User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 11

^Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!

If I'm not responding, that's probably because It is approximately 1:31 AM where this user lives (South Carolina). [refresh] and I may be asleep, in classes, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond.

If you want to:	accuse me of a Christian bias, go here.	accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, go here.
leave a conversational or non-serious message (wazzup, barnstar, hate mail), go here.	leave me a serious message (about article improvement), click here.	see my contributions, go here.

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

Clean up time, everything's in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucipedia

Hi Ian, I was just wondering about your link removal. I agree at first glance most articles should not contain links to external sites, or one should be very critical about it. However, in the case of Luciferianism, the community (of Luciferians) are just now beginning to shed some more light on the subject through a collaborative project known as Lucipedia, a wiki dedicated to and for Lucifierianism. It is growing fast and is considered by the Luciferian community the first time a joint project to collect all information on Luciferianism for the first time clearly separating it from Satanism. We feel it is important that this distinction is realised and communicated as today most references are to Michael W. Ford, which paints a one-sided an inaccurate picture of what Luciferianism is all about. --LuciferianBlog (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any third party publications discussing your site? That's what defines whether the site is notable or not. Until then, it is not notable. There is also the issue that it is an open wiki that does not yet have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors," or at least is not documented to have such.

Wikipedia is not concerned with "truth," it only summarizes what is found in our site's understanding of reliable sources. Wikipedia does not exist for advocacy. I recommend looking at WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTSOAPBOX.

But, looking into it further, there are some issues with the amount of weight Ford is receiving. I'll go through the proper channels to balance it off some. However, I will say that he has not been pushing his work on this site, other people have. This, combined with the fact that he's actually published and not just self-published, tend to make his work more acceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Well, the wiki itself has been mentioned in social medias such as MySatan, SIN (satanicinternationalnetwork.com) and a few other places. But I see where you're coming from - having re-read WP:GNG. You have a point - I will let the matter rest a while until the Luciferian wiki gains more third party discussion and can be more easily verified as notable outside social media which may be too close for an objective evaluation in that most discussion so far have been responses to announcements from those directly involved in the project. If we are a success, we will have the neccessary requirements.

Good work on trying to balance Ford's work. As you may not know, Ford is not only over-represented in name, but also in the style of Luciferianism he supports, as there are some different interpretations of Luciferianism, primarily theism vs apotheosis. Ford seem to work in a theistic approach which seems like a blend of Theistic Satanism more than a non-deity and self-deification approach. --LuciferianBlog (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I tried to re veil by deleting my entree in "talk book of revelations" called "book of the apocalypse". This goes against the Blasphemy laws of Islam and may put your life in jepordy for not cencoring it, which was not my intentions. I could not figure out how to clear it out. Can you please assist me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick Rhodes (talk • Frederick Rhodes (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)contribs) 14:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm from America, as are most Wikipedia editors. Muslim extremists are the last thing I'm worried about. As for completely removing your revisions, they're gonna stay there since they don't violate any American laws, nor are they completely disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Samuel

Regarding this comment you made at Talk:Samuel, it's not best practice to refer to an editor as "crazy." It may slide to refer to the positions he's advancing as crazy; it might be better to refer to them as fringe or even extreme. It's better in situations like these to focus on the edits made by an editor rather than the editor.

That said, there's no excuse for the harassment that 99.148.192.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was directing your way this morning, so I've blocked anonymous editors from there for 31 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I normally wouldn't have said that, but Sam Moser already has it out for me. I was kinda hoping he'd assume that the Satanic Illuminati had complete control here. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. The Cabal would never cede control to the Satanic Illuminati. :)

Seriously, though, thanks for pointing out that discussion thread. It makes it that much easier to deal with it if it pops back up, since it's bringing off-Wiki harassment back onto the Wiki. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness... that guy doesn't know where you actually are in meatspace or anything right? Because if there's anyway for him to have that information maybe you should be careful about poking the crazy person who makes odd edits with a stick when he makes his little visits. Millahnna (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To C.Fred: So, in the future, I should just be able to say "Sam's at it again," and he'll be sent away?

To Millahnna: The IP addresses he's used are in Dayton, Ohio; and from what I've been able to find he's old enough to be my father, maybe my grandfather. While he has apparently gotten into legal trouble in the past, and has stalked people before, I have no problem specifying that I live in Columbia, SC on my user page because

-I'm 6'2" and 190 lbs

-I've been taking karate/self-defense and weight training classes

-my family keeps a gun in the house (I'm fairly certain my neighbors do as well)

-most navigation systems miss my address (which I'm not giving out) by a good block

-my college has security that would just love to tackle a stalker

-my granddad knows many of the judges in my home and neighboring counties, and I have no record whatsoever (and several character witnesses, many of them ministers).

Moser stalking me would only mean lots of trouble for him. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by sent away, you mean his account/IP address blocked, yes. If it becomes particularly problematic, it could lead to a range of IP addresses being blocked—but I hope it doesn't come to that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to learn about Sam he has an open account on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002283868363 Dr CareBear (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is his Facebook wall where you can keep up with him. http://www.facebook.com/help/#!/profile.php?id=100002283868363&sk=wall Dr CareBear (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Yep, old enough to be my grandfather. By the way, interesting that you took notice of the Samuel discussion out of nowhere, happen to have a Dayton phone number (considering the IP addresses for Sam Moser are in Dayton, Ohio), also happen to have a wife from the Phillipines, share Sam's belief that antipsychotic medication is deadly, resume Sam's discussion at Talk:Jehovah, and happen to know his exact facebook page. Oh, and that you admit to being Sam. So, hello, again, Samuel Antoine Moser. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

My experience of people with thought disorder is that it is almost always a waste of time trying to convince them that they are wrong, but it is sometimes possible to convince them that their approach will not succeed in getting the results they want. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lesser Key of Solomon

Hey Ian, we have occasionally edited the same pages and I respect your editing style and adherence to WP policies. However you did get led astray on this article and violated WP:3RR when the contentious paragraph was clearly not vandalism (although agreed it was unsourced and POV). I have reverted the latest addition as such but please don't break 3RR again - we have to play this with a straight bat (English cricket phrase - but I think you'll get what it means!) I have the article on my watchlist too and now that the editor has registered it will be easier to protect. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to removal of unsourced commentary at Abraxas

Ian, instead of deleting my recent post, you should have perhaps added to it to make it fit what you felt your specifications might be. It is a disappointment that you had to censor like that when you could have added to the knowledge base. That is what you should have done. I have a difficult time believing that you are a Christian, when that behavior is more fitting for a thelemite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.148.99 (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes at the bottom. How about instead of accusing me of censorship and of not being a Christian (by the way, who died and made you Christ, bucko?), you try to learn about the site's guidelines? Because Crowley is discussed in third party sources, his views, even if not historically accurate, is notable. What you added was unsourced commentary. Wikipedia likes sources. Wikipedia doesn't care for commentary from just anyone, but from published sources. It's the job of whoever adds something to provide sources for their material, not other editors. It wasn't "censorship," it was keeping the page clean of stuff that doesn't meet the site's guidelines.

Also, to judge that I'm acting like a Thelemite from such little evidence shows a lack of exposure to both Christians and Thelemites on your part. Would you rather I replace the entire section with "A-LIE-ster Crawley was a SATANISTS!!!!11!!" The only unifying thing in Christianity is a belief in salvation through Christ, and a call to love others. If the Bible has anything to say about how to edit on Wikipedia, it actually tends to go along with the NPOV policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Cult

Please advise on your decision to flag the addition of the Cthulhu Cult as self-promotion. It is relevant to the Mythos, weird tales, and has been an existing religion since 2003. People seeking for pop-culture elements in the real world should be made aware that there is a real cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SIN JONES (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)SIN JONES (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC) SIN JONES[reply]

(Responded on talk). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mythology

I do apologize for my lack of wikipedia editing skill, but I'm just a casual reader. I find the sentence, "The term "mythology" used here does not imply that the stories are necessarily fictional; it refers simply to their narrative structure and history." unnecessary. It seems to be there for Christianity's sake. The term mythology includes the idea that the stories are considered true from within that culture. The extra sentence isn't needed and shows a lot of bias, imo. 173.217.54.100 (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ancient Dharmic centres of Higher Learning

Not sure what to do about this. I don't know if you can figure out what the editor has been doing at {[[1]] - I think we have a WP:Competence problem. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found this: Ancient higher-learning institutions. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Um... I'm gonna redirect, and not notify him (I'm not an admin, and so while it's polite to notify users, uh, these occasional "slips of competence of questionable deliberation" are why I'm not an admin?). Since you didn't do redirect, it's not your problem to notify him, even though he'll probably assume there's nothing to do except edit in the Ancient higher-learning institutions article if he wants to add any more Ancient Indian universities.

As for the template, I'm putting that on my watchlist. I wouldn't quite see a problem in adding the different main branches of Hinduism, if the template also included the different branches of other religions (otherwise it'd be undue weight for Indian religions). I went on ahead and did that to figure out how he broke the template, if there's some reason why the template didn't include those (size reasons, generality), go on and revert me. I'd definately revert any replacement of "-ism" with "Dharma." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well Jesus doesn't state the obvious on Wikipedia. Orphadeus (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect He's too busy to edit here, but if you see Him, let me know. It'd be nice to see an omniscient editor, no need to explain guidelines repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Revelation

Hello. I thought you might enjoy one of the odd edits I have reverted, twice, on Book of Revelation article:"The Book of Revelation is what John the Baptist experienced under the effects of DMT or Ayahuasca..." I never knew. Anyway, I am a bit new at this (as you noticed) and any advice on this type of thing would be appreciated. Thanks - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was how you came to my attention. Personally, I would have used a uw-npov warning, ({{subst:uw-npov1|Article|subst=subst:}} ~~~~), as it more clearly explains the problem that the addition was neither sourced nor presented in a balanced fashion, but a general vandalism warning was acceptable. More templates may be found at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, and when a user had run through enough warnings, they can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism (which can be more easily reached by searching "WP:AIV"). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ian.thomson/WillfultsPOV

Hi there. I just came across this page linked from this talk page. From the looks of it, you're having serious problems with this editor, which have lasted for a period of several months. Have you done anything to seek outside help? When there is a long-running problem with a user, it's important to do something about it, not just leave it to get worse. If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you read WP:Dispute resolution and take this dispute to one of the several pages listed there, where other users may be able to help you. In particular, you might want to try WP:Mediation, or a Request for comment on user conduct; there's also WP:Arbitration, but that's meant as a last resort after all other options have failed. I hope this was of use to you; if you have any questions, please let me know. Robofish (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but he hasn't editted in a couple of months, and some other editors (particularly User:Tonicthebrown andUser:Efiiamagus) have also been dealing with him. I started the page as the beginning for a case at WP:RFC/U, but having his agenda exposed seems to have done the trick. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. In that case, if a reasonable period of time has gone by and the issue seems to be dealt with, you might want to consider deleting that subpage. (Using {{db-user}}.) As I understand it, evidence pages like that are only meant to be used as preparation for a RFC or similar dispute resolution mechanism; they shouldn't be kept around forever, as it looks a bit like a personal attack page. It's up to you though - it's your userspace, and if the user really has departed I don't think he's likely to complain about it. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'll give it a little more time, and then take it down. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy

Hey there. I noticed you're a long time contributor to the alchemy article. There's some deletions and re-writes going on over there and I'm butting heads a bit with the newly forming tone of the article (details of which you can see there). If you have a chance, the debate could use some more voices. New at this and looking for a hand from editors with more experience... Car Henkel (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory edits re Hinduism

Hello Ian, good call to clean your talk page of the edit on this topic. I presume it was made in response to a talk page template you left, but it was actually made by a different IP address than the one you warned. I've left them [User talk:116.74.75.188 a warning] in turn; hopefully this will warn them off further nonsense (and if not, they can expect their stay here to be short.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the IP locater says all the addresses are in Goa, India (which, combined with the call for religious persecution, makes me seriously question the Jewish claim). I decided I was just going to ignore them, and if they kept it up, request a range block (since the user's IP address changes pretty often). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at Kikisepol's talk page.
Message added 00:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

- Dwayne was here! ♫ 00:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human sacrifice

Dear Mr. Thompson, I would like to point out some facts about Slavic religion that You may or may not know:

• Almost every male god in Slavic religion has a role as god of war, but Perun has main role as a god of thunder and justice, similar to the Nordic Thor.
• Using Christian sources on non-Christian religion is always a dubious matter, especially when dealing with sensitive topic such as this.
• Existing comment, and that is a comment and not source, gives false picture about practices of Slavic pagans, since it implies that human sacrifices were religiously motivated and often.
• There is no mention of prince Vladimir explicitly banning the human sacrifices in chronicles.
• "The Primary Chronicle" was written some three centuries after the events that it mentions allegedly took place.
• Prince Vladimir ruled over Kievan Rus, not all Slavic people.
• "Strategikon" by emperor Mauricius is a reliable source.

After You check out these facts for yourself, I would be much obliged if You would help me to make the article better and more accurate. I hope You will clearly understand that if we should follow the guidelines You've mentioned the existing article about human sacrifice among Slavs ought to be deleted all together.

Respectfully Yours,

Zvezdara Forest Zvezdara Forest (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Regarding human sacrifice

Dear Mr. Thompson,

First, I would like to thank You for the time and effort You've made.

Second, You've taken me by surprise. If You don't know that Perun is a god of thunder and justice, which is sort of common knowledge, I think that You might not be the best choice for an editor of an article about practices of Slavic religion. I mean no disrespect, but Perun, after all, is the best known god of Slavic religion. However, You've mentioned You need sources. Very well, here is just a tiny sample:

• Überlegungen zur vorchristlichen Religion der Slaven im Lichte der slavischen Sprachwissenschaft, Oleg Trubachyov, Z. slav. Philol. – 1994. – Bd. LIV. – S. 1–20.
• Na sladach kultu Peruna, Machnik J., Dawna kultura. R. 1955. Warszawa, 1955. Z. 3. S. 97-176;
• Sprawca Piorunуw w mitologii clowianskiej, Gieysztor A., Ars historica, Poznan, 1976
• К этимологии балтийского и славянского названий бога грома, Иванов В. В., Вопросы славянского языкознания, в. 3, М., 1958
• Трагови Перунова култа код Јужних словена, Филиповић М., Гласник Земаљског музеја у Сарајеву. Нова сериjа, t. 3, Сарајево, 1948
• Топор как символ Перуна В древнерусском язычестве, Даркевич., Советская археология В. П. 1961. № 4.
• "Slavic religion", Marija Gimbutas, The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 13, ed. Mircea Eliade, New York: Macmillan, 1987, pp. 353-361.
• Perkunas/Perun: Thunder God of the Balts and Slavs,Gimbutas M., The Journal of Indo-European Studies, 1973, pp. 466 - 479
• O Perunovom kultu kod Južnih Slovena, P.Z. Petrović, Glasnik 1-2, 1952.
• O Perunovu kultu u Istri, Historijski zbornik 6, 1954.

etc.

By the way, ethymology of the name Perun in Indo-European languages is to strike (as in stricken by lightning). Significance of jurisdiction of god Perun is in motive of alleged human sacrifice. Since Perun held jurisdiction over judiciary matters (Rex Germanorum - populos Sclavorum, Ivo Vukchevich, University Center Press, Santa Barbara California, USA, 2001., pp.27-28) and that it was practice to invoke him when giving oath of great importance and it was in name of Perun that oath breakers were killed it is easy to understand how carrying out sentence could be seen as human sacrifice in the eyes of Christians. Particularly if it was them that broke the oath in the first place (peace treaty between grand prince Oleg and emperor Leo in 907. and peace treaty between grand prince Igor and Byzantium in 945. were sealed by making an oath to Perun).

Third, it seems to me that I've been somewhat unclear. The article, as it is, gives rather distorted image of practices of Slavic religion, i.e. widespread and common practicing of human sacrifices. That is contrary to the written, oral and archaeological evidence we have so far. For instance, said Primary Chronicle clearly states that it was the prince Vladimir that introduced human sacrifices and mentions by name Ioannes and his father Theodore as (only) victims. It is the same prince Vladimir that several years later converted to Christianity, indicating that there were no human sacrifices prior to the rule of this cruel tyrant. Furthermore, the Slavic religion was not banned. Russia had several centuries of double faith system. Saying that "prisoners of war were sacrificed to Perun" is not only unsubstantiated and contrary to other sources, but implies common practice. Extraordinary evidence is needed to support such a claim. I think that part ought to be removed.

"Archeological findings indicate that the practice may have been widespread, at least among slaves, judging from mass graves containing the cremated fragments of a number of different people." How exactly does "cremated fragments of a number of different people" prove that human sacrifice was "widespread", or that human sacrifice existed at all, for that matter?! Slavic burial rites included cremation and remains of nobles were treated with more respect than remains of commoners. In what way does it spell human sacrifice?

About Ahmad inb Rustah... You have far better sources in Al-Masudi's work The Meadows of Gold. where on pages 408., 415. and 416., Vol I, he explains burial practices of Slavs. By the way, the sacrifice of a female was voluntarily and made only when high noble died. That one of the women of his household would voluntarily sacrifice herself. Usually it was one of the daughters of the noble, as Ahmad ibn Fadlan informs us (Ibn Fadlan and the Rusiyyah, James E. Montgomery., Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies,Volume III, 2000. pp. 1-25.).

At the moment, I don't have enough time to address this matter properly so I apologize if I sound confusing or hastily or both.

Respectfully Yours,

Zvezdara Forest

Zvezdara Forest (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Daniels

the David W. Daniels page has been deleted I thought since you are interested in Chick contributors you might have a copy of it laying around. he is quite an important guy in King James only and anti-catholic circles. --Paul the less (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, my interest is more in folks that created and spread misinformation about the game Dungeons & Dragons (being a Christian player who has been treated unfairly because of their work), rather than Chick Publications in itself. I don't have a copy, and I can't find a copy on any mirror sites. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah I have general interest in Chick. I was in Utah as a teenager I got to play D&D un-harassed well at least religiously.

--Paul the less (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/81.103.121.144

Hi Ian, the edit you corrected was put back [2], I have removed it again. This IP is making edits from Toledoth Yeshu on various articles include Notzrim/Nazarene (title) and so on. At what point does it become appropriate to ask for page protection from unregistered IPs? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi is the one making unsourced POV Synthesis and Original research edits. I am simply preserving what was already there before he came along until he learns the rules. Also he/she has now started a personal vendetta against this IP reverting all sorts of edits related to the issue which conflicts with his/her personal opinion. Is there a wiki policy against bullying?81.103.121.144 (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, this article has now collected 3 anon IPs, 81.103.121.144 has to date given 1 (primary) source, Toledoth Yeshu, the second anon IP gave netzarim.co.il. As you had earlier dealings with 81.103.121.144 on the same page, well, I guess you might want to know (or might not). It's on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your earlier advice. FYI still going on daily when India comes online. IP not disussing, still no source. WP ANI did nothing on Notzrim, so moved Notzrim to WP RFC on Meph's advice. Have also archived your advice to me on my Talk onto article Talk. Shame there aren't a core of sensible OR-reverters like on the Lilith article. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry i will stop what you posed on my talk page

im sorry Qwerty1214 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Religion

Hi Ian. I hatted your comment at Talk:Religion. I hope that you don't mind, but if you think that I'm mistaken, then by all means please feel free to revert me. Please let me explain my thinking. I, of course, agree with you about the conduct of that other user, and about the possibility that this will go to dispute resolution. But at the same time, I want to be very careful about WP:BOOMERANG. Since the talk page of the article is really only about how to improve the content of that article, your comment goes into other areas that I think are beyond that. Also, by discussing other articles in non-neutral ways, you could be a bit borderline with respect to WP:CANVAS. So that's why I did it. Of course, I recognize that you said it entirely in good faith, and I don't mean what I'm saying as a criticism, only as an explanation, and I recognize that I could be wrong. I also realize that my own comment just above yours could have sounded like an invitation to say what you said, and that's entirely my fault. And I appreciate your help in the editing there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, just tell me how long I should have to expect to wait for your replies in Talk:Religion Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, FYI on Notzrim I pasted the India IP's chunk of Sanhedrin 107b back into the article even though no source was forthcoming since he/she was using it to justify wholesale reverts. Problem continues on daily basis even after not reporting 2x 3RRs. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have page protection, I've invited PiCo, Editor2020, JohnCarter, Jayjg to return and discuss whether to restore the REDIRECT, etc. As you fixed IP problems earlier, if you're interested you're very welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, discussion has started at Talk:Notzrim. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Notzrim for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notzrim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notzrim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The D word

Section Who I am: definately -> definitely? (ref.: definately). --Mortense (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I need help my cusins we on my profile and messed it up! Now what do I do? 1shields1 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The W man

Thanks. I thought we'd seen the last of him. This is most annoying. Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE; Response

Damn Ian, thanks for not biting my head off too bad. lol. Thanks, I understand.

--Salviapusher (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]