User talk:Ian.thomson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:57, 21 March 2016

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

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.

If I'm not responding, that's probably because

It is approximately 5:37 PM where this user lives (Hangzhou). [refresh]

...And I'm teaching or working on lesson plans (8am-5pm), sleeping (8pm-6am), or trying to figure out whatever it was that I got that tasted like fried cheese.


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

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

Sorry for the unannounced break

Teaching swamped me first semester, but I've gotten into the swing of things, now. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone it down

We want you to tone it down and quit stalking people's edits so much on wikipedia. Some of like to use it to talk, and you keep overlapping our conversation. Sit back and enjoy yourself a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.Tom.ty (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your kind words! I filed the request for a general 1RR on Muhammad here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yates Stirling, Jr.

Hey, I recall from years ago that you and I have dealt with military articles that are dubious propositions when it comes to notability. Well, I found another one and despite me reading through all of it, I can't find anything intrinsically notable about this individual. Hell, the references are between an autobiography, a couple local papers and Find a Grave. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Could you take a look at this article and give me your input? Should it be brought up on deletion? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I see your an admin now- congratulations!!! DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 08:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto:: Hi, I have the page open for me to look at off-and-on. Just glancing over:

The Meekins ref falls under WP:NOTINHERITED in every sense. Same for the 1872 Evening Star article, the Sons of the American Revolution register, the Register of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, and The Records of Living Officers of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps (the last of which, if not the last two, if not all three, fall under WP:PRIMARY anyway).
The Findagrave ref definitely needs to go. If edit filters were allowed for the most trivial of problems, it'd be a good idea to just filter out any edit that tries to put Findagrave in a ref (but I don't see that happening).
The autobiography does not establish notability, and falls under WP:SELFPUB. Since it was published by a third party (granted, G. P. Putnam's Sons, not a dedicated academic publisher), I could see going with a potentially less strict application of WP:SELFPUB to flesh out the article (assuming it stays), but still not establishing notability or making any particularly self-serving claims.
Arlingtoncemetery.net is not the official Arlington cemetery website but a personal site, so it fails WP:RS. (Though it does appear to be earnest enough that I might recommend it to someone whose into that sort of thing for personal perusal).
The US Naval Academy annual register and alumni register are WP:PRIMARY, so they don't prove notability either.
I haven't looked for Smith's "Brazil and the United States; convergence and divergence," but the way the citation is used kind of gives me the impression that that book might not directly discuss Stirling. If there was a chapter on Stirling's activity in Brazil, I could see that being an argument for notability. Barring that, it's unnecessary padding.
PBS is reliable AFAIK, and a possible argument for notability. Need at least one more to save the article, though.

Booting up Google Books for the heck of it, I saw him at least mentioned in the following sources: Tolley, Yangtze Patrol: The U.S. Navy in China, Weir and Allard, Building American Submarines, 1914-1940, Okihiro, American History Unbound: Asians and Pacific Islanders. I'm still trying to confirm the reliability of the Weir and Allard source (though it is one of the main sources for New London Ship and Engine Company, so I guess it must be reliable), but the other two are definitely reliable (particularly Okihiro, though the contents of that source are unflattering and may meet resistance if any of Stirling's family are involved in the article). Other sources that mention him, but which I have not investigated, include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7].

Although the article is currently not seaworthy, I think he might be notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very well. You make a good point about clarifying the notability, so I have no problem, then! Thanks for the input and good to hear from you! DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Due to the repeated socking of the user, I'm beginning to wonder if a new SPI may be warranted where we ask if an IP or range-block would be appropriate. Or is a community ban required before a check-user will block an underlying IP/range (assuming minimal collateral)? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still duck, so it'd be possible to ask for a C/U at ANI (though they'd probably want it at SPI just to keep everything documented).

I don't think a comban is necessary for a range block, and I'm not sure that a suggested comban would go through just yet. He's only been at it a few weeks, right? Has he implied any threats or made any over sexual or racial remarks? (I haven't been paying attention, just shooting when I see a duck). If he consistently keeps it up for months despite range blocks, then yeah, you probably can get him community banned. But maybe the community has lowered their standards since ceiling fan guy was banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about ceiling fan guy, thanks for the memories! :-)

I agree about comban, just wasn't sure if one needed to come first re: CU range block v. comban. I agree about duck status.

I'll send an email later today; one last concern I should mention. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotquestions.org

Hi Ian - copyvio was a problem, but the main problem is that it clearly fails WP:RS. Cleanup needed![8] Doug Weller talk 14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considered that possibility as well, but copyvio tends to seem more urgent to me and I kinda drifted off to something else after leaving the copyvio warning. I'll have to get on it tomorrow, it's 11 pm here. Thankfully it's not more than 120 results, and it looks like the majority of them are non-article pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, 24(-ish) article uses, but a few of those are just external links. The answers are written by a staff that admits their bias (which would put it under WP:ELMAYBE #4), but they don't remember who all of them are (which might put it under WP:ELNO #2). Although I personally wouldn't link to it nor recommend that site, I'm going to leave the external links alone. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotquestions is still linked at Dogmatic theology, Five Crowns, Immortality, Intertestamental period, Kinism, and Renovaré. If someone else removes them, I'm not going to revert them. I removed it as an external link from Britain Yearly Meeting because that link was only about Quakers in general.

I'm debating with myself on whether it qualifies as a WP:PRIMARY source at Rhema (doctrine). For the moment, I'm removing it, but will probably not remove it again if I'm reverted by an editor who shows any familiarity with site policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "coven"

An ignorant hoax. The guy seems to be suggesting it started in Spain and then Brazilians made up legends about it. But of course Brazil wasn't Spanish but Portuguese, but our hoaxer doesn't know that. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Plus the whole idea that a coven established in the 1800s fled from Europe to the US to escape the Salem Witch Trials... I thought the sort of people who made up covens that poorly settled down after Charmed and Sabrina faded away, but I guess not. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John the Baptist article

Ian, you wrote, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at John the Baptist, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)" I am not being disruptive. I pointed out that though three scholars have, allegedly, said that that "Scholars generally believe Jesus was a follower or disciple of John", this is not spoken of in the canonical gospels. What is disruptive about that?

May I ask whether your conclusion that this is disruptive is in any official Wikipedia capacity, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Cossey (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Cossey: All information on this site needs to be verifiable through reliable sources (and non-primary ones to avoid original research). You keep adding information without sources. Whether or not the absence of an explicit mention is important or relevant is for non-primary academic sources to decide, not individual editors. If you cannot understand the value of citing sources when you add information, then perhaps you should find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me here, Ian, please. The wiki page on sources says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Any educated person can check out what I wrote. What am I doing wrong, please?Alan Cossey (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the relevance of the claim requires interpretation and thus a secondary source. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You may not think that it's interpretation, but it is.

If the absence of an explicit mention is relevant, then there will be non-primary sources discussing that. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection of Reference Desk Talk Page

Please explain at the Reference Desk talk page why it was necessary to semi-protect it. (I may be in a minority in supporting the semi-protection of the Reference Desks, but would like to know why you protected the talk page also.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30 over 10 days, each making a few posts (so several a day). In that time, there were maybe a dozen semi-protected edit requests. Blocking wasn't working, because he was just hopping to a new IP. If someone disagrees with the protection, I don't mind if it's shortened or eliminated, but that seemed the most obvious solution to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedRabbitIdeas username

I'm totally new to all this and I completely messed up when I named everything... I completely understand and have since requested a name change. MY apologies for creating the confusion. Any advice you have on how I can improve is welcome, thank you :)Ian.thomson

honestly... I find navigating Wikipedia and using the tools requires a longer learning curve than I anticipated

thanks for all your help

RedRabbitIdeas (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RedRabbitIdeas: If you want to contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia, that's fine. The Wikipedia Adventure will help you learn how to use the tools. WP:Simplified ruleset will give you an overview of the more important site policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refdesk trolling

I noticed your comment in the now-removed section at the science refdesk about indeffing Kevin.b32. Thanks, and good luck talking to the enablers at the refdesk! I am not familiar with the troll, but perhaps you would have a quick look at this ANI section and see if it looks like a more subtle repeat. Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I don't think it's the same one. The one I'm familiar with would've tried to work antisemitism or other forms of racism in there somehow. He's also not subtle at all, starting off with a question that has a racist assumption underlying it, acting like everyone else is a racist conspiracy theorist, and then cussing about "left-wing censorship" or whatever whenever he gets blocked. The impression I get is that your user is either here in good faith (if a bit misguided), or is very subtle. Either way, I think you're gonna need the luck more than me. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of talkpage

Hi Ian I saw you protected the refdesk talkpage. What do I do if I want to edit it?Winkplan211 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC) By the way,i don't see you very much at the ref desks these days. How come?Winkplan211 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work was busy the past few months and now I'm catching up on my other hobbies. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

He blanks my talk page and calls me a "fucking cunt" and you see no personal attack? Get your vision checked. John from Idegon (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: I meant no history, following your claim at WP:AIV that he had a history, even though that was the first personal attack he's made. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald

Please do not feed the troll who is looking for trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I very much appreciate your answer to the IP who left a message on my talk page about a three-year old warning message. I have encountered this sort of thing a few times before. I have assured a few other users that there are a few reasons why they might see such a message that have to do with actions of others, including someone who had the IP address before they did. It is nothing to be concerned about if no disruptive editing comes from that IP address in the future.

I have been online a little less than usual over the past week or so. That will be the case for about the next two weeks. Not only has Real life been keeping me busy but I have to prepare an hour-long presentation (on the Battle of Verdun) for a local historical society meeting in two weeks. I have some other Wikipedia projects or questions to answer as I enter this busy period so I may get behind on a few answers. You may be reading my mind because I have seen a few entries by "talk page stalkers" and a few days ago I thought that I could use a few now. Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If someone's talk page is on my watchlist, I check it about as much as I would an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connect the dots

Hey "Ian" so you said there was no sorce for what I wrote so I was wondering if you can show me a sorce for anything else on the connect the dots page because I checked the page and there didn't seem to be any credible sorces so I mean come on man step up your game. Itsnotconectthedotscasey (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the little blue number at the end of the sentence? That's the citation number. It matches up to a number at the bottom of the page (the references section). In this case, the reference happens to the Oxford English Dictionary, which is quite credible but also behind a paywall. This is allowed, but it does mean I'm not going to be checking it for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be a little kinder

Maybe you should edit your response to INVENTPEACE on Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_19_February_2016. Implying that the suggestion belongs on the Nazi Stormfront page is a touch unkind and not in keeping with WP:CIVIL. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point four of the suggestion (which was suggested with wide-eyed credulity) is a plain ol' antisemitic canard. I said nothing about him, only pointed out that none of the content was appropriate for this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, the only author he suggested (Christopher Bollyn) is an antisemite and former author for the white nationalist American Free Press. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't ask you to be kind to Bolyn, only to the editor, of whom we must presume good will. Letting it be what it is ... Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this because of the below conversation. The suggested content was completely inappropriate for this site, but would have been totally at home at Stormfront or InfoWars. At no point did I say anything about the editor in question, because my post did not assume anything about him. My post works completely fine with the assumption that he mistakenly picked up Bollyn's book and somehow didn't realize that it's an antisemitic conspiracy theorist work (but neither does it require that assumption). It is to the point: Wikipedia does not host the same content as those sites, and the suggested content is more appropriate for those sites. Any "meanness" was not intended and must be assumed. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter is Archangel Uriel

Pratt, John P., "Twelve Sons, Twelve Constellations," Meridian Magazine (13 Jul 2005). http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/12stones.html#5.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source fails WP:RS, and even if it was acceptable, the most it would support is "John Pratt claims Uriel manifest as Peter." Wait, no, it doesn't even support that because that source doesn't mention Peter or Uriel anywhere in there. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said to sound nice not cocky or arrogant? Why are you acting as such: Eat this: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2002/trumpets.html#2.1.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIVIL. Ok, now you're actually citing something that supports your claim. Still, it doesn't appear to meet WP:RS and doesn't support more than "John Pratt claims that Uriel was Peter." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John writes for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He is more than credible "Ian" https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/passover-was-it-symbolic-of-his-coming?lang=eng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.johnpratt.com/jpp.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that your source meets WP:RS. It's not a mainstream academic work, which is what we rely on. None of the John Pratts we have articles on are about that one, so there goes the potential argument that he's a noted author. His degrees are not in history, religious studies, or any other relevant field. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ldslastdays.com/default.aspx?page=psc701.htm KA BOOM!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More of a fizzle. That site fails WP:RS, and is not really any better than this Five Percent Nation site, or this evangelical site, or this satanist site -- because it's not an academic source. You need mainstream academic sources. Wikipedia doesn't favor any particular religion (be it Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, New Atheism, or whatever) by giving adherents of that religion a free pass. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It always fails to the gatekeepers. You make a decision based on what you consider "mainstream". LOL. You're funny. What credentials do you bring to make the "judgement". I would like to see them. GO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User credentials are irrelevant, the fact is that you have failed to cite any mainstream academic sources. It should be obvious to anyone that that would mean something published by a university press or academic publisher, or at least something by a professor of a relevant field.

In response to your attempted citation of Nibley:

Did you bother reading the article on Hugh Nibley, particularly the section about how he sloppily misrepresented sources, and often didn't have any soudn methodology for arriving at his parallels?

Did you bother reading the Nibley material you cited at all? Peter isn't mentioned. Your source actually has to support your claim for it to be of any use. Pretending for a moment that it did support the "Uriel=Peter" claim, it would still only enough for "Some Mormons, such as John Pratt and Hugh Nibley, claim that Uriel was Peter," not the definite statement "Uriel was Peter" (as if anyone who accepts the existence of either being must automatically equate the two). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you what credentials you have to make such a judgement? Whether right or wrong who made you the gatekeeper? Can you please tell me whom you think you are vs. what you really are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, user credentials are irrelevant, only sources matter. If you want to get a clue about what I do here, look below. I've been editing here for almost a decade, so I know what kind of sources get approved and what do not. Heck, it's like writing a paper in college -- you need to cite sources that aren't going to make the professor (who, guess what, might not be a Mormon) laugh. Books from university presses and academic publishers, or at least books by professors from the relevant field. Anyone can do that. I've seen middle schoolers who understand all that. It's a simple recipe for a good site -- user credentials don't matter, only sources do.

Now, if we want to pretend that user credentials matter, you end up with someone claiming to be an imam or yogi rewriting all the religion articles to present their beliefs as truth, and some crackpot claiming to be the next Galileo rewriting all the science articles to say that the world was made last Thursday -- that's a recipe for a bad site. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I've seen middle schoolers who understand all that." You preach not to make personal attacks or to degrade but you say things like that to me? Hahahahahahahaha. Google HYPOCRITE. So because "Ian" trolled/edited he somehow gets to decide?? Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Are you mad that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the ONLY true and Living church on the earth? :( Sorry "Ian". Go back to sleep now. I will take you to school later. Nite Nite.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk • contribs)

At no point did I mention you. If that comment made you feel inadequate, that's not my fault. Oh, and it's 4:45 in the afternoon where I am.

See WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TEND. If you are not here to edit neutrally, it's no trouble to block you. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For patrolling the Ref. Desk pages and mopping up the many messes of the trolls! Happy Editing! :) Exempted (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REGARDING " I'M NOT RICH "

Hello Mr. Thompson. The song under discussion, I'm Not Rich, has close to 20 million views on youtube cumulatively to date (all youtube versions) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvjtc4Vh-fo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H1iW9z60fQ

It also was # 20 on the french charts. that was verified earlier i believe. it was also top 100 for the year. this was without any release in north america or latin america. the song has now just been released in north america by ultra music. they are marketing 4 remixes right now on a remix package, a radio top 40 version, and the version with shaggy. Blacko was only featured in the original french release and he was brought in to do the french verses, as french record companies have restrictions on releases having to have a certain percentage of lyrics in french. The new releases have dropped Blacko's verses (the french verses), and freature only original vocals done by the writers Ty Brodie and Jamie Lou Stenzel. New releases just out are at links below. Spotify and Google play erroneously still credit Blacko who does not have any vocal performance on any of these remix releases.. They are being notified by the legal representatives of the performers and authors of the material ( The Kings Son / Ty Brodie / Jamie Lou Stenzel ) to correct this. Below are links to the just released North American releases, which of course go globally as well . It would be great if you could restore the song page, as it is a great song which is just beginning it's global journey. I have nothing to do with the song or the artists...i am a knowledgeable fan and knowledgeable music business individual that gets to the truth of who is behind the music, and how it is created. I happen to manage another artist on ultra records and watched the phenomenal success of this track which was written and sung by a gentlemen who chased his dream in his spare time from a humble job as a shuttle bus driver at JFK airport., and his name is not Blacko, it is Ty Brodie. I believe Wikipedia should present to truth, which is my goal here.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/im-not-rich-remixes-ep/id1074460726?app=itunes&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 https://play.spotify.com/album/3U58CPIfDtXjoDZv9ZFEkR https://pro.beatport.com/release/im-not-rich-remixes/1690653 https://play.google.com/store/music/album/The_King_s_Son_I_m_Not_Rich_Remixes?id=Blapdedoe53uoq4bq2dt523sbsm http://www.noiseprn.com/2016/01/25/the-kings-son-im-not-rich-remixes/ http://www.onlythebeat.com/house/2016/01/29/kings-son-single-remixed-ultra-music/ http://ultramusic.com/videos/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMz533wDnKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H1iW9z60fQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H1iW9z60fQ Seppdonahower (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seppdonahower: As has been explained before, you need mainstream academic or journalistic sources that demonstrate notability. Those blue links are to guideline pages that will further explain what is needed (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered linking them). The number of youtube views does not matter. That it barely managed to reach #20 on the French charts is considered a potential sign of notability by Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs, but a stand alone article still needs to meet the basic requirements of independent coverage from reliable sources. The links to the new releases borders on spam. Do not link to any site selling that song again, because Wikipedia is not the place to promote anything, be it commercially or ideologically. "Great song," "chasing dreams," and "the truth" are not listed at the notability guidelines. User qualifications and claimed qualifications are irrelevant -- only sources matter. We really don't even care about "WP:THETRUTH", just neutral summaries of reliable sources.

While you claim to not be involved with Ty Brodie, you admit to working with/for the company that is currently promoting his music -- you still have a conflict of interest in this matter. You've already been warned about editing with a conflict of interest. While you are welcome to work on other parts of the site, I strongly recommend you avoid editing any article relating to current music as editing with a conflict of interest can very easily lead to being blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Research Project

Dear Mr. Thomson,

I appreciate that you took the time to look over the addition I made to the Cicada 3301 page. I do however think that it was not necessary to remove it in it's entirety. I have been researching the topic for two weeks and needed to submit the section about references to the occult within the group. As a person who has been interested in this topic for a long while, and a person who wishes to make a good grade on their term project, I would like it if you could consult with me before deleting my edits. Thanks! -Carbon— Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbonKeks (talk • contribs)

@CarbonKeks: Wikipedia does not use original research -- see WP:NOR. All we do is neutrally summarize professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Are you saying you are editing the page to support your claims in a term project, or are you saying that you are editing the page as part of a term project? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that I edited the page to improve it for my term project. I took information from verified sources and cited it in a way that complied with Wikipedia's rules. There was nothing biased about my addition to the article and it was simply meant to elaborate upon previously given material and to show a connection between two different groups that shared the same name. There was no original research involved. CarbonKeks (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Carbon I would appreciate it if you got back to me about this as soon as you possibly can. I am trying to balance all of my other assignments while making edits to the previous page. Thank you. CarbonKeks (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Carbon[reply]

@CarbonKeks: In these edits, you used primary sources and drew your own conclusions from them:

This page does not support the claim "cult like," that is your own conclusion and thus original research.
This page does not mention anything about "known members of either group," so that part is unsourced speculation on your part. Neither does it mention the Cicadians using "similar puzzles to hide their true meaning." The only statement that can be drawn from that page that would not be original research would be "The Cicadians use Cicada 3301's Liber Primus as their central religious text, though they have only deciphered portions of it." Even then, there really needs to be a secondary or tertiary source to establish that the group is noteworthy enough to mention in the article. That page does not support the claim that the Cicadians wrote Liber Primus, they state that they got it from Cicada 3301. Describing Liber Primus as a "Cicadian book" full of puzzles by the Cicadians is not only original research on your part, it is wrong (barring proof on your part that the Cicadians are indeed Cicada 3301, which the Cicadians explicitly state is not the case).
This page actually does support the material you cited, but only because you plagiarized the source. While I agree that the runes are obviously based on some kind of Germanic runes, it's original research because you do not have a source that explicitly identifies the runes as such. Just because it's obvious doesn't matter -- our article on Sky has four citations to cover the fact that it's blue. Every single bit of information in an article must be supported by a source with as close to no editor interpretation as possible.

The website you cited does not make or support most of claims you added -- you engaged in original research (and where you didn't, you engaged in plagiarism, which is enough to cause your teacher to fail you, and would get you thrown out of any university whose degree is worth anything). All we do is paraphrase and summarize sources, preferably non-primary ones.

Again, is the research project's grade actually editing the page, or are you editing the page to support your claims as part of a term project? If the research project's goal is to edit Wikipedia, I can help you with that, though I'd like to ask you to tell your teacher to please read Wikipedia:School and university projects. If you are editing the page in hopes of supporting your claims, that's not only academically dishonest but would only work if your teacher is too stupid to be teaching. Wikipedia is not a reliable source by it's own standards.

It's 1 in the afternoon where I am and I don't have any plans for today, so you can assume that I am getting back to you as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Request

Would it be at all possible if I could ask you to delete this edit, and block the blatant troll editor who thinks it's fun to engage in doxxing people?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You contacted oversight yet? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll go on ahead and do it. Spotted some more problems of his. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The user had already been reported, but at the time, there was a backlog.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

For your oversight edits EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but all I did was the revdel. By the time I got the email ready (VPN is on right now), someone else had oversighted it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I closed all the tickets, so you should have gotten a return email. Courcelles (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean I never even sent the email. Like, I by the time I loaded the page and typed it up, the edits were already being oversighted. *hands you the beer* Ian.thomson (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KrazyPerson

Please revoke talk page access of KrazyPerson (talk · contribs) per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTTHEM. 172.58.32.73 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will attempt one more explanation for WP:ROPE, but yeah, I've already got my finger over the button. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems as though their main account already has their talk page disabled... just FYI. 172.58.32.73 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Directing them to WP:UTRS. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Could you please protect the refdesk? Thanks. GAB^Hello! 02:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Starship9000 socks

I think you should tag the Starship9000 socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starship9000. I know you tagged on already you might wanna tag the other socks not tagged yet on the current report. --168.244.11.46 (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please refrain from tagging Starship9000 socks in the future? That is precisely what they want: [9][10][11][12][13]. GAB^Hello! 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

I quite like your ChristianityAndNPOV essay. Very well-put - I've been in situations such as this myself, so thank you for providing me with something to cite in the future! GAB^Hello! 20:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Reference Page

Hey Ian, sorry if this is improperly formatted, this is my first time writing on someone's talk page and second time doing anything on Wikipedia. Thank you for your very descriptive and informative message you left on my page. Should I resubmit the prior change with a reference to a YouTube video showing the intro to the show, or just an image where Cthulhu is depicted? Thanks again MarkEWaldron (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkEWaldron: Sorry, but Youtube is not accepted as a reliable source because it is user generated. Even a screencap doesn't work, because it's technically original research. What you really need is professionally published secondary or tertiary source: something that describes the figure in the Rick and Morty intro as resembling Cthulhu. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you for answering me on the Teahouse but could you tell me how do I exactly ask for page protection?Luke de paul (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are directions on the page, and even request templates. You provide a link to the page that needs protection, ask for a particular type of protection, and give a short reason why. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

biorobotic

that topic ( biorobotic ) just need a related image → and may be second image was not full robotic spider but it was a perspective of future of this research field. and also that was in the 'Biorobotics in fiction' not in real world section however i hope you can add better image to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercyse (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercyse: While an image would be nice, it is not required, and it definitely should not steal from other artists as all of your uploads have been.

It doesn't matter where you put the image, it was a regular spider, not in any way robotic, and the photo was stolen from an artist's deviantart page. Wikipedia is not the place to make up stuff. It is a fact that works of fiction discuss ideas that are not necessarily real, but that is no excuse to use Wikipedia to host fiction on. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, you are right. but who share an image in the internet must be aware of that, in real world there is no publisher rights or copyright except in the app stores :) also that image could have many visitors and nothing can not worth than that for a free things (( image / app )) developer . . . Mercyse (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright applies to art before it ever applied to apps, and has for over a hundred years before computers were even around. You do not claim someone else's work as your own. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Thank you Precious Connel (talk) 11:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC+8)

Hi Precious Connel (talk) 12:53 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Hello.so how do I make a user box? Precious Connel (talk) 12:56 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Because you thanked me.

Because you thanked me

Ian.thomson, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
YOU'RE WELCOME!
It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! Peter Sam Fan | chat?

16:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, Ian. I noticed you blocked 172.56.34.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (Hijiri 88 sent me a couple of diffs.) I recognize both the style and the range: that'll be block evasion by Til Eulenspiegel. I've blocked his ranges before, but annoyingly, this time there seems to be quite a lot of collateral damage. :-( Anyway, I extended your block to 2 weeks. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Was pinged when Hijiri 88 messaged you. Thanks, will WP:RBI any further comparable posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gog and Magog

Xinheart is back. I think you should inform the user about the removal of content before another edit war breaks out...again. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My internet has been out for at least 18 hours. If it stays back up I'll keep an eye out. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gog and Magog, again

Hello, I have a different interpretation of the whole story in the TP, but never mind, I will propose something else now. Xinheart (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you clearly have not read the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Poor Judgment Call

Dear Ian price,

I am very sorry to have to write to you about this issue especially as I do not know you yet and do not wish to rub you the wrong way. But I must ask, do you always presume an IP accused of being a sock-puppet evasion by a clear vandal and troll like Toddy1 is such? Without investigation? Without question? Not even looking at the background? Have you looked at the blocked User:Kaz sockpuppets? [14] It was recently pointed out to me that Kaz is confirmed there to be someone called Kazimir Hubert based in Cardiff, UK. If you look at the Sockpuppet investigation history for Kaz (where I am currently also senselessly accused with nothing but very weak circumstantial evidence) you will see that confirmed repeatedly by the same few Users mainly Toddy1 and his exceptionally obvious puppet Nepolkanov with a host of blocked IPs and Sockpuppets of User:I B Wright and User:Ancientsteppe (who call everyone a sockpuppet of Kaz who opposes their hegemony on Karaite-related articles). Toddy1's spouting about Kaz sock-puppets has been ignored by several Admin already.

Perhaps you are a Christian and you did not like what I wrote here. I am very sorry if that offends your religious sensibilities and no offense is intended to Christians at all, perhaps if you read again with a calm mind you might realize that the facts (the diffs are presented) speak for themselves. Jesus has his place, but not within Judaism.

While my laptop was elsewhere I just so happened to be on a borrowed mobile device which I could not log in on for some reason to do with the settings yesterday that is all. I think it is pretty obvious to everyone (especially Toddy1) that it was me editing. I also stopped when I realized that my log-in attempts were unsuccessful. Am I not allowed to edit from the IP provided exclusively to me by my IP provider if I can not log in for any reason? Is there a WP policy about that? Wouldn't a warning and a point to the related policy be sufficient rather than a block? If the block is related to reverting the vandalism of my own comment on a Talk page I thought that vandalism of other people's comments were exempt from such blocks.

You already know my Israeli IP address which as you can see is not a proxy IP, is it also necessary to send you a scanned copy of my ID? Or would you prefer to give me a phone call? I am not Kazimir Hubert.

I hope at least I deserve to know on what basis you called my IP a Kaz block evasion.

Yours faithfully

YuHuw (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 325: / Line 325: @@
 I have a different interpretation of the whole story in the TP, but never mind, I will propose something else now. [[User:Xinheart|Xinheart]] ([[User talk:Xinheart|talk]]) 16:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 :Then you clearly have not read the talk page. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson#top|talk]]) 00:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
+==Your Poor Judgment Call==
+Dear Ian price,
+I am very sorry to have to write to you about this issue especially as I do not know you yet and do not wish to rub you the wrong way. But I must ask, do you always presume an IP accused of being a sock-puppet evasion by a clear vandal and troll like Toddy1 is such? Without investigation? Without question? Not even looking at the background? Have you looked at the blocked User:Kaz sockpuppets? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Kaz] It was recently pointed out to me that Kaz is confirmed there to be someone called Kazimir Hubert based in Cardiff, UK. If you look at the Sockpuppet investigation history for Kaz (where I am currently also senselessly accused with nothing but very weak circumstantial evidence) you will see that confirmed repeatedly by the same few Users mainly Toddy1 and his exceptionally obvious puppet Nepolkanov with a host of blocked IPs and Sockpuppets of [[User:I B Wright]] and [[User:Ancientsteppe]] (who call everyone a sockpuppet of Kaz who opposes their hegemony on [[Karaite]]-related articles). Toddy1's spouting about Kaz sock-puppets has been ignored by several Admin already.
+Perhaps you are a Christian and you did not like what I wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=711103277 here]. I am very sorry if that offends your religious sensibilities and no offense is intended to Christians at all, perhaps if you read again with a calm mind you might realize that the facts (the diffs are presented) speak for themselves. Jesus has his place, but not within Judaism.
+While my laptop was elsewhere I just so happened to be on a borrowed mobile device which I could not log in on for some reason to do with the settings yesterday that is all. I think it is pretty obvious to everyone (especially Toddy1) that it was me editing. I also stopped when I realized that my log-in attempts were unsuccessful. Am I not allowed to edit from the IP provided exclusively to me by my IP provider if I can not log in for any reason? Is there a WP policy about that? Wouldn't a warning and a point to the related policy be sufficient rather than a block? If the block is related to reverting the vandalism of my own comment on a Talk page I thought that vandalism of other people's comments were exempt from such blocks.
+You already know my Israeli IP address which as you can see is not a proxy IP, is it also necessary to send you a scanned copy of my ID? Or would you prefer to give me a phone call? I am not Kazimir Hubert.
+I hope at least I deserve to know on what basis you called my IP a Kaz block evasion.
+Yours faithfully
+[[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)