User talk:Ian.thomson

^{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.

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

It is approximately 1:10 AM where this user lives (South Carolina). []

and I may be asleep, in classes, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond.

If you want to:

say that I should become an admin, leave a message here.	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 (~~~~).

Partial clean up, stuff is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars.

Actually, I agree. An encyclopedia has to be about reliable sources. I like your User/Talk page and I am borrowing part of the format for my talk page. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How'd I miss this? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Took these to SPI

Ran into one of them today in an article on my watch list, then found the ANI discussion plus another editor's comments in an edit summary, so [1]. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I kinda forgot... >.> I'l be watching. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Partial undo

FYI, I partially undid your edit to ANI, here. I think you accidentally hit the "Gallery" button on the editor, and inserted an example gallery in someone else's comment. Just wanted to let you know. All the best!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I usually don't click near there, weird. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

187.21.139.252

Just to let you know that 187.21.139.252 (talk · contribs) was obviously a sock of Jackiestud (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'll keep that in mind if I run into that sort of stuff again. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

my apologies, I had apparently misread your edit. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Ian.thomson,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for replying to User_talk:Benjy1966 regarding the question he posted on my talk page. I have been so utterly busy that i just couldn't find the time to write a decent reply to his questions, so i would say it was a very welcome sight to see you step in there. So, thank you very much for taking care of that one for me! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

re:You got some 'splainin' to do

Can you try again, but this time actually link to the discussion? Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wellness Layers Inc

Thanks for responding back about why my page could have been deleted. I did post outside sources from other written work that was independent of the company and the sources were respected bloggers/writers. The company has also received coverage at health tech events and they have notable clients on their client list. I want to create a bunch of pages on health tech start ups that are starting to become notable but just not as much so as the big health tech giants, do you have any suggestions as to how I should go about this without having the pages deleted? I'm relatively new to the site, as I'm sure you can tell. OZak29 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)OZak29

Wheres Dan

May need to be dealt with other than at RSN. WQA at the least, maybe ANI. Wikibreak for me in a few hours. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... He's just on the end of the rope for WQA, 3RRNB, and ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with that guy, let me know if he pops back up next week. That is the kind of editor that keeps us as the punchline on Jon Stewart and Colbert, the likes of which we don't need here. It's hard enough policing the "I luv boobies, nooB" IP vandal nonsense without someone adding inaccurate WP:FRINGE pseudohistorical nonsense with what might look like actual sources. Looks like Doug, who usually makes the heroic effort of keeping these hooligans in line, may be on wikibreak for awhile, so I'll try to help keep this one in check as much as my schedule will allow. Cheers, Heiro 21:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Your recent editing history at Spartacus shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your most recent addition to the 3RR report - it's been closed for 2 hours already - if you're creating a new one, create it ... nothing further will come from a closed report. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI edits

Hi, I know nothing requires you to do so, but it would be helpful if when you made edits to noticeboards like ANI, you edited the section rather than the page. It's already hard enough keeping track of topic changes because Wikipedia has no technical provision for doing so. This is not meant to be offensive, just a request from a fussy editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrators

Hi, I would like to let you know that your edits are being discussed here

thank you 94.194.34.10 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Qigong article

Thanks for your interest in the quality of the Qigong article. Note, discussion on page User talk:Ottawakungfu. Vitalforce (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello singularitarian

I noticed your userbox.

I've been working on Outline of transhumanism, and I'm looking for editors familiar with the subject to improve it.

Please take a look.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

More Hindu fundamentalist edits at Advaita Vedanta

Now they are saying that Buddhism came from the Upanishads instead of the Shramana movement. 72.92.118.63 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the Robert Haralick wiki page and give me some suggestions as to possible editing changes to make the biography entirely consistent with wiki. Thanks. Haralick (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Robert M. Haralick

From edit summary

Dear Ian thomson.I have read what you wrote about yourself. May God bless you to be a good christian.I am aslam. m aslam raj and i did not Edit or deleted any thing I read from Wikipedia,s Articles about Gospels or about blessed Mother Virgin Ma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslammaslamraj (talk • contribs)

Yes, I have seen your actions on this page. I was just giving some advice that new users often need. May you have a pleasant experience on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

External links

You maybe should add external link http://www.indigochild.com. It looks like valid author page who is mentioned in text. Anyway there already is link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Carroll so there is no reason not have i also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.18.77 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Same as we have on or wiki ;-) http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigov%C3%A9_d%C4%9Bti ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.18.77 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that was smile worthy

Hello Ian.thomson. For whatever quirk of editing the "Scottish Play" gets a regular amount of test/vandalism edits but the one you reverted tonight (my time anyway) was among the most esoteric I've seen. Your edit summary brought a smile to my night so I had to drop a note of thanks. Cheers and thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 03:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Format

Hi, i think you're supposed to put the percentage symbol after the number rather than before as you did at Islam. I have corrected it Pass a Method talk 03:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Previous

Considering there are now many sources for 80%; [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], as well as more for 75% [9], [[10], do you mind to change it back to the "over 75-90%" version and delete the "most figures between 85-90%" part ? Pass a Method talk 22:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Haralick wiki page

I added in what I hope are sufficient references. Please look at the page and let me know if I should put in more. If the page is ok then perhaps the comment at the top of the page about the lack of references can be deleted. Haralick (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Robert Haralick

Christmas

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

About the King James Version

On the King James page i removed the following:

in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.[99]

I see you or someone restored this. I dont know how to add sources but this claim was refuted by people such as David Cloud, D.A Waite in their books which could be used as sources to refute that statement above. So shouldnt that part be removed then since the statement is false?

Fromtheold (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Fromtheold

If the work of David Cloud and D.A Waite were not under WP:FRINGE (as most KJV-onlyists are), but under WP:Reliable sources, then their views would be mentioned as their findings, not as THE one and only truth. The source you removed was David Daniell, who has access to the historical manuscripts and has demonstrated that he knows how to engage in historical criticism (instead of twisting around facts to advocate a religious bias against trying to accurately translate the Bible). Unless you have sources specifically countering him, its unlikely that that point will be removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ian, but the Oxfordian theory of authorship for Shakespeare is not a "fringe" theory. Many prominent public writers and intellectuals have supported it. Read Mark Anderson's book on Edward de Vere. Talk to Derick Jacobi. The Oxfordian theory may be wrong, although I don't think so, but it is not a FRINGE theory. This is what the Stratfordian editors of these pages want people to think.