if they're for a subject that could feasibly have an article (as they tell people "hey, you should make the article"), and existence of such an article on another site generally confirms that an article can be written. See Template:Interlanguage link for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Evola

You admitted you were wrong about the nationalism point, but you are still not letting anyone edit the article constructively. Maybe you should either have a long think about how your politics are affecting your editing and then quit the site, or maybe you should back off and let people do some real editing.

79.69.118.137 (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you're intentionally misreading things to suit you because you're just an Evola apologist. Maybe you should try Metapedia if you're not going to bother learning how a mainstream encyclopedia works. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)