User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 32

Church of Satan

Sorry did a bit of research and found a wrong source why on internet which let to may changes Silentzrbra (talk) 8:38 am, Today (UTC+8)

...Would you like to edit Wikipedia in your native language?

Also, a sources cited in the article matters more than a source that has only been mentioned but not even named. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, and to you and yours as well, and a Happy New Year! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

BatuhanDemirhan

seems to be evading the block: Special:Contributions/85.105.169.53, Special:Contributions/85.105.170.64 (edit warring in support of user Beshogur). 2003:77:4F10:EA80:61C7:DAD7:ACEA:5759 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

My page

Email my DJ Darren Chraplak text to [email redacted] DJ Darren Chraplak (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump-Mexico Deal

Hi The dealing started since Trump took the Mexican subject as a campaign. The end of the deal, what will happen, we dont know. If you dont see that, I understand. But every thing in this subject has being part of the Deal Trump is negotiating. he is a great negotiator, he is doing that. In time you will see the result. There are 2 points of view in this and 2 possible outcome, I took the experts of each side, give the options of that by the experts. There is no possible side the result has not happen. Is a negotiation in process. The options are there of what experts say can happen. The sources please check them. They are the most credited in the subject, there are no better ones. Trump, the Mexican President, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the NAFTA, New York Times. I am not saying this is the case, but I did a previous Article on a person that did much in history. The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, he said, the sources, that the person did not do that, etc. when I demonstrated every thing was correct, that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it. has a page with stars, he is a publisher, etc. I just want to contribute Wikipedia if good information is welcome. What ever you decide, is fine for me. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No no no no no. Wikipedia doesn't say "great negotiator," "wise investor," and other praise you've been giving in the article. Wikipedia is neutral, and if you cannot or will not abide by that, you need to leave. Also, Wikipedia does not engage in speculation about the future, so "2 possible outcomes" is two too many.

Also, your claims regarding someone else "publishing" stuff and insulting you appear to contradict the page history for the article as well as those of the talk pages for everyone you've interacted with. Have you edited under a previous account? If so, what was the name? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson I did not say that. What I said is that in the past I did an other Article, a (other) person, market for deletion, etc. Not the person you are saying of whom I dont have an opinion at this moment. Please keep communication according to Wikipedia. I only try to contribute to Wikipedia. The article does not have any description from me you mention: "great negotiator," "wise investor," and other praise you've been giving. What it have is experts expressions and the links if read confirm that but dont have any "great negotiator," "wise investor," for no one in the Article. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You current account is only a few days old, and the only article you have tried to create under this account was the Trump-Mexico Deal. What was the name of your previous account? What was the previous article? And how is that relevant to the Trump-Mexico Deal?

Your Trump-Mexico Deal article did call Carlos Slim a "wise investor." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ian.thomson!

Happy New Year!

Ian.thomson,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, and to you and yours as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

IP:110.146.179.201

Hello Ian, You recently blocked the above, but they are now evading by using 58.164.22.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make themselves a nuisance on Betty Logan's Talk page. I have asked them to stop, but could I leave further action to you please. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just woke up. I'm guessing they've left that IP by now. As was concluded at ANI, it's looking like protection might be a better option. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

myth VS legend

1830, from French Mythe (1818) and directly from Modern Latin mythus, from Greek mythos "speech, thought, story, myth, anything delivered by word of mouth," of unknown origin.

   Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

General sense of "untrue story, rumor" is from 1840.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostubes (talk • contribs)

@Lostubes: So, the definition you're using is unique to you, three incomplete "citations" to two hundred years outdated scholarship, and a total misinterpretation of the word "trivial" from a modern source. See Myth and Legend to understand how the terms are defined by modern scholarship. Did you not even read the Oxford source that you cited? You've got to be joking to suggest that a global flood is trivial. Also, the deity Yahweh is involved in the story, so by the very definition you cite, it is a myth and not legend. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ian.

Original research is original research, facts and defactos are facts and defactos.

Attempting to refute a fact or a defacto merely because you are a scholarly fellow having spend your life in theological sessions but without any dunk of linquistics, anthropology, or for that matter, wence it has come, does not imply that original research would be research, but merely a defacto.

Wikipedia might not care about scholarly attitudes, then again, what it might not care about is a scholar whom makes presume that all defactos must come from his name, or, a defacto, that it would want all scholars to give them their copyrights, to you, or the ´house´ of copyrights.

If I´m not too presumpcious, a question: Are you Anon, scientiologist, both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Your "facts" are original research. They have no sources, and they go against cited professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources. I'm not a Scientologist, and you are being presumptuous. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Western astrology

Didn't you know? Ceres was discovered by "reverse" astrology! The charts suggested an unseen "planet". Doug Weller did some refinement and "discovered" Ceres! Jim1138 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Help please

Hello Ian,

I have opened a SPI case last week: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. But it seems that i have malfiled it. I have problems regarding my computer and my mobile restricts me for making proper edits. Would you please correct it? Sorry to bother you. Bests. 46.221.203.87 (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I see the problem: did you edit the page directly, instead of using the submit feature in the "How to open an investigation:" tab? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I did exactly what i did on other Wikipedias. I rarely edit en.wiki. It seems that the procedure is a bit different, since i did not face such problem before. Thank you, Ian. I hope this long-term vandal is going to be range-blocked by the admins/checkusers soon. 46.221.184.142 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the IP who threatened by my family

Wow. I haven't actually had a threat like that before. Libellous comments, sure. But not a threat. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Been a while since I've seen a threat directed toward families. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Random passerby here. I saw this thread, and immediately thought of this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Request for unprotection: Talk:State of Palestine. --219.79.227.218 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Megalia

I suspect that there has been a pile-on of MRMs on Megalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It seems to be less of a mess at the moment. There seems to be much talk about male genital mutilation and other outright misandry. I did a quick look at http://www.megalian.com/ with an admittedly poor Google translation and saw little if anything other then reporting of objectionable transgressions by men. It would seem that someone fluent in Korean needs to check the article. Suggestions? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought I ran across some people who knew Korean at the Providence (religious movement) article years ago, but it seems they were helping with translations of Japanese news sources. All the names in Category:User_ko-4 and Category:User_ko-N are blue instead of purple for me, so I can't really point to anyone in particular (and every random user I click on seems to have been inactive for at least four years, but that's just my luck). I have friends who taught in Korea, but their reading level is really only enough to handle restaurant menus. I think that at least one of them might still has somewhat fluent contacts in Korea. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that there was a discussion already raised at WikiProject Korea, though it didn't get very far. Still might be another good venue (instead of clicking random user names like I was doing). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I have this on my watchlist and I am currently researching sources to make it neutral. The current stripped down version is to be honest somewhat OK. The incident about the male genital mutilation was true, but it was blown up like any sensationalist incident. The site is actually a satirical site in the sense that it "mirrors" the misogynistic comments on Ilbe Storehouse (and uses this to show the misogyny in certain internet forums). I will bring sources and try to make it neutral soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The mirroring thing was kinda what I was hoping was the case from one of the sources I did run through Google translate. Any possibility further sources would render the male genital mutilation and kindergarten incidents undue (or at least shuffle them into a secondarily-sourced "controversies" section), or else support labeling the site as radical feminism in the lede? I ask because the further the goal post is for MRM pov-pushers, the easier the WP:NOTHERE cases are to spot. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If the MGM/misandrist events on Magalia are generally satirical, then putting in a "satire" section might be appropriate. If it is indeed satirical, then user:Kiyoweap might be willing to take a look? She is Japanese, but appears to know Korean well. She has done way too much work on Providence that is unfortunately too often undone. It does seem that some men are taking the site and Wiki article way too seriously. Jim1138 (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't actually speak Korean or have any Korean-speaking contacts at my disposal. I just try to digest material through machine translators and googling, etc.

I just wrote up a comment at Talk:Megalia making pretty much the same point that Lemongirl942 had already made here. Megalians claim they engage in "mirroring" or mimicking behavior at Ilbe, rather than unprovoked misandry.

As for the kindergarten teacher who posted fantasies over prepubescent young boys (jorini), she later explained she was mirroring, reacting to the common use of the word lorini ("little Lolita") found on Ilbe.[1]

Conduct such as reported in "I secretly filmed my younger or older sister, would you like to see? Controversy of Ilbe authorizing disclosure of family privacy"[2] (cited in Ilbe Storehouse) might easily have prompted some mirroring Megalians into "filming the men's changing rooms/restrooms,..". I'm not sure about what "sharing pics of mutilated penises" is supposed to be a payback for. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kiyoweap for looking into this. You are much more patient than I. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your block of JasonCarswell

In this edit you said, among other things, "I'd be plenty fine with a longer block if you believe that's necessary", following my comment "I think the only aspect of this block which might reasonably be subject to review is the fact that it is for a limited time." To avoid any risk of misunderstanding, I should like to say that my comment was not intended to be a criticism of you: it was intended to be a message to JasonCarswell about how totally unacceptable I think his actions have been. The one-year figure quoted in the topic ban does make it difficult to block for more than a year for breaching that ban, and if I had done the blocking, I very probably would have done the same as you. I doubt that the editor will be likely to start editing within Wikipedia policy in a year, but if he comes back after the year we can see whether he does edit within policy or not, and if not then a possible indefinite block can be considered.

(Incidentally, the way the topic ban is recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is really rather confused and unclear. It initially says that JasonCarswell "is hereby topic banned from all WP:FRINGE subjects, broadly construed, for a period of one year" (my emphasis), but reading further, one discovers that the topic ban is actually indefinite, and the only thing which is set for one year is the earliest date at which the editor can request that the ban be lifted. That being so, I think that saying that he is topic banned for one year is misleading.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I figured it wasn't a criticism, just perhaps a suggestion that it could be longer (and one that I wasn't opposed to). Thanks for pointing that out, we should probably inform him as well at some point before he comes back. No antagonism or defensiveness was meant, except perhaps reinforcing for him that he really needs to think long and hard about his actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The Exodus

Requesting WP:FULL protection for the article The Exodus, multiple disputes occurring. Thnx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Greetings. Some of your recent edits, including ones you made to/regarding Talk:James O'Keefe, do not appear to be civil toward other editors. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to (re-?) familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. In particular, it's relevant that WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturnalia0 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: Don't template the regulars. There's a difference between being dismissive of the unsupported and far-fetched claims by a long-term POV pusher and being incivil. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

HardMental

Hey, I am being reported for adding an external link to an article(what I did actually was adding a nomination link for the image of the person whom is the subject of the article also which is something in fact that must be done since it is not stated anywhere otherwise) I have done and you are judging me for entirely something else and warning me about it but suspending me from changing this article page, this is misuse of authority and abuse of power which can clearly be seen in both of your actions, there is so much wrong here I can hardly bring myself to make a defense for myself by talking to you but instead I should report both of you for "abuse reporting" which I clearly don't. In no place (NONE) such rule is stated. You are obliged to point me to this rule instead of nonsense you point me to there. So please don't give me a response on this if you agree on my declaration here, just undo what you have done on the article and I am OK with the warning you have given me but instead like a compensation for whatever wrong things that I might have said towards him or on the matter, you would be completely right on that which I am sorry about on doing so. Out of context by the way getting reported and warned by superiors and administrators shouldn't even be a thing on a platform which has been founded by an Indian whom still has a caste system in his own country(for God's sake am I right). Hoping that I was able to explain myself clearly this time being calm and all well trying if nothing else, that has to be the reason to why not a single soul was helping me out but ignoring me in the end, it is actually not even my fault being a newbie, trying to learn things on my own here I believe I should be given help on things, even though I be honest and direct at all times and nothing else, alright just mad sometimes a bit, OK a lot. Anyway about this quite long story and any mistyping or misspelling that I might have done and you may had to endure, English is not my mother language obviously with no need of mention of course. Many thanks in advance and as the last thing please do vote for the nomination of the image at least whatever your opinion is on it, it is fine by me, first people that vote think it requires restoration, the image has 4k resolution, has the highest contrast(since it is black and white) might be blurry but it is the only one making it the original, the photo taken the one which is posted there what makes it blurry to my belief, I am no expert but I can say it is in good state for a hundred year old photo don't you think? Peace out. HardMental (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@HardMental: An external link goes to a site that is not Wikipedia.

You were adding an internal link to a discussion page.

A "nomination link" would be inappropriate as an external link per #4 in WP:LINKNO.

A "nomination link" as an internal link belongs on the article's talk page. It's just a common sense understanding of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page."

If a page's name begins with "Wikipedia:", it generally should not need to be linked in an article but on the article's discussion page.

Multiple editors have explained these ideas to you. Explaining these things to you is how people try to help you. However, you refuse to listen, which makes you a disruptive editor -- that is why people are judging you.

Not to mention that your off-topic points are also wrong: The site's founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger are not from India. If you meant "found" (past tense of "find") instead of "founded," becoming an administrator is based on one's ability, determined by public elections, and not based on birth, so your comparison is still wrong. It is not your fault for being a newbie, but it is your fault that you have refused to learn from others.

I really don't care about the photo, just link to the discussion on the article's talk page instead of in the article itself. You have shown that you know how to find the talk page, you have posted on that article's talk page before, so you have no excuse by this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

1. WP:LINKNO has no rule for nominations, the one you point me to is for "online petitions" there is a big difference between those two, petitions is done with an official name and address or some kind of electronic signature is required.
2. Explaining is a way to help on things yes which no body seems to bother that I encountered so far. I am not damaging anything, do you hear yourself sir? It is not a good way to communicate a person, accusing him things constantly which you do it here multiple times going and condescending me again and again.
3. You may chose not to vote you can express that in a more nicer/civil manner instead of the way you do which also would be the thing to do given your position on this site requires keeping things formal.

Also m7s - the referee that I conversed with before you - admitted and explicitly stated that "It is not forbidden to edit the article that way, it is just unusual and impractical" this doesn't prove that I am wrong on what I did, you are yet to show me my fault here but there is no reason to turn this in to a mexican standoff, you have the rights to not alter the changes you did, I am just trying to convince you by trying to show you that I am actually fighting the good fight here. Have a nice one. (Forgot to sign a couple of times, hope this fixes it.)HardMental (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I found where a such thing may have existed if it did, might want to see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked but please check the beginning of the article and see what it says, in the part what should be linked states something interesting: 'If you feel that a link does not belong in the body of an article, consider moving it to a "See also" section.' maybe this can be done instead, it seems like the proper action here, no? HardMental (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you simply not care that there are other users on the site who have been here longer than you and know more about how this site works? Whether you like or dislike the way the explanations were phrased, they were given, repeatedly, by multiple users. Since they didn't justify your actions, you argued against them. When I said "I really don't care about the photo," that was civil enough -- you need to assume good faith and quit arguing with everyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I am arguing here but I believe the respect is earned not given, generally speaking including me just in my humble opinion. I asked something there but you didn't answer my question, I will assume that you missed it so I am going ahead and adding a See Also section to the article thinking it is the right thing for it, this way the reader won't receive a wrong idea/info on the matter but instead the whole article might attract their attention/interest, and the date is required but I don't know how to properly edit the format for the required date, would you kindly add that if may I ask this of you please, it can be added after the nomination if they think it would be unfair to other nominees. Thanks again, wish you have a good one. Saw your note on history just now, still trying to improve my editing, I had some experience with C and HTML languages but nothing much than that, maybe a little gifted but no expert just trying to do my best Sir, thanks for your compliment, need more of that from people so we can do things with a better morale at least, many thanks again. HardMental (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible quack

Hi Ian.thomson. Do you think Rzombie1988 or Anon385385 might be back based upon this edit? Same article which Rzombie1988 was trying to create citing the same pro wrestling blog as a source. The superbalckninja account was created right around the time the others were blocked and has been working on the same types of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Saw that too. Looking into it, I can't say that it is yet. RZ88 never displayed any interest in J-Pop, though that's not out of the question. Superblackninja is a touch WP:PRECOCIOUS, starting off knowing to cite sources (though figuring out what qualifies as an WP:RS still appears to be a slight problem). SBN is, so far, way more civil than RZ88 ever was.

I can imagine that SBN is just a new user who learning quickly, given that RZ88's levels of WP:CIR (both with WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL) were at a level that cannot be described without violating WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, when SBN recreated Jumbo Hori, SBN did not cite Hori's blog or that quote about her size from a newspaper interview. I have a very hard time believing that Rzombie1988 would be smart enough to adjust his tactics like that. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

SBN did cite ProWresBlog, which I found out was RZ88's personal site. I've advised against that and the reaction will provide further evidence one way or another.

Yes, I know that you're reading this right now and that will affect your behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I was just curious, but will AGF. As you say it could just be just an editor who has edited before, but is unrelated to the other accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Aquariusveritas

Hello. This is Aquariusveritas. I don't know if I am doing this correctly but I'll try and see. You wrote me a message asking if the article I have been working on for 8 hours is paid work or indirectly compensated advocacy. The answer is, this is not paid work nor is it indirectly compensated advocacy. I don't know what in my writing makes it appear that way. I recently saw that the choreographer Jacquelyn Buglisi has a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqulyn_Buglisi) and I thought to myself, "Why aren't more choreographers and dancers listed on Wikipedia?" With that in mind I decided to try creating pages. This is my first attempt and I am sure that there are many things to be fixed. I've tried to make sure that what I write is correctly sourced and cited so that future dance pages will flow from my fingers easily. If you have suggestions on what makes for better writing I would very much so like to hear your advice. Thank you in advance. I just read that new writing goes at the bottom. I hope that this is correct. Aquariusveritas (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You've uploaded the sort of photos that are paid for (ones with professional watermarks) and claimed that they are your own. If you own NYCreative, then the inclusion of the watermark promotes your business and suggests the possibility that the photos and article were part of a package deal to write articles about individuals for money (as some businesses try to do despite that going against the terms of service). If you did the photography on your own time and not as part of NYCreative, then you did not need to put the company logo on there. If you do not own NYCreative, then that raises major concerns about copyright.

I'm about to turn in, but some advice: Avoid praise, just state what happened without emotion. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The definite issue is with the watermark photographs. It took me more than a few tries to understand what the actual copyright means. I always thought that if something had a copyright symbol on it then it was free to use. With that in mind I have absolutely violated the copyright numerous times without understanding what I was doing. At first I thought the images I was using were getting rejected because the images were of low quality so I grabbed photographs from Google Image search. Those images were accepted which made me think I was correct. Then I uploaded a picture I took of the artist from offstage and it was accepted. So I tried to add more and that is when the computer started to tell me that there was an issue with the usage of the images. I would like to replace the images with watermarks especially now that I understand that I am in copyright violation. I am sure that I am repeating myself here but clarity is a good thing so I will ask your indulgence: the image with the two girls and the old man were taken by me. The other images were not taken by me. Should I remove them or avoid editing the page until later as you wrote in your initial message? My final question regards praise and emotion. I have attempted to craft writing that makes use of the source materials I am citing - sometimes directly. I don't think that I am writing in a laudatory fashion but then I am not currently at my most lucid. I am off to bed myself. Thank you for writing and good morning/good night. Aquariusveritas (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"I always thought that if something had a copyright symbol on it then it was free to use." -- NO! That is the opposite of what that means! Do not upload any more photos. What do you mean that you were using the source material directly? Do you mean plagiarism? Stop writing new articles, just edit existing ones until you learn how to handle copyright. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

1llum1nat1

1llum1nat1 I have used the talk page. Please familiarize yourself with the situation before commenting on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1llum1nat1 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no posts by you at Talk:Adam Weishaupt. I see no consensus resulting from your post at User talk:Fiddlersmouth. I see four reverts by you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

1llum1nat1 I was of the impression that the talking was to be done on the user talk pages. As such, Fiddler has not responded to me, so it is impossible to develop a consensus. It is no longer relevant, because I'm happy with "The Order of the Illuminati".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1llum1nat1 (talk • contribs)

You were under the wrong impression. Why else would we have talk pages for articles? They're not general discussion boards, they're for article improvement. Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), tagging your name at the beginning is insufficient. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

To speculate about whether or not his ideological descendants are using advanced technology to turn frogs homosexual? 1llum1nat1 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC) 1llum1nat1

That would fall under WP:NOTFORUM and WP:FRINGE, if not WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess we know where you take your paychecks from, Captain Globalism! 1llum1nat1 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC) 1llum1nat1

Yes, from the university I teach English at and not from imaginary conspiracy. See WP:NPA. If you are here under the belief that there is some sort of global conspiracy, find a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour 1llum1nat1 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC) 1llum1nat1

Seeking your help on the Tamil New Year Page

Dear Ian

An anonymous editor IP# 58.164.106.182 has reverted edits thrice in a 24 hour page. You have now placed a block on further edits thereby acknowledging his word as the last word. This may have been vandalism and destructive editing on his part. I would like to appeal.

I have been a Wikipedia editor for at least 10 years. I am not an anonymous editor. I am a bit surprised about an anonymous editor with divergent IP numbers i.e. 58.164.106.182; 121.214.128.24; 121 214.96.118; 121.214.175.49; 121.214.120.94 to give just a few examples had arbitrarily and rudely deleted items in the Puthandu or Tamil New Year Page. I suspect that this is an act of mischief - not sure why. It is an instance of edit warring, uncivility and perhaps even sockpuppetry.

Here is the background. There were three footnotes introduced by another editor. I am not sure who introduced the footnotes. This anonymous editor then proceeded to delete all three footnotes blaming me for introducing them (which is not correct). I instinctively reverted the deletions as I was not clear as to the reasons for the deletions.

After a to and fro of deletions and reversions, I looked at the three footnotes under question. I agreed with this anonymous editor that two citations (introduced by another editor) were in fact of poor quality. I therefore deferred to him/her and deleted the two footnotes. The third citation appeared rigorous and I retained it. This anonymous editor proceeded once again to delete it. Its a newspaper citation.

Please note that the main text is not under debate. Its a mere footnote that is being debated here. Should it be there or not? I seek your advice.

Meanwhile, please investigate this anonymous editor for destructive editing. Its not helpful. I also am not sure what the motive is. Does it border on vandalism?

I am genuinely puzzled by all this and seek your advice. I will be traveling and there will be a delay in response on my part.

I would request that the anonymous editor be blocked for edit warring.

Warm regards Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

See my response at WP:AN. The IP editor admits that those are his IP addresses, and Dynamic IP addresses exist. In light of that, your own accusations of sockpuppetry and belligerence are the only belligerence that have occurred here. An editor who has been here for 10 years should know that WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks applies even toward IP editors (and that IP editors are not some bottom-tier caste), and that WP:Edit warring does not distinguish between editors with accounts or editors using IP addresses. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: the IP editor on Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

They are still not getting it[3][4][5]. Might I suggest a block via WP:NOTHERE? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: I did open the block menu when they asked me for sources to prove that the article cites the ASCE. I could imagine someone saying I'm WP:INVOLVED (even though I've contributed nothing to that article). I've asked for discretionary sanctions topic ban at WP:ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't blame you one bit. Their refusal to get the point that none of their sources are credible was bordering on trolling. I'm in the process of leaving a supporting comment.  Done Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Burning Bush

Requesting WP:FULL protection for the article The Burning Bush via edit warring. Thank you & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing reverts today, just alternating edits. I do see where there was an edit war a couple days ago, though. Will add to my watchlist and reprotect if I see it flare up again. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty, hopefully it doesn't come to that. Thnx! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing make-up tests (for students who skipped every fucking class last semester and tried to convince me they didn't exist) and prepping for my classes today and tomorrow, so if I missed subtle reverts, please do point them out for me. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)