User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 8

Cleaning up the page again, everything is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

Of course you are voting for Greene, you are a Democrat

Like all the others trying to VANDALIZE my prima facie obvious, totally sourced edit. OTOH, I am NOT voting for Greene, which makes me REALLY non-partisan.68.41.55.171 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist? That's even worse! And sorry, but your mind-numbing hair-splitting argument doesn't work on me. If it was just a matter of changing it from plural to singular, why not do that? Instead you DELETED the whole thing. That makes it IMPOSSIBLE to assume good faith and IMPOSSIBLE not to detect an unambiguous bias. Thanks for making it so obvious...68.41.55.171 (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "worse" isn't bias on your part? Please see our guidelines on biographies, we don't allow improperly sourced info in articles on living people. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be focused on improving the article since I feel that one relative topic which should be addressed are the systems of demonology and I want to thank you for reminding me to provide the demonic systems of the book in respect to the root Abrahamic doctrines and Apocrypha. The blog link I included jumped the gun a bit since the blog doesn't yet have it's cornerstone for Satanism in place, so good looking out. blackson 04:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the welcome. I believe I did state my reason, but perhaps it wasn't clear. I took out a reference that I felt was questionable with controversial and biased claims and no sources itself. After removing it I realized that it fucked something up as there was red error text on the page, and decided it was probably because the text from the reference was still there, but now unreferenced. This is my first time so I guess learning the ropes on this page, thanks for telling me about the sandbox. After I removed the info from the removed reference all seemed to be at peace. Hope you understand the process now, and tell me if you don't think it's reasonable, as I still think the reference is unqualifiable. Zhulia (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== RE: Your post on my talk page ==

Please don't quote sections of your page for use on my talk page in response to another person's comment. The comment that you put on my page should have been put on the talk page of the guy who created the article. I don't like getting into big religious AfD debates. However, I did leave my comment on it, so you can check it if you want. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you got it mixed up. Blackson canvassed the Satanist Wikipedians, leaving the first message, I left a link to my response to his actions (User_talk:Blackson#Religious_bias), rather than filling up everyone's talk page with my response. I'll go and change the link to say "My response." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get what your saying now. In the future, it may be better to just make a note of the canvassing on the AFD page instead of going around to all the people he invited to the discussion. That would make it a lot easier IMO Undead Warrior (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you take a look at my edits

You gave this editor a barnstar last year, but [1] looks like OR, with one cite to a Christadelphian author but no page number, and not sufficient to back the whole section. I also reverted him here [2]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any objections. I'm on 'vacation' and editing from my phone, otherwise I'd look for some sources. Unless I can find a good WiFi signal, its gonna be a week before that happens, so I'd stay with your edits unless the other user (I don't want to get his name wrong, but I can't open a new tab) finds sources as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at Ryankiefer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ha

Given the context, I really liked the typo "DEMONCRACY". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My little accident means it's plausible enough a type to make a redirect, right? I think I will. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I see that you are reverting vandals on angel like the sun rises. I think that page needs protection. If you apply for said protection, please count me as a supporter. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna (vision of Muhammad)

hi Ian T, I think that was a good call today on Ramakrishna. I have the source (Rolland, 1929, p 76). I think the quote is slightly off, though, on WP, as it starts out accurate but then adds stuff that is not in my book. What I have for Rolland (P 76): "A radiant personage with grave countenance and white beard appeared to him (thus he had probably visualized the Prophet. He drew near and lost himself in him." It definitely suggests that Ramakrishna saw Muhammad, who then merged with Ramakrishna. It does say later that when Ramakrishna saw Christ, his vision and merge of identity was more intense, but this is not to negate his vision and identity with the Prophet of Islam. Jack B108 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your language

I know this is a bit old, but still, you need to watch what you say to other editors. This is completely unacceptable. While the other editor was in the wrong, sinking down to that level is not the right thing to do. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was starting to think it was gonna be necessary to wear a Spider-Man costume. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Name

I understand. Polymathsj^Talk 00:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively Speedy Article Deletion

I just started the article.

I was constructing the article to standards, yet it was my first article.

Deleting it while it was being constructed deserves a strong response.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can work on your article here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You better not start taunting me. Nantucketnoon (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia doesn't care

"Wikipedia" doesn't care? Are you Wikipedia? By the Way, I'm a Christian too. And there are more Christians than Muslims thankfully. And yes, a country can be Christian or Muslim Or atheist. Look at these examples: Christian: Vatican City, Muslim: ISLAMIC republic of IRAN, atheist: SOVIET UNION!!! Yes a country can have a state religion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Mario1000 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV - the neutral point of view guidelines. We don't care if your opinion happens to be "right," we don't want opinions, but neutral, secular, facts. If you want to spread your point of view, you'll have to do it elsewhere. There are more Muslims than there are you as an individual. A nation is not a person, to say a nation can be Christian or Muslim is like saying a bucket or a doorknob can be Hindu. Are you going to get your chair baptised? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But

I'm Catholic!!! I'm sorry I kinda got the information off a website, but I do believe in God and Jesus. I'm very religious!!!-Angel David (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever, but the article still lacks sources. Wikipedia doesn't deal with neologisms, so you'd really need something from the DSM-IV or a psychology journal, not a random website. You may want to look at the guidelines for more info about identifying and citing reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were psychological websites, where I got information from but Wikipedia's spam filter wouldn't let me site them.-Angel David (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an indication that the sites probably are not reliable sources. I can't find anything about it on reliable sites, just sites that either copy stuff from other sites, or sites that focus on user-generated content (i.e. host whatever people make up). It is possible that someone out there did just coin the term, and it's not an "official" phobia. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh,okay. - Angel David (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hah, a source, I cited it. :D -Angel David (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that site advocates some new-age "energy therapy", and has a bunch of legal disclaimers about how they cannot legally say anything on the site can be taken as any sort of medical or psychological statement. I don't believe it can be taken as a credible source. It appears to be a scheme meant to sell these self-help courses by taking random information on the internet, and creating unverifiable stories about how some doctor found a cure for a problem "like" whichever one the given article on that site is about. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark City

I didn't know that the director didn't like that narration. Kinda makes you wonder why he put it in the director's cut. Thanks for finding a fix for that. I share your opinion, but I didn't mind it too much since I had half the movie memorized by the time I saw the director's cut.. Millahnna (mouse)talk 03:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a ref for it, just in case. The studio execs forced him to do it, because apparently the mystery movie was too mysterious. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. And I gripe about studio interference on TV shows. I had no idea. Millahnna (mouse)talk 03:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Edward Dick

Hello Ian.thomson, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Edward Dick, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 12:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that A7 is not about notability. An assertion of importance, such as "He has directed productions, most notably of classical and new plays, in theatres around the world." and "His short film An Act of Love premiered at the Edinburgh International Festival in 2010.", is enough to pass A7. Theleftorium ^(talk) 12:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Stone Page

Ian I appreciate you monitoring wiki pages, but I can assure you that I did create, and was the sole editor, of the Guy Stone page. As you should notice here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Guy_Stone_.2F_Aussieboy373 , I signed is as MANDIC777 to prove I created the page. I was under the impressions that that was proof enough I created the page and it would have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieboy373 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G7. Author requests deletion. if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move.) Note that this does not apply to user talk pages, which are not deleted except under very exceptional circumstances: see WP:DELTALK. If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

Remarks to others

I've seen that you've warned colleague Mir Harven.
Well, a proper person to preach him about being rude [3]. Maybe that's not rude language? ("pay f**king attention", "Screaming and bitching and moaning with bulls**t accusations").
I don't know what brought you on that page, but please, have understanding to colleague Mir Harven.
I'll try to explain you some things. It's frustrating when someone permanently bullies us (and whole our community) on Wikipedia with no punishment for such behaviour.
If you know the matter about Croatian language, everything 'll be clear to you.
You've nicely said "Calling someone crazy is rude, never polite" [4].
User Ivan Štambuk has a fat file of calling his opponents as "crazy", "nationalist", "ultranationalist", "diarea", "brainwashed nationalist", "first-class nationalist troll", "extreme nationalist PoV", "quit BS-ing", "ludicruos conspiracy", "extremist", "obscure"...
We gave bunch of references on talkpages (academists' works, national language institutes), and all he does is calling those sources as "deceptive propaganda", "pure nonsense" etc.
Even worse, he misrepresents the words of author he calls as "greatest living Croatian comparativist" (case Matasović: Štambuk falsely quoted him, since Matasović said the completely opposite thing!!). Kubura (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, thank you for your quick response and for the information.
You've used nice words in your message "...the message I left on that IP's talk page was a result of frustration from a dishonest editor lying to ...".
We have the very same problem. In our case we have problems with some registered users and with self-willing admin. Bye, Kubura (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Greene

I would be considerably more willing to discuss this with you if you could be civil in your comments, but I see from the postings above that that's probably an unrealistic expectation on my part. I am not "messing up" the article. Greene, Thurmond and Kendrick Meek are running in the same year and would be elected and sworn in on the same day. The chronological order of the primaries isn't historically significant. The fact that SC's primary is a month or so before Georgia's and two months before Florida's is trivial in that context. JTRH (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue to argue or edit-war on this, but lose the attitude. JTRH (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]