User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 26

Providence(religious movement)

Rather than going back and forth on the editor assistance page, I would like to offer a compromise:

I will submit the additional sources I obtained following the original dispute resolution, which as of yet have not been acknowledged nor analyzed.

These sources raise the concerns surrounding Jung's trial that I mentioned on the talk page and other forums. Several include photograph's of Do Hun's letters.

GIOSCali (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more open to trusting you on that if your prior censorship and WP:ADVOCACY in the article hadn't demonstrated that you are incapable of following WP:NPOV with regards to that topic, probably because you are yet another Providence member. And I'm not the only part of the consensus, you'd have to convince everyone else who has told you to quit turning the article into a Providence puff-piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, I think, that an experienced editor would claim WP:ADVOCACY without first examining the sources in question.

Not only that, do you pass judgment on me, without knowing anything about me?

You should have been the first to call everyone to examine the new sources.

GIOSCali (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you have repeatedly tried to turn the article into a puff piece for Providence is good enough evidence. You have censored any sources that state that Jung was convicted and replaced them with WP:UNDUE material on the SBS broadcast and on Kim (as if those were the entire basis for the trial), as well as opinion articles about the trial. You then went WP:FORUMSHOPing, repeating dismissed arguments as if that would work because you refused to pay any attention to the consensus or the reasons for it. There is no reason for a non-member to behave that way.

You keep saying you have new sources, but you never present them -- empty talk. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources I am talking about were presented already... when I posted the edits on the proceedings against Jung following dispute res. These were among those not analyzed.

How do you claim puffery, WP:UNDUE and say arguments have been "dismissed" without having analyzed the sources? Look at the sources first. That should be something basic for an experienced editor.

I heard the reasons for consensus, but the sources give valid reason to challenge it.

I will post some -- again -- on the talk page likely within the next day or so.

Look at them closely.

GIOSCali (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion discussing the merits of the sources, since you seem incapable of doing so. You've given us little reason to trust you or your assessment of sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you reverted on the Providence article is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It says thousands of women are being currently held in storage. If true, such a statement should have made headlines in a variety of sources. In any case, wikipedia policy states that such statements must be supported by multiple sources, which this is not.

Accuse me of bias if you want. I am a Christian, by the way.

GIOSCali (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As of 2012" means "currently"...? The statement includes nothing about storage.

I've added another source. If I could find it, I don't know how you couldn't. You did try, didn't you?

You're Christian? Gee, and Providence doesn't self-identify as Christian? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GIOSCal Perhaps it is exceptional, but then again, so are JMS' 'habits'. Just out of curiosity, GIOSCal, why are you offering a "compromise" here? Ian.tomson's talk page is not the place to discuss what does and does not go on Providence (religious movement). If you want to have such a discussion, GIOSCal, it should be on talk:Providence (religious movement). Not hidden on someone else's talk page. This would appear to be another example of your wp:forum shopping habits. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 05:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to why I suggested a compromise on this page: as consensus is being used to block what represents, at the very least, a significant minority view, I had filed for an outside request for assistance. Ian.thomson responded on that page directly, but the exchanges did not lead anywhere, so I messaged him directly with a compromise. (the same which had been suggested on the talk page numerous times)

Jim1138, there have been additions to the talk page that speak to the same compromise. And while you have been quick to revert changes to the article, you have not participated in recent discussions on the talk page at all.

If you genuinely care about the article, why are you not participating in those discussions?

GIOSCali (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Trying to figure out what's going on Talk:Providence (religious movement) isn't an easy task when discussions about the same topics are also found on DRN, EAR, and - at least in regards to procedure - a user page. GIOSCali should notice that I share Ian's views here above as well as Jim1138's concerns raised on GIOSCali's talk page under the section heading Tendentious editing. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that, regardless of the difficulty of tracking down the relevant information, the majority of users working on the Providence article are keeping important information off the page under the premise that it will turn the article into a puff piece. In fact, the exact opposite is happening; you have an article that does not accurately reflect the entire subject.

It would help if we could move these discussions back to the talk page. I posted a summary of basic concerns there, and I think it would help if all of you were available for comment. GIOSCali (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will be out of town

Effectively from July 31 to August 8 (and I shouldn't be on much tomorrow), and I won't be bringing my laptop with me. Any talk page stalkers feel free to be respond either like vogons or Randal Graves on my behalf until I get back. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ian.thomson/Indigo children/For Indigos

Ian, I have moved the "Indigo children" subpage essay to your userspace at User:Ian.thomson/Indigo children/For Indigos. You can relocate to a different name in your userspace if you prefer. You can also craft a brief, neutrally worded FAQ note like the one at Talk:Creationism to explain in general terms why the expression of certain opinions is not suitable for the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Nithyananda page

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Nithyananda#Requesting_updation_of_this_wikipedia_article_based_on_evidences_shown_in_court_and_court_judgements_that_followed Shashank Tuslsyan (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your reply in that talk page. In summary, why should we include this http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31806&articlexml=CID-submits-potency-test-report-to-court-27112014006046 as a reference is my question over there. Please look. Shashank Tuslsyan (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Nithyananda#Discuss_statements_marked_dubious . Please reply to the comments there itself. Thank you :) Shashank Tuslsyan (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back in town, but new laptop

I will be transferring to, updating, and configuring a new laptop over the next few days, so my activity may be sporadic. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh contributors

Do you see what I am seeing? A new editor joined the discussion, and reverted their contributions - followed by a quick little good hand/bad hand discussion on the newcomer's talk page. The similarities are striking to me, one editor registering a day after the other was blocked. Do you also hear the sound of quacking? Scr★pIron^IV 21:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this could be a mistake in isolation, except that he is perfectly aware you do not alter other's talk page posts. But making his responses for him? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With your experience, do you think it warrants an SPI? Scr★pIron^IV 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was used for WP:block evasion and to avoid WP:scrutiny, then yes, if only to force him back to one account. They might want some more evidence, however. I'd look for more, but I'm still trying to get the new laptop configured. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

	Thank you
	Thank you :D Shashank Tuslsyan (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minhas Craft Brewery Page

Hi Ian-
You may remember, back in June I tried to create a page for Minhas Craft Brewery and it was marked for speedy deletion. Since then I rewrote the entire page making sure all the copy was written in my own words and all information is properly sourced. I set up the page in my Sandbox. If you don't mind, could you take a look and let me know what you think? I would like to try and officially create this page but I would appreciate your feedback first.
Thank you!
BarbBbazos (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sick -- activity will be affected

In addition to configuring my new laptop (update your video card drivers the second you upgrade to 10), and transferring stuff from my old one to my new one, I'm currently sick (first time in... about a decade) and so on a combination of medications which are affecting my ability to focus (Hydroxyzine, Valaciclovir, and Prednisone). This should be clear after a week, but I'm most likely to be active on small things I can deal with in a knee-jerk manner, with occasional bouts of clarity around med-taking time. When this is over with, I'll need to work on some stuff I should've been doing this week. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you well - feel better soon! Scr★pIron^IV 13:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whore of Babylon

Thanks. I will follow your lead and advice on this. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: I got blocked in a similar situation before, didn't want it to happen to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I also left the following comment on my talk page: I thought that it looked like vandalism since he had been warned and had been referred to the talk page but I think you are correct that this is more like borderline behavior and I should back away from further involvement with the article. I will follow your advice. Donner60 (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw. I tend to watch talk pages whenever I leave a message. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I thought it prudent to rollback my last reversion of his edit since he had not put his essay back up again. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to my defense. You may have seen that the administrator declined to take action. I will remain grateful to you for waking me up to the situation which led me also to the rollback of my last edit which helped show my involvement was vandalism reversion and not substantive edit warning. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all the patrolling work that you do. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for my mistake on grammar, I thought encyclopedia was suppose to be capitalized. Idk English much thanks anyway Simonfanultimate (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a questions

So I have a question of how to make a page and is there like any rules to it. Thanks in advanced. Simonfanultimate (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off, you need to come to the site of actually helping instead of screwing around until you reach your final warning, and then you need to not pretend we're stupid enough to believe you were "hacked." Once you've got that sorted out, I'll let you know the rest. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please look at the bottom of Venezuela's Talk Page. Socialistguy (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question

Why do so many new editors and older editors hate you so much? I don't know if I've seen many other user talk pages that get vandalized as much as yours. I know you are basically one of our better editors, and edit in controversial areas, but so far as you know are there any particular reasons your page gets vandalized as often as it does? John Carter (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk Page Stalker) I believe it is because Ian dares to go wear others fear to tread. Certain topics beg vandals; it is a sign of our times. People are less tolerant than they used to be, more apt to engage in episodes of road rage, and want to demean others. A sad thing, really - I have always found Ian to be reasonable and approachable. Scr★pIron^IV 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScrapIronIV Ian dares to go wear others fear to tread Pun/double entendre intended? ;o) Jim1138 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I only have Goodbye Horses as part of an '80s music collection. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just the fingers failing to keep up with the brain. Neither is working very quickly these days :-P Scr★pIron^IV 12:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So have I. Well, I think I may have done this before, but

		The Purple Barnstar
		There are few editors I know who are so frequently subject to attacks of various sorts on the user pages as you. Despite the vandalism you so frequently are subjected to, you stay here anyway and continue to be one of our more important editors in some of our problem areas. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Thanks for the barnstar, it is nice to know that it is appreciated even if...

When it comes to talk page vandalism: Look at all the fucks I give.

I think most of the vandalism is two particular folks who are need therapy: User:Unavailable.undisclosed and User:David_Beals. If we could figure out their RL identities and do something to prevent them from getting to the site, we could probably leave my talk page no more protected than most of the other long-term editors. I'd probably get the attention of a few more conspiracy theorists and superstitionists who would sock for about a week and quit, but the majority of it is those two sick minds. Unavailable.undisclosed has tried to dox me before, but yeah, I signed a contract to teach in China last month, and there's another Ian Thomson in Columbia, SC; 28 years old, who went to USC. Gotten a few of his bills before, and sometimes people contact me on Facebook thinking I'm him.

And if those two are reading: you'd only prove me right by continuing your activities, and you're only wasting your time. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving, will be gone for a bit

I'm moving to Hangzhou to teach English at China Jiliang University, and will not be able to log in until at least next week (possibly later, as I've got some set up to handle once I get there). I should hopefully be adjusted by the end of next week.

If any of y'all pray, please do so for my worrying mom, and the bottles of wine in my suitcase. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you well for your trip! Be safe, and enjoy your travels Scr★pIron^IV 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Bottles of wine made it safely! Unfortunately, the only vodkas I've found are respectable brands noted for their smoothness and non-flammability. And I've still got a ton of work, so it's probably gonna be another week before I get into anything really dedicated on here. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user

Hey, just giving you a bit of a head's up with this user, partially because I'm mildly concerned that they might try to evade the block. The user in question is MugenDarkness and you interacted with them at 3RR recently. They continued with their personal attacks at AfD and initially I was going to give them one last warning, but then I came across the 3RR thread where you specifically stated that their behaviors warranted a block. Considering that they've been blocked thrice already, that should've been enough of a warning for them to cut it out. Since they haven't, I've indeff'd them, since I don't really see where their behavior is going to change. I suppose I'm just grousing a little over hard headed editors, but since you did somewhat endorse a block, I figure that I'd let you know. You're not an admin, but I know that if this block is contested, your input would be valued. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Wasn't saying indef block, but wasn't not saying that either. If the block becomes an issue, let me know in case I happen to be free. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last question

I have posed a final question at talk page of "No personal attacks", this time relating to article improvement concerning previous questions.68.100.116.118 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]