User talk:Ian.thomson

—^{Hi, I did not mispell 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

It is approximately 5:03 PM where this user lives (Columbia). [refresh]

...And I'm getting used to being back in the States.


If you want to:	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 (~~~~)

Should be on Wiki-break

Not actually putting up the tag, but I'm going to be spamming resumes at potential employers (not here) over the next few days. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove discretionary sanctions template from my Talk Page/ If you have time to put it there you have time to remove it

This is not WP:CIVIL. I have edited neither of the pages mentioned in the template nor have I taken any position but the one you say that you agree with. Remove the template. An apology from you is in order.ch (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CWH: You asked what discretionary sanctions meant. If you read the template with the assumption of good faith, you'd realize that the template itself is not an action, merely a notification. Unless and until it is settled that there's no reasonable and good-faith way any aspect of Feng Shui could be called pseudoscience, that article does fall under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MoldyOne

I was in the process of giving links on the Moderation report when it was closed, i would like permission to revert the changes since the links have already been given on said page and would like the 2 people who are accusing me of vandalism to be brought into this issue— Preceding unsigned comment added by MoldyOne (talk • contribs)

@MoldyOne: The Administrators Noticeboard is not for content disputes. If you have something to discuss in support of your changes to the article, use the article's talk page, as I mentioned on your talk page.

If you are looking to "justice" against the other two editors, that's not how this place works.

You do not need my permission to go to Talk:List of ArmaLite rifles and discuss matters there (in a civil manner that assumes good faith from other parties).

I would advise you not to change "assault rifle" to "semi-automatic rifle" again until you achieve consensus on the article's talk page. Otherwise, you could be considered to be edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that MoldyOne & TintedFate are the same person. They're editing one minute apart and they haven't stepped on ether other toes, not even once. Also, TintedFate hasn't edited anything before today, and they are both using the same name format (two word with caps). I could be wrong, Can you please look into this.--RAF910 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, since you're an admin, could you glance at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/BedrockPerson#Suspected_sockpuppets? I don't know he's BedrockPerson (no previous experience with him), but the suspicious timing of the account creation and subsequent actions make me wonder. It's evident the account was created for no purpose other than being disruptive, and evidently by a very wiki-experienced person. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. GorillaWarfare blocked him as sock of Swetoniusz. So, unrelated, just disruptive. Tarl N. (discuss)

Since User:TintedFate is now a confirmed sock puppet of User:NecrozmaSpin, I request that you revert his edits to the List of ArmaLite rifles and strike his comments on Talk:List of ArmaLite rifles per WP:Deny. Also, can you please check to see User:MoldyOne is also a sock puppet for User:NecrozmaSpin. Thank you.--RAF910 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) You don't have to be an admin to strike comments or revert under WP:DENY or WP:EVASION. However, given that the edits to be reverted are on a page that you and MoldyOne are still discussing, you're right that it would be a better idea for me to revert.

2) I'm not a checkuser, I can't see registered users' IP addresses. Even then, I'm pretty confident that GorillaWarfare (who spotted the connection between TintedFate and NecrozmaSpin) would have already spotted a connection between MoldyOne and TintedFate if it exists. That she has not blocked MoldyOne makes it highly unlikely that TintedFate and MoldyOne are connected. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will revert and strike his comments on the talk page WP:DENY or WP:EVASION. Can you please check on the page later to see how MoldyOne reacts.--RAF910 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on my watchlist. I'd recommend only striking TintedFate's comments and leaving a note linking to the evidence that TintedFate was a sockpuppet. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

During the business day UK time I am often not around for much of the day. It's the whole paid money expected top turn up thing. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. I had pings across multiple days, and there was no response on the talk page, and only an indirect response elsewhere. You had time to make other replies on the same page, but did not reply to a repeatedly asked direct question. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

My name is Typerr. And I have seen your edits. You are editing 0xF8E8 user page. I and Wikipedia will not tolerate vandalism so stop editing another user page. This is a warning. Typerr (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you think Ian's revert is a problem? Ian reverted one of a series of unwanted edits. Perhaps you're warning the wrong person? Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infancy Gospel of Thomas

{ HI it's Tessa Bennet from the Infancy article - I just feel like, although your edits were in a way valid, the term didn't wholly fit in the context. For instance, I verified that adopt means adopt 1. v take into one's family [Or as one's own]. 2. v choose and follow; as of theories, ideas, policies, strategies or plans 3. v put into dramatic form.

Now, if we think of religion, we can't think of it as what 'they' believe and what the rest of the world believes. It may be so that only Muslims believe that the word came directly from God, but the world believes they used 'adopted' stories from the past. The religion is theirs and so the history is theirs to tell. I just don't find the term adopt to be fitting. Instead I changed it to 'containing references to many' as that is both accurate and does not change the context. Do you agree? If not, do as you will, but I do think it is more respectful and accurate to keep it religiously historical and unbiased. --Tessa Bennet (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Tessa Bennet[reply]

@Tessa Bennet: Adopt has the general use of "to take up as one's own." Our neutrality policy says:

In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs..

We stick to mainstream history, which is secular. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CEJN page got deleted

Hi,

I need help regarding the page that has been deleted on 17th March 2018 CEJN. Please help me where I went wrong so that correction can be made accordingly.(Kanika (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Kanika K (CEJN): I have already given you very detailed instructions on your talk page. Try reading them. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

Hello,

It is good to learn that you are among the Warren Commission apologists among WP Admins (I am assuming you are an Admin). It is good to know also that even among WP Admins there are those who dismiss any qualifications whatsoever about the Warren Commission conclusions as simply "conspiracy theories." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopyd

Shouldn't the DS have been gg? Doug Weller talk 19:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: added for good measure. BTW, can we get a link or something the whole "change paraphilia/transgender to GamerGate" discussion? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, on iPad and watcitv. I've no idea as I wasn't watching it at the time. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered GG but thought that the primary topic might distract ("I never edited in that area!"), but thought that BLP might be more to the point. I don't know if it'd take an act of congress to pull it off, but there are a few overlapping DS areas that would combo nicely enough (like the alternative medicine and pseudoscience ones, or Palestine/Israel and post-1932 US politics) that maybe it'd be worthwhile for the DS alert template to have the option to say "hey, both of these apply for this reason." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he's editing in the area now. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that the GG template also says "any gender-related controversy." Missed that when I was skimming the template instructions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]