User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 29

A year ago ...
fighting prejudice
	... you were recipient; no. 1248 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typical...

You tell me to Assume Good Faith instantly after accusing me (falsely) of attacking editors - because I wanted to know what they removed my post...

Is that Assuming Good Faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.68.243 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary, this post, and your continuing rants about left-wing conspiracies are nothing but a total failure to assume good faith. The reasons have been explained: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a forum. Talk page posts are for specific suggestions to improve articles instead of crying that the world's being taken over by liberals, Jews, lizard people, or whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to improve it. By giving it equality to the Feminist article. You don't intimidate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.68.243 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement is done by citing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not by huffing and puffing in some crusade over imagined wrongs. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But only if those cites meet your political agenda, no? You seem incapable of handling other opinions. You demonstrate this by demeaning the idea that men have rights as "little conspiracies" - which is hardly "assuming good faith", is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.68.243 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Notice it doesn't say anything about political agendas. Find professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, and cite them. If you're not here to build the encyclopedia by citing reliable sources, sod off. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danke

thank you for your inviting me to the tea room. I apologize that I speak ill of Chinese people. Chinese classmates ill-treated me, when I was a pupil at elementary school. I hate. can you help me? Yuriko Tanabe (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuriko Tanabe: Well, really all I can help you with is with working on this site. All we do here is paraphrase, summarize, and (most importantly) cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without additional interpretation or elaboration, and without any personal commentary. If you are not here to do this, you should find something else to do. We are not a forum.

I cannot help you with your issues over who is Japanese and who is Chinese. You seem to be throwing out people who practice a different religion or marry someone who looks different. Is that any better than how your classmates treated you? You know that it hurts when someone ill-treats you just because of differences, so why would you do that to others? It might help if you found someone in Japan who is Christian or who has married a foreigner, and talk to them about what it means to be Japanese. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit Wikipedia

I don't want to edit Wikipedia. l'm just looking. nihonjoe advised me to write in Japanese, if I could. why do I have to talk to Chinese in Japanese? I want to negotiate with Chinese in English, if you like. you first mistook Chinese for Japanese like Ernest Mason Satow. you should announce officially that they are from China. Yuriko Tanabe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to edit Wikipedia, you should leave. Wikipedia is not a place to chat. Wikipedia does not add or change information unless someone cites a reliable source. Nihonjoe isn't Chinese, he is an American who lived in Japan for years. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mia the Evangelical

I'm surprised you didn't block. I can't see this editor as capable. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did open the block window, and still have it open. I was going to block with the note "either VOA or WP:CIR," but I paused when I saw that she moved Apostasy in Christianity to Wikipedia:Apostasy (Christianity) instead of Wikipedia:Apostasy in Christianity (indicating a seed of clue). Between that, the server maintenance stopping about every other thing I was doing, fatigue from class, and I guess some curiosity if they were ever going to try to communicate, I just stopped.

I'm certainly not gonna object if anyone else blocks her before then, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you

I have reported your harassment, lies, and threat against me at the WP:ANI noticeboard, here. Some religion scholar (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread

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

~~Side note I'm not the one who opened I saw it and also noticed you had not been notified. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Looks like the user did it a second before I did. My apologies --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Ian.thomson (talk)

Your account has been approved. Thank you for volunteering.--v/r - T P 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may help me to keep Wikipedia trustworthy

Hello :-). In fact, Aaron W. Hughes is a Professor of Jewish Studies, not Islamic studies. He only has some interests and writings about Islam but he is NOT a specialist on Islam.^[1] So, I hope from you to remove his claims about Islam from Wikipedia to keep Wikipedia trustworthy. I also hope from you to remove the clearly false info which says (The sequence of events of the 20th century has led to resentment in some quarters of the Sunni community due to the loss of pre-eminence in several previously Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and the Caucasus) because it's proven that these claims are completely false as an official Congressional report says. ^[2] ^[3] مصطفى النيل (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to argue that on the article's talk page and get consensus there. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EruIluvatar3 Talk Page

Please refrain from vandalizing my talk page. If you do this again I will block you.

EruIluvatar3 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EruIluvatar3: Once again, read WP:NOTVAND. I did not vandalize your talk page. If you really, truly, believe I did -- go ahead and block me. Right now. Hell, do it anyway. I dare you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from threatening to block individuals on Wikipedia and engaging in offensive, disruptive, and aggressive behavior. Harassment on Wikipedia is intolerable and will be investigated. Block me, I dare you. EruIluvatar3 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one calling anyone who disagrees with you a vandal (against WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF), and deleting other people's legitimate comments (which, per WP:TPV is vandalism). I've merely been explaining site policies and guidelines, and the consequences of going against them. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one harassing others and deleting their revisions. Heal THYSELF, hypocrite. “There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power.” (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I call someone a vandal, it's because their behavior fall under WP:Vandal, and not under WP:NOTVAND. When I undo your revision, it's because the source you cited is not a reliable source, does not support the claim at all, and the claim is patently ridiculous (no one in China knows or cares about Magog). You need to share power here if you're going to get anything done beyond getting blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Article disruptions by the same user

Hello sir, the same user has deleted the same content again... Can you please advise? Thanks. cӨde1+6^TP 20:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(You don't need to call me sir). User told it's the last straw. If they revert again without consensus, I will block them for edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. Much appreciated. cӨde1+6^TP 13:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time

If you have the time, would you cast an eye on this Caesar's Messiah. It was previously deleted, but now recreated by the webmaster of the author. It's basically a mad conspiracy theory making Dan Brown look like a serious scholar; a person with no academic credentials puts forward an absolutely mad conspiracy theory but the article describes it as serious research, referring to the tin foil hat man as a Bible scholar. In some sort of record of false balance, it has one section on criticism (ie every scholar who ever commented on it) and one section on acceptance (ie a handful of people, none of whom has any academic credential in the field). A very large part of the article relies on blogs, mainly by the tin foil hat man himself. In short, it's the mother of all bad articles. I did try to remove some of the worst policy violations, but I was swiftly reverted by the article's creator. Don't really know how to handle the matter. Jeppiz (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta write out a ridiculous amount of documentation no one's ever actually going to read for my classes, but I'll try to get to it when I can. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:United Kingdom EU membership referendum 2016

FYI - account related to User:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. You may want to revoke Talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Widr did it just as I was opening the menu to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's best to tick all the boxes with these socks. Widr (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm aware of this sockpuppeteer, I will. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ban an IP?

Is this a record of vandalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:1903:28A3:C40C:A5DC:D9A2:B529

Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 02:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I'd say at WP:AIV:

No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings.

The edit to David Miscavige is a BLP violation, though, so I'll revdel that. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Ian.thomson. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the account since your evidence was reasonable. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

self requested block

It was very much appreciated. I guess one day, I might learn to balance editing and typing reports for work. Either way, it was a productive 72 hours! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just don't get me a reputation. I should probably block myself, what with grades and exams, but I'll just be half-assing stuff instead (like with handling that fellow whose comment I moved from your user page to your talk page). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imelda Marcos

Spacecowboy420 removed this

She was reelected. "Bongbong Marcos, Imelda and family pray for 'poll integrity'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 15, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.

"Imelda, Imee poised for re-election in Ilocos Norte". ABS-CBN News. May 9, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.

"The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. May 7, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Productions in the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco and the Seattle Repertory Theater were held during the 2016-17 season."Here Lies Love to Play West Coast's A.C.T." Playbill. April 15, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.

"Here Lies Love to Play Seattle Rep". Playbill. April 25, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.

Imeldific (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I don't care. He still didn't edit war and you still need to discuss the edits on the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Experiancing high levels of vand. PP, please?

New York Mets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Chase Utley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was in the shower. Looks like Newyorkbrad and Closedmouth got it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't they have tablets mounted in every shower there? ;) Jim1138 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warrior is back

Hi, Ian. I just wanted to alert you that the edit-warring, sock-puppeting anon IP is back at Atlas Comics (1950s), now under 86.181.73.25. He's refusing to discuss on the talk page and at this point appears to be reverting out of spite. I'm hoping the page can be protected for a longer time, if possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going on autopilot for a long while starting next week

Starting June 6 (which'll be June 5 for a lot of editors) and going until June 18, I'll be running final exams for my students from 8:30 am to 6:30 pm. I will still probably be logged in and may check my watchlist for obvious vandalism, but I'll pretty much be on autopilot to decompress and not really here to "work." I suppose I've been approaching that state already what with grades. After that, it's more grading, trying to prepare for my trip home for the summer, recovering from jet lag, and seeing family. I don't expect the possibility of normality (or what passes for it coming from me) until July 18. But by that time I should have copies of critical editions of The Sworn Book of Honorius and The Great Book of Saint Cyprian, which I'll try to improve. Hopefully those should turn out as well as Arbatel de magia veterum did instead of my eternal struggle to overhaul the List of Demons in the Ars Goetia (or at least as well as Livre des Esperitz instead of The Solomonic Miscellany article I will finish... "someday"). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person (talk • contribs) 10:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you appear to be a WP:PRECOCIOUS POV-pusher who is completely ignoring the total consensus against your edits on the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry, I got frustrated and acted poorly. I have autism and it's very hard for me to explain things in my mind and to represent my intentions. John Smith Doe, The Person (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user page

As I said I will use talk page if I will face resistance. I see that you reverted even info on refugees that as you can see wasn't added by me. I consider this resistance so I will use talk page. And if I'll get consensus I will revert to my version.Amitashi (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that and yet after your block ended, you started up with the same behavior that got resistance last time.

And stop saying I reverted info that wasn't added by you, because that's completely wrong: this is what you added, this is what I reverted.

And post on this page next time, not on my user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amitashi (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC):Ian.thomson, no you didn't. You didn't pay attention that information on refugees was in article before my very first edit on it! Here's proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&oldid=723198908. It is version of June 1st while I entered June 2nd. So you violated my right to revert baseless info deletion by My very best wishes. This deletion wasn't even discussed at Talk page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitashi (talk • contribs)

This is the exact action I took. You are completely wrong, and it is beside the point. The material was removed by Volunteer Marek and again by My very best wishes. To say that I removed it is wrong, and showing you this this evidence it would be a lie for you to ever again say that I removed it.

You don't think that being reverted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times is resistance? Why did you ignore that resistance completely? It wasn't a separate and distinct incident, the block does not make that "the past" and unrelated, you continued the same behavior from the previous incident. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Laitinen-ScrapIronIV

Hello Ian. Since it was your idea to possibly enact a two-way IBAN if conflict continued between the user in question and I, I wanted to ask where I should go to request such an action. Just recently, ScrapIron reverted an edit I made to my userspace, saying a source was required. I highly doubt that I am required to source personal information about myself, especially outside of the mainspace. I found this to be very annoying, but I do not want to lose my temper with him again. If it is possible for you to do so, could you enact a two-way IBAN between him and I, or (as I said above) direct me to where I could request one if you are unable to do so. Thanks, and happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI would be the place to go about it. Be sure to study WP:IBAN beforehand. This is the only involvment I will have in this matter as I am conducting final exams for my students. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that discord wiki was a different website!

I did not know that discord wiki was a different website! I did not notice that because the website looks same. RedEyed Rocker (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try looking at the web address? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that! RedEyed Rocker (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, web addresses are very important to know and easy to discover. The names, logos, and content for each site are all also rather different. In fact, the only similarities are the wiki software and the black text on white backgrounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care about the 3 RR?

Earl King has now performed three reverts in the last 24 hours. [1] [2] [3] Check it out. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rule says "more than three." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look mate

I'm trying to undo vandalism, and you're not letting me, claiming it's "disruptive editing". 220.239.56.138 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're moving a religion whose founder and followers sincerely and earnestly believed his patent insanity was true to a section for clear-headed parody. You are the vandal here. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Breazeale

Requesting article protection for Dominic Breazeale. Constant vandalism for the past 2 days. Thanx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, thanx for that ;) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me just as I got on. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I noticed your efforts with the kook (or kooks) on the Azrael page. Good work on keeping the insanity in check. Peterravn (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harvey Oswald

Not trying to "add commentary" or my "own personal analysis." Just trying to be a bit more nuanced in the language, and reflect the way that Lee Harvey Oswald is referred to in every other reputable resource. For example:

The Encyclopedia Britannica says Oswald was the “accused assassin”; Biography.com says he “was accused of killing”; New World Encyclopedia says “Lee Harvey Oswald … was, according to two United States government investigations, the assassin …”; InfoPlease says “presumed assassin”; Encyclopedia.com says “allegedly assassinated”; History.com (and the History Channel) calls him “alleged assassin”

Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Leelostboy (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Wikipedia imitate an outdated encyclopedia that we're better than and some sensationalist entertainment channels that like to play both sides? InfoPlease and Encyclopedia.com come closer to being reliable sources, but they're hardly specialist works in the matter. The History Channel might as well be called the Indiana Jones Channel with their pandering to fans of Nazi occultism, Grail quest, and ancient astronauts. Wikipedia articles summarize professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, usually secondary ones instead of the tertiary ones you cite. The specialist sources cited in the article say that Oswald was the killer, period. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my point was valid, but OK, you're the boss. Cheers!Leelostboy (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled and click Special:UserRights Rack3515 (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused. You mean I should click Special:Block/Rack3515. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Troll alarm

Re RfP, I think you are engaging with a troll, which might not be such a good idea. Just saying. Schwede 66 08:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda figuring, was just wondering who he was a sock of. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PP protection

Didn't take long for another vandal! Doug Weller talk 05:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just got back from lunch. Despite the static IPs, they seem to have ready access to more addresses. I was hoping that it'd just be easier to block all of them instead of protecting all of the articles they hit, but I'm gonna have to give up on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? I am in SHOCK

After the block period I only made one revert in the coming 24 hours so why do I get immediatly another ban? After the 24 hours I never reverted 3 times but once only. So after a block and warning, I immediatly get banned when I make one revert? DavidThomson1997 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You are actually very lucky you weren't blocked again rather than topic banned. You were advised that the article was under discretionary sanctions. Now your first edit outside of your user space is to the same article and to revert it in the same manner that you were blocked for. -- GB fan 14:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But still I did not violate the law by doing this 3 times or more within 24 hours. And I don't understand why I'm topic banned because of this. Even if it was the same manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to break 3RR to be topic banned. You were warned that the article was under discretionary sanctions and if you continued down the path you were on, you could be topic banned. You continued down the path and now you are topic banned. -- GB fan 15:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say but I never knew the page was under sanctions. And I did NOT know that I would not have to break the 3 revert rule ban if I could get another ban..And the ban which I have now, for how long will it take? I already see my fault now and I added a discussion to the Khojaly massacre page instead of reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidThomson1997: You were notified of the discretionary sanctions (diff). I found it easily in your talk page history. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, what duration did you levy the topic ban for? Indef, one year, less...? —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but what does it eventually mean? What are the effects? Again, I know I had done something wrong now, I though I had another right of 3 reverts rule after the 24 hours. And now I did not edit the page anymore, I added a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

@DavidThomson1997: I think you mis-understand WP:3RR. A fourth revert is always wrong, but that does not give you the right to make three reverts in a 24-hour period. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we had a missunderstanding so I hope my punishment will not be very problematic for me.. i hope the ban will be canceld or put temprarily and the same for my 3 revert rights. But I guess I don't have the right to say what my punishment will be. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being punished, you're being prevented from disrupting an article that you've disrupted before. Returning immediately after a block for edit-warring to continue the edit-war often leas to a lengthy block. That's not a misunderstanding, that's not you taking the first sanction seriously. The topic ban is a reasonable alternative to blocking. There are 5 million articles in the encyclopedia. Please see if you can edit one of them productively. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You don't have three-revert rights. Until you accept that, don't hold your breath for the sanctions being lifted—sanctions that are in place to protect the project, not punish you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was ignorant as I thought that I had 3 more changes to revert when I am over the 24 hours block. So I thought it would be fine to do a revert after that, i did not had the intention then to do yet another revert as another user again reverted mine contribution, now I added a message to the talk page. With the reverts I meant to say we have the 3 revert rule. And I still don't fully know for how long my sanctions will be on and the 1 revert rule as that was yet not clear to meDavidThomson1997 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC). DavidThomson1997 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Just woke up). Again, you're treating the reverts as a right. 3RR is not a leash line short of which no one is allowed to touch you, it's just the line after which we pretty much have to do something.

Re ban and 1rr length, it's (literally) indefinite. As GB fan mentioned, DavidThomson1997 was lucky I didn't block him indefinitely. I've made the length more explicit. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson I guess I have to thank you then. By here thank you for not blocking me. But please know I was ignorant about that rule. I would like to ask if you could clearify what may sanction now contains as it is unclear for me.DavidThomson1997 (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidThomson1997: If an article has to do with Nagorno-Karabakh War, you are not allowed to edit the article at all. This includes pages like Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. You could maybe try to edit the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic article, as long as you stayed completely away from any part that has to do with any conflicts with Azerbaijan (for example, you could probably get away with editing the Culture and life section). Still, some administrators might take the view that even that article is too closely related for even that and I wouldn't argue with them. If you edit any such articles, you will be blocked, probably indefinitely.

You can still leave posts on the talk pages of such articles (for now) but that privilege can be removed if you start to behave problematically on there. Be cooperative and gracious, don't annoy people, and try to always cite both a reliable source and relevant policy/guideline to support your suggestions.

You can still edit pages relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Greece, or Turkey, but you are restricted to a single revert per page per 24 hour period. If you edit articles relating to those topics, you might want to stick to stuff that doesn't have to do with any modern (20th or 21st century) warfare, conflicts, killings, or possibly even modern geography or politics. If you make two or more reverts within a 24 hour period, you'll be blocked, probably indefinitely. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hello Ian.thomson, I'm currently in a discussion with a disruptive user that seems to not understand policy and is not staying on topic. It has to do with Gog and Magog unfortunately. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a quick look at it. Recovering from jet lag in Georgia at a family reunion, so I'm not gonna be especially active over the next week or so. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that I'm a bit late to the party. Sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson No problem, I'm just glad it died out fast. I've nominated the article for FA status. See: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gog and Magog/archive1. Thanx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God thank you

Sorry for the warring but this guy just pushed by buttons way too much. Even if I'm not an innocent party in this whole affair, I think it'd be best to block IPs from the page, even if under the condition that I stop editing all together, because honestly the unsourced edits, even from my end, come in at increasingly alarming volumes. Now it's 10 PM and I'm very tired, this was the one thing keeping me up, so thanks again. BedrockPerson (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BedrockPerson: You really need to read WP:DGAF and the related pages. The next time it happens, report the individual at WP:3RRNB. In general, don't revert more than three times for almost any reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Took the edit to WP:RSN#Our Ancestors Came From Outer Space as a source for Cuneiform script. Amazing that someone would insist it's a reliable source for cuneiform. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. RSN was actually what brought it to my attention. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift

Hi, 'scuse the question but could you explain your thinking behind your revdel on Taylor Swift's article? I don't see anything in the edits that merits deletion, even accounting for the common over-use of revdel and the more liberal application on BLPs. Feel free to reply by email if you'd prefer not to discuss it in public. I work nights and keep very strange hours so replies may be sporadic or at weird times! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Email sent. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dutta Chaudhuri Chronicles

Hi Ian, This article is up for deletion, someone who claims to be the subject doesn't like it. The sources seem quite dubious at best. Should that info be removed? i.e. the whole article? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me to the punch. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christology

Ian - Admittedly, I am novice at editing wiki articles. However, I am lost as to the issue. Was it that I did not sign my name? I did note something re references - frankly, this is really broad general knowledge - which if you are claiming to be a Christian (I am assuming) - you would know this - unitarianism is very broadly distributed both historically and in modern culture. Therefore, I would not know what to cite other than unitarian web-sites, etc. Is that really what you want?

Here is my other issue - the foregoing content - to which I was specifically responding to - did not have any references either. Please explain to me how/why that is valid. Naturally I am concerned re ideological bias - which was exactly why I did not denigrate the other exegesis - and recognized it as present - but saw grave ideological bias in the article that I simply tried to balance. That was the entire point of my posting.

BTW - I trust you kept the contents - so that we may add once any i's are dotted.

I look forward to your input.

Greg Logan (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)GregGreg Logan (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Logan: "Generally broad knowledge" is considered original research, which we don't use. All new information must cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source. The material before your addition did cite sources: the <ref name=CathChristology /> tag was calling back a previously cited source. I see you did mention Bible verses, but those are primary sources and we require secondary or tertiary sources to establish any interpretation of primary sources.

Look for books published by university presses or established seminaries. Personal websites are not accepted.

Also, your addition gets very "meta," it addresses the article, which we don't do.

You might want to try out The Wikipedia Adventure to learn more about sourcing.

EDIT: Actually, I think the root of the problem is that you are thinking of adding "The Truth" to the article. Wikipedia's neutrality is somewhat relativist: we only summarize professionally published mainstream academic sources with no more weight with which they appear, not treating one idea or the other as "God's undeniable truth." Although Unitarian theologians do appear throughout history, they are not especially organized. There are academic sources discussing their ideas and those would need to be cited to add your material. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus

Ian, I just read your feedback on my changes made to the article of Orpheus as well as Momal Rano. I am thankful to you for highlighting such things at the outset. I am totally new at this site for this very purpose. However, I find it significant to share that sources need to be strong enough to support the material produced in articles. Whatever I wrote in two articles, one was Orpheus and Rano Mendhro and the other was the restructuring of the Momal Rano article (which I completely changed because of the questions left at the top of the article about its clarity, which I did with a lot of effort throughout my day), I now understand after your suggestions that articles from Wikipedia are not to be added as a reference for the same. I think that I will be changing hopefully. Nonetheless, the other sources (just excluding one source somewhere I am not sure now which one), I am confident the rest are purely authentic sources about the articles. For instance, I have myself read the book of Khathuri Khep Kheter Mein wherein the discussion is made on comparison between Orpheus and Rano Mendhro and it was possible for me because I had heard from several famous writers on the inauguration ceremony of the book about the preface that compared them both. Then I read the book myself. But yes, i could not get the reference of the book from a proper platform. The book was published by Sindhica Publisher, a nenown publisher of Sindhi books; however, I could not find their books online. About the rest of the article of Momal and Rano, if you just keep aside Orpheus portion, you will find the rest is OK with referencing except as you said the redirecting of wiki references. I am passionately waiting for your reply to make this more productive as I want to see my time invested rather than wasted, and you seem to be helpful in that. Thanks, bro! Sandman! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandman arabone (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandman arabone: If you cite the actual book instead of a blog about the book, that might be a different matter. Again, though, there's also the issue of due weight. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: So far as weight of the stuff is concerned, I am just quoting or referring the book I mentioned. Do you think I should also ignore that? Now please guide me as to what I am supposed to do! My plan, see if you agree: IS to restructure all the citations that I had taken from wikipedia; besides, instead of blog reference, I shall try to find a proper reference of the book if available online; if not, I will just quote the book itself as a primary source. Still there is a newspaper cutting of that book's inauguration ceremony from Dawn Daily as an additional source if you think it is fine. Besides, I will just give the material of what the writer says about Orpheus and Rano, because the writer just says there is resemblance of two stories without ever saying that one has influenced the other or undermining anyone's position; just a resemblance stuff. So when can I do that if you think I am on right path? Best Regards (talk)

@Ian.thomson: Dear, just to add here. I wrote all my stuff online on wikipedia, so I don't have any backup of what I wrote. It seems the article that I wrote is deleted with no trace of the same. I hope that data is somewhere traceable as you know how to move it. I shall be citing the article in a way you highlighted, and am waiting for response, at your convenience. Regards (talk)

@Ian.thomson: My dear, I found where my deleted material is. Still new here, so will be learning step by step hopefully. I have gone through the source citation policies and now think I will be in a better position than before to cite the articles, won't be perfect though. Keeping in view that, and whatever we have discussed, which I think has been very helpful to me because of your input, I shall be re-editing those pieces shortly, and would welcome any suggestion after this graft. Cheers. (talk

How to Add a New Subchapter?

Dear Ian.thomson, How are you doing? I have noticed that you have reverted a new subchapter from the revision "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=730250888", citing the reason: "Unaffiliated sources required." I am wondering how I will be able to add a new subchapter for the novel published by Mihaela Modorcea. Would it be sufficient if I were to use the following Barnes & Noble website as the required unaffiliated sources? Thank you very much for your help.

       http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wicked-clone-or-how-to-deal-with-the-evil-mihaela-modorcea/1123648466

Tbugg (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbugg: Barnes & Noble is selling the book, so they're not really unaffiliated. You need professionally-published journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

So what was the issue with my edit? May I have assistance in making better edits it's just tough researching etc. I'm very new here so again sorry if I'm wasting your time.--Armanikoka (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Answered on user's page). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry for the desk edits. That was only meant to be a test of what that process was like. Promise it won't happen again, also i'm still trying to work out how best to add my own views where research can support them, if you get me.--Armanikoka (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Answered on user's page). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

Given I am currently studying Law at University, I think that would be an excellent area for me to edit in, as I hadn't realized just how many articles there are here to alter (though it does figure lol!). Given your positive interactions today, if it wouldn't trouble you could you mentor/coach me for a while - say until I'm settled here? I also reckon I'd be reasonable at editing in football (soccer) articles and cycling articles, which are my primary hobbies.--Armanikoka (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection request

Hi Ian, Can you please do me a favour and upgrade the protection level on my user page to Extended confirmed protection. It's not the first time that the page has been vandalised. Cheers David.moreno72 16:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I wouldn't say that the last issue was deliberate vandalism, just incompetence. But yeah, confirmed status is super easy to get for determined vandals. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The community has agreed to applying this type of protection to user space? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... Not yet, though consensus seems to be going that way. I'd see applying it to a non-admin's user page per that user's request (so they could still edit their page but prevent all reasonably conceivable vandalism) as one of those few reasonable WP:IAR exceptions, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments on that page also are against indefinite use - can this be tried for say 6 months first? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I would have thought that it was allowed per WP:UPROT but perhaps I misunderstood. Anyway, thanks again. Some wikilove might be on it's way. Cheers. David.moreno72 16:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) may be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need" would fit here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you can explain for me why someone other than David.moreno72 would need to edit his user page after six months, I'll do so right away. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial maintenance, such as template or category renames - this is far from a a strong argument. If autoconfirmed editos are really vandalizing others userpages - blocking may be a more appropriate response. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I'm not really "challenging" this - was just making a suggestion, until the ECP RfC gets decided it is a sensitive area with some other editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've fully understood my point, but you've made an argument so I'll go ahead and reduce the time to six months. Would you agree that changing move protection to full protection (upon user request or apparent need) is uncontroversial, though? Except for user page drafts (which he's not using his user page for), the only time I'm aware of that a user page is moved when that user is renamed. There's seriously no loss of freedom there. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't personally object to that - but I don't think there is any "cause" for that protection either, as the page has never been moved, the "as long as a need exists" part of the protection policy is a bit stretched there. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it wasn't so much for that as a few other recent cases. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

The edit warring block didn't change anything [4]. He's back to the same behavior [5]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myth

just curious ian but where did the definition for "myth" come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.61.131 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious what this has to do with anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MisterAnthony

Incredibly, user came off of his block and did exactly as you advised him not to: reverted back to his preferred version of the Garry Marshall article right after block lifted. No discussion was attempted by him. [6] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wikapedia page

Ian I was going to add content to Laser engraving page (way before welding page) which you can find by Googling "laser marking" and I've noticed the same problem we had before. There are links all over that page going back to commercial websites. I now know that this is a big problem and I really appreciate your kindness for giving me another chance. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitryp123 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmitryp123: If you know of non-commercial sources for that material, you can replace the commercial sources. Otherwise, if the information appears to be important for the article, replace the references (including the <ref>reference tags</ref>) with {{citation needed}} tags. Make sure you mention that you're getting rid of commercial sources in your edit summary. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I'm afraid to screw something up. I don't know any other reference source. But as you mentioned before, it is against the policy to link back to commercial sites. Most of the links in "References" section link back to commercial sites. Since you are administrator I think that you are the only one who can fix the page. Thank you

Ending a Sentence with a Preposition

Joke: A guy from Arkansas has gotten into Harvard. He's walking across the campus. He stops a student and asks him: "Where's the library at?" The Harvard student says: "Here at Harvard we never end a sentence with a preposition." The guy from Arkansas says: "So where's the library at, asshole?" Senor Cuete (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message I saw on two other talk pages and have already responded to

@Ian.Thomson I am not being paid to create and or contribute to this page https://yiftee.com/. I took it upon myself to create it after being hired for 5 months now. I noticed my company lacked a wiki page so i took it upon myself to create it. Again I am in no way being compensated for building this page. I did it as a hobby and for my friends read up on the company I work for because I am sick of explaining it to them. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanoslazaridis (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded to on user's talk page before they left it here). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion

Hi. The ed17 threatened to block me. The discussion and links at on my talk say it all. After reading WP:WHYBLOCK this looks illegitimate. I respect your opinion as I used to respect Ed's. Am I wrong? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The block may not be technically legitimate within the letter of the policy, but... honestly, posting that in the obituary within a couple weeks of the dude's death? Especially when there's really nothing to be done to fix your grievances against him? Posting negative stuff on an obituary page isn't disruptive in itself, but anything that's going to unnecessarily rankle otherwise sane editors can be. WP:DE includes posts that "may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion."

I don't mean to pile on, just trying to be clear.

I do think that The ed17 could be construed as somewhat WP:involved as he added the RIP template to Gorman's user page -- but I also think there's nothing actionable here so long as the material is not added again.

That's the end of the ten foot pole I'd prefer to use on this issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Starling

Would you consider the sources on this page to be RS? I have no idea if https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/archive/e/ee/20051111022540!Presskit.pdf is a valid Wikimedia document or someone's random creation. Also, much of the rest cites Twitter. Overwhelmed, please ping? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138: Sorry, was asleep. I see that it's been (rightfully) deleted by now. The press kit might very well be authentic, but that wouldn't make a difference for any non-WMF organization. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know more than I do about this editor

Hadn't heard of Wikipedia-translator before. But I noticed EditsOrArticles acting similarly to Ismadeby, and I'm pretty sure it's the same person. Also edited Marilyn Monroe, which I see Wikipedia-translator did. Since you're more familiar, is that enough to block? Or should WV file an SPI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only found out about Wikipedia-translator from the 3RRNB report. I know how this rapid switch would be possible, but it still makes it seem a touch less likely. Winkelvi also reverted to a revision by EditsOrArticles and vice versa. I'm not seeing anything right away. Has WV raised any suspicions? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. It just seems like a completely stupid thing to edit war over (on both sides), but EOA was doing the same thing as IMB, as well as doing the "bluelink user/user talk - make 10 innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed - dive into edit warring with WV" thing I saw with IMB. So when I looked at EOA's contribs, I saw they were arguing at the Marilyn Monroe talk page, where W-T also participated. So I got suspicious. That's all I have, if you don't know the editor very well then it's probably not quite enough to act on. But I agree with you at ANEW that he needs to use SPI instead of edit warring and hope someone notices they're likely socks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.sas.rochester.edu/rel/people/faculty/hughes_aaron/index.html

[2] ttp://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA476265

[3] ttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA476265

[1]

[2]

[3]