User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 30

OMG

The Steam controller has a keyboard function! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I knew I forgot something....

Good call. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocking and revdelling seems to discourage him more than page protection (which he's said before that he wants). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Troll comments at Talk:Cupping therapy

I removed the comment, as well as your response, since it didn't make sense without the original. Hope you don't mind, but the other user is behaving completely inappropriately. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've left a block menu aimed at him open in another tab and was waiting to see his response, but it's fine, I've also got his contribs page open. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked editor socking

Yesterday you blocked User:Shingling334. Today they are back as IP 212.108.137.140. At 11:57, Shingling334 uploaded a picture to Commons as seen here (by now already speedily deleted as copyvio in usual Shingling334-style). At 11:58, the IP uses the picture here and then just afterwards twice here. Regards! --T*U (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. It seems that Shingling334 has not quite understood the situation... New IP from "Ipswich" aka Mersin. --T*U (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

May have to go to page protection. I've indeffed Shingling334 already, so any action of his gets a revert and a block from now on. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this zeitgeist wikipedia article would be greatly improved if it was deleted right now.Bobsyouruncleishe (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Some WP:DENY needs to be applied to the user above, and perhaps keep an eye on the talk pages edited. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Crop circle science chat

Ah, you went ahead and made the block. It did seem like they were enjoying a general conversation about the nature of truth in science, than having any particular point to make about the article. --McGeddon (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I was going to point out his confirmation bias regarding the source and see where it went from there, but he decided to try to take it into the article. Did wait long enough that there's no denying that he's WP:NOTHERE and not capable, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gog and Magog

The 172 IP is a Til Eulenspiegel sock. As is 172.56.34.83 (talk · contribs). Doug Weller talk 14:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding Hamitic to my watchlist. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Good job

I was just on the fence earlier today whether I should bring Smunkyslap to AN/I for his trolling. I just have come to dislike that forum, with its focus on finger-pointing, so I figured I'd give him one last chance to make a productive edit. He seemed to be trying to make constructive edits to the article on what might be his hometown (like this one), but honestly, the stuff at Cupping therapy was pure trolling. So thanks for that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw those, which was why I responded the first time instead of blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Going away for a few days

Been transferring files to storage past few days, packing today, traveling the following two days. Then I've gotta scramble to get enough groceries to last me a couple of days before and after 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit, during which I really need to write lesson plans. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Brad Watson

Just blocked an IPv6 address. The whole range seems basically him:[1] - do you concur? Doug Weller talk 15:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sorry for the late response, G20's thrown off the school's schedule. Off the top of my head, those numbers look about right. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Ian.thomson. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is Monday Gabriel or Michael?

You might like to check out the page about 7 Archangels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Archangels) it has two different lists pairing them up with weekdays, in one Gabriel has Sunday and Michael has Monday in the other its vice versa Flurbius (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Angelology is inconsistent even if you check the traditions within only one of the Abrahamic religions. It's not science, it's mythology. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring thing

I appreciate your reasoned judgment. Would you mind looking into the substance of the BLP issue? I talk about that on the noticeboard.

Here's a summary of the controversy: Malia Bouattia is an Algerian (North African) woman who says she's black, based on her Algerian ancestry. Unlike the US, where blackness is typically tied to sub-Saharan African ancestry, there is precedent for describing North Africans as black in the UK (see Black Britons). Moreover, the vast majority of RS say she's black. A couple have criticized her for her racial identity--calling herself black based on (non-sub-Saharan) North African ancestry--and these sources are cited in the article.

Per the RS, I want to state that she is black while also covering the criticism of her racial identity raised by a minority of RS. The user who tried to report me keeps removing RS saying she's black, while keeping the pejorative information questioning her racial identity; I want to keep both the latter and the former. The user is motivated by a certain point of view. He is clearly not British--and dislikes Bouattia--which is prompting him to accuse her of fraud, etc on the talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The G20 summit screwed up my school's schedule for this semester, so I can't make any promises regarding any activity of mine here. Also, I prefer to not have any feelings regarding article content when I handle 3rr cases. That said, what you are describing (if accurate) sounds like there's some issues that need further mediation. I'll try to look over it at some point, but it'd be helpful if you provided some diffs as evidence -- otherwise it'll end up in a somewhat full "to do" pile. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are the diffs: # [2]

1. [3]
2. [4]

Note that the sources being removed state that Bouattia is black. Steeletrap (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

about the edit warring

Hey, thanks for the judgment on this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Steeletrap_reported_by_User:Phantom147_.28Result:_No_violation.29

I understand that the 3 revert rule does not apply, but isn't editing over and over again a subject which has been over mediation and RFC in this article already, and editing it without the issue being resolved in the talk page a violation of the rules? Phantom147 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Depends on the situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Unprotect

Hi Ian, as you're online: would you be able to unsalt this article as to allow me to edit it? regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I went to bed just after my previous edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That's alright Ian! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe it's been a year, already.

Wishing Ian.thomson a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So much time, so little accomplished. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Novobiotic

Thanks for your message. Regarding the teixobactin article let me summarize. Novobiotic Pharmaceuticals (I am president) is an independent company that licensed a technology from Northeastern University back in 2003. Novobiotic spent the next ten years using this technology to search for new antibiotics, completely independent of Northeastern or anyone else. In 2014, teixobactin was discovered at Novobiotic, and for the next several months was tested in various studies at Novobiotic, all supported by a NIH small business grant to Novobiotic. Once we determined it was a interesting new antibiotic, we collaborated with Northeastern and the other authors on the Nature paper (Selcia, U Bonn) to more fully understand how teixobactin works to kill bacteria. This work was all secondary to the original discovery. We then published the collaborative effort in Nature in Jan 2015. The general media response was overwhelming. Unfortunately, in an attempt to simplify the story for the public, the media errantly ascribed the discovery of teixobactin to Northeastern. This simply isn't true. However, once the story was out, it could not be stopped or corrected before ending up on virtually every major newspaper in the country (and world). However, if you speak to any of the authors they will absolutely confirm 100% that teixobactin was discovered by Novobiotic, long before they were involved. The other contributors were simply collaborators after the initial discovery and characterization of teixobactin by Novobiotic. This error has since been corrected in some journals and articles, and is slowly being realized and corrected elsewhere. For example in the October 2016 Scientific American you will see Novobiotic is listed as the main author on the Nature paper. I'm not sure how to "prove" all this. Will a written affidavit from the two Northeastern professors Kim Lewis and Slava Epstein suffice? How about from all the other authors? Let me know what proof you need. So Wikipedia has a choice: continue to convey wrong information, or provide a simple accurate fact. This is not an "opinion" or a "belief", it is undisputed fact. I guarantee there is no one telling you that teixobactin was discovered by some place other than Novobiotic. And you're right, this is not a "minor edit", as it is frustrating and demoralizing for the people that spent hard work and effort for many years to find this promising new antibiotic. Thanks for your time. Dallas Hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEHughes (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The sources currently in the article describe the discovery as the work of a consortium. Wikipedia is just a summary of professionally published academic and journalistic sources. We do not speak to anyone, we just read the sources that are out there. If the error is being corrected in independent sources, the article will as well in due time. If such changes do not occur in independent sources, then from our perspective there hasn't been an error.

Would you mind pointing to where in the October 2016 issue of Scientific American discusses the Nature paper? "Main author" isn't necessarily "sole author."

Also, ignore for a moment that it's your company, imagine this from an outside perspective, and try to understand how this looks from that perspective. You see the commercial motivation to present it as primarily the work of your company, right? I'm not saying Novobiotic shouldn't get credit, but that as long as current sources also give the credit to another company and two universities, no one group should hog all the glory. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The work in the Nature article is not the product of Novobiotic solely, and I never said that. As I described, the entire project became a collaboration after Novobiotic discovered teixobactin. Your wikipedia article said it was "first discovered by Northeastern University" You do not have any proof of that fact, and you will not find any. It is false and misleading to those who are reading about the compound. Here is a direct quote in a Northeastern article from Professor Kim Lewis at Northeastern, the corresponding author of the Nature paper:

6th paragraph final sentence: http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2015/01/kim-lewis-teixobactin-nature-paper/ "Novo­Bi­otic has since assem­bled about 50,000 strains of uncul­tured bac­teria and dis­cov­ered 25 new antibi­otics, of which teixobactin is the latest and most inter­esting", Lewis said.

The error is being corrected in independent sources. I previously sent you a link to errata printed in Chemical and Engineering News confirming the discovery of teixobactin by Novobiotic.

Look, if there was another scientist or group out there claiming to have discovered teixobactin, I would agree there is a conflict and you would need to be careful with the language. No one on the planet except you is challenging our discovery. Unfortunately many people read wikipedia for their information, or else I wouldn't care what you write or spend any time on this. Forget we are a company for a minute. Look at it from the eyes of the Novobiotic scientists that have spent a decade collecting soils, isolating microbes, screening for new antibiotics produced by the microbes, having a Eureka! moment the day teixobactin was discovered. All taking place at Novobiotic. And then reading in Wikipedia that it was discovered by Northeastern University, whose role up to the discovery was to license the technology to Novobiotic 10 years earlier. Novobiotic has since obtained multiple grants from NIH and the Gates foundation (check our press releases) to expand our discovery program, because those in this field including our scientific peers understand exactly how this new antibiotic was discovered. I will hunt down the Sci Amer article if it will do any good.

As you suggest, I will imagine this for a moment from an outside perspective. The absolute first thing I do before I write about or surmise anything outside my field is to confirm that my references are correct, so that I am not publishing falsehoods. This is taught in first year grad school. You have not done this. You've cobbled together what you think is the correct story from a few articles, some saying different things, many themselves in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEHughes (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are "not" saying that Novobiotic was the sole discoverer, then your changes to the article suggest otherwise. There is no denying that you tried to make the article say that it was just Novobiotic. If that was not your intention, then you need to leave the writing to someone without a commercial bias.

You said Your wikipedia article said it was "first discovered by Northeastern University" -- The article does not say that anywhere. It says it was discovered by a consortium. The only direct mention of Northeastern is that they hold the patent on the iChip.

The Northeastern link still describes them as having a role in it, ("North­eastern researchers’ pio­neering work to develop a novel method for growing uncul­tured bac­teria led to the dis­covery of the antibi­otic").

That Northeastern.edu link is the first link to errata you've sent me. You need to present these corrective independent sources instead of leaving everyone else to go find them.

I really can't find it in me to work with you on this if you keep insisting that the article says stuff that it simply does not. Try reading the actual article first instead of getting upset that it's not an advertisement for your company. The editors of the teixobactin article here have made sure that it is accurate to the sources available at time of writing -- your accusations that they have chosen inaccurate sources or even falsified them is an indication that you are not here to edit cooperatively. As you have an obvious commercial interest in this matter, I strongly recommend you tone down such rhetoric (especially if you plan on accomplishing anything). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My friend, check what your article said a couple days ago when I sent the first message. It clearly said the compound was "first discovered by Northeastern University". That's why I wrote the message in the first place, because it isn't true. The wording has since been changed. The current wording isn't great, but it isn't patently false. So let it stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.212.65 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking through the article history, I see that the article has largely used the current wording until this IP address vandalized it to say that it was discovered in Hong Kong. The article has described it as the work of a consortium since January 11 -- nine months (about 98.2% of the article's entire existence). Even before then, it said that it was "discovered using techniques developed by researchers at Northwestern University, not just "discovered by Northwestern University."

You were the one who needed the advice to "let it stand".

Even if you did not have a commercial interest in this matter, the sheer distance between your perception of the article and the actual state and history of the article is so disparate I would have to ask you to leave it alone. Also, stick to one account or the other. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design

Hi. I can't make head nor tail of your latest answer there. Your previous answers during Poodlegate were about sources and such. Here you went from 0 to ""God is the ground of all being, source of all existence, and original author of established scientific laws (including evolution)" - scientifically untestable theological position with a variety of options for theodicy." followed by big infodump on biological strangeness in no time flat. Did I miss half the discussion? What are you responding to? Your answer looks like it's out of a forum discussion on creationism rather than a cogent talk page answer on ID (that carefully avoids making claims about the designer, its CV, its intent, or its character).Have you had waaay too much coffee, or I not enough? {{u|Gamall ^Wednesday _Ida}}  10:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ID is just a rebrand attempt for YEC that tries to hijack theism. The first bit was not ID, hence the link to Theistic evolution at the end. The second was "here's ID's claims presented alongside a variety of reasons why it can't be true." I am going to be right drunk in about an hour, but I'm still sober. Long day, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ID is disguised creationism. You are arguing directly against the creationism part, which opens you up to counterarguments by cdesign proponentsists like "ID is a purely scientific objection and makes no claim about the designer blah blah Behe blaaah irreducible complexity". Furthermore, I anticipate that the editor who started the thread will jump into a messy forum-like discussion based on your comments rather than addressing the lack of sources and acknowledging consensus, which is why I don't think it was a very good move. Oh well. Happy drinking anyway! {{u|Gamall ^Wednesday _Ida}}  11:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tyree999

There's another account with a very similar username: Tyree888. Do you think there's any connexion? Adam9007 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah. He might as well have named the account "Tyree999 again." Thanks for pointing it out. I should've seen it, but I just woke up. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose "Do you think there's any connexion?" was a pretty dim question, as the connexion was obvious. I thought I'd inform you rather than take it to WP:AIV as you've just dealt with block evasion on his part. Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Ronald Galope Barniso

Hi Ian.thomson. A sort of "unblock request" has been posted at User talk:Ronald Galope Barniso#Restore my page. I am only notifying you about it because in User talk:Ronald Galope Barniso#HighInBC, you posted that you were removing the editor's user talk page access. I was going to post something about WP:UNBLOCK, but it's not clear if the editor needs to request such a thing via UTRS. In addition, this editor may have initially been indefinitely blocked for making threats against other users, but since their block they have engaged in socking both on Wikipedia and Commons so I am not sure how that affects any unblock request. Please advise on how to best respond in a case such as this. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Javascript jump must've made me hit "block user from sending email" instead of revoking talk page access, because that was what was checked. Since they've been socking (and recently), I'm just gonna revoke all access. Even if he's acting out of sheer ignorance, he's behaving like a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking another look and the speedy response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, you caught me just as I woke up. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BatuhanDemirhan

I saw you recently blocked this ip address, because it was being used by the banned user. I believe this ip address and this one is the same user as they are editing the same articles. Can you check if they are the same user? Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser, so I have to stick to the WP:DUCK test. this and this seem good enough. Blocking now. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why would you apologize to me?

I was behaving somewhat dickishly on that ANI thread. Racism and historical revisionism (of that kind) gets me angry. I know that probably means I shouldn't join ANI discussions of these things, but if I hadn't then it's possible only one or two of the antisemitic clues on a certain other user's user page would have been picked up on by the community and he could have convinced them that it was just a coincidence (apparently most modern English bibles tone down the antisemitism of that particular passage) and gotten away with a slap on the wrist. So I'm not apologizing for helping with the digging in cases like this. But you were also right for calling me out on being aggressive in the latest case. So it's not clear what you would be apologizing -- I'm a white guy from Ireland, so the more general apology for the sins of history doesn't seem entirely appropriate either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I was apologizing for calling you out on presenting his historical revisionism as outright white supremacism (instead of just ignorant pride), but more as a shot at him for responding to that calling out with pretty much the American Southern equivalent of Holocaust denial. "The Red Shirts weren't white supremacists," while almost obviously wrong, could be ignorantly argued for without intentional racism (I can imagine some extended family, former church members, and maybe a few former co-workers doing so for the reasons I gave at ANI). "The South has nothing to apologize for" is not really any different from "Germany has nothing to apologize for." I had to go take a nap after to regain the willpower I spent to respond without getting desysoped.

If I had another reason to block him at this point, I would. He has, however, agreed to the topic ban. Hypothetically, it is still possible he'll become super productive and cooperative in articles on gardening or something. Experience says it's unlikely, but because the chance is there I guess we're supposed to give him a chance to become useful (even if we're doing so grudgingly). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

...Though I would not consider it wheelwarring or overstepping boundaries at all if another admin looks over the thread and decides my decision needs some sort of override. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki Abuse Advice

I came across User:Muishadi4 on MediaWiki making destructive edits. I asked about it on IRC but didn't seem to get an answer. I'm stupidly new and low on the wiki totem pole and clicked around on random links after reverting their edits. I then came across their page on Meta and discovered you as (I think) the user who blocked them indefinitely on Wikipedia. Do you have any advice for taking care of said user on the other wikis? Also looks like [5] and [6] should be rveerted but I'm not sure how. James Kevin Martindale (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've only got jurisdiction here. At Meta.Wikimedia, you should be able to report him at meta:Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat, which may result in him being globally blocked. As for id.wikipedia... I'd have to run every page through Google translate, myself, but in my experience all the Wikipedias have something like the administrators noticeboard. Ah, when I visited the Indonesian Wikipedia, a bot left me a message saying if I don't speak Indonesian, to check with their embassy (that's a good idea, the English Wikipedia should steal it) or check with a user who speaks English.

I've gotta get ready to teach, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave this on you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jesusfvckingchrist

You may wish to revoke talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A sock you reverted

Hi Ian,

On the Azerbaijan page, you reverted a sock of this sockmaster. However, the Perso-Arabic script is not a script officially used in Azerbaijan anymore, and the same goes for the Cyrillic one. Would you mind if I delete both additions therefore? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, fine, that's not one of the main areas where I spot him. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)