User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 38

Semi-Wiki-Break-like thing

I've just been offered a job in Kumamoto and need to focus on that. Not really going to be gone, not logging out, still going to check certain pages for people who shouldn't be on the site, but going to be flakier than usual. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Abelmoschus Esculentus/Article.js

Hi. I have made the above script which leaves a message on a user talk page about how to write an article that won't be rejected or deleted using your template in one click. Hope you will like it. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Moriba Jah

I saw the question at the Teahouse and am just trying to get my head around the deletion. Was anything except the list of publications copied from the CV? – Joe (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I can't recall. I do know I was being a more strict because:

- their unclear claim that parts of what they posted were "actually auto-populated" suggests they're not actually typing what they're posting

- any user who repeatedly re-creates the same page immediately after deletion (especially by copying and pasting from the article page, including strings like "[edit source]") is not paying enough attention to say they have addressed a problem or that it doesn't exist

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Friday 4th January

Hi, I have a deletion on Friday 4th January. Your feedback said that 'the nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic'. This is not the case. However, I do volunteer with the organisation. I'm keen to stress that nothing in the edit was false and I have no ulterior motives. As requested, I am not directly or indirectly being compensated for my edits. I just want to get the information out there. You can look at the website (www.impactprofile.org), or see it on the app store or google play (if you're in the UK) to check validity and so forth if you like. Can you recommend the best way to proceed? Thanks for your Help RimaPOD2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RimaPOD2018 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@RimaPOD2018: Because you are a volunteer, you have a conflict of interest and still need to disclose your conflict of interest on your userpage as if you were a paid employee. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cardano ready for submission?

Hello @Ian.thomson:, I pinged you, because I saw you where also previously engaged in Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) talks: contribution. Thank you for your input so far. Do you think this article is ready enough to be submitted as an article for creation? Or do you have any suggestions? If so, please post your comments or just your approval on this talk page. Thank you, --FlippyFlink (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

NVergopolan block and maps by Adam Peterson

As far as I understand, the user NVergopolan was blocked about a month ago for posting maps already posted in a scientific paper she was the co-author of. Although as far as I know she is still blocked, her uploaded maps are still on Wikimedia Commons [1] I myself am guilty of adding two of her maps to wikipedia pages because Adam Peterson (Redtitan) didn't have any maps uploaded yet. The maps Adam Peterson has uploaded seem to be at the same resolution as most of the maps uploaded by NVergopolan. The two main differences between her maps and Adam Peterson's maps are that they use a different isotherm to determint the boundary between Köppen D and C type climates (0°C versus the standard -3°C), and that they are cut directly from an equirectangular projection of a world map rather than using a projection optimized to reduce distortion at higher latitudes for northern countries. I am trying to contact Adam Peterson to see if he can redo the maps done by NVergopolan to correct for distortion at higher latitudes, but I just want to find out if the maps may still be added to Wikipedia pages by other users or if they all need to be deleted because of the rule violation.Rigognos Molinarios (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

AE appeal

FYI. Copied it to AE, since you made it enforcing an AE sanction, but it isn't logged that way, so you may want to note it at WP:AELOG/2019. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Ok. It didn't occur to me when I made the block that it'd count as that since I'm not ArbCom but oh well. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Content Deletion from "Turkish Coffee"

@Ian.thomson:

I noticed a Revision to the Turkish coffee page. From what I can tell you deleted it because "Violations of copyright policy:". I had a chance to read it before it was deleted. There's some remarkable information there that maybe valid on a different page and sourced. Anyway to give it some due attention? IT's certainly controversial because there was an Armenian genocide. Too bad that the user posted from an unnamed IP address because I'd like to know more (and hang onto some skepticism while hearing it.)

Liberty5651 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Liberty5651: The content was interesting but it is expressly against Wikipedia policy to post copyrighted material on the site. It is a policy with legal implications.

While the information is interesting, the source in question does not meet our reliable sourcing standards: it cites Wikipedia for some of its claims.

While the Armenian genocide was an unacceptable tragedy that does deserves attention comparable to the Holocaust, and while I view any denialists of either event as not belonging here, I think the best approach to avoid any potential accusations of nationalism of any sort is to stick to neutral academic sources focused on the history of coffee.

I hate coffee, so I have no dog in the fight. I'd go through Google Books but I've got to work on my visa. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Block Caedmon Scop

I believe I was logged in when you accused me of trying to hide my identity. You might have easily asked me to identify myself, as opposed to upholding the ban on the fact that I did not. On what illiterate world is saying "I'm more than happy to provide my name" evidence of not being willing to provide one's name? This seems like left-wing solipsism to me. Perhaps you might at least ban me on some logical ground for the sake of appearances. Wouldn't want the proles to catch wind. Caedmon scop (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, WP:NPA, there's a reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

And for the benefit of any talk page watchers: Caedmon scop's IP address (but not account) was blocked for editing while logged out. The evidence thereof was the IP threatening to log in to "escalate" an edit war. I didn't carry out that block, just declined the unblock request on grounds of WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NOTVAND. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This is most pointedly not a quotation and reveals bias, because that is self evidently not what I said or meant. The original contender who reverted my legitimate edits continues to stalk my account. Congratulations on leaving evidence of bias and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caedmon scop (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Caedmon scop: You're this close to a WP:NOTHERE block. If you want to avoid it, you need to find a topic where you can at least pretend to assume good faith and don't view everything in a "you vs the world" mentality. Basically get a fresh start under this account.

Your accusation toward another user here is a personal attack. BMK was editing that article long before you even registered. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Family of Susana Mendoza, not paid

Hello, Ian. Thank you for the note. Websusanamendoza user is David Szostak, Susana's husband. I'm not paid by the campaign and we've fully disclosed who we are (from the beginning, back in 2011) with an appropriate username. Susana reviews the Wiki page and I edit it based on good Wiki practices. We both want it to stay clean and factual - like anyone else and just like Wiki says her article "is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. We're here to follow the rules. What are the next steps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Websusanamendoza (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Websusanamendoza: Read the instructions I've already left on your talk page. Disclose your conflict of interest on your user page (User:Websusanamendoza).

The phrase "biased editing" includes those with ties to the subject, not just those opposed to the subject. That is why you were never supposed to edit the article to begin with. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We understand that, Ian. But as you can see, you're the first person to mention this since 2010. And it goes without say, this is a high profile campaign where biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism will happen faster. Review our changes and we'll accept the outcome, hence the note to TDKR Chicago 101. We're not trying to create or hide our conflicts of interest.

Websusanamendoza (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice

Background: I have sided with Dice exactly 0 times in that discussion and I am explicitly mocked at the 2:20 mark in that video. Not that I get a say in such things but I think blocking someone because they post off-site criticism of Wikipedia is not great. While it was meat puppetry I think this is a case where discretion would have been the better part of valor. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If it was just criticism, I wouldn't have blocked. He knows he has a following and he's using it in bad faith to get what he wants without regard to our policies. I recommend reporting the video (and his comment linking to the talk page) for harassment. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Well in my case it might have started, should be fun times.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If I'm on and I see further incidents (on your page and a few other), I'll semi-protect. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No need, it does not overly worry me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok then. It looks like it's just a few folks going to random pages because they don't know what they're doing (...I mean, if they did, they'd be taking a different approach). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• You are obviously biased or at least WP:INVOLVED on the topic of Mark Dice's biography and his off-wiki canvassing. However, that does not allow you to indiscriminately indef new accounts. Please notify WP:AN or something because these blocks are not uncontroversial. wumbolo ^^^ 16:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of those accountants (being very generous) have just posted rants about how unfair Wikipedia is, and snide comments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And all of them were unaware of WP:TALK. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Were they, all the blocked accounts, even the ones who have been here for years? Even after I posted this [[2]], which tells any one who read it the talk page is for discussing the article, not a soapbox?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If Dice was a far-left conspiracy theorist, would you be complaining about me blocking accounts who posted stuff that had to be revdelled? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, completely ignoring politics, we're dealing with fans of a professional troll. Calling his fans here on Twitter was a cry for attention. Calling Jimbo on Twitter was a cry for attention. Coming on here was just gathering material for yet another cry for attention. Calling his fans here on Youtube was just a cry for attention. The best that can be done is to avoid giving them another platform and showing them that rallying the base is useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) None of you asked but the recent batch of accounts are  Unrelated to User:MarkDice and  Unlikely to each other. But, as someone who had to look up just who Mark Dice is (and also an accountant fwiw) I endorse these blocks per WP:MEAT and per Arbcom direction on what to do with obvious meatpuppets (which, in my opinion, includes long-idle accounts waking up in response to a blatant canvass). Please copy this comment if anyone feels the need to escalate the issue to one of the admin noticeboards. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured they were unrelated, which is why I didn't bother filing an SPI, tagging, and opening a category page of suspected sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The whole "reactivating old accounts" thing is a big red flag for me, and I'm not saying I saw nothing, but nothing that suggests any more useful action at this time. I will likely check again later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

‎Planetary Chaos Redux

Another one who is only here to complain, and not actively contribute (also another suddenly reactivated SPA).Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've gotta take Granddad to a doctor's appointment and run errands, sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Aaand he's no where near ready. Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And another sleeper waking up just to call a couple editors "bullies", see [3]. Note the legal threat in that last edit, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Response from EdwinRo

A couple of points:

• What you have is wiki article that is a PROFILE of a person. It provides background information about the person, career, achievements, pertinent events of notoriety. That is the very definition of a Profile. The fact that you took it to mean as a social media Profile/account goes to your limited perception of the topic at hand.

• Summarizing coverage from mainstream sources is exactly what I was referring to when I discussed that Wiki should create a clear baseline of who/what is considered reliable mainstream sources so that blow back like what Mark Dice is causing won't be an issue. Leaving it up to different interpretations by different editors is the problem.

• The fact that I recently registered an account should have no bearing on the value of the comment I made. Rate the value of the comment by it's substance. To infer otherwise is a very elitist attitude by you, and should be checked.

• My comment did not include any suggestions that would benefit Mark Dice. In fact, every suggestion I made is contrary to what Mark Dice wants. This leads me to believe that you don't understand the problem at hand, and are one of the entrenched Editors I alluded to.

• I strongly recommend you get off your high horse, re-read the suggestions I made, and not waste your own time with sophomoric retorts.

EdwinRo (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@EdwinRo: Again, what we have is an article. "Profile" implies that there's lots of stuff that should be filled out just because it can -- Nope, we only summarize what existing sources cover.

To expect anyone to believe that you're not a fan and you didn't register because of the video he put up this morning is frankly insulting to everyone's intelligence. That alone doesn't disqualify statements by you, but that combined with your attempt to pretend you're not a fan does raise concerns about your intentions.

Your suggestions were rooted in the same "butwhatabouts" that he used to try to justify his arguments.

Pull the beam out of your eye before trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Again, you assume I am a fan for no other reason that I made an account the same day you are having blow back. Even though each of my points is contrary to what he is asking for.

• My suggestions are objective by the very nature they involve equal application of standards across all pages. What issue do you find with that.

• I don't see where you can infer a "butwhatabouts" when I'm not pushing for any special treatment for Mark due to said special treatment elsewhere. In fact, I am noting the opposite.

I don't think raw eggs are good for you, and the beam in your eye is clearly influencing your reasoning.

Fair Day!

EdwinRo (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• @EdwinRo: I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:FIXBIAS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:5P, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FRINGE. I also strongly suggest you not tell experienced editors to get off their high horses, not dismiss forthcoming responses as "sophomoric" before you've even read them, and generally not condescend to folks who know much better than you how to edit an encyclopedia. There's nothing forcing you to take my advice, but if you want to edit this project, you will be sorely disappointed if you ignore me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants, the condescension began with Ian's first reply to me. My initial edit attacked no one particular, but that did not keep Ian from dismissing my input outright, relegating it to a waste of time only because of the timestamp of account creation. So please, if you are going to point out ill behavior, please point it out on both sides. Moreover, Ian's technical capabilities does not infer him with special status when determining ethical editorial behavior. It only makes him adept and more knowledgeable at product presentation. Please don't confuse the two. I will read the aforementioned literature suggested by Ian, however, it would help if you could pin point the particular section of interest so that I can, you know, continue to objectively edit this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinRo (talk • contribs) 21:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian is an admin and an experience user. You are a total newb. What you think is condescension from him (and possibly me) is really just the vast gulf of experience between us and you. As for pointing out ill behavior on both sides: Ian is well within his rights to indefinitely block you per WP:NOTHERE. The fact that he has chosen not to is a brightly glowing halo above his head. You on the other hand, have condescended to someone whom we both know is far more experienced than you. The hubris you have displayed with your condescending attitude towards Ian is misplaced, undeserved and unethical.

As for my own suggested reading, I suppose WP:FIXBIAS would be a good first place to go, but really; every link that's been offered to you is important to know. Before you do any of that, you should check out WP:INDENT and also User:MjolnirPants/Indenting for an example of how you will be expected to properly indent your comments. I have fixed this thread, for you. Also, don't forget to sign your comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:MarkDice Off site canvasing

I have unblocked the account user:MarkDice. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MarkDice Off site canvasing where I explain why and mention you by account name. -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time as an admin, I hope you will remain as an editor after. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reinstated the block; there's a clear ANI consensus to do so. Ian.thomson, I have always admired the slightly unusual but striking typography of your user name. And I should add that for some reason I'm partial to the name "Ian", in its concise polysyllabic quality. I wish I had a friend named Ian; I'm sure they'd back me up in any pub fight. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It'd be by (falsely) pointing out the cops to the other guys, kneecapping them, and then insisting we run without paying the tab but yes. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that is impressive. I've done all those things except the kneecapping. BTW my orange message banner is blowing up--perhaps I should see if I have an ANI thread devoted to me, or whether I'm just on my way to ArbCom. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you deleted only links to the archive.org (illegal) version of Achaya's book?

Have you deleted only links (and history of revisions) to the archive.org (illegal) 1994 version of Achaya's book on Talk:Pilaf? I have the 1998 hard copy of the book, and noticed that earlier version on that page, noticed too that the archive.org copy was illegally uploaded, as the book's copyright has not expired. I was going to make a post on Talk:Pilaf. Don't know if I did. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Yep, got them. I've spent at least an hour going through that IP's (and their previous addresses) contributions to revdel any links to that work I could find. Ian.thomson (talk)

Bravo! Thankless work, but we notice, and are grateful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Regarding miss click, I'm really sorry about that, I have no idea how that happened! All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)p

Wrong block notice

When you blocked Epic game fixer, you put the block in indefinite and the block notice says its temporary. Can you please change that? --TheWinRatHere! 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Dear, Mr. Thomson,

I would like to inform you that I am an editor with autism and OCD. Hope you can give me a rule of thumb or two.

Regards,

THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: Since you've been here five years and have over 5000 edits, some of this should be old news but here's what I'd tell almost anyone:

• Assume the worst from your messages and the best from other's messages: Before leaving someone a message, read your message as if someone you hate sent you that same message. The message does not need to be so pleasant that anyone would be happy but just pleasant enough that no one can blame you for it (your current message was just fine). When reading someone's message to you, read the message as if a good friend sent it to try to help you. This is a lofty ideal that cannot be followed all the time and that many users lapse on (including myself sometimes) but it does prevent a lot of conflicts.
• There is no such thing as "winning" or "justice" here: In most disagreements, it's best to get a neutral third-party to resolve the differences, not a judge to say who is right or wrong. Blocks and bans are to prevent future problems, not punish past problems. Except for users who were never here to help anyway, the best approach is to teach problematic users how to do the right thing instead of taking action against them for doing the wrong thing.
• Avoid talking about other people unless it's positive: If you need to talk about something negative, talk about how content is not supported by its sources, or about how a source is not reliable, or how behavior affects the site -- but not the editor who put that content there, cited that source, or engages in that behavior.
• Find your niche: If possible, find a topic that we do not have much activity in but that you are already interested in. Any books you buy as sources end up being books you would buy anyway. Any websites you search for as sources would be websites you'd visit anyway. Confrontation is also less likely to occur in those areas.
• If you can't pay complete attention to what you're doing, don't do it.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I will gladly take them. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

An IP you blocked is back at it

Some of their edits might be ok, but the thrust of them all is the same. 2.110.186.96 (talk · contribs) Doug Weller talk 06:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I saw just that the IP was active before heading to bed last night but hadn't gotten into checking their edits yet.

I'm really not supposed to be on today (...or this fortnight, really), since I'll be moving next month. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Jayscott478

Jayscott478 appeared to have started editing by doing minor edits as 97.98.105.252 on the two "Loop" drafts, then registered. So far, little evidence that J is here to help with the encyclopedia: creation of two drafts that are not large enough to become articles, and then a lot of annoying stuff at Teahouse. I will keep an eye on, as sounds like you will be AFW (Away From Wikipedia) for a while. David notMD (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The editor in question created User:Jayscott253 on March 3. I left a warning on User:Jayscott478 that this is sock puppetry, and could lead to permanent block. Advised to use only one account going forward. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thanks. Yeah... If I had time, I'd follow after him with enough reminders that either he'd improve or there'd be a solid enough WP:NOTHERE case that no ANI thread would be necessary.

He does seem to do the minimal amount of learning necessary after just short of the leash limit, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You already know. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

IP block

Hi, I'll try to keep this short. WP:INVOLVED? Talk:Ben Swann ([4] [5] [6] [7]), BLPN ([8] [9]). I also disagree with your characterization of the diffs you posted on the IP's talk page. The pizzagate diffs retained Pizzagate and "conspiracy theories". The vaccine diffs are an obvious POV content dispute and arguably edit warring, but I'd ask you to reconsider your block on involved grounds. Maybe it would be better to post to EW and let an uninvolved admin make a call. Thanks for your time/consideration. Leviv ich 19:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I've started a thread at ANI requesting a review of the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your doing that. Leviv ich 21:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: edits to Alex Jones

Thanks for your message on my talk page! Reminder, WP:AGF. While I appreciate the notion, my intentions were not to promote conspiracy theories or hoax stories, nor did I suggest that the content of Infowars is in any way trustworthy or valuable. Bcornish1 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bcornish1: I'm aware of AGF. I'm also aware there's no good reason for an even minimally informed person to want to remove the term "fake news" from the Alex Jones or InfoWars articles. It is an archetypal example of the term. The first thing most people hear about InfoWars is that it is the most popular brand of fake news.

I've also seen too many InfoWars fans pull back and act like they aren't being advocates, they just want both sides to be heard.

I hope you are sincere about your intentions, that you just made a grossly misinformed mistake, and will avoid topics where you might make similar lapses of judgement in the future. If that is the case, my recommendation that you avoid topics that InfoWars might report on still stands. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Again, I would ask that you assume good faith. Whether you’ve had negative interactions on this matter in the past is irrelevant to our discussion. I stand by my assertion that the “fake news” label was not appropriate in the context and that further discussion in the talk page is warranted, but we can certainly agree to disagree on that one. I am also not interested in discussing what is/isn’t popular opinion, nor having my judgement questioned. While I assume that you are acting in good faith with your messages, the tone is a little threatening and certainly condescending. When interacting with other users, try a little compassion! Not everyone making edits on divisive pages has an agenda. Have a great rest of your day!

Bcornish1 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bcornish1: It's not an opinion that InfoWars is fake news. It's reality, like how vaccines not causing autism, the earth being round (not flat), climate change happening, and so on. If someone knows about InfoWars, they either know that it is fake news or else have bought into one of its most basic lies. That is why editors can be blocked just for defending InfoWars.

Your judgement is wrong, whether from ignorance you've decided to cling to or delusion you're trying to hide. Either way, you need to drop the matter entirely if you want to continue editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Once again, I’d ask that you refrain from threatening and condescending language just for the sake of civility. The comparisons you made are to scientific fact (none of which I disagree at all on, for the record, I do not subscribe to science-denial or conspiracy theory). The “fake news” label is not a discussion of Infowars’ content, which we can both agree is rooted in sensationalism and unverified information, but on the nature of the term itself and its proper application. Seeing as other users are having this conversation in the appropriate forums, I have already dropped it outside of our chat here. I do hope that you choose to drop the assumptions that you have made about me based on edits that were in good faith. It seems like this is an issue you are emotionally invested in, which is understandable, but my issues were semantic and not political.

Bcornish1 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Hi Ian, we have some major editing issues about the articles: List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV and List of programs aired by Jeepney TV. In the history section via the website, someone who edited for the upcoming as well as previously aired programs from User talk:112.204.64.65 but the current programs reverted back from my notepad. Please monitor it and protect the article against disruptive editing. Thank you. – Jon2 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jon2guevarra: I've blocked the range. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Block of Granitehope

Hi, you've blocked Granitehope because you believed that they are a meatpuppet of Mark Dice. Not only did they deny it on their talk page (and in fact condemned Dice's canvassing), they said that they would retire from Wikipedia (although they kept commenting there). This reminds me of this threat you made against anyone who disagreed with you. I thought after an AN thread that you backed off it, but I'm not so confident now. The editor did not edit the Mark Dice talk before March 8. Please review your block and strike your condescending comments at their talk page. I'm mostly concerned with the indefinite block, not your comments, but AN/I might consider the combination of the indef and your comments "bully tactics", although I tend to AGF, as opposed to you (which you admitted to failing). wumbolo ^^^ 17:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Do you not remember almost everyone but you at the AN and ANI threads agreeing with the blocks? This included multiple check users, one of whom I've just emailed regarding some of the new meatpuppets.

As I've already explained, if their only actions are to carry out Shouldice's will, it really doesn't matter what they're saying about him. It's not an uncommon tactic among POV pushers to say they're not interested in the views they push so hard for the sake of "both sides". And you're taking things out of context. There's also the matter they they've shown no interest whatsoever in doing anything else. Their Youtube channel, which they linked to, is a a regurgitation of many of Shouldice's talking points.

You're only assuming good faith from obvious meatpuppets who are not here to build an encyclopedia, and misrepresenting and misremembering things to make me the bad guy. It's pretty clear you view me as some sort of political enemy. Go ahead, start another ANI thread, maybe this time the WP:BOOMERANG will get you topic banned and people can get some work done without your obstructionism. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh. I assume that a TP watcher will see your comments. Anyway, you're the one misrepresenting the ANI discussion. The consensus was in favor of blocking meatpuppets, but not blocking good faith editors weeks later. A condescending comment that you had made was only defended by a now-indeffed editor. wumbolo ^^^ 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Look, if your only interest in posting here is casting WP:aspersions and completely misremembering documented events to suit your biases, then buzz off. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that I have no intention of bringing this to ANI/RFAR. I don't have the time or willingness to defend someone who threatens another editor with off-wiki harassment. I'm also not watching your talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 17:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Then why are you even bothering to post here?! Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Hi, I wonder if you would be able to explain to me how to go about putting discretionary sanctions notifications notices on users' talk pages. While patrolling recent changes, I reverted this edit because it seemed to be POV (the article is called Mirpur, Pakistan, but the editor was changing it to say it was in India). I was about to give a Level 1 NPOV warning through Twinkle, but it occurred to me that a DS notice might be more appropriate - I've seen you doing that recently, but I'm not sure how to go about doing it - Twinkle doesn't seem to have the option (unless I'm looking in the wrong place). Any tips you could give me would be appreciated, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I type the template manually: {{subst:alert|AC/DS code}} . You have to include the right code but you'll end up memorizing the most frequently used ones if you're really hanging around that target area. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate the quick response. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No problem, you caught me adjusting my sleep schedule. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Girth Summit, I find this script makes posting DS notices very easy: User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb Leviv ich 15:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool - thanks Levivich, just installed it and it seems to work nicely. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Boomer Vial

FYI. Not a compromise. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so the account wasn't compromised, but it still looks like the user was. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)