User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 24

Thanks for your input

Hello Ian.thomson. Could you please offer your thoughts concerning this matter? Thanks – TheProfessor (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Ian! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christ myth theory

I'm thinking the above article and related talk page could probably use a few more eyes. Call it a guess. John Carter (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:John Carter, got lost on my way back from wassailing. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing Ghosts Of Venice Article

Hi Ian. Please can you see my article changes and consider publishing as I am unaware of how to do so. Thank you for your help Killtherhythm (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tower of Babel

OK, I think I've waited for long enough for something to change on this page but it hasn't.

  I now understand what you meant about a story not necessarily being untrue. But that was

clear to me at first, and I wish not for other readers to misconstrue the meaning of the article like I did.

  I therefore see no problem in putting a notice at the top of the page, pointing out

that a particular view is not put forward by the article and that whilst referring to it as a story, it still may or may not be true. If you really are Christian, you should support this. It will make sure that no one else takes it the wrong way.

Thank you.

WikiNonBoffin (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Christian I put my faith in Christ as my savior, and am not required to place codlingly overaccomodating disclaimers for those who prefer to get upset first and try to learn later (if at all). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Please do not edit war, like what you did here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyramid&curid=23704&diff=642936164&oldid=642935813, thanks173.63.78.62 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not defend clear errors by accusing someone who reverted twice of edit warring, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that it was a clear error? The summery didn't seem clear enough.--173.63.78.62 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the interruption, but this administrator thinks the first edit summary was very clear that the rollback was to fix a clear error. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also, the article in question and related articles are pretty clear that 10,500 BCE is further off than saying the pyramids are going to be built next week. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement request

here Cla68 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian...my take is that being light hearted or having a sense of humor is prohibited on Wikipedia! This is surious bizniss and we can't joke around!!!--MONGO 14:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Religion)

Please do not edit/Delete my posts if you do not know the knowledge that I'm clearly putting on wikipedia. You seem to not have gotten the message that you do not know as much about religion then what you think you know. Please read the hebrew bible before you begin to delete my posts. "Stay away from the God Religion"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Highest_Relgion. (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is concerned with objective knowledge, not subjective belief. Wikipedia is not a pulpit for you to preach from. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I added "Is and will be (OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE) Wiki is about facts. Which I am providing. Next time you edit one of my things I will contact wiki myself through a phone call to prove my knowledge and so I'll be able to edit the pages that I have already "Edited" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highest Relgion. (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Highest Relgion.: That's pretty funny. So, exactly which phone number are you going to call? Who do you think you'll be talking to? What do you suppose they would say? Argument from authority is not sound reasoning. Tell you what, post on Jimmy Wales's talk page. That would be the fastest way to resolve your problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice he keeps saying he's going to add something, and never does it. Perhaps on some level he realizes he's handling this the wrong way, but doesn't want to admit it? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxing

I think you got a little carried away with that removal. I know something about bruxing, and what I said is factual. The only actual "medical advice" I gave was to talk to his dentist about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still attempted to diagnose his condition. Whether or not it is bruxing, you're not a medical professional (and if you were, we have no way of verifying that). The top of the page says "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't try to explain what his symptoms were? Because your edit clearly shows you trying to do so.

He was unaware what his medical condition was, and described symptoms. You attempted to narrow his broad symptoms down to a particular ailment; not necessarily the root cause of the ailment, but nonetheless you tried to provide a diagnosis. To have simply left him a message saying "go discuss this with a medical professional" would have been one thing, but you restored a question that ultimately called for medical advice that we simply cannot give.

If you truly believe that I should not have removed the post, report me to ANI. If you are not that confident, please drop it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user Wnt has a more liberal view of these things than either you or I do. I've asked him to weigh in on this, if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided no counter-explanation as to how you weren't not diagnosing, and do not appear to be acknowledging anything I've said. If you are only here to tell me I'm wrong without actually explaining yourself, I see no reason to discuss this with you. Do you not have anything actually productive to do? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He described teeth-grinding, and that's exactly what Bruxism is, which you would know if you were to read the article. That's why I told him to go see a doctor and/or dentist, and advising someone to see a doctor IS NOT medical advice. Or, we can just treat the newbie like a jerk, as you did. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did I treat him uncivilly? I simply pointed out that we don't answer medical questions. Saying that I treated him like a jerk implies you read a degree of hostility into my message in a way that fails WP:AGF, if not WP:NPA. Maybe you should get your (otherwise justified) frustration with Cassianto and SchroCat sorted before interacting with others. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

See the new ANI report on requesting professional advice by User talk:173.49.17.60, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Does_Wikipedia_offer_corporate.2C_real_estate.2C_hiring.2C_banking_and_legal_advice_now.3F μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respons

You wrote == What "Alternate history" means == at User talk:ADHZ07111989

Please read our article on Alternate history. Alternate history is a form of fiction. Your article on the Later Sui Empire was based off of this alternate history wikia. The website you cited says that their material is fictional. If there was a later Sui Empire, there would be other sources about it, but there are none. In short, it is fictional. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attention please. The references for Later Sui Empire are:

References

"References"

*Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006. *梁惠王章句上 page 6 *西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世　孫行者施為三折肱 *廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨 *廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊 *太平御覽,人事部五十六,《孝女》 *《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1 *之 Part 葘 *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006. *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006. Hawley, Samuel (2005). The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China. Seoul: The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch. pp. 195f. ISBN 89-954424-2-5. Turnbull, Stephen (2002). Samurai Invasion. Japan’s Korean War 1592–98. London: Cassell & Co. p. 244. ISBN 0-304-35948-3. Roh, Young-koo (2004). "Yi Sun-shin, an Admiral Who Became a Myth". The Review of Korean Studies 7 (3): 13. *鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》 *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006. The online version of references can you read at ctext.org, as follow: *梁惠王章句上 page 6 夫，音扶。浡，音勃。由當作猶，古字借用。後多放此。周七八月，夏五六月也。油然，雲盛貌。沛然，雨盛貌。浡然，興起貌。禦，禁止也。人牧，謂牧民之君也。領，頸也。蓋好生惡死，人心所同。故人君不嗜殺人，則天下悅而歸之。蘇氏曰：「孟子之言，非苟為大而已。然不深原其意而詳究其實，未有不以為迂者矣。予觀孟子以來，自漢高祖及光武及唐太宗及我太祖皇帝，能一天下者四君，皆以不嗜殺人致之。其餘殺人愈多而天下愈亂。秦晉及隋，力能合之，而好殺不已，故或合而復分，或遂以亡國。孟子之言，豈偶然而已哉？ *西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世　孫行者施為三折肱 三皇治世，五帝分倫。堯舜正位，禹湯安民。成周子眾，各立乾坤。倚強欺弱，分國稱君。邦君十八，分野邊塵。後成十二，宇宙安淳。因無車馬，卻又相吞。七雄爭勝，六國歸秦。天生魯沛，各懷不仁。江山屬漢，約法欽遵。漢歸司馬，晉又紛紜。南北十二，宋齊梁陳。列祖相繼，大隋紹真。賞花無道，塗炭多民。我王李氏，國號唐君。高祖晏駕，當今世民。河清海晏，大德寬仁。茲因長安城北，有個怪水龍神，刻減甘雨，應該損身。夜間託夢，告王救迍。王言准赦，早召賢臣。款留殿內，慢把棋輪。時當日午，那賢臣夢斬龍身。 *廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨 隨:隨：從也，順也，又姓風俗通云隋侯之後漢有博土隨何後漢有扶風隨蕃。旬爲切，三。隨:隋：國名本作隨。《左傳》云：漢東之國隨爲大漢初爲縣後魏爲郡又改爲州隋文帝去辵 *廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊 伊:伊：惟也，因也，侯也，亦水名又州本伊吾廬地在燉煌之北大磧之外秦末有之漢爲伊吾屯隋爲郡貞觀初慕化内附置伊州焉又姓伊尹之後今山陽人。於脂切，五。 *太平御覽,人事部五十六,《孝女》 孝女: 《唐書》曰：劉寂妻夏侯氏，滑州胙城人，字碎金。父長云，為鹽城縣丞，因疾喪明。碎金遂求離其夫，以終侍養。經十五年，兼事后母，以至孝聞。及父卒，毀瘠殆不勝喪，被發徒跣，負土成墳，廬於墓側，每日一食，如此者積年。貞觀中，有制表其門閭，賜以粟帛。 又曰：于敏直妻張氏，營州都督、皖城公儉之女也。數歲時父母微有疾，即觀察顏色，不離左右，晝夜省侍，宛若成人。及稍成長，恭順彌甚。適延壽公于欽明子敏直。初聞儉有疾，便即號勇自傷，期於必死。儉卒后，凶問至，號哭一慟而絕。高宗下詔，賜物百段，仍令史官編錄之。 又曰：楊紹宗妻王氏，華州華陰人也。初年三歲，所生母亡，吻繼母鞠養。至年十五，父又征遼而沒。繼母尋亦卒。王乃收所生母及繼母尸柩，并立父形像，招魂遷葬訖，又廬於墓側，陪其祖母及父墳。永徽中，詔曰：「故楊紹宗妻王氏，因心為孝，率性成道。年迫桑榆，筋力衰謝。以往在隋朝，父沒遼左，招魂遷葬，負土成墳，又葬其祖父母等，竭此老年，親加板筑。痛結晨昏，哀感行路。永言志行，嘉尚良腎攏宜標其門閭，用旌敏德。」賜物三十段、粟五十碩。 又曰：孝女賈氏，濮州鄄城人也。始年十五，其父為宗人玄基所害。其弟強仁年幼，賈氏撫育之，誓以不嫁。及強仁成童，思共報復，乃候玄基殺之，取其心肝，以祭父墓。遣強仁自列於縣，有司斷以極刑。賈詣闕自陳己為，請代強仁死。高宗哀之，特制賈氏及強仁免罪，移其家於洛陽。 又曰：汴州李氏孝女，年八歲，父卒，柩殯在堂十餘載，每日哭泣無限。及年長，母欲嫁之，遂截發自誓，請在家終養。及喪母，號毀殆至滅性。家無丈夫，自營棺槨，州里欽其至孝，送葬者千餘人。葬畢，廬於墓側，蓬頭跣足，負土成墳，手植松柏數百株。季昶列上其狀，制特表其閭，賜以粟帛。 *《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1 牡丹花，世謂近有。盖以隋末文士集中。無牡丹謌詩。則楊子華有晝牡丹處極分明。子華北齊人，則知牡丹花亦已久矣。出尚書故實又謝康樂集。亦言竹間水際多牡丹。而隋朝種植法七十餘卷中。不說牡丹者，則隋朝花藥中所無也。出酉陽雜爼 *之 Part 葘 夔：夔龍亦州名春秋時魚國漢爲魚復縣梁隋皆爲巴東郡唐初改爲信州又改爲夔州取夔國名之又獸名似牛一足無角其音如雷皮可以冒鼓。 *鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》 頃為隋朝權臣一奏。遂謫居此峯。爾何德於予，欲陷吾為寒山之叟乎。令哀祈愈切。仙官神色甚怒。俄有使者，齎一函而至，則金天王之書扎也。仙官覽書，笑曰。關節既到，難為不應。召使者反報，曰。莫又為上帝譴責否。乃啟玉函，書一通，焚香再拜以遣之。凡食頃。天符"符"原作"府"，據明鈔本改。乃降。其上署徹字。仙官復焚香再拜以啟之，云。張某棄背祖宗，竊假名位。不顧禮法。苟竊官榮。而又鄙僻多藏，詭詐無實。百里之任，已是叨居；千乘之富。今因苟得。令按罪已實。待戮餘魂。何為奏章，求延厥命。但以扶危拯溺者，大道所尚；紓刑宥過者，玄門是宗。狥爾一甿。我"我"原作"俄"，據明鈔本改。全弘化，希其悛惡，庶乃自新。貪生者量延五年。奏章者不能無"無"原作"書"，據明鈔本改。罪。仙官覽畢，謂令曰。大凡世人之壽。皆可致百歲。而以喜怒哀樂。汨沒心源。愛惡嗜欲，伐生之根。而又揚己之能，掩彼之長，顛倒方寸，頃刻萬變。神倦思怠，難全天和。如彼淡泉。汨於五味。欲致不壞。其可得乎。勉導歸途，無墮吾教。令拜辭。舉首已失所在。復尋舊路，稍覺平易。行十餘里。黃衫吏迎前而賀。令曰。將欲奉報，願知姓字。吏曰。吾姓鍾。生為宣城縣脚力。亡于華陰，遂為幽冥所錄。遞符之役，勞苦如舊。令曰。何以勉執事之困。曰。但酧金天王願曰。請置子為閽人，則吾飽神盤子矣。天符已違半日，難更淹留。便與執事別，入廟南柘林三五步而沒。是夕，張令駐車華陰，決東歸。計酬金天王願，所費數逾二萬，乃語其僕曰。二萬可以贍吾十舍之資糧矣，安可受祉于上帝，而私謁於土偶人乎。明旦，遂東至偃師，止于縣館。見黃衫舊吏，齎牒排闥而進，叱張令曰。何虛妄之若是。今禍至矣。由爾償三峯之願不果。俾吾答一飯之恩無始終。悒悒之懷，如痛毒螫。言訖，失所在。頃刻，張令有疾，留書遺妻子，未訖而終。出《纂異記》

I don't care about any fiction made from the Later Sui II Empire.

Please give me permission to make it or in exchange of that please help me make the article.

ADHZ07111989 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to be about the original Sui dynasty, which was replaced by the Tang dynasty (hence the line 孝女: 《唐書》). They do not appear to be sources on any hypothetical later Sui dynasty, which you created an article about. I'm not giving you permission. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a commentary ("孝女:" = commentary of) the book during Later Sui era. Or study of the book in the era of Hou Sui II. Please give the permission and help me review Later Sui Article.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a final warning, basically "if you make one more edit in this subject, you're permablocked". Either this will get him into some other field (not likely, I understand), or get him off the site (slightly less unlikely), or result in the block. I'm just not fond of waiting for long discussions or blocking people who haven't violated some bright line, whether troll-or-incompetent people like this guy, or spam-only-accounts, or vandal-only accounts, etc. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

"Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!" I know. The spelling without a 'p' is, among other things, the French spelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CMT

I see that you have described your opinion about the current ongoing RFC. To me, it will be more helpful if you would make your preferred change and self revert, we will know that how this will look like. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do that tomorrow. Only up at the moment while I let the ozone air out of my room. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] was a nice version and I will prefer it. We can copy most of that content to the main pages of those cited individuals, but only if there is no indication of their Christ myth theories on their main pages. Sounds okay? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

Hi Ian, sorry about the misunderstanding. I wanted to do the same you did. Something went wrong when I reverted. Warning was not meant for you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, as long as it was a mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people reverting Sinebot? Why not remove the posts entirely? Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Poinsettia

I grew it just for you (you pl., not creepy). μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Poinsettia

Need to update your introductory text

I notice in a recent greeting which you made to a new user that you included the following words for a link to WP:VERIFIABILITY: "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is. — This is actually incorrect, the slogan of "Verifiability Not Truth" is no longer part of policy. Quoting Jimmy Wales on the matter: "Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." (Sept. 25, 2012). I would suggest the following wording for your link to WP:VERIFIABILITY: "It is imperative that information added to Wikipedia be accurate and verifiable." Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have "truth" in scare quotes due to the number of new editors who insist that truth trumps verifiability. I'll change it to "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Wusun

As a recent contributor to the article Wusun, this ongoing discussion might interest you. By the way thanks for informing me about the recent allegations against me on ANI. Regards. Krakkos (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to stop by and say thank you for taking the time at ANI to trudge through a pile of diffs to gain a clearer picture of the situation. Rather than muddy the waters by adding my own clarifications, I think I'll just let your comments stand as my defense. It is an imperfect summary, but good enough. There is one part of your comment that you may wish to revist, however: "As for LM2000 ... Is he a single purpose account? Hardly. Does calling him a single purpose account border on a personal attack? Possibly." I believe the original poster was accusing Jonotrain, not LM2000, of being a single-purpose-account. Anyway, thank you for putting in the time and effort. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I've now struck that portion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks

Sir, if I may, I apologize for "attacking" on the article [[2]] page, I will repost my comment, with out any personal attacks but rather reference only to the people important to the article. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. the user @NeilN: has been hat-ing and tag teaming with at least one other Wikipedia administrator, I believe this is WP:GAME and WP:BITE. It looks like the neat hat tricks'n deletes are attempts to silence views that are inconsistent with NeilN's POV. I am a Christian, I suspect him and they are not. An example of N's bigoted perspective comes from NeilN's own words "You know no one will take your exhortations seriously when you state you believe in creation not evolution.". The answer I got when Asked if a Dictionary is a good Ref. though not the first of many unanswered questions. Now, I do not agree with his point of view, but, I could use some help, if a comment only. Yours has been and would be Appreciated. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not who you should be apologizing to, and it had nothing to do with attacking an article, but an individual. I'm a Christian as well, but I can't condemn NeiLN's actions. He's following some site guidelines and policies I'm going to leave a summary of on your page in just a sec. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although Kaptinavenger is indefinitely blocked I dislike leaving his accusation unanswered. In a prior post I stated, '"This user believes in creation not evolution" is fine for a userbox but bringing that notion onto talk pages wastes your time and more importantly, the time of those editors who have to correct you.' What a user personally believes matter little to me, but these personal beliefs should be kept out of article content discussion. --NeilN ^talk to me 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For your great work on the Corona del Mar High page. Well done! --Dalton D. Hird 04:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tirgil34 SPI

This message has been sent to you to inform you that a case involving Tirgil34 has been filed at SPI, and it has come to my knowledge that you may have prior history with this user. As such, your input may assist with the case. That case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. Krakkos (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chnuphis

I happened to see your remark about Chnuphis. As a casual sideline to my article work, I've been trying to understand the cryptic Greco-Egyptian deities like Abrasax and Chnoubis. Is Chnuphis yet another variant spelling of Chnoubis, or what? A. Parrot (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, yes. He shows up in pseudo-Hermes Trismegistus's "Le Livré Sacre sur les Décans"; his entry reads:

16. Troisième décan. -- Celui-ci a pour nom Chnouphos et pour forme deux visages de femme détournés l'un de l'autre, dont l'un (porte) un petit chapeau et l'autre un diadème. Il a le cou entouré de dragons. Toute le poitrine (le torse?) est posée sur un socle. Il régit la rate. Grave-le donc tel qu'il est sur la pierre (appelée) euchaïte, et, plaçant au-dessous la plante (appelée) sphérite, renferme dans ce que tu voudras et porte (sur toi). C'est un bien-heureux secours.

C.E. Ruelle, Revue de Philologie, October 1908, p.259-260

I'm seeing him in the glossary for Hans Dieter Betz's edition of the Greek Magical Papyri, which says he's a combination of Khnum, "Kneph, and the star KNM" (which I can only assume is the decan Knum). Otherwise, just a name that shows up in a bunch of spells.

I've been reading Attilio Mastrocinque's From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism, which has at least a chapter or two on him, but I haven't gotten that far yet. I'm pretty sure I (we?) will be able to at least flesh out his article with those two sources. (Huh, he also turns up in Budge's "Amulets and Superstitions".)

Charles William King's The Gnostics and their Remains has some stuff on Chnuphis, is free, and was the best possible work for it's time... But about the only Gnostic scriptures King had access to was Pistis Sophia, and he was way too ready to:

• assume immediate Buddhist origins (instead of distant and slow diffusion),
• make its relationship with Kabbalah an one-way dependency (even while seeing the evidence that the two evolved side-by-side),
• proclaim the Templar heresy, the Illuminati, Rosicrucians, and Freemasonry as survivals of underground Gnosticism instead of revivals (such that I have to assume he was a Catholic or Theosophist).

But, his book is free. AFAIK, Chnuphis is otherwise not an especially textual creature, usually appearing on amulets and gems (as the lion-headed serpent). Anyway, I need to turn in. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'll be able to help much in writing an article on Chnoubis/Chnuphis, but I can point out some more sources I've found online, mainly related to Kneph. I'm trying to figure out if Kneph is a concept distinct enough from Amun Kematef/Kamutef to warrant his own article. The Egyptologist David Klotz used Kneph as the title of his Ph.D. dissertation on the Roman-era worship of Amun, which made me think the Kneph article might one day be merged with a rewritten Amun article. (If I remember correctly, Caesar in the City of Amun is an expanded version of that dissertation.)

On the other hand, the sources I found today suggest Kneph had a bigger presence in Greco-Egyptian magic than I realized, and he seems to blur together with Chnoubis a lot. There's "Κμηφ: Ein verkannter Gott" by Heinz J. Thissen, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 1996 (available on JSTOR), though of course it's of limited use if you don't know German. One of the studies in Alchemical Traditions: From Antiquity to the Avant-Garde (which I don't have but can preview through Google) talks some about the connections between Kneph and the forms of Amun. The book may be iffy as an RS, as it seems to be written by the sort of people who blur the line between scholars and enthusiasts of alchemy, but it does draw on a lot of scholarly works, including "Iamblichus' Egyptian Neoplatonic Theology in De Mysteriis. Kneph/Chnoubis/etc. got around a lot. Magic gems, Hermeticism, Gnosticism, astrology, alchemy, and Iamblichus; it's like ancient esotericism bingo. A. Parrot (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Cologne was kind enough to host a PDf of Thissen's Κμηφ. I would not claim to know German in a job interview, but can make eyes-or-arse enough to work with it. Cheak's Alchemical Traditions is from a "spiritual" publisher, but sometimes those are on the scholar end of the spectrum. I'll have to settle for Google books preview for now, but Clark's Iamblichus fell off the back of a truck.

I probably won't expand the article today (I did that work on the decans because it relates to a Role-playing game I'm also working on), but thanks for bringing up those sources. I will go on ahead and dump them at the talk page (... huh, I already did start some work on the article before). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

I apologize for calling him/her a "prick". I have edited the original message I sent, and rather called him/her very unreasonable instead. I understand I shouldn't call him/her anything mean, it just that I was really annoyed that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.201.55 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maliakeo

It looks like there may be a bit of a centralisation at User talk:Peridon#Malia keo. —George8211 / T 22:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, she's been blocked, and I'm not foreseeing an unblock. Thanks for letting me know, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You didn't fully sign your comment at ani— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

Dear Ian, I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. I'm new, but IMHO a valuable editor to Wikepedia in my areas of interest, one of which is a narrow subset of religion, related to the RPCNA and Reformed and Covenant Theology. I like most of the Wikipedia rules, but there are a number of substantial ambiguities, which create problems. For example, what is mainstream changes, and there is constantly a fight to change or be added to the mainstream by various forces/factions. Another is that while I agree with sources, truth should not be de-emphasized, as it is stated, but rather that we should seek verifiable truth (both from mainstream and non-mainstream sources. I could talk much, much more on this, and may, point-by-point, someday, in my copious free time - ha!

I don't understand your position (are you employed by Wikipedia, is anyone?), nor do I know why your name appeared on my "talk page", or precisely what a "talk page" is or is supposed to accomplish.

I'd also like to note that there is a category of evidence that I did not find (admittedly, there are volumes of information, so I may have missed it) in the introductory material to Wikipedia editing, and that is the area of 'judicial notice' (you might gather that I have a legal education). Perhaps that is what the definition of "mainstream" should be - prominent enough in culture that a judge would take judicial notice of it - evolution wouldn't qualify, but as it was in the Scopes trial, would have to be adequately established; creation would likewise require evidence in a courtroom, but a judge would be unlikely to take judicial notice of one or the other, therefore they could both be "mainstream", rather than defining with really vague ideas like the perception of the majority.

That said, most of the edits I've made would be recognized by a judge under judicial notice, either as undisputed by society (another possible less-vague definintion for "mainstream) (e.g., most grammar - some disputed). Others (only to a very small extent, such as that a citation should be given for changing wording to assert a position held by an institution) should have citations and I have not done so, due to my ingnorance of these guidelines and lack of time, though I could very easily document (e.g., quickly, "from a dozen sources online..."), but have not yet taken the time, as I knew how obvious and easy they would be, and I didn't realize that was the prime directive (I read your personal intro, and we have been raised in similar eras) of Wikipedia.

Your personal assistance in being a good editor here is appreciated. As it isn't paying, but I am keenly interested in objective journalism and truth, and as I recognized the importance of the reach of Wikepedia, I just do this as I go, as I know, so to speak. I'd love to get more involved as time goes on, and hopefully my own personal career shifts toward being a writer, if I can find good help in honing my skills here.

One particular question I already have, is how can I see the audit trail of an article? Who did I edit? Did someone edit me?

Best Regards Odomjm (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is popular changes, but mainstream academia (i.e. works from reputable publishing companies such as Brill publishers, or Oxford University Press) tend to be remain pretty steady (and if everyone at Oxford completely lost their minds tomorrow, the work published up to that point would still be reliable).

The sources cited here state that most scholars attribute Revelation to someone after John the Apostle, separating John the Apostle and John of Patmos. Furthermore, nothing in Revelation actually states that that John was the Apostle. That is why I reverted your edit for under WP:GEVAL ("creating false balance"). The sources given simply do not support presenting the two views as equal in academic support.

See also WP:LEGAL, WP:Credentials are irrelevant, and WP:Ignore all credentials. Just a heads up, but language that could be perceived as a legal threat will result in a block.

Your contributions can be seen at Special:Contributions/Odomjm. An article's history can be seen by clicking the "view history" button, which is between the edit button and the search bar.

Also, no one works for Wikipedia, it's volunteer-run. Authority comes from policies and guidelines that represent the consensus of the site's users. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand Odomjm partly. See judicial notice; I believe he's simply saying that certain things are so widely accepted that they'd even be treated as givens in a legal case. If that's the case, he's nowhere near to making a legal threat. Several things that I see in Odomjm's edits, including his legal education and his career shifting toward being a writer, make me suspect that he's someone I know in real life; I'll email my acquaintance, as if I'm right in this identification, it will probably be easier to discuss this off-wiki. If not, well, we're not going to suffer. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understood that there was no legal threat, just letting him know to be careful using any legal language. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Improvement

I just noticed that Sophie Hunter has notable relatives and this should be reflected in her infobox. All sources are in the family family section of the page. If you may be so kind to copy-paste this to the page, I would be very grateful and it would be a big improvement to her page.

|family =

• Michael Gow
• (maternal grandfather)
• J. E. B. Seely
• (maternal great-grandfather)
• Timothy Carlton
• (father-in-law)
• Wanda Ventham
• (mother-in-law)

There should also be an "Education" parameter aside from the already indicated "Alma Mater" as she went to St. Paul's Girls' School which is a notable school in the UK. I do hope you can include that too. THANKS! Keep up the good work on Wiki! 213.164.22.2 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

regarding zeitgeist movies and will work for free

Was just about to provide the youtube link to will work for free movie and their facebook page would that suffice as sufficient links?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloworeo (talk • contribs)

Not really. More details on your page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello, I'm ToonLucas22. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Itsonthewebsite93 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My hope in telling the (now-blocked) user to "grow up and quit vandalizing articles" was to draw him off the article onto the talk page, or else shame them into stopping completely. I agree that I was commenting on an editor (based on their actions) and not only on their edits, but I do not believe that it amounted to a personal attack because I was accurately describing their behavior and the maturity thereof. I will grant that the comment as not perfectly civil, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

108 holy names

it is from http://www.drikpanchang.com/hindu-names/goddesses/parvati/mahavidya/mahavidya-names-collection.html it is a common information and must for wikipedia. if you mind - then move it to wiki-source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.67.98.183 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC) why did you deleted it? if you are atheists, then you will go to hell for not believing in holy Gods and not prying to them with mantras like these! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.67.98.183 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus leaves me unafraid of hell and apathetic toward mantras. Peddle your sectarianism elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i don't mind your jesus, but if you believe in your god - then don't disrespect other Gods. you want to go to yahweh after death - then go. why you ban other gods!? you want holy war? if you are not afraid of hell - i'll tell you - your moses - is also punishable to go to hell, because he allowed to eat holy cows. Lord Caitanya told this. So you will go to hell. there are hundreds of thousands of hellish planets - you will be there for eating meat and for opposing mantras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.67.98.183 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one pushing your religion on others. You are the one trying to engage in "holy" war. When I die, whereever I end up, I'll save you a seat. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am not responsible for your bad karma- you'll end up in hell because it is your karma, not mine. everyone is responsible for his own karma, not others, but as you are trying to take false responsibility by offending other religious feelings - by pushing your deletionist philosophy - you are showing your self as atheist - at least within my religion. if you want to delete something and believe jesus - then go and delete atheistic portal on wikipedia - then it will be better for you. but instead of fighting with atheists you fight with vedic prayers - who the hell are you ? go delete some articles about Lenin, Mao, Marx, Engels, Darwin, Richard Dawkins and similar atheists - then maybe you will make wiki better if you are deletionist. i tell you - no such thing as copyright vio. I realized when I have bough genuine Ms Windows from bill gates. do you know that he is a billionaire and supports gays? so he will go to hell for that yes! and he is pushing laws of his company - that we must not be pirates etc. but himself he stole from God! YES! He stole ideas from buddhist and a little Hare Krishna Steve Jobs. So this is politics and business. and seems to be like them. you are acting like MARX: YOU ARE ACTING NOW LIKE LENIN. LENIN ORDERED TO KILL AS MANY SAINTS AS POSSIBLE - SO NOW YOU ARE KILLING GODS by saing that to pray God - one must pay. HEY! do you pay money for worshipping your jesus in church? I don't believe you! if you think that you can buy your place in heaven - by paying for prayers in church - if you think like bill gates - that if you have billions - then you can buy your place in heaven i can tell you - you are in hell! yes you will be there because you are against freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Marx was a demon who was saying that - "religion must be removed from politics", "atheism must be there instead". so what are you doing to make sanatana-dharama- eternal religion - grow in politics? chrisitanity is not sanatana-dharma, yahweh is not eternal god, yahweh is just some small demigod, from zoroastrian religin, which took that from Vedas - Asura (demon) became ahura-mazda - and it because yahweh. so your christianity is a worship of satan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.67.98.183 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As hateful as you are and as hateful as you assume the world has to be, I would have no interest in joining your religion. I gladly remove sectarian additions by atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans... I remove anything that is not encyclopedic.

I would be happy to kill any god that would try to oppress me through worship. I worship mine out of the belief that He sought to liberate us from religious laws (dharma), accepted being killed, forgave His killers, exploited His death to benefit others (becoming a sacrifice on behalf of humanity, eliminating karma from the equation), and came back for more.

Dilige et quod vis fac. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy On Links

If you consider links to my site www.nottingham21.co.uk not to be appropriate, (All Saints Church, Nottingham Station etc), then why do you allow links to Google Street View to remain ? My Site shows pictures of areas that Street View can't get to and gives a far better idea of a building. Regards, Ray Teece

Reply to [e-mail] 23:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Google street views are a professional site. Your site is, per your admission, a personal site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does that make ??? Look at the pictures on say Nottingham Railway Station and you will find that my pictures are far better and more comprehensive than anything you can see on Street View. Google just drive past in a car, I spend time trying to capture a building in as much detail as I can. Regards, Ray Teece 86.152.115.123 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As was already explained, WP:ELNO prohibits personal sites. That is because Wikipedia is not a directory. It is simpler to simply restrict all personal sites than get into arguments over which personal sites are better than others. Professional sites also have at least a reputation at stake, and so have quality control.

As I have already explained on your talk page: it has nothing to do with your site or its merits. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted question

That was a legitimate question I posted on the humanities reference desk. I honestly have no idea how that stumble upon link got there. Please put the question back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to restore or re-ask the question yourself without adding the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCreaterFighter

Hi, i noticed that you've addressed the problematic editor WorldCreaterFighter (talk · contribs) at WP:ANI. WorldCreaterFighter is currently under investigation as a sock of Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), and i recommend you make a contribution to the investigation if you have some relevant evidence. Krakkos (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I do, sorry. My main focus with WCF is that he keeps plagiarizing sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from archive)

I had rephrased the Huns sentence. so it's not copryright material, I just forgotten. WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 15.00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If remembering to not steal text from sources you could forget, you probably shouldn't be editing here. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning You Know Who

So is you-know-who been topic-banned?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. There was something of a consensus, but it was archived without action. If he comes back, I guess we'll have to bring it back up at ANI and point out that there was a consensus, and that he claimed "there was no need for a topic ban" on the grounds that he was through (...again). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson I'm not sure how I stumbled onto this page, but I'm curious now that I read the talk. Who was you-know-who and what did he do? Just out of curiosity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayye.its.bessey (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Gave welcome and used explanation on as ramification for explanation of policies). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE Kathydi1977

Hey,

In future, if you have another case like Kathydi1977, it's probably best to direct them towards WP:DCM if they claim to own material - it's far easier for us lot at OTRS to sort it out in a non-public fashion than something like that to happen. Regards --Mdann52 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to do so, though honestly I don't imagine them fairing much better had they known about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ian.Thomson.p

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User:Ian.Thomson.p, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Amaury (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it notified you... - Amaury (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I created the page to tag him as a sockpuppet of a crackpot who pissed himself when I pointed out his IP address. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I'm sorry. I misread the email and thought the vandal created it. - Amaury (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add to this, please slap me around with a trout, as i did the same thing with the sig. Sorry! TheMesquito^buzz 06:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't for that, but I will for not getting the correction right. :P Ian.thomson (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no trout, I just made a redirect (since I can't register the account as a legitimate sock). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New sock it seems

Hey, you might want to check out User:Miter.bot, he left a message on my talk page about you. TheMesquito^buzz 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gone most of the day for college orientation and I miss all the fun! :( (BTW, I found your latter response for the "If I'm not responding" thing funny, Ian.) - Amaury (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMesquito: Miter.bot was already blocked by the time I got this. I've added him to the SPI, though.

@Amaury: Getting into college or getting others into college? I used to include a clock and sometimes list specific things, but my schedule's not at a point where I could leave anything consistent. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to college, starting March 30. - Amaury (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomso

I would like to bring this to your attention. Ariel ^✡ 01:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@גור אריה יהודה: User:Apokryltaros has reported it at AIV, I've added it to the SPI on that troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

You want to have a go at closing it? See Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions if you haven't done this before. In fact, you should close it, good practice. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, think I got it. Mathbot handles the log stuff, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://ui.uncc.edu/background/york== Hi Ian ==

The page linked to was published by a bunch of architects on historical committee, who can tell an Egyptian Revival when they see it.

Thanks for being a human

Sto500 (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sto500: Then you need to link to the page where they call it that, not just the picture. The picture doesn't actually say anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson

Okay. I actually had linked a whole survey to it. Must be that Barrik deleted everything of use without thinking.

- - - - - - - -

• Another question:

What would be the reason for considering the deletion of this other article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Phillips_%28journalist%29

The subject is very much a public figure. The article is linked and referenced. If it seems to be somehow short or lacking, then there are plenty of stubs on wiki.

Sto500 (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sto500: Please assume good faith from other user, including Barek. According to the article for deletion discussion, the subject appears to be notable for only one event in time. If it's the event that's notable instead of him, there won't be an article about him.

It doesn't matter if a subject is a public figure, what matters is that they are given significant coverage in multiple independent mainstream academic or journalistic sources, with some additional caveats, such as not drawing notable from a single event (since notability is not necessarily "inherited" or transferred from events to persons involved in those events). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson It seems that he has participated in and, most notably, reported on several events abroad. First there was the Maidan, then the Civil War. Anderson Cooper did the same, although never this closely. Also, the subject offers a point of view, which is non-mainstream in the Western media, on the events he has been reporting on as an insider. So, anyone, who comes across his reports, will benefit from knowing something about the author. Do you have the authority to decide to keep the article or otherwise intercede?

Sto500 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson Back to columns. It does not, and they were not. The wiki article says they were gifted by a First Union Corporation, not by the lodge. They had probably salvaged the columns from the demolition and kept for 4 years. It does say though that it was Egyptian Revival. Also, the pictures show the same columns with and without the lodge building. I am in the process of adding that source, but when I try to edit the reference list, I only see the header. I would need to add reference number 32 for that source. How do I do that fastest?

Other sources, if needed, explicitly state where the columns came from: http://ui.uncc.edu/background/york https://perry1644.wordpress.com/author/mtperry1/page/2/

UPD: Thank you for communicating. Unlike Barik and Amouri who has just reverted that edit. Looks like school kids are given licenses here. Sto500 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Sto500 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a life?

Hello, yes i am the same person as Hillbilly_Blues and Wiki_Elvis, basically because i lost my password, and why is it suspicous that i learned my wikipedia theory before i began editing, you should better focus on CONTRIBUTING to Wikipedia. WikiElvis1965 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You dont respond, please respond the only thing you do is placing warnings and showing other people how good you are, you havent said a single word to me (dont take this too literally please), im getting a bit tired, by the way i dont make personal attacks, you stalk me and you dont respond (a weird combination, normally you respond a lot when you stalk somebody), i dont have sockpops but you think i have because there are multiple people who join some kind of discussion im not part of, i didn't join those discussions! and its not my problem that one of them has the same kind of failing english grammar as me, english is not my mother language so i dont know, WikiElvis1965 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think that the first post here is a personal attack, WP:CIR may be an issue for you.

If you think that the "warnings" I and other users have left in the articles do not explain what the problems are, you were not paying any attention.

If you expect me to reply immediately after you save pages, then you clearly have some issues with patience and should probably look for something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

attention for moderators

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiElvis1965 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A gift for you...

By the way, here's a cheeseburger. =P Stephencowles (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Graffiti

Greetings! I was simply curious as to the reasoning behind your saying that editing the article on Ken Ham was wrong. I added a source, and you cannot easily deny that what I placed there was true. Evidence always has and always will point to creationism. Please read Ken Ham's website[1] carefully, and then reach your own conclusions. I am not here to argue or cause a debate; I will hereby cease all 'editing' of articles in that method, as you requested. Thank you for your time! =) Stephencowles (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. www.answersingenesis.org

I reverted your edit because Wikipedia, like mainstream science, regards young earth creationism as fringe pseudoscience. There is a difference between supporting the idea that God created the universe and insisting that He did so in a way that contradicts empirical science and can only be known through through a overly-literalist yet non-literary interpretation of poetry that forces God to be subject to time (a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day).

If Ken Ham wishes to be taken seriously as a scientist, he should present his findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals instead of personal websites and amusement parks. Since he does not do so, his "findings" fail our reliable sourcing standards.

Please read E. coli long-term evolution experiment, Theistic Evolution, and (if you're willing to learn theology that understands science instead of divisively equating faith in Christ with one human interpretation of Genesis) Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man (which argues that evolution proves not only the existence of God, the Alpha and Omega, but that God continues to act in the world and ever seeks to create, redeem, and perfect it). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reads! I'll attend to them shortly... Stephencowles (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello Ian,

I am sincerely interested in working with you constructively to improve articles in which the two of us are interested and knowledgeable about. That being said, let's civilly discuss my ideas to (1) widen the discussion about modern movements in the Islam article and (2) widen the content related to the doctrinal underpinnings of ISIS in the ISIS article. I apologize if I'm moving too fast. I'll try to build consensus before making edits that could be considered contentious. Now that I've apologized, I think I'm owed one as well. Your Administrators' noticeboard post seems to spoil the well by bringing up mistakes I made over a decade ago. When I first was on this site, as mentioned earlier, I was young and still very emotional about the recent events of 9/11. I apologized publically; then Jimbo Wales himself accepted my apology. If he can accept my apology, I can't see why others can't move on either. JoeM (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Civil POV pushing is still POV-pushing, and it's only more pathetic when done to avoid trouble. The article on Islam does cover movements that are active in modern times. It does not cover movements that might just be a flash in the pan, like ISIL. The article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does discuss their ideology and beliefs, and there's even an article on the Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

If we are going to expand it, we do so through citing mainstream journalistic or academic sources, instead of just repeating propaganda from AM radio. That should have been a lesson you should have learned a decade ago, but you didn't.

I'm not apologizing to you, nor do I believe that your apology is sincere or anything more than an attempt to weasel out of trouble. Your edits tried to push ignorant bigotry and conspiracy theories onto the articles, and you clearly only care about looking sorry just to save you from getting in trouble, not because you think it's the right thing. You're still clearly emotional about ISIL and the death panel hoax, and should not be editing those topics either. That should have been a lesson you should have learned, but you didn't.

If you cannot learn after ten years to neutrally stick to mainstream and independent academic and journalistic sources, and to restrain your personal views when editing articles, you're probably not capable of learning how to do that. If you can't do that, you don't belong here, plain and simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? You're wrong about my motivations. I will give you time to cool off and refrain from responding. I will resume discussing my ideas to improve articles on Islam at a later date. Good day. JoeM (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysus article

Hi Ian, I noticed that you'd reverted my changes to the Dionysus article. Having looked at the article again, I do understand your reasoning and I realise that I probably should have explained myself better and probably acted differently. Unfortunately, I'm still no wiz with wikipedia. Perhaps I went a little overboard with the citation needed tags. I do still think there are problems with the article though and I'd value your opinion.

Firstly let us consider the claim that the Jesus-Dionysus connection has been rejected by contemporary scholarship - the references provided do not support this claim and only serve to demonstrate the counterclaim - that some scholars have hypothesised a connection. This is why I placed a citation needed tag here.

Later on it states "many scholars dispute this parallel" but once again there are no citations to modern scholarship that disputes the claim.

Finally, the last citation needed tag I added was to the end of four other citations, probably the wrong thing to do there. However, of those citations, three disagree with the statement made and one was quite clearly out of date so they do not adequately support the point.

What do you suggest would be the best thing to do under these circumstances? I do not have the knowledge to replace the references myself.

Jwrstewart (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't interpret sources beyond what is necessary to summarize them. A usual strategy would be using different templates at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Inline_with_article_text_6 besides citation needed, and asking on the article's talk page why those are being used. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Mythologies

Definitely wrong mythology, given as how the only mythologies where Hades created giant monsters to oppose Zeus were the mythologies of Disney's Hercules cartoon, and the abysmal remake of "Clash of the Titans"--Mr Fink (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Leviathan being thrown in there, but yeah. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by using proxy and vpn

Hi. I want to edit through proxies/vpns, because I have a lot of troubles to access some articles and images. What should I do? Details and instructions. Would you please reply on my talk page? Thanks a lot. --Zyma (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP users

Hello, Ian.thomson. You have new messages at ClaireWalzer's talk page.
Message added 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ClaireWalzer (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry

I appreciated the reference. I actually guessed to whom you were alluding before I checked the link. Our D&D, Doctor Who, and Stanley Kubrick Saturday Marathons always included two 16-inch Sicilian pizzas. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scared the hell out of most of middle management (... but not upper or corporate for some reason, they'd just rub their hands together and say "excellent"). We haven't done pizza in a while, I'll have to bring a couple to the next session. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jesus

If you have the time, would you care to check out Historical Jesus. A user (who may be a sock, or just over eager) is very intent on inserting his WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just woke up, will add it to my watchlist at least. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here...

Check the AN3 Report immediately above yours... --Jayron32 22:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's so important to use the word informal on the TZM page? I really think it's unnecessary

Sorry if this isn't the right place to say this but I'm still learning about how to edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danotto94 (talk • contribs)

The intro of the article summarizes the body of the article, and the body of the article describes the group as informal as well. Why do you think that it's so important to remove the word? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that ambiguous word is necessary to describe it? Also may I put back the mention of Bolivarian missions in the Venezuela page? Danotto94 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particular ambiguous, the article is more ambiguous without that word. And your addition about the Bolivarian missions included unsourced commentary. Merely stating that they exist is one thing, but to give opinions one way or another about them or their place in society goes against WP:NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to keep viewing this conversation, go onto the respected pages. Danotto94 (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at Adam

That was added by Bladesmulti. Sigh. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, I see. It's on my watchlist now. I went to delete it the second I saw Massey. The rest did not strike me as much of an improvement. The only one that I could be convinced to include as a marked minority position would have been the Prāci-jyotī cite, which does not appear to mention Adam. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Research Invitation

Hello Ian.thomson,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at [phone] or by email at [e-mail].

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banned editor edits as IP (anonymous) now

Banned editor (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34) returned to targeted articles: Scythian languages, Alans, other articles. [3], [4], [5], [6]. Now edits as both IPv6 and IPv4. What we should do? --Zyma (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyma: I see you've already gone to WP:RFPP. I've added the pages you've linked to my watchlist. Also, since he's socking while blocked, his edits are covered by WP:NOT3RR (so we can revert him as much as we want as long as we link to that and the LTA page). I can't really imagine any sort of useful edit filter, but I'm not as familiar with him as others. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Applied semi-prot for target articles as well as PC1 indef. I didn't restrict talk pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian and Berean Hunter. Both articles and their talk pages are his targets. He copy-pastes his stuffs to talk pages, and then his game begins. So activities on targeted talk pages are important too. I'll try to watch, verify, and review them. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Days

I have been avoiding that RD thread like herpes, but I just read it through, and have to say your comments were a joy to read as matters of fact, style, and wit. μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wrote most of that while dealing with a bug (nausea, headache, fatigue, and insomnia, thankfully resolved with fasting and then lots of sauerkraut), so I wasn't entirely sure how I was coming across. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deliciously sauerkrauty would be a very good way to put it. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Growth

Hi, you undid my edit to Smart growth just now, and you said I was citing a blog that is not by a recognized authority. However, the edit I made to this page was a citation of a peer-reviewed journal article. Could you double-check your "undo" once again, and restore my edit when you confirm it was a citation to a peer-reviewed journal rather than a blog? Thanks. Wikplan (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, my mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luciferianism

Where did all the information in Luciferianism go?Etu Malku (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Message

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

ClaireWalzer (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move from userpage

I am trying to communicate with you, Ian (I am Nike...)... I have not yet figured out how to send messages proper. Sorry (ça rit -- ça rigole)? Please review my text/concerns below:

I have tried to edit the section of the entry on "Azrael", but have been suborned by an editor who has suppressed my contribution:

In Christianity There is no reference to Azrael in the Catholic Bible, and he is not considered a canonical figure within Christianity. There is, however, a story in 2 Esdras (disallowed by the Catholic and Protestant Churches, but considered canonical in Eastern Orthodox teachings) which is part of the Apocrypha. 2 Esdras has the story of a scribe and judge named Ezra, also sometimes written "Azra" in different languages. Azra was visited by the Archangel Uriel and given a list of laws and punishments he was to adhere to and enforce as judge over his people. Azra was later recorded in the Apocrypha as having entered Heaven "without tasting death's taint". Depending on various religious views, it could be taken as Ezra ascending to angelic status. This would add the suffix "el" to his name, which denotes a heavenly being (e.g. Michael, Raphael, Uriel). Hence, it would be Ezrael/Azrael. This would put him more in accordance to an angel of punishment, akin to the views of the Jean Paul Valley character (which was also named Azrael). Later books also state a scribe named Salathiel, who was quoted as saying, "I, Salathiel, who is also Ezra". Again, depending on certain views of Christian spirituality, this could be seen as angelic influence from Ezrael/Azrael on Salathiel, though this view of spirituality is neither confirmed nor denied by the Catholic Church.

[Contemporary hermeneuticist, scholar, and creative, Nikelaughzyonhel Azmhyedlaugkh Bellaughzryael, inquires that since Ezra's issue provides his name is also "Salathiel", which would be a name in angelic form, if "Salathiel" itself accounts for the one exclusive angelic-form name of Ezra, and if thereby that Ezra is not Azrael whose existence spans before Ezra's creation.

Bellaughzryael adds a modern translation of "Azrael": Azrael is a composite of at least the tokens "Az" + "r" + "ael". AZ represents "A through Z", or everything that is. "R" is the 18th letter of the alphabet, and since 18 = 6+6+6, "R" represents "666", or a quantization of the maximum power an entity can have in relation to its realms with respect to all its denizens and contexts--in Hell the most powerful is 'The Beast', with its 666 power unto Hell, though not unto Heaven. In Heaven, and the realms subject to it, including Hell with its fabled "Beast", Azrael's relative power is valued at 666, the maximum--Azrael is the most powerful for all concerns subject to Heaven and its contexts and denizens (including God, per some separate Azraelian orthodoxies, which would cohere with the historic premise that "[Azrael] will be the last to die, recording and erasing constantly in a large book the names of men at birth and death, respectively.[4]" "Ael" is "the ya'el" of Hebrew, or "ya'al ( יָעַל "value") (see wikipedia's article on "Belial" for reference). We continue to accumulate interpretations of Azrael with time and corresponding expressions and uses, such as "As real truth goes (Az rael truth goes), Azrael May Be The Last to Die."]

(sections added by me, suppressed by a wikipedia editor, are in brackets.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikelaughzyonhel Azmhyedlaugkh Bellaughzryael (talk • contribs)

Your edit did not cite any reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pravuil

You modified Pravuil. You said you removed *plagiarism*. You must have forgotten it's definition. I thought that quoting the passages, by posting it's location within the Book of Enoch (I added the pdf link), would help the reader to contextualize his appearance, while giving him information. Hardly any information regarding the angel is left. The page is supposed to inform the reader quickly. Isn't it? What is the purpose of the page with 2 lines of information? You took off an antecedent interpretation of Pravuil as being the Holy Spirit. When you have no evidence of a theory being wrong, you are violating the intellectual property right, by erasing it. It's an undemocratic behavior. 74.56.106.173 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• IP, you need to stop yelling. It was plagiarism, and most likely a copyright violation to boot. What was removed in this edit was not some primary material, it was an essay about a primary text. When something says something like "We will discuss the promise God gave the Holy Ghost" it's pretty clear it's not a primary text. No, Ian didn't violate anything; no, that copied text was not clear or helpful--in fact, it was awful, it was unencyclopedic. Finally, the Angel can tell you that this is not a democracy. Now let it go, please. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)74.56.106.173: Are you Caroline.ritchie93? I removed material that was there before your additions. Then I rewrote the article based on secondary and tertiary sources (citing only a primary source to verify the non-primary sources) to avoid original research (as is policy). Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do not take original research, you do not own your contributions to this site, and we are under no obligation to host them. Right at the top of the edit window it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone" - If you do not want to risk having your edits altered or reverted, do not add them to this site.

Your claim that I somehow violated intellectual property rights by erasing a plagiarism of this page and then rewriting the page according to non-primary sources is just patently ludicrous and fails WP:Assume good faith. Please study WP:5P, WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:RS if you wish to argue with me. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny though, Ian, is that every time I think I know the bible purty good I run into something like this. I wish I had paid more attention in Sunday school but, you know, we got .25c for the church and bought candy with it; sugar beats scripture hands down, every time. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pravuil's not in any canonical scripture, and scholarship of II Enoch didn't really kick off until last century, so I doubt anyone heard of Pravuil through Sunday school. II Enoch seems to have received less acceptance than I Enoch. I can name a few groups off the top of my head that accept/ed I Enoch, but I can only guess "maybe some Kabbalists" for II Enoch. Of course, the internet allows evangelicals with no prior education on pseudepigrapha to draw their own conclusions. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power to the people... All I really remember from Sunday school, besides the walk there and the candy, is that God is white and has a beard. Maybe you should come by and do a guest lecture on the biblical canon(s); my students rarely take my word for anything. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Sunday school I went to as a kid just made sure we knew the stories (all that really can be done). Sunday school I went to as a teenager was taught by a hippie who once fussed at me for eating meat (we're not Seventh Day Adventist, btw) and a social studies teacher who used the same materials to teach about other religions (and would've used to teach about historical Christianity if allowed to teach a such a class). Then the one I went to in college tried to combine Socratic method with elements of Yeshiva. Teacher (also the minister) was just being a very historical Baptist, which upset the "good" Baptists. Consequently when one of those "good" Baptists was caught keeping two sets of books for church funds to prevent certain programs from being funded... wait, how the hell did the uninvolved preacher get thrown out? Where's my axe, I need to have a talk with some good Baptist folk. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the cost

wow. By the power77 vested in me by GOD as His/Her Christ77, i hereby rule that you are AWESOME, ye of thick skin and great patience.Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ian Thompson of wankapedia" -- that's the most hilarious thing I've seen all day. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what should i do?

????? Coolidon (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Ian.thomson/MeVsXians

Eve

I want to apologize for offending you with the Eve article. That wasn't my intent, to be sure. It occurred to me that it would be good to have the *top* for ==Eve== and ==Adam== parallel to each other. So I've done that, which solves my objection and I hope solves yours. It may have been before your Wiki time, but I regrettably was deeply involved in the Creation Myth controversy several years back. That's one reason I'm ultra-sensitive to "Myth" being used the way it was in Eve. Different from Adam, so I tried to make 'em both the same. As they say, "Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent," or something like that.

You have a very interesting User page. I enjoyed reading it. Bet it's time-consuming to post it in such detail...but nice.

Take care, and happy Wiki-ing.

Afaprof01 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Afaprof01: I wasn't so much offended as concerned. I expected you were acting in good faith, but disagreed with the direction it was heading in. this reworking is quite nice. We seemed to have registered about the same time, but I wasn't especially active when you first got into the controversy, and then fixing the demonology articles (honest textual criticism damns that stuff better than any fire-and-brimstone sensationalism), so we wouldn't have crossed paths much until a few years ago. If you're not able to edit this page for some reason, I'd check with Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed, since your account should've been autoconfirmed already. And the user pages and subpages where mostly chipped away over the years. Since I've gotten fewer accusations of secretly pushing either an evangelical or atheist POV, I guess they're serving their purpose. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Thanks for your actions and interventions in resolving this discussion thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joseph A. Spadaro reported by User:12.193.233.52 (Result: No action). Thank you. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this [7]. If past behavior is indicative, though, I'm afraid it won't stop the user from re-opening it. In that case, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:HEAR could probably be argued at WP:ANI. Keep up the good work!Jeppiz (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. This is sort of meant as a last straw. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]