User talk:Ian.thomson

^{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. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.

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

I'm asleep or otherwise having a life outside of Wikipedia.

If you want to:

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22	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 (~~~~)

thanks

For your RSN post. Can you figure out why Simon Mol has HIV Denialism as a see also or what makes Mol an Aids denialist? Rejecting that one has HIV doesn't mean they deny the existence of HIV. Simon Mol was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Mol but recreated by this editor last December. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'm gonna need more caffeine for that one. First impression is that if we trim out all the OR, there might not be enough left to establish notability. I've got an appointment in a bit, but I'll add it to my watchlist and make a note of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

See my longer request for consensus and the RS related to him and other "HIV circumcision denialists" on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 21:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mol censored references digging

Dear Ian

Thank you *very much* for your hard word on Simon Mol. I am awed by your perseverance. More on Simon Mol's talk page.

Zezen (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any censorship, I'm seeing editors trying to get the article to actually stick to what the sources say without addition or alteration. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

New messages go at the bottom of the page

Dear Brother Ian, Thank You For Getting In Touch. It has been several thousands of years that most of humanity has been taught from many traditional sources including Encyclopedias that Messiahs, Maitreyas, and similar World Saver Figures would be male. Indeed, most of the persons on this list are male, so, in toto overall, more words are devoted to the males on this list than females. It is understandable that that one would want to keep the Claimant Page to descriptions of a few phrases, but if you think cumulatively about the millions of words written in so many times and places only recognizing males in these roles while females were made invisible, surely a bit of emphasis is needed for the females undertaking this most daunting and necessary of tasks, especially at this very dangerous moment on this Planet. Your understanding on this can assist You Yourself to be CoMessiah, indeed, the CoMessiah that fulfills the Promise of Wikipedia for not only the Present, but the Future of a Sustained instead of Destroyed Planet. When We on Earth have, for at least a few seasons or year or so, succeeded in giving females their overdue & now world saving half of notice and credit, we can then return to less emphasis on this reparation, and enjoy a Saved Egallitarian World. There is a wonderful old 1941 film about a group of men writing an encyclopedia, starring Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper, Ball of Fire, about the importance of the Eternall Feminine to a Deeper Understanding of Truth, and of course, 1941 was in fact a very unsaved time of World War, and the Barbara Stanwyck character gives evidence to the very limited concept of the female that existed at that time. But if the characters played by Gary Cooper and his colleagues were alive today and asked if their encyclopedia could highlight the Feminine enough to prevent World War III including the War on Nature and Extinction of Humanity in addition to the many other species recently lost in mass extinctions, We think they would want their encyclopedia to not just be a dry list, but at this time, allow the Ball~anced Light of the Eternall Fire Within All People to Save Their World & Prevent It From Becoming A Burning Ball of Fire from Global Warming or Nuclear War or Meltdown, on such a topic as Messiah Claimants.

Every Blessing and Feel Free to Share Your Spirit About This

Your Many Sisterkind & BrotherKind Who Know The Speciall Importance of not Marginalizing the Female and Feminine at This Time

AllHerNamesz (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

AllHerNamesz (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We merely stick to reliable academic or journalistic sources. In my experience, I find that people contributing to problems like global warming are people who have not learned to stick to "dry" reliable sources. These sources might be written by any gender, they might be summarized by any gender. Instead, most people causing trouble in matters such as global warming start from what they want to believe, trying to get others to believe it using emotional arguments (sometimes invoking the apocalypse), and only bringing in sources (reliable or not) as an afterthought (if at all) to attempt to justify their beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yazidism

Please explain to me what is monotheism. Since you say my edit was wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegablakk (talk • contribs)

Monotheism is the belief in the existence of a single high God. It can and does include forms of belief where this high God creates multiple angels who serve demiurgic roles. Yazidis believe Melek Taus and the other angels are angels, not gods, even if they are believed to be extremely powerful.

Also, your edits lacked academic sources and were counter to the sources in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And what source are you quoting for that. Belief and worship are not the same all monotheist believe in angels but they don't worship them. And also monotheist do not worship one god by way of angels, prophets or any other intermediary.Omegablakk (talk)<

You're confusing Monolatrism with Monotheism. There were already source in the article, I've added more. You're welcome to check the sources in the article itself. Burden of proof is on you to make your polytheism claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ars Goetia

In your edit to the Bathin article you stripped the page of all the Kabbalistic attributes, citing 'Removing fringe ideas. I'm aware that sounds silly, but what some guy hallucinated in the 90s is not relevant to an academic discussion of historical beliefs about a mythological being'.

You left the source for the Goetia as the Mather/Crowley 1904 edition, so I'm curious if you understood those attributes come from Crowley in Liber 777 (1909). After reviewing the edits I see that the source cited was DuQuette, instead of Crowley. Is your objection to those being in the article because they weren't correctly cited as Crowley, or is your objection to Crowley as a source? --Saneisjus (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice I didn't include the Golden Dawn's Kabbalistic attributes either. I left Crowley because the information cited to that is a bit closer to the historical manuscripts. In the absence of empirical evidence, all Wikipedia can discuss is what's in the widest variety of manuscripts and the oldest manuscripts. I plan on removing Crowley at some point and citing Joseph Peterson's critical edition, Skinner and Rankine's edition of Thomas Rudd's Goetia, Weyer's Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, Liber Officium Spirituum and Livre des Esperitz; similar to my overhaul of the current Lesser Key of Solomon article and work in those other articles.

I will eventually cite modern sources where they mention something unique (but with proper attribution, instead of describing DuQuette's views as universal), and may get around to including tables of what attributes are ascribed by different magicians, but to include only one magician's views appears WP:UNDUE (if not WP:FRINGE). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Unheaded evolution section

Webster's definition of theory: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true[1]

Your implication that I have an uneducated opinion about a theory is absolutely silly. Darwin's evolution theory is not at all provable.JoetheMoe25 (talk)

Absolutely right. No scientific theory is provable. That's how science works. There is always the possibility of new evidence. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

And scientific theory is not the same as Webster's definition. Scientific theory is an explanation that has been rigorously tested and not yet falsified. It's not just an idea--it's an idea that has stood up to new evidence. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And the evidence goes quite in favor of evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Many have also said there was evidence the CIA killed JFK and then sent Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Sometimes, even the majority polled doesn't want to accept the truth.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

[2] Facepalm --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I need to grab dinner, which may be up to an hour, so if there's any further business, I invite my talk page stalkers to make the sort bad decisions I would. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work!

Hey, nice work re-writing Reuben Swinburne Clymer. It was linked to the Sinistrari article I created a few years ago so I got a ping. Keep up the great work! St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Demonology

Looks like he attributed that, so not plagiarism but obviously WP:UNDUE, looks like no one actually paid much attention to it. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

He cited the source, but made no indication the quoted material was such. American school systems would still treat it as plagiarism (can't speak for international since it didn't come up in TEFL training). Still, the bit about Raum purportedly being a familiar of Napoleon I doesn't appear in the Dictionnaire Infernal or Pseudomonarchia Daemonum (where I assume Conway got the rest of the info on Raum), and so may be worthwhile for inclusion as a claim in a primary source (if handled properly). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Christ Myth theory

IMHO the most helpful work for that article would be Richard Carrier's On The Historicity of Jesus ; it is in his own words "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review". The first three chapters go over why there have been so many problems with the whole historical vs mythical Jesus debate with the main one being that there are effectively two historical Jesus theories involved: the Reductive theory: "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" and the Triumphalist theory: "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true".

"Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)" (sic) (Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 30) --BruceGrubb (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a good find. I'll also throw into Talk:Historicity of Jesus/sources if/when I get back to doing stuff in articles relating to CMT and Historicity. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't read the notice at the top saying "New messages go at the bottom," I find it hard to believe you'll actually listen to anything I suggest

"Someone entered factually incorrect information on my institution's Wikipedia page. I am working to delete this information. Please let me know how I can. Thank you." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AveMariaUniversity (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

See section title. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School

Please read my comment on DaltonHird's talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTCENSORED. You're violating WP:NPOV by censoring well-sourced significant views. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree - by your reasoning only negative views could be cited and that would be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I would like this dispute to be arbitrated. NPOV does not mean anything sourced may be included in an article. Edits must be cited "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible, without bias". The reverted edits do not meet that standard by any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no, by my reasoning, only reliably sourced material would be included (and guess what, those news sources qualify as "reliable sources" by Wikipedia's standards!). A neutral point of view does not always mean giving equal weight to opposing sides, it means summarizing all available reliable sources. If reliable sources are documenting bad things happening in that school, we're not going to censor it. And again, you are violating WP:NOTCENSORED, which is just as much a policy as WP:NPOV. Clearly, you have a conflict of interest here and should not be involved in the article.

As for arbitration, I'm a previously uninvolved editor who has no bias regarding the school. You don't want arbitration, you want to be told you're right when you're not. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please read the NPOV policy and respond on the merits to my concerns DaltonHird's defamatory sentence represents fair, proportionate and unbiased coverage of this distinguished school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC) And, by the way, "Don't give a fuckism" is not cool. It's idiotic.

WP:NOTCENSORED - Your refusal to get that does not make you right, it makes you tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that your response on the merits? Calling me "tendentious? Impressive analysis!

I have addressed the "merits" of your argument repeatedly. You aren't listening. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not only read NPOV, I quoted it. Did you? In any event, this article already has an extensive Controversies section. Are you suggesting it is irrelevant now that "controversies" are in the introductory paragraph? If you do a simple Google search on CdM you will see it is a nationally-recognized academic institution. Is it Wikipedia policy for editors to search for negative articles on all such institutions and quote them in the first paragraph? Hardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." This article already has an extensive "Controversies" section based entirely on such isolated events. Must they, and slurs related to them, be in the introductory paragraph of this article? Does Wikipedia approve articles about other academic institutions with isolated controversial matters so prominently and redundantly displayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: I took your template off my "talk page" because, frankly, it was creepy - referencing my ISP. What's next - will you secretly turn on my webcam and observe me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk • contribs)

That sort of insinuation is a violation of WP:AGF, if not WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not revert my talk page again or I will report you for vandalism. WP:OWNTALK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Good luck reporting plenty of other users for stuff I only did a couple of times. With your sheer refusal to cooperate, you should just leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have much luck around here dealing with disagreement by censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you just learn to assume good faith and cooperate, or at least back off? Your edit warring to remove the notice only further makes you look like a disruptive troll who is looking to win fights rather than cooperate to build an encyclopedia. Remember that I had no prior involvement with the school page, and notice that I haven't bothered with it once people who weren't constantly throwing tantrums (like you have been) got involved. Someone who wasn't a clueless churl would leave alone at that point, but you come here making empty and ignorant threats for me restoring something what you eventually realized was supposed to be there, and you change the subject to continue the fight instead of leaving it alone or apologizing. Your offensive behavior only makes you look wrong.

In other words, drop your grade school personal vendetta and get on with the article. Or go hang yourself, whatever, just screw off. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Re: Apollo/Hobal.

Thanks for your message Ian, sincerely, I will in future try and strictly adhere to the rules and regs, and I realise I should have posted about Apollo not Hobal.

No worries,

Anglyn (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Max.

I do hope Wikipedia keeps its standard of punctuality, we certainly would not want to lag behind the world, as a readily-changeable encyclopedia, would we?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I did not make a personal attack to Dougweller nor did I publish libel. In fact, I feel that you try to intimidate me by posting the mere suggestion, please correct me if I am wrong.

I am well aware of Wikipedia's rules of conduct and I possess respect for both you and Dougweller, however I will point out injustice when I see it. If anyone takes that as an insult, or personal attack, then it altogether proves they were doing something shameful that would invoke the feeling in the first place.

I do not know if you are aware or not, but India's 113th Amendment Bill changed Oriya to Odia and Orissa to Odisha more than 3 years ago.

Dougweller reverted a FACT to something INCORRECT, without proper logical, and educated explanation or justification as to why. That is clear, plain and simple abuse of Administrative Power. Just saying some change needs to be discussed is fine, but not acting up on it, ( for more than an excess of 3 years is not punctual) especially having known it is of hot debate and knowing the status quo is wrong, is just incorrect. Wikipedia strives to contain factual information, please correct me if I am wrong. His revert misconstrues the article and demolishes Wikipedia's factuality.

Good faith does not always constitute correct action.

If Wikipedia is prolonging intentionally, then I do not know what could be more corrupt and horrid. I do hope Wikipedia keeps its standard of punctuality, we certainly would not want to lag behind the world, as a readily-changeable encyclopedia, would we?

I hope you understand that I feel offended by both Dougweller and your actions.

Please remember, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

Let the people of Odisha have their Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You accused Doug of abusing his admin privileges when he did no such thing. That is an accusation without evidence, which is considered a personal attack.

If what you are saying is true, you should cite reliable sources on the article's talk page to justify a page move request (which Doug already started for you!). Wikipedia does not operate off of editors saying "I know this is true and you're injust if you don't let me have my way!" -- It simply summarizes what reliable sources say on a subject.

Assuming good faith means assuming that we're trying to act in the best interests of the site and means not assuming that we're trying to commit injustices against other people. Your language betrays that the latter ideals are your feelings regarding editors who have been trying to help you.

Honestly, if you're not looking to cooperate with editors who are trying to help you learn how to build this encyclopedia, then I'm not at all concerned whether you're offended... Especially if you're here to "right great wrongs" as this page explains.

Want to help correct errors? Fine, Doug and I will help. Want to accuse others of injustice to bully them into your point of view, without bothering to understand how things work here? Go away. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Evidence" is only considered "evidence" when the Judge on the High Chair accepts it as evidence. If the Judge does not, then it is not "evidence."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I did cite a reliable source when I made my edit. Please fully investigate, if you want to accuse me of such a thing. Second, neither you nor Dougweller have been helpful to me, in fact, I feel both you and Dougweller have reduced me to human filth. It is certainly clear both you and Dougwell have no regard for Wikipedia's factuality. I told you "India's 113th Amendment Bill changed Oriya to Odia and Orissa to Odisha more than 3 years ago." I did cite my source when I made my edit. I will point out injustice when I see it. I will point out misuse and abuse of administrative power when I encounter it. I will point out intimidation when I see it. Please do not try to protect Dougweller's wrong-doings and in the process commit wrong-doings yourself. I cannot cooperate if people like you and Dougweller obstruct me from cooperating whatsoever. It is you and Dougweller who are berating me. I am not bullying anyone, I am stating fact, rather it is the case that you are bullying me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not determine facts from what a judge says, it determines it from what academia says.

You have not cited any policies or guidelines we are violating.

Your accusations of abuse of administrative power have no evidence and so are personal attacks. How do you not understand that? Have you even considered trying to approach this from a cooperative manner? YOU are the one stopping yourself from cooperating! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I cited the authentic source for my edit, Dougweller, an administrative, did not accept that and reverted my edit. This revert made Wikipedia erroneous. That is enough proof of abuse of administrative power. Administrators are present to "revert" vandalism and/ or incorrect/opinionated statements, not fact. It seems that Dougweller and you are both hesitating to make a change. I am stating fact that Oriya is Odia. It matters not if Oriya is colloquial nor commonly used (there is no proof that Odia IS NOT commonly used) Please refer to the 113th amendment of the Indian Constitution. I am cooperating. I am being a good person and changing Wikipedia so that it is correct. I demand the change for Wikipedia's sake. I suggested to be "a bit more civil", who's the one not cooperating? If Dougweller does not "care" about the topic, then he should not be involved in it. He should get someone who does "care." I am sorry but more than 1 year to make a simple change to FACT is ludicrous and is injustice. I did not call Dougweller any names, nor did I publish any libel. Those are called "personal attacks" i.e. Ad Hominem abuse. He told me to be ""a bit more civil" which is an Ad Hominem attack defaming my stature. I am civilized. You came along and insinuated (actually stated) that I was a "bully"; that is Ad Hominem abuse. That is degradation and is a "personal attack." Please answer why, if the edit I made is verified by the Indian Constitution, it cannot be included in the article? I am seeing that not only are you/Dougweller NOT fixing the issue, but diverting the problem each and every way, effectively NOT fixing the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to refuse to help yourself and continue with your temper tantrums, I'm not going to continue this conversation. Have fun stopping yourself from actually being useful to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brownie

What is wrong with what I posted about using apple sauce for a healthier version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keanderson85 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Keanderson85: (talk page stalker) Who is your instructor? Do you have a Wikipedia editor working with your class? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Responded on their talk page. Asked them to show their teacher our policies on verifiability, sourcing, and original research; as well as directing them to Wikipedia:School and university projects. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No and it is for a web 2.0 class I meant no harm figured the information I was added was okay to add because what I added was common knowledge. and yes the keanderson85 is my old account but I couldn't remember the password to log back on. I don't know how to use this site, so I don't know how to delete my old user name. By no means was I trying to vandalize a page at all.Keanderson5385 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have set up a user page for Keanderson5385 that explains the above with a redirect from User:Keanderson85. That way nobody will accuse you of abusing multiple accounts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Another person who doesn't know where a bottom is

Hi I Am Replying To Your Message You Sent To Me About Western Sahara If You Look At A Map Of Africa Do You Know What A Map Is? You Will Find That Western Sahara Is On The Western Coast Of Africa Anyone With a Brain Can See That I Would Know I'm From Northern Africa So Please Look At Map And Try To Find Western Sahara That Is Why They Call Western Sahara Because It's In The Western Most Part Of The Sahara Desert where Is The Western Most Part Of The Sahara? On The Western Coast Of Africa So Please Go Back To The Third Grade And Learn Geography Thank's ! ! !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfinder1011 (talk • contribs)

Ok, you don't know where the bottom of the page is, nor do you seem to understand the difference between North and West... Please leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerning edit

Would you approve of this edit [3]? -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The former version does rather imply that the book is confirmed to have been written by a historical Mark, which goes against the section "Composition". It is awkward though, as if the text is self-aware and self-generating (though that's clearly not what the IP intended). Maybe "The author introduces his book" would be a good compromise? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better now. --Thnx & Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

No big deal, and all that. You'd benefit from admin tools, I don't see any glaring reason why you shouldn't have them, probably only a handful of people will come out and moan. Yes, I know RFA is (sadly) a bit of a hell-hole right now, but it doesn't need to be. I'd like to ask you to consider requesting the extra bits. Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm open to being nominated, and will participate in an RfA if I get thrown into one, but still would rather not self-nominate. It's not that I wouldn't engage in admin duties, I think it'd look better if someone else got the ball rolling (such that it might keep a few persons from coming out to argue). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, leave it with me. Pedro :  Chat  06:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it looks like you've got a nom so I'm going to focus on a few others who raised their hands. Good luck. If you want a co-nom, let me know but I think Pedro counts as, like, 3 admin noms or something.--v/r - TP 20:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Good reading for a good candidate. Studying successful RfAs may be helpful to you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another person who doesn't know where a bottom is

You reverted my first edit 2 minutes after it was made. You didn't exactly give me any opportunity to fix up the criticism section first. You are clearly a Christian POV peddler wanting to make sure you get your gainsaying inserted after every comment. I don't see much point in continuing as you clearly intend the article to be skewed and have more time to devote to that that I do. 100.0.212.128 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You had every opportunity to move the material to the criticism section, and yet you didn't. That indicates an agenda on your part, not mine. I repeatedly said that it'd be fine to relocate the material, which you chose not to do. If you bother checking my history (although that would require you to actually read my page, which you demonstrated an inability to do by leaving the message at the top), you'd see that your unevidenced accuations are at best the pot calling the kettle black, if not projection. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right,

hair falling from the sky is probably not as likely as hail, but definitely more likely than a star/angel/ark/mountain. I'm sure the angels would have great hair though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.252.230 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You have reported me despite I waited for 24 hours

I have already waited for 24 hours after 3 revert edit, and I have the right to edit but you reported me to the administrator anyway. The sheer fact is you don't want an anthropology section on the Huns page despite it being there since 2014 april. I had rephrased them like you said and added the possibility of it being poor quality science just to be non-biased but still decided to remove it regardless Spiritclaymore (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please learn to count. Your last revert was 12 hours since the one before that. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes sorry. I just woke up 2 hours ago and it's nightime right now. You did a good job pointing out my mistake but I'm still highly suspicious why a good data can be removed after 7 months, unless you're telling all the moderators were extremely lazy for a half year and didn't bother checking. No one had replied me on the Huns talk page by the way. It is unfortunate that it should removed just because you and the other user suspect it as unreliable but that doesn't change the fact that excavation and reconstructions of the Huns existed. If you want to be non-biased than the anthropology data should mentioned while stating the errors and mistake they could have had. Spiritclaymore (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This site is maintained by volunteers. Just because a mistake takes a while to remove does not justify it. Old mistakes are still mistakes and should be removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof that they are mistakes anyway, this is pure speculation. Show me one source that actually claim the reconstruction of Huns as absolutely unrealible data? you would find no sources that make such claims other than some people/users claiming that it's pseudo-science or that the methods used were not accurate. The fact that is there is evidence ( is basically a fact ) that we had once reconstructed the Hun skulls from the graves is more than enough a good reason to let people know. A true and honest non-biase edit would allow to two opinions. By not allowing the anthropology section of Hun you are basically telling people it didn't exist. EVEN IF IT WAS A ERROR lets be honest about such had existed, let people know that Hungarian anthropologist had reconstructed the skulls. There is no problem in letting people know about it. Spiritclaymore (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, you cited "Black Terror White Soldiers," a conspiracy theorist work about the Illuminati's supposed influence on history. You thought that sleeping meant that 24 hours passed since the last time you edited. You repeatedly plagiarized from multiple sources. You haven't provided adequate sources, and are instead asking everyone else to somehow provide sources to demonstrate that your sources aren't good enough. And you don't get that consensus is against you. All of that gives me very little reason to trust your capacity to be useful, much less your capacity to accurately judge academic work.

My initial interest was that you were plagiarizing. I'm actually not particularly concerned about article content, but because you've been plagiarizing, citing conspiracy theories, and utterly failing to get the point, I have no reason to think that your "contribution" was helpful to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fortuna Düsseldorf

Hi Ian, I"m sure you are a delightful and clever fellow, but the content of your comment is also patronizing and pointless. I could now go the library and search for scholarly journals that discuss the recent history of Fortuna Düsseldorf, hunting for academic sources to verify my bold assertions that Fortuna was unbeaten in the last seven games of last season, and that Oliver Reck took over from Lorenz-Günther Köstner as coach. But I won't. Instead I will go to bed - it's after 1:00 at night here in Germany - and I will not waste any more of my time trying to improve an article on a topic I follow closely, and which others may be interested in. In the meantime, I have no doubt that you and "Jim" and many other self-important, self-appointed "Wikipedia editors" will continue to hack away at other people's efforts. Congratulations. Keep up the good work. Tom P.S. By the way, it was me who wrote about 20% of the existing Fortuna entry - all of it (gasp!) without footnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.48.243 (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If your attitude that anyone trying to help you do things right is "patronizing," that such help is "pointless," and you plan on "not wasting any more time" because of it, good riddance to you. Come back when you're ready to cooperate with the grown-ups. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

apologies

you are perfectly right, it was my first time to post a comment and did it wrong. I didn't intend at all to remove or modify somebody's else post, it was just my mistake of operation and I apologize for it. Since I deeply love Wikipedia and I found a mistake, I tried to correct it. But Dougweller has just undone it without reading it... That's why I tried to post to him, but I did it wrong... If it's possible for you to restore the removed post I'd be grateful, as I said it was not at all my intention. I try now with this post to you to see if I do it correctly... (this time I have put two equal signs before and after my title "apologies"...) Julsan (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Theological Demons "Apocrypha" ->S<-

Ian, I am with you on your edits that condemn Apocrypha that does not belong. There is 1 in particular I cannot seem to remove (Stemming from an Apocryphal book). Can you use your knowledge and editing authority to remove the one that does not link to another page? And, I am sorry for our battling, we are on the same side of the cross. Twillisjr (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to see a hope for cooperation, but I'm not sure if I actually am in a position to help. I do not condemn apocrypha per se, but unreliable sourcing. Apocryphal works may not be spiritually valid, but they do represent what different groups have believed over the ages (which, combined with a bit of knowledge of history, can lead to some off-site speculation of why individuals turned to such beliefs). I'm not seeing anything problematic in the S section of List of theological demons. Guessing from your comment about "Stemming from an Apocryphal book," do you by chance mean Salpsan? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to team-up to get rid of that, in a major change of heart, and an intervention, I learned that the Apocrypha is not valid. At the very least, I support wholeheartedly, your interest in keeping the nonsense from seeping into factual biblical information. It was my opinion that you did not consider it factual, based on its authorship, and additional reasons. My best guess to remove is using your research, which I have not yet gotten to. You were always scholarly in using Wiki to remove such things. Twillisjr (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, while pseudepigrapha may not be scripturally valid, it does represent a history of belief that can be studied from a secular perspective (and even help contribute to an off-site understanding of how heresy arises and how to deal with it). I do not consider the Questions of Bartholomew to be factual, nor do I believe that Satan has a son named Salpsan -- but it is factual to say that some groups in late antiquity believed in the text, it is factual to say that the work presents a mythology where Satan has a son, and it is factual to say that the work may have had some influence elsewhere. Kathryn Powell's and D. G. Scragg's "Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon England" notes possible influence of the Questions on the medieval poem Christ and Satan.

In short, just because something is scripturally invalid or outright heretical is not a reason to exclude it. What matters is whether the material is reliably sourced. It's no different than including material about other religions on the site. I may disagree with Scientology on pretty much every point, but our material on it contributes to broader knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bible Numerics

You've edited Biblical numerology - are these separate subjects? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I did? Going off of memory, I'd guess that Bible Numerics is the American Conservative Evangelical euphemism for Biblical numerology when they do it (numerology being "the devil's work").

Looking at both articles (oh, I did edit it), and seeing Gematria come up in Bible numerics, I'm just gonna go on and boldly redirect it Bible Numerics to Bible Numerology and maybe try to find some RSs to dump onto the latter's talk page when the caffeine starts working. Both of them are a mess, but I'm under the impression it'd be possible to have an article on the Numerology one. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was what I was thinking also but as I saw your name thought I'd ask. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning to Julson about his post on my talk page

That was obviously an accident - see his comments about it. And all my fault for a bad revert! Thanks for keeping watch though, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I figured (well, regarding the accident, don't even remember what article it was about), which is why I used the level 1 template. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Interaction

Effective immediately, it is my policy to not interact with you. I request that you respect my decision, and not seek to interact with me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. You'll notice that outside of a certain topic, I've completely left you alone. I'd rather not argue with you, I do actually hope that there are topics upon which we can agree and cooperate on. However, I've worked with Charlesdrakew enough (see the SPI for Josh24b for a taste) to trust his judgement, and even then I see no real wrong-doing on his part. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer

I have checked two websites that say Gilligan's Island star Russell Johnson is the Zodiac Killer. However, since I'm no criminal expert like John Walsh or the FBI, I cannot guarantee they may be true, but I did read your message about Empire News, so I will avoid that sight for references. But do find some geniuses that may know about this news on other websites because I was not born in the 60s. Marino13 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

When I did a search for "Russell Johnson Zodiac Killer," the first result was this Snopes article, which traces the ultimate origin of that story to Empire News (although I'll note that it's really just ripping off The Onion's article "Dick Van Dyke Finally Confesses To Zodiac Killings"), followed by The Epoch Times article Russell Johnson / Zodiac Killer Hoax: ‘Gilligan’s Island Star Turns Out To Be Zodiac Killer’ Hollywood Shocker Totally Fake. Any other site you saw it on was repeating the Empire News gag. I do not know how you managed to completely miss that the entire thing is obviously fake from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware in the first place because I paid more attention to the details of the reference. But I will not post any further information about supposed Zodiac Killer suspect Russell Johnson again. Marino13 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Ian.thomson:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Adjutor101

Did you noticed I reported him at ANEW earlier? Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's how I found out about it. If he reverts, more rope. If he doesn't, article's back to the version with consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you see on my talk page there's a suggestion of a 'criticism' article?

I'm slightly behind here. I must start watching RfA again! Good to hear. I'm obviously supporting you. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hello,

I'm looking for volunteers to help me with the followings:

1. Combine the paragraphs by amending into one.
2. Rewrite the paragraphs by combining into one.

Can you help me with anyone of them?

(Russell.mo (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC))

Which article is it for? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank god you replied, it’s not for an article, it’s for a book. I need article(s) paragraphs to be combined and rewritten. Currently I’m gathering the information, learning at the same time, I am just finding it difficult to combine paragraphs for amendments. Plus its wasting a lot of time when I should be using this time to actually write the story appropriately which is mixing with the book. Once the combining is done some of the selected bits that will go with the book need to be re-written. I’ll be grateful with whatever you’ll be happy to help with. Currently I have someone volunteered to help me, but she is way to slow, slower than me... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC))

Sorry, but I'm already busy with a couple of other books that I would make money off of (...and busy with some government paperwork to get a job overseas ...and helping my mom nurse my uncle with cancer). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand, Thanks anyways. : ] -- (Russell.mo (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

Zeitgeist RfC

A few users are talking about merging the Zeitgeist articles in an RfC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian, Thanks very much for the clarification! By doing so you inadvertently provided me with a new source for my research project, so I am much obliged.

Cheers,

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koskiscott (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 03:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

breh

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at Lordaleem1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lordaleem1 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)