User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 19

Not dead, just bought a bunch of long RPGs with my Christmas money. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds alarming! I bought some opera CDs with mine. As an editor previously exposed to this theory if you have recovered from RPGs please pass by Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel fork at your leisure. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Will try to, though I'm not even sure I'm going to be able to finish these games with some real-world stuff that may force me into a more official Wikibreak. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Bus Routes in York

Hi. He's at it again. Best. --GuillaumeTell 17:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been job hunting. I'll leave a notice to future visitors. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem - User:Charlesdrakew has been dealing with it. --GuillaumeTell 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I am on a quasi-Wikibreak

I may not respond soon. I'm not going to be very active for a while, especially compared to my previous activity, as I'm currently applying to anywhere that'll take me to get any job I can. Since most places have been reacting with "you're under-experienced and over-qualified," this may take a while. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

nice timing

Good thing you got this edit in just before full protection. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My only regret is that I failed to change "(usually spelled..." to "(always spelled..." in time. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barnstar; it's much appreciated. I'm hopeful that the edit will stand and we can get back to, you know, content. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Seven rays (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mercury, Manu, Orange and Violet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Still on quasi-Wikibreak

I've been hired, but until they hire and train more cashiers and my schedule stabilizes, my days are pretty much work, come home for dinner, and go to bed. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ian. Thank you so much for letting me know how to correctly edit. My apologies for not being fully informed. I am a Bible student and came across this interesting research by Anne Kanno and wondered why her findings were not identified in Wikipedia. Now that I understand the process, I believe Anne needs to have scholars refer to it in their research and published works. Please don't kick me off the Wiki-planet. I wrote the same stuff for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John based on my mistaken premises. Thanks! Kanaina (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember?

User:Yeoberry - you encountered him a while ago. Things got interested while you were inactive. (leave me a TB if you reply please). Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really remember him. Looking into it, I remember the incident, but not the individuals involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ian,

You accused me of placing my opinion on the NWO conspiracy page. If you check youtube, you can see Bush claiming on public television about NWO in 1992. Please change the NWO page to reflect that NWO is not to be classified as a conspiracy theory if a public figure declares it publicly.

If the information about the speech is false then inform me how. Or else fix your own opinion about my opinions regarding NWO.

Regards,

Khawar

Bush's coincidentally poor choice of words does not mean that there's some huge world controlling conspiracy. It is totally superstitious to jump to that conclusion from that. If humanity is dumb enough to be controlled by such a conspiracy, it is too stupid to enact such a conspiracy (but would certainly be willing to believe such such conspiracies to give them an excuse from actually changing the world for the better). Your opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is an anonymous internet sleuth. I happened across the Quantum Leap page and noticed that the image that you uploaded did not, in fact, belong to the show, or have any relevance to the show whatsoever. Any insight would be great 97.83.98.8 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's from the Quantum Leap episode The Wrong Stuff, where he leaps into the body of a chimp, as indicated in the reference cited with the pic in the show's article. It illustrates that Sam can use abilities his host body normally cannot, as explained in the caption in the article, in the section discussing the show's overall plot. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the image is not from the show. At all. Where did it come from? 97.85.88.225 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been a bit since I've seen the episode, and I know for sure there was a part of that episode where Sam (as Bobo the chimp) aims a gun, and the image seemed the correct one to me. I'll take it down. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It still hasn't been taken down? 97.85.88.225 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Check the article history: I took it down and someone else restored it. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lee Rigby

why do you undo my Lee Rigby edit even though I gave a source??--Loomspicker (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See the edit history. The first source doesn't say that there's a bunch of tweets praising the attacks, the second is *ONE* incident you're blowing out of proportion. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Within hours of the execution of soldier Lee Rigby, vile messages praising the attack and encouraging further outrages appeared on Twitter." Second source is example of such.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's *ONE* incident. That's original research at best, bigoted lying at worst. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

wtf? That quote is from the source not my own research. You want a screenshot or something? I'm reverting you, as you clearly didn't even check the sources I provided.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to refuse to check sources I provide for my information then continue to revert me, I will report you, ok?--Loomspicker (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And the admins will tell you what I've been telling you: Wikipedia is not the place for your hateful POV-pushing. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are ignoring the sources I provide, yet say it is hateful POV-pushing? Lol.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Death_of_Lee_Rigby#Twitter_.26_Facebook_response, if you're just going to go with the ad hominem arguments, don't bother.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Lullubi

This was not needed since edits were good and I'm not sock and, I'm just getting accused by same user. I'm not willing to start any kind of edit war, I'll just report him. --HistorNE (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Yee

Re: your removed comment at the AFD (which I thought raised a good point) - we don't. We don't know Jack from Jill. There is a way for people to identify themselves to OTRS, but that's rarely done in this type of situation. The procedure is to submit the article for deletion on their behalf, after attempts to address issues have been exhausted, and then for the process to take over. That's why we have policies and procedures. It doesn't matter if one of the subject's detractors is trying to get the article deleted, or the subject themselves. The article is kept or deleted based on consensus, not simply because of an email request. And we of course make that clear to them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Ian, this is outside your area a bit but you have a good eye for combatting OR and FRINGE on various angel/myth pages, could you review the recent pasting of lost Aramaic original stuff to Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I may not get to it for a couple of days, but I'll try to. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ta, no hurry, the content has been repeatedly self-resurrecting since 2006 or earlier. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Theological Angels

Please review the book; Encyclopedia of Angels By Richard Webster which was added as a source (twice) by me, and re-add Angels that are valid as applicable. I would appreciate any adding as well, but deletion of valid entries is unwelcome. Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=eWyN0PkuhdEC&pg=PA149&dq=peliel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NxK7Uc-FJJWy4APEioDADA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=peliel&f=false Twillisjr (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, Ian, you might want to see what I've said at User talk:Twillisjr#Your Third Opinion request. In that connection and FWIW, you may not be aware that the following has recently been added to WP:BURDEN:

When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

References

(Emphasis added.) There were some of us who fought to keep that out or, later, to have it removed, but it seems to be a permanent fixture. Just thought you'd like to know. IMHO (just had to get in one more acroynm...) that additional requirement is satisfied by using an edit summary something like "Unsourced and maybe [[WP:V|unverifiable]]." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Re Twillisjr: Your contributions are your responsibility, not mine. If you want to add properly sourced and cited additions, fine. When I removed material that didn't have a source, it was your responsibility to have added a source to begin with or your choice to restore it yourself with a source (which you still haven't really done). Your little stunt here is nothing but a power struggle I'm not going to get involved in. I will not do your work for you.

Re TransporterMan: Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Another note: I have been watching and editing pages relating to angelology, mythology, and religion in general since 2007. If someone makes an edit to a page relating to those subjects, I'm very likely to see it because it's on my watchlist. If an editor's addition does not meet the site's standards, that's not my fault. Accusations of stalking (as Twillisjr has been throwing about the site because I won't take responsibility for his work) amounts to little more than a personal attack and a failure of good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Ian, please excuse me for not using your /adminship page. I'd like to review your candidacy for adminship despite your anti-objectivist, liberal, and Star Trek: The Original Series point of view. Your TNG userbox redeems you slightly *wink*. I took action on an ANI case you opened recently and I don't see why you shouldn't be handling such issues yourself. If you're interested, could you please opt-in to the edit counter?--v/r - TP 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I had actually taken down the link because I wasn't sure if I'd have time to become an admin... I may go on and try, though (not tonight, just got off and need to readjust my sleep schedule). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well if you want a nom, just ping me. I'll do a careful review.--v/r - TP 02:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're up to it and don't mind, that'd be nice. Some bits of the application I was drafting last year before I kinda dropped off:

• I have been blocked once, a long ago only a day, for violating 3RR when removing unsourced information and restoring sourced information (the other user was eventually indeffed for that, IIRC). I've pretty much followed through with 3RR since, I'm pretty sure I've edited sober since, and I'm usually not on for the kind of 6 hours stretches that got me into that kind of trouble anymore.
• Most of my edits are in article space and non-social talk page edits.
• I started Debtera and overhauled Aetherius Society and Dybbuk a year or two ago; and used to spend a lot of time around Talk:Jesus, Talk:Indigo children, Talk:God, and Talk:Number of the Beast.
• I've helped catch a number of sockpuppets of Josh24B, CentristFiasco, and Krizpo.
• To the best of my knowledge, most (if not all) of the times where I've ever actually been uncivil (not merely stern, condescending, or flippant while someone else failed to assume good faith), it involved someone who others admitted should've been blocked long before I had the chance to be uncivil (for example, some troll over at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you enable the edit counter?--v/r - TP 13:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, done. Huh, didn't know that the article I've edited most was Abraham. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian Thomson

Hi Ian. Thomson ,,

you wrote an message as follows

"Looking at the edit history for the Vanniyar article, I'm seeing one biased editor repeatedly trying to insert poorly worded and based on an original misinterpretation of a source, with very little discussion with other; while a number of other different editors follow the site's guidelines and policies and remove the material. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "

Let me know who is that biased editor so that I can start discussion with him .

--Suryavarman01 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

He's sitting in your chair. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Flow

Your post that people will be forced to use VisualEditor is synthesis, as I pointed out here:

1. The VE team says that VE is being rolled out in User and article space, and there are plans not to remove the current standard editor, and no plans to roll it out in other namespaces.
2. The Flow team says that they aren't writing an editor, and they expect the VE editor to be the only one used. (The VE team seems to know nothing about this, and they seem to be specifically not considering it in their development.) Flow is (probably in 2014) to be rolled out replacing User talk, and eventually article talk.
3. My comment, to which one of the WMF posters to the VE team agrees, is that, for Flow to be usable, we need to be able to copy/paste between articles and Flow messages, regardless of the editor used, and that any template or Wikimarkup usable in articles must be usable in Flow messages.

Perhaps we should wait to see what develops before you say that Flow will require use of VE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

On Basil Page

Hi, Thomson: As you said that Thai basil was a type of basil. If that, we need to remove "sweet basil", too. This is because in the market, especially in Sydney, basil means "Ocimum sanctum", Thai basil means "Ocimum basilicum Linn", and sweet basil means "Ocimum × citriodourum". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.111.46 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker

This person is edit warring on Satire - predictably, the problem is the word Islamophobia - I have tried to engage in discussion but (surprise surprise) s/he has nothing constructive to say. getting tired, but I don't want to give up... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)