User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 23

thanks

For your RSN post. Can you figure out why Simon Mol has HIV Denialism as a see also or what makes Mol an Aids denialist? Rejecting that one has HIV doesn't mean they deny the existence of HIV. Simon Mol was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Mol but recreated by this editor last December. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm gonna need more caffeine for that one. First impression is that if we trim out all the OR, there might not be enough left to establish notability. I've got an appointment in a bit, but I'll add it to my watchlist and make a note of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my longer request for consensus and the RS related to him and other "HIV circumcision denialists" on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 21:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mol censored references digging

Dear Ian

Thank you *very much* for your hard word on Simon Mol. I am awed by your perseverance. More on Simon Mol's talk page.

Zezen (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any censorship, I'm seeing editors trying to get the article to actually stick to what the sources say without addition or alteration. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New messages go at the bottom of the page

Dear Brother Ian, Thank You For Getting In Touch. It has been several thousands of years that most of humanity has been taught from many traditional sources including Encyclopedias that Messiahs, Maitreyas, and similar World Saver Figures would be male. Indeed, most of the persons on this list are male, so, in toto overall, more words are devoted to the males on this list than females. It is understandable that that one would want to keep the Claimant Page to descriptions of a few phrases, but if you think cumulatively about the millions of words written in so many times and places only recognizing males in these roles while females were made invisible, surely a bit of emphasis is needed for the females undertaking this most daunting and necessary of tasks, especially at this very dangerous moment on this Planet. Your understanding on this can assist You Yourself to be CoMessiah, indeed, the CoMessiah that fulfills the Promise of Wikipedia for not only the Present, but the Future of a Sustained instead of Destroyed Planet. When We on Earth have, for at least a few seasons or year or so, succeeded in giving females their overdue & now world saving half of notice and credit, we can then return to less emphasis on this reparation, and enjoy a Saved Egallitarian World. There is a wonderful old 1941 film about a group of men writing an encyclopedia, starring Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper, Ball of Fire, about the importance of the Eternall Feminine to a Deeper Understanding of Truth, and of course, 1941 was in fact a very unsaved time of World War, and the Barbara Stanwyck character gives evidence to the very limited concept of the female that existed at that time. But if the characters played by Gary Cooper and his colleagues were alive today and asked if their encyclopedia could highlight the Feminine enough to prevent World War III including the War on Nature and Extinction of Humanity in addition to the many other species recently lost in mass extinctions, We think they would want their encyclopedia to not just be a dry list, but at this time, allow the Ball~anced Light of the Eternall Fire Within All People to Save Their World & Prevent It From Becoming A Burning Ball of Fire from Global Warming or Nuclear War or Meltdown, on such a topic as Messiah Claimants.

Every Blessing and Feel Free to Share Your Spirit About This

Your Many Sisterkind & BrotherKind Who Know The Speciall Importance of not Marginalizing the Female and Feminine at This Time

AllHerNamesz (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AllHerNamesz (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We merely stick to reliable academic or journalistic sources. In my experience, I find that people contributing to problems like global warming are people who have not learned to stick to "dry" reliable sources. These sources might be written by any gender, they might be summarized by any gender. Instead, most people causing trouble in matters such as global warming start from what they want to believe, trying to get others to believe it using emotional arguments (sometimes invoking the apocalypse), and only bringing in sources (reliable or not) as an afterthought (if at all) to attempt to justify their beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidism

Please explain to me what is monotheism. Since you say my edit was wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegablakk (talk • contribs)

Monotheism is the belief in the existence of a single high God. It can and does include forms of belief where this high God creates multiple angels who serve demiurgic roles. Yazidis believe Melek Taus and the other angels are angels, not gods, even if they are believed to be extremely powerful.

Also, your edits lacked academic sources and were counter to the sources in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what source are you quoting for that. Belief and worship are not the same all monotheist believe in angels but they don't worship them. And also monotheist do not worship one god by way of angels, prophets or any other intermediary.Omegablakk (talk)<

You're confusing Monolatrism with Monotheism. There were already source in the article, I've added more. You're welcome to check the sources in the article itself. Burden of proof is on you to make your polytheism claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Goetia

In your edit to the Bathin article you stripped the page of all the Kabbalistic attributes, citing 'Removing fringe ideas. I'm aware that sounds silly, but what some guy hallucinated in the 90s is not relevant to an academic discussion of historical beliefs about a mythological being'.

You left the source for the Goetia as the Mather/Crowley 1904 edition, so I'm curious if you understood those attributes come from Crowley in Liber 777 (1909). After reviewing the edits I see that the source cited was DuQuette, instead of Crowley. Is your objection to those being in the article because they weren't correctly cited as Crowley, or is your objection to Crowley as a source? --Saneisjus (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I didn't include the Golden Dawn's Kabbalistic attributes either. I left Crowley because the information cited to that is a bit closer to the historical manuscripts. In the absence of empirical evidence, all Wikipedia can discuss is what's in the widest variety of manuscripts and the oldest manuscripts. I plan on removing Crowley at some point and citing Joseph Peterson's critical edition, Skinner and Rankine's edition of Thomas Rudd's Goetia, Weyer's Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, Liber Officium Spirituum and Livre des Esperitz; similar to my overhaul of the current Lesser Key of Solomon article and work in those other articles.

I will eventually cite modern sources where they mention something unique (but with proper attribution, instead of describing DuQuette's views as universal), and may get around to including tables of what attributes are ascribed by different magicians, but to include only one magician's views appears WP:UNDUE (if not WP:FRINGE). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unheaded evolution section

Webster's definition of theory: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true[1]

Your implication that I have an uneducated opinion about a theory is absolutely silly. Darwin's evolution theory is not at all provable.JoetheMoe25 (talk)

Absolutely right. No scientific theory is provable. That's how science works. There is always the possibility of new evidence. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And scientific theory is not the same as Webster's definition. Scientific theory is an explanation that has been rigorously tested and not yet falsified. It's not just an idea--it's an idea that has stood up to new evidence. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the evidence goes quite in favor of evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Many have also said there was evidence the CIA killed JFK and then sent Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Sometimes, even the majority polled doesn't want to accept the truth.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Facepalm --NeilN ^talk to me 21:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need to grab dinner, which may be up to an hour, so if there's any further business, I invite my talk page stalkers to make the sort bad decisions I would. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

Hey, nice work re-writing Reuben Swinburne Clymer. It was linked to the Sinistrari article I created a few years ago so I got a ping. Keep up the great work! St★lwart^111 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonology

Looks like he attributed that, so not plagiarism but obviously WP:UNDUE, looks like no one actually paid much attention to it. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He cited the source, but made no indication the quoted material was such. American school systems would still treat it as plagiarism (can't speak for international since it didn't come up in TEFL training). Still, the bit about Raum purportedly being a familiar of Napoleon I doesn't appear in the Dictionnaire Infernal or Pseudomonarchia Daemonum (where I assume Conway got the rest of the info on Raum), and so may be worthwhile for inclusion as a claim in a primary source (if handled properly). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Myth theory

IMHO the most helpful work for that article would be Richard Carrier's On The Historicity of Jesus ; it is in his own words "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review". The first three chapters go over why there have been so many problems with the whole historical vs mythical Jesus debate with the main one being that there are effectively two historical Jesus theories involved: the Reductive theory: "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" and the Triumphalist theory: "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true".

"Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)" (sic) (Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 30) --BruceGrubb (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a good find. I'll also throw into Talk:Historicity of Jesus/sources if/when I get back to doing stuff in articles relating to CMT and Historicity. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't read the notice at the top saying "New messages go at the bottom," I find it hard to believe you'll actually listen to anything I suggest

"Someone entered factually incorrect information on my institution's Wikipedia page. I am working to delete this information. Please let me know how I can. Thank you." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AveMariaUniversity (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See section title. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corona del Mar High School

Please read my comment on DaltonHird's talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTCENSORED. You're violating WP:NPOV by censoring well-sourced significant views. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree - by your reasoning only negative views could be cited and that would be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I would like this dispute to be arbitrated. NPOV does not mean anything sourced may be included in an article. Edits must be cited "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible, without bias". The reverted edits do not meet that standard by any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, by my reasoning, only reliably sourced material would be included (and guess what, those news sources qualify as "reliable sources" by Wikipedia's standards!). A neutral point of view does not always mean giving equal weight to opposing sides, it means summarizing all available reliable sources. If reliable sources are documenting bad things happening in that school, we're not going to censor it. And again, you are violating WP:NOTCENSORED, which is just as much a policy as WP:NPOV. Clearly, you have a conflict of interest here and should not be involved in the article.

As for arbitration, I'm a previously uninvolved editor who has no bias regarding the school. You don't want arbitration, you want to be told you're right when you're not. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Please read the NPOV policy and respond on the merits to my concerns DaltonHird's defamatory sentence represents fair, proportionate and unbiased coverage of this distinguished school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC) And, by the way, "Don't give a fuckism" is not cool. It's idiotic.[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED - Your refusal to get that does not make you right, it makes you tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your response on the merits? Calling me "tendentious? Impressive analysis!

I have addressed the "merits" of your argument repeatedly. You aren't listening. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not only read NPOV, I quoted it. Did you? In any event, this article already has an extensive Controversies section. Are you suggesting it is irrelevant now that "controversies" are in the introductory paragraph? If you do a simple Google search on CdM you will see it is a nationally-recognized academic institution. Is it Wikipedia policy for editors to search for negative articles on all such institutions and quote them in the first paragraph? Hardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." This article already has an extensive "Controversies" section based entirely on such isolated events. Must they, and slurs related to them, be in the introductory paragraph of this article? Does Wikipedia approve articles about other academic institutions with isolated controversial matters so prominently and redundantly displayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson: I took your template off my "talk page" because, frankly, it was creepy - referencing my ISP. What's next - will you secretly turn on my webcam and observe me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk • contribs)

That sort of insinuation is a violation of WP:AGF, if not WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert my talk page again or I will report you for vandalism. WP:OWNTALK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck reporting plenty of other users for stuff I only did a couple of times. With your sheer refusal to cooperate, you should just leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll have much luck around here dealing with disagreement by censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you just learn to assume good faith and cooperate, or at least back off? Your edit warring to remove the notice only further makes you look like a disruptive troll who is looking to win fights rather than cooperate to build an encyclopedia. Remember that I had no prior involvement with the school page, and notice that I haven't bothered with it once people who weren't constantly throwing tantrums (like you have been) got involved. Someone who wasn't a clueless churl would leave alone at that point, but you come here making empty and ignorant threats for me restoring something what you eventually realized was supposed to be there, and you change the subject to continue the fight instead of leaving it alone or apologizing. Your offensive behavior only makes you look wrong.

In other words, drop your grade school personal vendetta and get on with the article. Or go hang yourself, whatever, just screw off. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Re: Apollo/Hobal.

Thanks for your message Ian, sincerely, I will in future try and strictly adhere to the rules and regs, and I realise I should have posted about Apollo not Hobal.

No worries,

Anglyn (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Max.[reply]

I do hope Wikipedia keeps its standard of punctuality, we certainly would not want to lag behind the world, as a readily-changeable encyclopedia, would we?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I did not make a personal attack to Dougweller nor did I publish libel. In fact, I feel that you try to intimidate me by posting the mere suggestion, please correct me if I am wrong.

I am well aware of Wikipedia's rules of conduct and I possess respect for both you and Dougweller, however I will point out injustice when I see it. If anyone takes that as an insult, or personal attack, then it altogether proves they were doing something shameful that would invoke the feeling in the first place.

I do not know if you are aware or not, but India's 113th Amendment Bill changed Oriya to Odia and Orissa to Odisha more than 3 years ago.

Dougweller reverted a FACT to something INCORRECT, without proper logical, and educated explanation or justification as to why. That is clear, plain and simple abuse of Administrative Power. Just saying some change needs to be discussed is fine, but not acting up on it, ( for more than an excess of 3 years is not punctual) especially having known it is of hot debate and knowing the status quo is wrong, is just incorrect. Wikipedia strives to contain factual information, please correct me if I am wrong. His revert misconstrues the article and demolishes Wikipedia's factuality.

Good faith does not always constitute correct action.

If Wikipedia is prolonging intentionally, then I do not know what could be more corrupt and horrid. I do hope Wikipedia keeps its standard of punctuality, we certainly would not want to lag behind the world, as a readily-changeable encyclopedia, would we?

I hope you understand that I feel offended by both Dougweller and your actions.

Please remember, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

Let the people of Odisha have their Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You accused Doug of abusing his admin privileges when he did no such thing. That is an accusation without evidence, which is considered a personal attack.

If what you are saying is true, you should cite reliable sources on the article's talk page to justify a page move request (which Doug already started for you!). Wikipedia does not operate off of editors saying "I know this is true and you're injust if you don't let me have my way!" -- It simply summarizes what reliable sources say on a subject.

Assuming good faith means assuming that we're trying to act in the best interests of the site and means not assuming that we're trying to commit injustices against other people. Your language betrays that the latter ideals are your feelings regarding editors who have been trying to help you.

Honestly, if you're not looking to cooperate with editors who are trying to help you learn how to build this encyclopedia, then I'm not at all concerned whether you're offended... Especially if you're here to "right great wrongs" as this page explains.

Want to help correct errors? Fine, Doug and I will help. Want to accuse others of injustice to bully them into your point of view, without bothering to understand how things work here? Go away. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Evidence" is only considered "evidence" when the Judge on the High Chair accepts it as evidence. If the Judge does not, then it is not "evidence."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I did cite a reliable source when I made my edit. Please fully investigate, if you want to accuse me of such a thing. Second, neither you nor Dougweller have been helpful to me, in fact, I feel both you and Dougweller have reduced me to human filth. It is certainly clear both you and Dougwell have no regard for Wikipedia's factuality. I told you "India's 113th Amendment Bill changed Oriya to Odia and Orissa to Odisha more than 3 years ago." I did cite my source when I made my edit. I will point out injustice when I see it. I will point out misuse and abuse of administrative power when I encounter it. I will point out intimidation when I see it. Please do not try to protect Dougweller's wrong-doings and in the process commit wrong-doings yourself. I cannot cooperate if people like you and Dougweller obstruct me from cooperating whatsoever. It is you and Dougweller who are berating me. I am not bullying anyone, I am stating fact, rather it is the case that you are bullying me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not determine facts from what a judge says, it determines it from what academia says.

You have not cited any policies or guidelines we are violating.

Your accusations of abuse of administrative power have no evidence and so are personal attacks. How do you not understand that? Have you even considered trying to approach this from a cooperative manner? YOU are the one stopping yourself from cooperating! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the authentic source for my edit, Dougweller, an administrative, did not accept that and reverted my edit. This revert made Wikipedia erroneous. That is enough proof of abuse of administrative power. Administrators are present to "revert" vandalism and/ or incorrect/opinionated statements, not fact. It seems that Dougweller and you are both hesitating to make a change. I am stating fact that Oriya is Odia. It matters not if Oriya is colloquial nor commonly used (there is no proof that Odia IS NOT commonly used) Please refer to the 113th amendment of the Indian Constitution. I am cooperating. I am being a good person and changing Wikipedia so that it is correct. I demand the change for Wikipedia's sake. I suggested to be "a bit more civil", who's the one not cooperating? If Dougweller does not "care" about the topic, then he should not be involved in it. He should get someone who does "care." I am sorry but more than 1 year to make a simple change to FACT is ludicrous and is injustice. I did not call Dougweller any names, nor did I publish any libel. Those are called "personal attacks" i.e. Ad Hominem abuse. He told me to be ""a bit more civil" which is an Ad Hominem attack defaming my stature. I am civilized. You came along and insinuated (actually stated) that I was a "bully"; that is Ad Hominem abuse. That is degradation and is a "personal attack." Please answer why, if the edit I made is verified by the Indian Constitution, it cannot be included in the article? I am seeing that not only are you/Dougweller NOT fixing the issue, but diverting the problem each and every way, effectively NOT fixing the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're going to refuse to help yourself and continue with your temper tantrums, I'm not going to continue this conversation. Have fun stopping yourself from actually being useful to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brownie

What is wrong with what I posted about using apple sauce for a healthier version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keanderson85 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Keanderson85: (talk page stalker) Who is your instructor? Do you have a Wikipedia editor working with your class? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on their talk page. Asked them to show their teacher our policies on verifiability, sourcing, and original research; as well as directing them to Wikipedia:School and university projects. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No and it is for a web 2.0 class I meant no harm figured the information I was added was okay to add because what I added was common knowledge. and yes the keanderson85 is my old account but I couldn't remember the password to log back on. I don't know how to use this site, so I don't know how to delete my old user name. By no means was I trying to vandalize a page at all.Keanderson5385 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a user page for Keanderson5385 that explains the above with a redirect from User:Keanderson85. That way nobody will accuse you of abusing multiple accounts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another person who doesn't know where a bottom is

Hi I Am Replying To Your Message You Sent To Me About Western Sahara If You Look At A Map Of Africa Do You Know What A Map Is? You Will Find That Western Sahara Is On The Western Coast Of Africa Anyone With a Brain Can See That I Would Know I'm From Northern Africa So Please Look At Map And Try To Find Western Sahara That Is Why They Call Western Sahara Because It's In The Western Most Part Of The Sahara Desert where Is The Western Most Part Of The Sahara? On The Western Coast Of Africa So Please Go Back To The Third Grade And Learn Geography Thank's ! ! !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfinder1011 (talk • contribs)

Ok, you don't know where the bottom of the page is, nor do you seem to understand the difference between North and West... Please leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning edit

Would you approve of this edit [3]? -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The former version does rather imply that the book is confirmed to have been written by a historical Mark, which goes against the section "Composition". It is awkward though, as if the text is self-aware and self-generating (though that's clearly not what the IP intended). Maybe "The author introduces his book" would be a good compromise? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks better now. --Thnx & Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

No big deal, and all that. You'd benefit from admin tools, I don't see any glaring reason why you shouldn't have them, probably only a handful of people will come out and moan. Yes, I know RFA is (sadly) a bit of a hell-hole right now, but it doesn't need to be. I'd like to ask you to consider requesting the extra bits. Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm open to being nominated, and will participate in an RfA if I get thrown into one, but still would rather not self-nominate. It's not that I wouldn't engage in admin duties, I think it'd look better if someone else got the ball rolling (such that it might keep a few persons from coming out to argue). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, leave it with me. Pedro :  Chat  06:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like you've got a nom so I'm going to focus on a few others who raised their hands. Good luck. If you want a co-nom, let me know but I think Pedro counts as, like, 3 admin noms or something.--v/r - TP 20:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good reading for a good candidate. Studying successful RfAs may be helpful to you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another person who doesn't know where a bottom is

You reverted my first edit 2 minutes after it was made. You didn't exactly give me any opportunity to fix up the criticism section first. You are clearly a Christian POV peddler wanting to make sure you get your gainsaying inserted after every comment. I don't see much point in continuing as you clearly intend the article to be skewed and have more time to devote to that that I do. 100.0.212.128 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had every opportunity to move the material to the criticism section, and yet you didn't. That indicates an agenda on your part, not mine. I repeatedly said that it'd be fine to relocate the material, which you chose not to do. If you bother checking my history (although that would require you to actually read my page, which you demonstrated an inability to do by leaving the message at the top), you'd see that your unevidenced accuations are at best the pot calling the kettle black, if not projection. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right,

hair falling from the sky is probably not as likely as hail, but definitely more likely than a star/angel/ark/mountain. I'm sure the angels would have great hair though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.252.230 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have reported me despite I waited for 24 hours

I have already waited for 24 hours after 3 revert edit, and I have the right to edit but you reported me to the administrator anyway. The sheer fact is you don't want an anthropology section on the Huns page despite it being there since 2014 april. I had rephrased them like you said and added the possibility of it being poor quality science just to be non-biased but still decided to remove it regardless Spiritclaymore (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to count. Your last revert was 12 hours since the one before that. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry. I just woke up 2 hours ago and it's nightime right now. You did a good job pointing out my mistake but I'm still highly suspicious why a good data can be removed after 7 months, unless you're telling all the moderators were extremely lazy for a half year and didn't bother checking. No one had replied me on the Huns talk page by the way. It is unfortunate that it should removed just because you and the other user suspect it as unreliable but that doesn't change the fact that excavation and reconstructions of the Huns existed. If you want to be non-biased than the anthropology data should mentioned while stating the errors and mistake they could have had. Spiritclaymore (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This site is maintained by volunteers. Just because a mistake takes a while to remove does not justify it. Old mistakes are still mistakes and should be removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that they are mistakes anyway, this is pure speculation. Show me one source that actually claim the reconstruction of Huns as absolutely unrealible data? you would find no sources that make such claims other than some people/users claiming that it's pseudo-science or that the methods used were not accurate. The fact that is there is evidence ( is basically a fact ) that we had once reconstructed the Hun skulls from the graves is more than enough a good reason to let people know. A true and honest non-biase edit would allow to two opinions. By not allowing the anthropology section of Hun you are basically telling people it didn't exist. EVEN IF IT WAS A ERROR lets be honest about such had existed, let people know that Hungarian anthropologist had reconstructed the skulls. There is no problem in letting people know about it. Spiritclaymore (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you cited "Black Terror White Soldiers," a conspiracy theorist work about the Illuminati's supposed influence on history. You thought that sleeping meant that 24 hours passed since the last time you edited. You repeatedly plagiarized from multiple sources. You haven't provided adequate sources, and are instead asking everyone else to somehow provide sources to demonstrate that your sources aren't good enough. And you don't get that consensus is against you. All of that gives me very little reason to trust your capacity to be useful, much less your capacity to accurately judge academic work.

My initial interest was that you were plagiarizing. I'm actually not particularly concerned about article content, but because you've been plagiarizing, citing conspiracy theories, and utterly failing to get the point, I have no reason to think that your "contribution" was helpful to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Düsseldorf

Hi Ian, I"m sure you are a delightful and clever fellow, but the content of your comment is also patronizing and pointless. I could now go the library and search for scholarly journals that discuss the recent history of Fortuna Düsseldorf, hunting for academic sources to verify my bold assertions that Fortuna was unbeaten in the last seven games of last season, and that Oliver Reck took over from Lorenz-Günther Köstner as coach. But I won't. Instead I will go to bed - it's after 1:00 at night here in Germany - and I will not waste any more of my time trying to improve an article on a topic I follow closely, and which others may be interested in. In the meantime, I have no doubt that you and "Jim" and many other self-important, self-appointed "Wikipedia editors" will continue to hack away at other people's efforts. Congratulations. Keep up the good work. Tom P.S. By the way, it was me who wrote about 20% of the existing Fortuna entry - all of it (gasp!) without footnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.48.243 (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your attitude that anyone trying to help you do things right is "patronizing," that such help is "pointless," and you plan on "not wasting any more time" because of it, good riddance to you. Come back when you're ready to cooperate with the grown-ups. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

apologies

you are perfectly right, it was my first time to post a comment and did it wrong. I didn't intend at all to remove or modify somebody's else post, it was just my mistake of operation and I apologize for it. Since I deeply love Wikipedia and I found a mistake, I tried to correct it. But Dougweller has just undone it without reading it... That's why I tried to post to him, but I did it wrong... If it's possible for you to restore the removed post I'd be grateful, as I said it was not at all my intention. I try now with this post to you to see if I do it correctly... (this time I have put two equal signs before and after my title "apologies"...) Julsan (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Theological Demons "Apocrypha" ->S<-

Ian, I am with you on your edits that condemn Apocrypha that does not belong. There is 1 in particular I cannot seem to remove (Stemming from an Apocryphal book). Can you use your knowledge and editing authority to remove the one that does not link to another page? And, I am sorry for our battling, we are on the same side of the cross. Twillisjr (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see a hope for cooperation, but I'm not sure if I actually am in a position to help. I do not condemn apocrypha per se, but unreliable sourcing. Apocryphal works may not be spiritually valid, but they do represent what different groups have believed over the ages (which, combined with a bit of knowledge of history, can lead to some off-site speculation of why individuals turned to such beliefs). I'm not seeing anything problematic in the S section of List of theological demons. Guessing from your comment about "Stemming from an Apocryphal book," do you by chance mean Salpsan? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to team-up to get rid of that, in a major change of heart, and an intervention, I learned that the Apocrypha is not valid. At the very least, I support wholeheartedly, your interest in keeping the nonsense from seeping into factual biblical information. It was my opinion that you did not consider it factual, based on its authorship, and additional reasons. My best guess to remove is using your research, which I have not yet gotten to. You were always scholarly in using Wiki to remove such things. Twillisjr (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, while pseudepigrapha may not be scripturally valid, it does represent a history of belief that can be studied from a secular perspective (and even help contribute to an off-site understanding of how heresy arises and how to deal with it). I do not consider the Questions of Bartholomew to be factual, nor do I believe that Satan has a son named Salpsan -- but it is factual to say that some groups in late antiquity believed in the text, it is factual to say that the work presents a mythology where Satan has a son, and it is factual to say that the work may have had some influence elsewhere. Kathryn Powell's and D. G. Scragg's "Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon England" notes possible influence of the Questions on the medieval poem Christ and Satan.

In short, just because something is scripturally invalid or outright heretical is not a reason to exclude it. What matters is whether the material is reliably sourced. It's no different than including material about other religions on the site. I may disagree with Scientology on pretty much every point, but our material on it contributes to broader knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Numerics

You've edited Biblical numerology - are these separate subjects? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did? Going off of memory, I'd guess that Bible Numerics is the American Conservative Evangelical euphemism for Biblical numerology when they do it (numerology being "the devil's work").

Looking at both articles (oh, I did edit it), and seeing Gematria come up in Bible numerics, I'm just gonna go on and boldly redirect it Bible Numerics to Bible Numerology and maybe try to find some RSs to dump onto the latter's talk page when the caffeine starts working. Both of them are a mess, but I'm under the impression it'd be possible to have an article on the Numerology one. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was what I was thinking also but as I saw your name thought I'd ask. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to Julson about his post on my talk page

That was obviously an accident - see his comments about it. And all my fault for a bad revert! Thanks for keeping watch though, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured (well, regarding the accident, don't even remember what article it was about), which is why I used the level 1 template. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction

Effective immediately, it is my policy to not interact with you. I request that you respect my decision, and not seek to interact with me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You'll notice that outside of a certain topic, I've completely left you alone. I'd rather not argue with you, I do actually hope that there are topics upon which we can agree and cooperate on. However, I've worked with Charlesdrakew enough (see the SPI for Josh24b for a taste) to trust his judgement, and even then I see no real wrong-doing on his part. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Killer

I have checked two websites that say Gilligan's Island star Russell Johnson is the Zodiac Killer. However, since I'm no criminal expert like John Walsh or the FBI, I cannot guarantee they may be true, but I did read your message about Empire News, so I will avoid that sight for references. But do find some geniuses that may know about this news on other websites because I was not born in the 60s. Marino13 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I did a search for "Russell Johnson Zodiac Killer," the first result was this Snopes article, which traces the ultimate origin of that story to Empire News (although I'll note that it's really just ripping off The Onion's article "Dick Van Dyke Finally Confesses To Zodiac Killings"), followed by The Epoch Times article Russell Johnson / Zodiac Killer Hoax: ‘Gilligan’s Island Star Turns Out To Be Zodiac Killer’ Hollywood Shocker Totally Fake. Any other site you saw it on was repeating the Empire News gag. I do not know how you managed to completely miss that the entire thing is obviously fake from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware in the first place because I paid more attention to the details of the reference. But I will not post any further information about supposed Zodiac Killer suspect Russell Johnson again. Marino13 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Ian.thomson:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Adjutor101

Did you noticed I reported him at ANEW earlier? Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I found out about it. If he reverts, more rope. If he doesn't, article's back to the version with consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see on my talk page there's a suggestion of a 'criticism' article?

I'm slightly behind here. I must start watching RfA again! Good to hear. I'm obviously supporting you. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello,

I'm looking for volunteers to help me with the followings:

1. Combine the paragraphs by amending into one.
2. Rewrite the paragraphs by combining into one.

Can you help me with anyone of them?

(Russell.mo (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Which article is it for? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god you replied, it’s not for an article, it’s for a book. I need article(s) paragraphs to be combined and rewritten. Currently I’m gathering the information, learning at the same time, I am just finding it difficult to combine paragraphs for amendments. Plus its wasting a lot of time when I should be using this time to actually write the story appropriately which is mixing with the book. Once the combining is done some of the selected bits that will go with the book need to be re-written. I’ll be grateful with whatever you’ll be happy to help with. Currently I have someone volunteered to help me, but she is way to slow, slower than me... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, but I'm already busy with a couple of other books that I would make money off of (...and busy with some government paperwork to get a job overseas ...and helping my mom nurse my uncle with cancer). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Thanks anyways. : ] -- (Russell.mo (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Zeitgeist RfC

A few users are talking about merging the Zeitgeist articles in an RfC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, Thanks very much for the clarification! By doing so you inadvertently provided me with a new source for my research project, so I am much obliged.

Cheers,

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koskiscott (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 03:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riccardo Silva

The edits by Youtube dot com c-r72Nr8A44 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riccardo Silva were actually correct, the edit summaries were wrong. Your reverts on them were improper. Youtube dot com c-r72Nr8A44 initial revert was to revert the AFD back to the version as it was closed in 2012. Skyfall added comments to the closed discussion and should not have. GB fan 16:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, sorry! After I saw User:Stemoc revert, I thought it must've been more of Beals's usual antics. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orion constellation

Asked for semi-protection. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Had I caught it long enough without him reverting it, I'd've headed over there. Now I guess the next revert (if he gets there before protection goes through) is WP:3RRNB (unless you think that it'd fall under the "In straightforward cases" part of WP:INVOLVED). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mir Jan

Dear Sir Mr. Thomson Thank you very much for your advise. My source is from those books (Khwanade hazrat Eshan, which is written by Muhammad Yasin Qasavi Naqshbandi) and life of Hazrat Sayyid Mir Jan and sayyid Mir Jans living and official witnesses. I would be grateful, when you allow me to put your notes away. Thank you very much in advance for your understanding. I am waiting for your answer. Dear Sir Mr. Thomson This book is investigated and written by Mr. Qasvari Naqshbandi. The company is called Edare Talimate Naqshbandiyya Lahore. And I have corrected my references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael1901 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC) sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael1901 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use witnesses as sources, we use published books. Again, what company published the books you are citing? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tower of Babel

Would you mind replying to the guy on my talk page who's talking about my edit there? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I don't ask this as an issue of exchange (just asking while you're here), but could you keep an eye on the article in the section above? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

regaurding the episode vii title edit

its right here

http://theforce.net/v3-story/frontStar_Wars_Episode_VII_Will_Be_Called_The_Force_Awakens_160763.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.37.196 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I probably blocked or reverted him when he was using another IP. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tower of Babel

Ok, well, even if we both agree with the bible, the page is still biased. I see what you mean about using "account" making it biased. But "story" does that too. I don't want anymore spiel about Wiki's bias policies. My intention was to correct the page to make it non-biased, I actually meant to help. However, I realize now that "account" may have not been the best word to use.

I therefore suggest: description, relation, explanation, version, interpretation - or something along those lines. If you or Dougweller could edit the page I would be most appreciative. I may not have time or effort to edit it in an appropiate manner. If Dougweller edits it, please make sure he's read this post first.

Thanks :-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNonBoffin (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but a lot of those other terms still fall under objective claims (except interpretation, which implies that the flood narrative is a purely subjective understanding of something else, rather than a thing in itself). Stories are not automatically fiction. All story means is a sequence of events, without any assumption one way or another as to what kind of veracity they do or do not have. Indeed, "myth" doesn't necessarily mean "falsehood" (for example, C.S. Lewis referred to the story of Christ as a myth that was also true). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, could we perhaps add a small header explaining that it's not neccesarily untrue? Otherwise people like me might come along, read the article and - as I did - get the wrong impression.

Much appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNonBoffin (talk • contribs)

Then we'd have to insert a header explaining that it's not necessarily true. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you for your help citing my first article: Book of Elchasai here: [4]. Because of you, the article was greatly expanded. Cheers! -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question on my talk page please I just made

Hopefully...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortal Discoveries (talk • contribs)

If you want to ask someone a question, ask it on their talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tower of Babel

How about using The Encyclopedia Britannica as reference? People have said it's very neutral, naturally as it's on Britannica, and I agree.

-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNonBoffin (talk • contribs)

They use the phrasings "story" and "myth" as well. Also, Wikipedia's actually better than Britannica. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While hunting Orion

While searching for any other mentions of Orion as a sun-god or "solar hero", I found "Haik was identified with the Sun-god Orion" in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), along with other synthesis such as Ara "is associated with Osiris, Vishnu and Dionysus, as the symbol of new life". They were introduced in a gigantic edit in 2011 by now-blocked User:Aram-van, an edit which seems to have pasted in content from Armenian mythology, Armenian Apostolic Church, Armenian Language and other articles. I'm now deeply suspicious of the large Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Architecture section which arrived in that same edit, fully formed and going into great detail about Garni Temple, even though I can't trace it to any Wikipedia article and can't be sure if online texts are sources for it or copies from it.
So now I'm not sure what to do. I was going to simply remove the mythological syntheses, but now it looks as if it might need a much bolder hand and more familiarity with this area - so I came to you. NebY (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey... Thanks for the alert. @Dougweller:, @AcidSnow:, @A. Parrot:, letting y'all know about this as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did find and remove the suspicious (and uselessly vague) linkage of Ara with other gods, but I didn't dig through the history to see who had added it. I thought it might well be Ararat's work, but it seemed a slightly different tack from his current behavior, which uses Hayk as the point of connection with Osiris. Do you think you have these problems in hand? A. Parrot (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did catch that and Ian cleaned up some more - all in the Armenian mythology article. How were you to know there was a fork at Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)? We could just paste the cleaned-up version into the fork, but I hesitate; I don't really know policy and good practice on forks and I fear this one's got a copyright problem in the architecture section. NebY (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Re Ararat, Hayk, etc: I dunno, but some of the material could stand reworking regardless.

Re being able to handle it, short answer: probably? At least the mythology.

Long answer: I'm gonna see if I can rewrite the Armenian mythology article tonight (if not those on the gods as well), since that's more familiar territory for me. (Now if only I'd put that much effort on mah Gotdern List of Demons in the Ars Goetia rewrite, I might be done with it). Whether or not it's him, that could stand doing. I'm also going to just remove anything that's unsourced in the other articles, and delete and readd any useful material that might be him just so it's technically not in his name (if it is).

Re architecture section: I just deleted it wholesale. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Started going through Armenian_Apostolic_Church#History, but my steak, potato, and salad just showed up. Will resume in a bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathies. Real-life obligations have taken away the huge blocks of time I need to rewrite Isis; I haven't added to the rewrite in months. And because I keep it offline until it's complete, people can't see the progress I have made. Anyway, as I know very little about Armenian mythology, I'll leave you to it unless you need help. A. Parrot (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(How'd you know the potato and salad were going to be that bad?) No worries. I don't know much about it specifically, but it's overall a bit of a mishmash of native, Iranian/Zoroastrian, and Semitic elements (the latter two I've adequately studied); I've got or can get enough sources to leave it at least as nice as I found it, and I've been meaning to read more on the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of any Ararat material at Armenian mythology and Armenian Apostolic Church (at least what I could immediately spot, and I haven't started on articles on individual gods), deleted the architecture section of the Ancient Armenia article, and didn't find any problems skimming through Garni Temple. That leaves the language section and Armenian language, particularly (so far as I can tell) the first paragraph of the intro, the first paragraph of the "Classification and origins" section, and the first paragraph of the "Evolution" section. Skimming the article just now was seriously the first time I've read a thing about Armenian, so if anyone else wants to jump on it, feel free. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dabble in linguistics, and most of that doesn't ring any alarm bells. The only thing I see that's dubious is the claim that the classical Armenian language was "was one of the great languages of the Near East and Asia Minor" in the fifth century. Unless the language was widely spoken outside Armenia itself, this claim is pretty meaningless. Armenian could have been a lingua franca in Asia Minor and the northern Near East, given the influence Armenia had in earlier centuries (see Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)). But Greek and Aramaic must have had greater currency in the area than Armenian, and after the kingdom lost its independence to the Romans and Persians in the fourth century, I'd expect Persian to be more important, too. A. Parrot (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely way more qualified than I am to blank and rewrite those portions. I'll accept that they're probably innocuous or even helpful, but because they were written by a banned editor, I'm still inclined to think it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove and then readd/rewrite them so he cannot claim "good edits" as a defense for his presence (though if they were written before the block or by someone else, damnatio memoriae may not be necessary). I generally used different sources than Ararat simply because I don't trust him (or maybe-him) on any sort of theological or mythological topic, but I'll trust your judgement as to his linguistic sources (where he cites them). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, maybe even "dabble" is too strong a description of my knowledge of linguistics. Fortunately, the sources that he did use, though not primarily linguistic, are fairly scholarly and are checkable online. I cut out the parts that weren't sourced, except the paragraph about Mesrop Mashtots' invention of the Armenian alphabet, because I've come across those statements whenever I've read about Mashtots (e.g., [5]). A. Parrot (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all seem to have this under control, let me know if there is anything I can do. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No chance you could take my uncle to the doctor's today, I'm guessing. If you've got any more modern sources than what I found, they'd be welcome. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need a hand?

The connection looks substantial enough, so I've blocked that IP for a few days. Figured I'd let you know. Drop by if anything else I can help with pops up. Best, m.o.p 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will let you know. I was planning on just going through the Armenian mythology pantheon articles two sources at a time, and with him off my back I should be able to go back to doing that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magical vs Mystical

I started a discussion about using "mystical" instead of "magical" on religious pages over in the Wikiproject:Occult. You had some stuff posted there so I assume you would want to be notified. I think I see you have used magical so you may be a good source for the other side of the discussion as me unless you agree (which I'm totally cool with). --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 01:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

: ]

Thank you for helping.

(Russell.mo (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Bonehill again

An IP traced from his hometown of Yeovil has again been editing the Joshua Bonehill article with unsourced positivity. Is the standard procedure to ask for semi-protection for sockpuppetry, and is this regularly given if there is only one miscreant at it? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a sock, you might want to file an sock puppet investigation and request page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thatonebossdude again

Hello, User:Ian.Thompson. You probably remember me. I used to edit under the name Thatonebossdude. Trace my IP, you will find me. Well, I have decided to stop making defamatory articles and offensive edits. Rememeber the Blake Zarroff Article? Yep. That was me. I'm sorry. I am just a 14 year old kid who thought I could do stupid things by hiding behind a computer screen. Well, I realize my mistakes now. I would like to have a constructive impact on Wikipedia from this point forward. Please do not block me, as I have not, and will not make, any more offensive or defamatory edits. As long as no one makes me angry. I would like to write an article about my father who passed away in March. I want his memory to be immortalized on the internet somewhere, and I don't know a better place to start than Wikipedia. I would simply like to write a constructive article about my father's life to honor him. Is it okay for me to write this? Please respond soon, preferably on my talk page, although I have this page in my watchlist so it works to. Please get back to me as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharmoghoyf (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEMORIAL. Wikipedia does not host memorials to the deceased. Given your past behavior, you will have to understand if I believe you're just continuing to lie.

The "as long as no one makes me angry" part is a good indication that you're still not ready to edit here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aristobulus I opinion

I want you opinion on the sources/references and the article in general. I haven't completed the article as I am still working on the Conquest of Galilee. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I even look at the article, I'm just going to give the impractical blanket statement "All articles could always use more sources," because it's a noble lie I tell even myself.

Actually looking at the article:

• It's been dramatically improved from this (good work!)
• Ethen Allen's "Introduction to Biblical History" unfortunately does not meet WP:RS since Lulu.com is a pay-to-print publisher (i.e. it's self published), so that citation needs to be replaced.
• I could also imagine someone complaining about a coin collecting book (Sayles's Ancient Coin Collecting), but it's being cited for exactly what it should be cited for and nothing beyond that.
• Otherwise, all the sources look good to me, though I'm mostly just checking titles and publishers. I could imagine someone complaining about a few of the publishers (e.g. Eerdmans) in an article on a more secular topic (like Henry VII or something), but for the given subject matter, it's fine (if not unavoidable). Except Sayle and Allen, I did not check each source for WP:OR or worse, but I highly doubt that's necessary.

Seems you did a Google Books search for sources, so you probably found all I could. Since this isn't an occult/magical topic, I don't think I have any potential additional sources on-hand. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the untrusted source with a more reliable one. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson How would you better wright the section Galilee and Golan settlements better. The tone when I read seems a bit "plain". — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII: I will get to this, but I'm dern beat (several hours cleaning a house with all kinds of fun chemicals, it's a wonder I'm typing correctly), so probably not today. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII: I went ahead and WP:BOLDly tried to punch up the text. Feel free to revert, modify, or otherwise make use of what you will, of course. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New World Encyclopedia

Our articles rewritten by Moonies.[6]. I guess you noticed that both Dever and Kitchen were misrepresented. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, didn't know that. Well, at least it's not Scientologists. I actually didn't actually check to see if Dever and Kitchen were misrepresented, I just figured "if the edit includes those non-PBS sources, there's probably other problems." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Zeus

Thank you for not omitting what was taught by Plato. That´s the least we can do to honour those who first tried to now and to teach us about the nature of the gods.

About the summary of site policies - they are fair. However,

-"Always cite a source for any new information": Although I admit my editings weren´t properly announced, nonetheless I provided the sources through a link. I don´t the see the problem with linking pages, do you?

-"Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism": none of them did I do.

-"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is": funny you mention it, because people want to stress "indo-european" origins of words, when they´re nothing but hypothesis. It´s an academic study alright, but it´s not verifiable proof of anything. Just merely conjectures.

-"Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view": I contributed according to the view greek philosophy. If this is biased, then the others who contributed according to the indo-european etymology of the name of Zeus are biased too, because: a) it has not been proven, it´s still an hypothesis. b) they want to attribute it an indo-european orogin by force. If that´s not biased, I don´t know what is. c) The connection between the names Zeus, Deus and sanskrit Deva or Dyaus are irrelevant to the point in question. Zeus was a greek god, perceived according to greek mentality, philosophy and religious thought. One cannot learn about the name and nature of Zeus by studying Deus or Dyaus. Irrelsvant and idiotic.

-"Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited": targeting the inquiring mind of the readers on the nature of Zeus, my contribution was even in itself, and to the point. To say otherwise just shows partiality towards indo-european linguistics and rejection of the primary sources on the gods.

-"We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia": like I said previously, the mainstream academia hypothesize on the indo-european origin of names, that´s all. I shouldn´t have deleted that information, I confess, but what is known about the names of the gods in greek philosophy shouldn´t be omitted either. In the overall, indo-european etymologies, not only are they highly doubtfull, they are also irrelevant to the article in question. Zeus, not Deus nor Dyaus. Can you tell me who Zeus is? Who expounds on Zeus? The latin flamen? The hindu bramans? Indo-european linguists? I don´t think so...

Merry Christmass by the way!

Nemoswlew 17:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Nemoswlewa

A number of the guidelines and policies I suggested were not necessarily commentaries on your edits so far, but guessing about future edits from those. Your heavy quoting was a touch unfriendly with copyright. Wikipedia is neither a pulpit, temple, or Ἀκαδημία, so we do not encourage anyone (regardless of whatever their beliefs are) to present their personal beliefs as cosmic truths. Merely summarizing academic descriptions of those beliefs is fine, but your bias towards ancient Greek thinking will receive about as warm a welcome as Young Earth Creationism. Modern academia does more than conjecture, they have to provide evidence that is peer-reviewed. Wikipedia does not engage in either the original research or the peer review, but does consider sources that have gone done the research and gone through peer review to be reliable. In the case of etymology, scholars have not merely pointed out similarities between Zeus, Deus, Tiwas, and Dyeus, but have found that the majority of words in Greek, Latin, German, Sanskrit, and many other Indo-European languages share both similar meaning and sound (with differences in sound following uniform shifts in each language, such as Grimm's law). Greek is not some eternal language, it is as mortal as any other tongue.

Believe whatever you want, but Wikipedia operates on what the majority of scholars have observed, not on oracles or prophets. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I´ll throw my Plato's books in the trash because they´re just"conjectures". Now I know that if I study Indo-european, I´ll find out all want to know about Zeus, who is Deus, and Dyaus. Oh my, will have to delve into hinduism now as well? I wonder how there are wiki pages about hinduism, or relgion for that matter. Afterall, the proof that Dyaus-Pitar exists lies only in the mind of those who wrote about him. That´s not very very scientifical after all... Nemoswlew 20:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective claims. Whether Zeus, Dyaus-Pitar, or any other god exists or doesn't exist is subjective. That Deus and Dyaus have similar sound and meaning, and belong to languages that share a lot of likewise similar words -- that's pretty objective. Whatever gods we should worship (if any) is subjective, but it is objective to say that there are people who worship Brahman, there are people who worship Allah, there are people who do not worship any gods, and so forth.

Wikipedia operates on objective knowledge, and its discussion of subjective beliefs is only objective outside documentation of those beliefs.

As I said, believe whatever you want, but Wikipedia operates on what the majority of scholars have observed -- i.e. objective information. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I do. The whole of greek mythology is based on subjective reasonings and claims. They were merely written figuratively. In fact, most of our current knowledge is also subjective in some way, we just assume it truth, because there´s no other way to prove it objectively. Our own senses, especially sight, operate on non-direct knowledge, but associations, reasonings - subjective therefore, because objectively some things cannot be proven. So if we accept that which our sight claims as true, but is in fact indirect knowledge, why do we reject that which is also indirectly inferred through reasoning? Do we need an extra eye to see that there is e.g., what is called the "black/invisible sun"? First, we can´t see it with physical eyes because its light is not physical. Still it illuminates the ideas tha our mind works with, without which we would be able to physically see, like animals do, but not comprehend, analyse and synthesize the forms mentally, that is, to have an insight, an inner-sight. These two sights, the physical and mental differ in substance, and like Plato alluded to in the Allegory of the Cave, some will always prefer the common sight to the insight and stay inside the cave of irrational illumined forms - not that they can´t appreciate insight - but because the irrational sometimes (or almost the time) is preferred over the rational. When there´s a rational in the first place of course :) Nemoswlew 21:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for review

Ian.thomson, you might be surprised about me asking you to comment on Draft:IPCC consensus. We have a common experience with zealots from the waldensians article and that draft is born out of the need of an enlightened perspective on a faith related topic. ;) As said, I ask for comments, from you or someone you might recommand. Serten II (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's a touch outside of my range, and I'm getting a slight impression that there'd be some cognitive dissonance for one or both of us if I got involved. I'm more of a humanities geek, with my interest in science being more focused on biology. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome cognitive dissonances from your side, but I think the point about biology is important. I will try at the mining portal, the first guy providing constructive points was a geologist. Serten II (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Ian.thomson, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks for the help on Aristobulus I. It looks great. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Chimp with a gun.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chimp with a gun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christ myth theory

Thanks for your just, balanced and fair edits to Christ myth theory! Well done!Spacelib (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

I don't understand the "messaging" system in here, so please forgive me if I am doing this wrong.

What is it about the subject of "evolution" that causes people to take such drastic measures to hide what evolution is? The "evolution" page, without the additions I made, is about ONE KIND OF EVOLUTION ONLY, and is NOT LABELED AS SUCH! There is NO OTHER PAGE for evolution in the general sense, nor should general information about evolution be placed on a separate page. It BELONGS on the main evolution page.

Nothing I added was the slightest bit off-topic. Yes, deleting it was an act of vandalism! DonaldKronos (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're failing to assume good faith and keep thinking you own your edits. Read the article. Notice that it only discusses biological evolution. The introduction summarizes the rest of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how I was biting...

Please explain how I was biting. And why did you think I'm multiple people? Did you just make an assumption about my post without reading it in depth? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have bad eyesight and am currently tired, and thus when reading the wiki-code of your replay I read the two sections as two separate replies. On rereading your reply I realize that I have committed the same error I was accusing you of in not assuming good faith in other editors. I have edited my reply to reflect this. My main concern was specifically "It's not like the slight and millenia-later differences in the suffix has any sort of special meaning. Besides, Jesus spoke Aramaic.". This communicates nothing not already communicated besides an apparent derision of the other editor's question and an assumption that they are ignorant. -- LWG ^talk 00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. My past experiences with users who make belief-based calls for changes are that they usually do not get the point just from evidence, and need specific countering to the underlying assumption behind their post; if only for the chance to realize that's ultimately what they're arguing for. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]