User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 34

Gonna be busy for a bit

Exams are coming up and I'm moving around the world after that. Sort of going on Wikibreak, even if I don't put the template up. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious two years!

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Candidacy?

Did you tell me about six months ago that I ought to put in for admin? If not, do you remember who did? I think that I am ready now. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Sorry for the late reply, just about over jet lag and still getting used to being back in the States.

I'm remembering saying so and am fairly positive I'm not just imagining that, though I do acknowledge a possibility that maybe someone else said it (can't recall who) and I was just agreed. I think it'd've been on your talk page or else in one of those ANI threads prophesying some sort of adminocalpyse.

You'll want to create some CSD and PROD logs using Twinkle, like spend a month getting 100 results or so on each. As I recall, more than a few users will simply refuse to support candidates who don't have these simply because they're the quickest way to others gauge a user's familiarity with the deletion policy. Consider any past issues that might come up (don't actually discuss them here) and begin planning how you'll explain them should anyone else raise them. Look over the first few questions of some prior or current RfAs (the "what are you most proud of," "how do you like to help the site," "what are you going to do with the tools" kind of stuff) and start drafting your answers to that -- this part should fill you with hope.

The CSD/PROD logs are the biggest thing, though. By the time you're finished with that, I should be more active on the site again and I or someone else will start drafting your RfA (some users !vote against self-nominations on principle). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing CSD/PROD and AFD for several months. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I couldn't find a CSD log like this. There's a significant portion of RfA regulars who will refuse to look into your history and rather look at an automated log.

Also, I meant RfA instead of RfC, fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice at Cassiel

I wanted to tell you that I really appreciate you putting the edit notice up at the article Cassiel, but I think that the user you put it up to warn against is probably long gone and I am concerned that the overly specific nature of the warning may be inspiring copy-cats: [1], [2], [3]. Then again, it could be the same old user just switching IP addresses, but I suspect they are genuinely different users who are actually drawing inspiration for vandalism attempts from the warning that was put up with the intention to dissuade them. I definitely think we should keep the warning, but we may want to rewrite it to make it less specific about the exact statements that keep being added so that we do not inadvertently give the vandals any ideas. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, reworded. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am glad to have that taken care of. Hopefully this will bring and end to the "righteous man" vandalism attempts. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About pings

Hey Ian, I saw this and have assumed that you don't know that ping templates only work when executed in a post with the current timestamp. In the event that you have a malformed ping template and you post and then try to correct the ping template, it won't work unless a whole new timestamp to match the current time is posted with it. Some people try to manually correct the time but that often doesn't work either. Removing and re-posting your signature when adding or correcting a ping template is the best bet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated

I'm actually thankful at least someone has the gumption to reply back at irresponsible editors at the HD. Just a note to say it's appreciated. Warmly. Lourdes 23:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Thumbs up in the American sense, not the Middle Eastern or Roman ones* Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you, really appreciate it. Ne2ra (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, take a basic physic course and then you may understand the truth about 9/11.

some 2,800 architects and engineers who build steel high rise buildings. They are experts just like your medical doctor. If you went to 2,800 MDs and they told you that you had to have surgery or you would die, I bet you would have the surgery, correct?

If you had 350 experience 767 commercial pilots tell you the pilot that was going to pilot your jet on your trip to Hawaii could not even fly a small single engine private airplane, would you still take the flight or cancel your ticket?

And of course some 600 PhDs in things like physics, chemistry, etc. etc.

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard McManus (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) @Richard McManus: Per WP:FRINGE, we're just not going to engage with your theory. By the way, Eddie Bravo called and he said you need to stop talking nonsense. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If only 2,800 MDs thought that a surgery was worthwhile, but they were nonetheless a fringe minority and the surgery was regarded as dangerous bunkum by medical associations and health departments around the world, then it wouldn't make sense to listen to the fringe minority. You are not only engaged in a flawed bandwagon argument and appeal to authority, you're doing a piss-poor job of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian,

I am talking about 2,800 MDs who have graduated from medical school and have done a residency in the field of medicine like surgery, internal medicine, cardiology, etc. etc. Experts in their field of EXTENSIVE TRAINING. If you take the odds that a few of these MDs are not the best in their field, nor have kept up to date in the best scientific research, but what are the odds all of them agree with the disease you have that needs immediate surgery? Of course, life is a crap shoot and medicine is an art. However, I have written a 100 paged research paper noting many elements of evidence. I am fully aware of some 9/11 truthers believe that no airplanes hit the Twin Towers, a mini nuke blew up causing the collapses or some secret technology. Those theories just BS as well as the official story.

Your reasoning that only a small number of architects and engineers have publically disclosed that they want a new Congressional investigation is not the way science is done. One scientist could have had an idea and shared it with his/her peers, and s/he could be correct and the idea is truth. Now these architects and engineers (AND ME) are only saying we need a new Congressional investigation because irrefutable scientific evidence is pointing to the official story as being wrong in a big way.

I do not get into a pissing contest with people who disagree with me. I just offer them a chance to read my 100 paged research paper. Just send me an email at ^email redacted and I will reply with it attached.

R// — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard McManus (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not emailing you but I am going to block you under WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia is not a place for you to draw people into pissing contests you clearly want to start. Again, if the WHO and the American Medical Association said that the hypothetical surgery was quackery, there'd be a reason for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Log

How do I turn on a CSD log? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: You have to go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and check the "Keep a log in userspace" options under the CSD and PROD sections. (I can't remember if that's what I did or if I was given instructions for manually setting that up, but that seems to be the easiest route). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the Nordic Resistance Movement article

I never stated that there is an Icelandic chapter for the Nordic Resistance Movement, if you would read it again. I was providing information on the Nordic Resistance Movement's activities in Iceland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHeathen (talk • contribs) 04:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #19003

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #19003 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Jumba338 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Aug 16, 2017 19:15:14

Message: Hi, why was talk page access revoked, please? Also, no block reason was specified to aid the user. Would you clarify, please?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017

Is there anyway to get Saffie rose out onto the list? And thanks for getting back to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth8491 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrigible/Team UCLA socks

What is to be done about them? pbp 18:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: WP:RBI. They usually stop once they understand that they're putting more effort in to it than we are into stopping them. If there's some element of his posts that's consistent (like, pathologically consistent), maybe an edit filter of some sort (but I don't know much about them except blockin' folks that keep trippin' 'em). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: It's my experience with this particular vandal that it's best to WP:DENY and WP:RBI, like Ian said. He's trolling you because he's aiming to get a reaction out of it. I'm sure you meant well, but when you create pages like User:Purplebackpack89/PeopleWhoVandMe and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Incorrigible Troll, you're giving him exactly what this attention-seeking vandal wants: a shrine. The next time you see a sock of this troll, simply revert it, file a report to WP:AIV, and ignore. Then hopefully he will get bored and move on after a while. Sro23 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: You're right. I've decided to request that my userspace list be deleted and SALTed. pbp 03:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis request for advice/comment

Hello, Ian.thomson. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Does this job offer seem legit from what you've experienced? Any more detailed response here or at [e-mail] would be appreciated. Enjoy the ecclpise! μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My family's going to some family reunion dinner thing in a few minutes but I'll get to your email when I get back. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there's no hurry, although the recruiter may call tomorrow. I am basically curious if you see any flags in what they sent, and any questions I might not otherwise think to ask. BTW, I am a native English speaker, fluent in Spanish, conversant in French and German, and have a working knowledge of Basic Latin, Greek, and some very rusty Zulu, but no Eastern language experience other than what a linguist might know. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for custodial action Wikiversity

Hi - I noticed your Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#User:Ben_Steigmann but didn't do much because I don't usually get involved with things like this. But I am committed to ensuring that Wikiversity be available only to those who behave on all Wikimedia projects. I'm pretty sure Dave Braunschweig knows exactly what to do, but in the meantime don't hesitate to contact me at wikiversity:user Talk:Guy vandegrift.(02:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC) S)[reply]