User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 16

^{Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!}

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil.

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

It is approximately 5:57 AM where this user lives (South Carolina). []

and I may be asleep, job hunting, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond.

If you want to:

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15	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 (~~~~).

Now with archives! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

About ANI

Well, I posted it to ANI because he stated he would do it again!. That is the problem.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Jimbo really seems to have forgotten how things work here today, hasn't he? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I included this link in the ANI case. But I think we should wait and if he does it again and again, as he stated... then...WP:ANI again..--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

FYI these edits include specific signatures and trademarks of Lung salad: references to Marcion, incorporeal issues, Spencer Kennard 1948, Slavonic Josephus, "borrowed phrases claims", etc. The other trait is the use of outdated (1920-1940) sources rather than modern scholarship. In case he comes back, these are some of the identifiers. Thanks for the SPI. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, no problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Signature Problems

Thx Ian, I just put a message on my mentor's Talk page asking about this. I know there's a new edit page format that took place today, are we no longer required to sign when we edit (except Talk Pages)??? I thought you were supposed to sign with the Raquel_Baranow (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC) at the bottom of the text in the edit box. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are NOT my supervisor, nor are you qualified to edit any articles on Wikipedia!

STOP! Articles on Wikipedia are not up to you to decide what is "fringe material" and what are "majority viewpoints". You've proven time-and-again that although anyone with a computer and Internet access can edit Wikipedia, the content in the articles is best provided by experts in the field - which I AM and you certainly are NOT!! If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (This discussion is continued on http://7seals.yuku.com ) - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to say Brad, that your Ambox warning is pretty nifty... it almost had me fooled. I had to look at the [Edit] just to be sure that it wasn't legit. First things first... Ian is a well established seasoned wikipedian and he has every right to assist any Wikipedian to wp:fringe, wp:npov, wp:due or any other policy/guideline that he feels needs to be addressed. To charge against Ian that he is not qualified to provide assistance is assuming bad faith. To threaten another editor of being blocked, when they are in fact providing assistance is just bad form. This discussion will not continue at the forum site: http://7seals.yuku.com, unless you want to talk to yourself. If anything, we might continue this discussion at WP:COIN. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 19:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jason, a far better response than I would've given. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello. I found myself on the wrong end of a sockpuppetry investigation, which was - at least that's the way I see it - not because of something I did, but due to the issue presented [[1]]. First of all, let me say I'm Greek. And I live in Greece. So, I may share some numbers of my IP address with other Greek users, depending on who their ISP is; perhaps I even get to have the same IP as someone else did, depending on many factors that someone with knowledge of how IP addresses are allocated will understand. This is the investigation. And I've already commented on it. The way I see it, one of the reasons I'm involved is because User:Bougatsa42 got in a dispute with User:Dr.K. and User:Bougatsa42 agreed with me on a certain article's webpage. Until and since then, I had not come across that guy again. Only today, when I found myself being under investigation and practically accused of being someone else's sockpuppet.

The evidence presented against me?

1. I write about certain practices I don't like (WP:COI, WP:GAME etc) on my user page. OK, so I'm not being polite about those who use these practices and those who fall for them.
2. I'm Greek, living in Greece, just like two accounts that were deemed to be socks and were blocked because they got into a controversy with the supporters of some person named Takis Fotopoulos.
3. I have an anti-nationalist, anti-nazi stance and have reverted (ask User:RJFF, for instance), disruptive edits by supporters of Golden Dawn (Greece).
4. Living in Greece, I am likely to have part of the IPs that have been allocated at various times to me by my ISP shared with other Greek users that may have been blocked.
5. I have copyedited an article on the Fender Swinger, while one of the blocked accounts had edited articles on Fender (the company) and the Fender Stratocaster.
6. I have reverted disruptive edits in the article on Meligalas, as certain people from Greece removed sourced and verifiable material in order to push a pro-Security Battalions POV.

Let me put some things straight right away:

• I don't know who Takis Fotopoulos is. Neither do I know anything about "libertarian socialism" or whatsitcalled.
• I don't know any of the blocked users nor can I claim to agree with them on everything.
• I don't agree with User:Bougatsa42's confrontational stance.

However, I think I am being unfairly involved in this SPI and need assistance from a more seasoned Wikipedian. Thank you very much for your time. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure you want my help... The case connecting you to Elp.Gr is pretty solid. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Solid in what way? I don't know the guy; neither do I know SentientContrarian and I had not heard of Takis Fotopoulos until today (unlike SentientContrarian, who seems to have been involved in a dispute with supporters of Fotopoulos). OK, he's Greek (like me) and may have some viewpoints similar to mine. But that doesn't make me him. In any country, region or city, you can find plenty of people of the same ethnicity who share similar opinions. Does this mean they're all the same person? On various forums, we have people from the same country, region or city, often agreeing with each other on certain topics. And more often than not, they might be on the same ISP (which could mean that at least some could share similar IPs or even the same IPs from time to time; internet cafes, libraries, open Wi-Fi spots or even automatic IP allocation etc can be a cause for that). Could we say a priori that all of these people are the same person? Also, do keep this verdict in mind. Furthermore, let me ask you: if we lived in the same city, were both Wikipedians, shared some interests and agreed on several subjects, would that make us the same person? Moderatelyaverage (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior and written voice (hi, I'm a future English teacher, I know how to spot that stuff) are pretty much identical to Elp.Gr, and your interests are rather specifically intertwined. As for that article, that's for accusing people in copyright suits in US courts, not for determining which accounts get blocked in Wikipedia. We're not part of the government, and we're not accusing you of copyright violation. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There are certain facts that need your consideration: I am into electric guitars, which is a rather common pastime. Fender guitars are, well, an obvious topic for pretty much everyone who is into electric guitars. At one point or another in his or her guitar playing life, an electric guitarist will discuss Fender guitars. Or Gibson guitars. Or Ibanez. It's almost unavoidable. As for my writing style, I have to tell you that, being a non-native English speaker, I had to learn English through a mixture of tuition at school and in private courses (yes, that's how we learn foreign languages here). In order to have chances to succeed in the exams for the First Certificate in English, or the Certificate of Proficiency in English, or in the TOEFL, IELTS etc, we are basically trained to write in a certain way, structuring our speech in a manner that will make it acceptable for the examiner. And this only intensifies during the university years, when we learn to conform to certain structures if we're to write scientific papers. And that's where the biggest mix-up in our English occurs: in our teens, about half of us learn British English and the others learn American English. And then, at the university, we end up liberally using a mixture of American and British English indiscriminately; many people have a generic way of writing or speaking, because of their job and/or education. I've seen this happen among my colleagues when I was a student (we all conformed to a certain way of writing and still do), so I wouldn't be surprised if it's a characteristic of someone else. As for User:Bougatsa42, please see my reply to him in my talk page. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Some more things for you to consider: in Greece, we currently have a huge problem with Golden Dawn (Greece)'s violence againt pretty much anyone its members don't like. It's a very sensitve matter and, yes, it is a nazi group, actively promoting and praising nazism. And also, "pro-nazi", a word that's commonly used to describe a party or group that supports nazism, is an obvious choice. Not all of us have immensely diverse vocabularies. Especially foreigners may only know one word for a certain meaning. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

i am not a spammer

if you think i am spamming you have to be able to prove it. you cannot threaten to block me because of a behaviour i did not do. Maysara (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are adding links that multiple editors have pointed out fail WP:EL. You're a spammer. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Not you, I hasten to add - User:Meeso, who you've just reverted - he's basically asserted on my talk page that he's immune from policy here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of large sections of my sourced article and harrassment

I'm going to elevate the issue of what you have done to the entry I have been researching and creating to the administrative level beginning on or about 3 October to the present. My article was properly sourced, footnoted and accurate. Can you point to one single historical inaccuracy in what you have deleted? You have wholesale deleted portions of this accurate and sourced research article on a deceased USNA graduate and public figure of significant historical background to those interested in US Naval history. If you were to look at comparable articles on military figures, you would find that mine is better sourced and footnoted-- well more than 100 clickable links--than 99.9% of them on Wiki, with period newspaper links, articles, books, etc. I don't know how you happened to stumble on my article, or the basis for your "interest", but I regard it as vandalism and will refer it to the administrators or you may do so. I have not had to refer a issue to editorial administration before but I shall determine the appropriate protocol and do so on this matter. I don't have time at the moment, but as you apparently have huge amounts of free time, you may refer it to a 3rd party arbiter of authority at Wikipedia. If you do not, I assure you, I will be doing so without undue delay. barnabywoods— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnabywoods (talk • contribs)

Hi Barnabywoods, making claims that an editor is vandalizing is a serious allegation that must be weighed heavily. If it is determined that the editor in question is not vandalizing, you yourself could be subject to user account consequences. Please read wp:Vandalism#How not to respond to vandalism. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you check Talk:Allen B. Reed and the edit summary log, you'll see that I left plenty of explanation for why I removed what I removed, and linked to all the appropriate guidelines and policies, with explanations of why your article is not properly sourced.

Just because something exists does not make it notable. Honestly, I'm being very lenient and polite for not nominating it for deletion for lack of established notability. (And before you try to argue that he's notable, read WP:NOTE -- this sites's standards for what is notable -- before giving your own standards).

The administrator's noticeboard may be found at WP:ANI. The Vandalism noticeboard may be found at WP:AIV. Prepare to be laughed at and even lectured by both of them, as I'm simply trying to hold the article to this site's guidelines and policies and have not committed a single act of vandalism.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

York sports village

Hi Ian i am aware that Pages about york have been vandalised but i am making a entry about york Sports Village which is new to York and this page will helpful Hello19LB (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

...Obvious sock is so obvious it isn't even funny, it's pitiful. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

i know it is not funny so why do think i am a sock when i havn't done anything and to be honest i have look over some history of You and seem to Abuse York pages and take out big chunks of information and even somebody has put you do on your talk so i think you just think your the boss of York pages although i am aware of Vandalism t of Bus pages but Florida Receives a lot of Vandalism Hello19LB (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Stop been ignorant just because i am right, i will report you otherwise Hello19LB (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, anybody who writes the way Hello19LB writes, should not be editing encyclopedic articles unless they have a personal proofreading editor.   — Jason Sosa 17:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LOL, U mad, bro? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not mad, I just think Jimmy is too lenient on letting just anybody edit on wikipedia. It gives Wiki a bad rap... and more work for us editors to cleanup. I've talked with people who won't even read wikipedia for these very reasons. And Hello19LB is like the epitome of such point.   — Jason Sosa 17:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, dude, that last bit was directed at Josh24B/Hello19LB (who I caught this time after only his third edit), hence the edit conflict bit. You're cool. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Anybody can edit wiki and my edit is fine i have created a page and Jason, ian just thinks he owns All York pages not matter what its content Hello19LB (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can edit within the agreed upon guidelines and policies which are the social contracts of this site. And no, I don't own any articles or even think that I do -- I just think that as a dedicated editor, I should stop sockpuppets of an editor who was blocked for obsessively adding outright bullshit to articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Using inappropriate language Reporting you and again nothing wrong with it and the page is not even done yet Hello19LB (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol, right dude. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Seacraft - Proposed Deletion

Ian, Thanks for the heads up on your concern about the Pacific Seacraft article. It is a hard and ceaseless effort to keep Wikipedia free of all the nonsense. I started many articles a number of years ago to help Wikipedia be the best source of information on sailing and sailboats. I only planted the seeds for companies worthy of mention, though I'm sure that some have been coopted in the meantime. But I assure you that if I started the article it was not vanity spam as the initial intent. I was among the early team who helped to craft the notability standards. Sadly, I've burned out a bit on the project, thus I am just now seeing your message from almost a year ago. I edit frequently for grammar and content, but rarely log in. Cheers! Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)

Ok... *digs through history to find out how I was ever involved in this.* I withdrew the nomination after a source was found. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Good essay

This. I've always liked Augustine - way ahead of his time (and sadly, still way ahead of many people today). On the "Old Earth Creationism is accepted by most Christians outside the English speaking world" thing, I wonder if "Old Earth Creationism is accepted by most Christians outside America" might be punchier? It's very specifically in the US that YEC has such a following. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it's a mostly US thing, but I added that bit recently mainly because of a now topic-banned editor from Britain living in Japan. That change does seem more worthwhile in the long run, though. As I'm remembering from this guy, if they're YEC outside the US, that's probably the least of our worries, honestly. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

Do you know of any self-identified as evangelical Christian, editors in good standing and with high clue on Wikipedia? Especially one from a Missionaries and Alliance style church.--Tznkai (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Afraid not. I actually don't ID as evangelical in the States, though outside it I might be able to say "Evangelical left." I know User:Jasonasosa is also Christian, but seeing how he gets along with me, I couldn't describe him as evangelical on his behalf. Category:Christian_Wikipedians might help. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Really?

I think we both know that the whole "serving Satan" notion is an extremely fringe view among truthers and using the one reliable source that actually mentions it to justify putting it in the lede alongside far more common claims is plainly inappropriate and a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. As I said to Tom, if you truly think some mention of this belongs in an encyclopedic article on the subject then put the mention in the body, not the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's extreme for rational people, but that's not a way to describe the truthers. Most conspiracy theorists I've both encountered and read about generally devolve into "they're serving the devil," or at least are tolerant of fellow conspiracy theorists who believe that. See Slide 9 of Slate's summary of 9/11 conspiracy theories and this Times of India article. For less reliable sources, see [http://www.infowars.com/why-people-reject-conspiracy-theories/ this article on Alex Jones' website blaming Satan for 9/11]. Conspiracy theorists and the superstitious are just different sides of the same coin, the coin being belief that unseen forces control most "sheeple" and will ruin the lives of any who do not possess that special occult knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is extreme for truthers as well. One source you mentioned only uses the term "demonic" to refer to the tone of claims about a variety of groups such as Bilderbergers, Jews, Reptilians and so forth. Another source is referring to some article in an English newspaper in Kashmir that claims it was the Illuminati that did it to destroy Islam, while alluding to the number 11 having something to do with Satan. The last one is from a presumably Muslim blogger who appears to be using "Satan" to refer to the United States government, a la "The Great Satan", so those sources don't prove what you are trying to prove. Your personal anecdotes are irrelevant without sources that actually support what you are claiming. Even the Salon source only references one person who really believes that Satan stuff. Of the two people interviewed who "didn't oppose" the claim one said he didn't think that Satanism had anything to do with it, and the other said he thinks there are "controlling interests like that" and does not clearly indicate whether he is actually receptive to the specific claims of Satanism. My experience is that members of political movements are willing to tolerate a great deal from other members to protect their common purpose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Freaky

An image of the future? If your karma is high enough on the bovine karma scale you might get this in the summer and a nice warm barn in the winter with plenty of sweet meadow hay

That was borderline freaky when he ranted about pronouncing judgement on you and Doug... I'm just glad that they shut that down real quick. My only concern is that he may go back to being a wandering IP like he was last year, but if we catch that, I suppose we could just call him out on vandalism then.   — Jason Sosa 22:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you should check out his little forum, he's deciding how many years we're going to reincarnate as beef cattle. I'm considering registering to earn contempt of court charges. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

>.>   — Jason Sosa 02:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OMG, my fears were right... here he is swimming around like an IP tadpole... [2] LMAO   — Jason Sosa 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it may just be a troll. The other edits have been usual troll vandalism, not God's Judgement. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha, he gave me the sentence "very bad luck for the rest of this life, then 274 years reincarnated as beef cows." Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, and nevermind that being reincarnated as a cow is a blessing not only in Hinduism, but many Buddhist countries as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

heh heh. Funny stuff. Maybe that's why I'm careful not to step on bugs. I might crush you? lol.  — Jason Sosa 23:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Another EXIST Article

Look what I found. While we're still working to break down Allen B. Reed and going to decide if there's enough information that makes that guy important enough, you should have a look at this article. I've looked through it and have found not an iota of anything that hints at historical significance. I mean, there's practically nothing linking to it, the guy never participated in pivotal engagements and most of it is talking about his personal life. I'm not really up to being the big bad guy here, but if it's something you'd like to check out... DarthBotto _talk•cont 08:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese folk religion symbols

I've added a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Religious_symbol_for_Chinese_folk_religion. -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The religion image

I'm scard to take Christianity off the first row. (I don't know how I put C in front of B, in the first place.) I don't want to make an exception for one religion, but I can also see all the bold edits 'fixing' the alphabetic grid if the cross doesn't look promanent. :(
—Sowlos (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What about three rows, four columns? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Based on the talk page, I'll try to reorganize under the current design, but now I have something sane to fall back on if it makes too much trouble or consensus moves to trash it.
—Sowlos (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

In the article it says Pat Roberton is a member of the southern baptist convention and member of the christian right that means he is a evengelical christian. The article also says he hold to a charismatic theology--Michaelt54 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry about that I will use the edit summary and try to disscuss from now on.--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I cede the point about the american christians being redundant but what about american charasmatics and american evangelicals? I dont think it's reduntant it's a new topic. The ariticle says, "The son of U.S. Senator A. Willis Robertson, Robertson is a Southern Baptist and was active as an ordained minister with that denomination for many years, but holds to a charismatic theology not traditionally common among Southern Baptists".--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You did not respond to my point? it's not redundant the article says he is a charismatic--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC) It's not orginal research the article says that based on cited reseach--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please be polite and civil to others

It's the Christian thing to do. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes... What is this in reference to, if you don't mind me asking? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"...I would have to ask if you are illiterate!..." That remark just seemed a bit out of character. You seem like a nice person, and another editor has just gotten under your skin. Nothing too serious. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's really peanuts. :) I've seen way worse. Sorry to bug ya. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Outlandish claims made about You, Jasonasosa and myself

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that Barnabywoods took his complaints about you to Aboutmovies on his talk page. You might want to speak yourself. DarthBotto _talk•cont 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just desist from responding to his comments until he can actually find his way to ANI, or if he has something useful to say on the article's talkpage. :/   — Jason Sosa 07:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)