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. -- 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 12:02 PM where this user lives (Columbia). []

...And I'm getting used to being back in the States.

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 Wikipedia), 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 (~~~~)

Should be on Wiki-break

Not actually putting up the tag, but I'm going to be spamming resumes at potential employers (not here) over the next few days. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove discretionary sanctions template from my Talk Page/ If you have time to put it there you have time to remove it

This is not WP:CIVIL. I have edited neither of the pages mentioned in the template nor have I taken any position but the one you say that you agree with. Remove the template. An apology from you is in order.ch (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@CWH: You asked what discretionary sanctions meant. If you read the template with the assumption of good faith, you'd realize that the template itself is not an action, merely a notification. Unless and until it is settled that there's no reasonable and good-faith way any aspect of Feng Shui could be called pseudoscience, that article does fall under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding MoldyOne

I was in the process of giving links on the Moderation report when it was closed, i would like permission to revert the changes since the links have already been given on said page and would like the 2 people who are accusing me of vandalism to be brought into this issue— Preceding unsigned comment added by MoldyOne (talk • contribs)

@MoldyOne: The Administrators Noticeboard is not for content disputes. If you have something to discuss in support of your changes to the article, use the article's talk page, as I mentioned on your talk page.

If you are looking to "justice" against the other two editors, that's not how this place works.

You do not need my permission to go to Talk:List of ArmaLite rifles and discuss matters there (in a civil manner that assumes good faith from other parties).

I would advise you not to change "assault rifle" to "semi-automatic rifle" again until you achieve consensus on the article's talk page. Otherwise, you could be considered to be edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe that MoldyOne & TintedFate are the same person. They're editing one minute apart and they haven't stepped on ether other toes, not even once. Also, TintedFate hasn't edited anything before today, and they are both using the same name format (two word with caps). I could be wrong, Can you please look into this.--RAF910 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Further, since you're an admin, could you glance at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/BedrockPerson#Suspected_sockpuppets? I don't know he's BedrockPerson (no previous experience with him), but the suspicious timing of the account creation and subsequent actions make me wonder. It's evident the account was created for no purpose other than being disruptive, and evidently by a very wiki-experienced person. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. GorillaWarfare blocked him as sock of Swetoniusz. So, unrelated, just disruptive. Tarl N. (discuss)

Since User:TintedFate is now a confirmed sock puppet of User:NecrozmaSpin, I request that you revert his edits to the List of ArmaLite rifles and strike his comments on Talk:List of ArmaLite rifles per WP:Deny. Also, can you please check to see User:MoldyOne is also a sock puppet for User:NecrozmaSpin. Thank you.--RAF910 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

1) You don't have to be an admin to strike comments or revert under WP:DENY or WP:EVASION. However, given that the edits to be reverted are on a page that you and MoldyOne are still discussing, you're right that it would be a better idea for me to revert.

2) I'm not a checkuser, I can't see registered users' IP addresses. Even then, I'm pretty confident that GorillaWarfare (who spotted the connection between TintedFate and NecrozmaSpin) would have already spotted a connection between MoldyOne and TintedFate if it exists. That she has not blocked MoldyOne makes it highly unlikely that TintedFate and MoldyOne are connected. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will revert and strike his comments on the talk page WP:DENY or WP:EVASION. Can you please check on the page later to see how MoldyOne reacts.--RAF910 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's already on my watchlist. I'd recommend only striking TintedFate's comments and leaving a note linking to the evidence that TintedFate was a sockpuppet. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

During the business day UK time I am often not around for much of the day. It's the whole paid money expected top turn up thing. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware. I had pings across multiple days, and there was no response on the talk page, and only an indirect response elsewhere. You had time to make other replies on the same page, but did not reply to a repeatedly asked direct question. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi

My name is Typerr. And I have seen your edits. You are editing 0xF8E8 user page. I and Wikipedia will not tolerate vandalism so stop editing another user page. This is a warning. Typerr (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think Ian's revert is a problem? Ian reverted one of a series of unwanted edits. Perhaps you're warning the wrong person? Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Infancy Gospel of Thomas

{ HI it's Tessa Bennet from the Infancy article - I just feel like, although your edits were in a way valid, the term didn't wholly fit in the context. For instance, I verified that adopt means adopt 1. v take into one's family [Or as one's own]. 2. v choose and follow; as of theories, ideas, policies, strategies or plans 3. v put into dramatic form.

Now, if we think of religion, we can't think of it as what 'they' believe and what the rest of the world believes. It may be so that only Muslims believe that the word came directly from God, but the world believes they used 'adopted' stories from the past. The religion is theirs and so the history is theirs to tell. I just don't find the term adopt to be fitting. Instead I changed it to 'containing references to many' as that is both accurate and does not change the context. Do you agree? If not, do as you will, but I do think it is more respectful and accurate to keep it religiously historical and unbiased. --Tessa Bennet (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Tessa Bennet

@Tessa Bennet: Adopt has the general use of "to take up as one's own." Our neutrality policy says:

In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs..

We stick to mainstream history, which is secular. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

CEJN page got deleted

Hi,

I need help regarding the page that has been deleted on 17th March 2018 CEJN. Please help me where I went wrong so that correction can be made accordingly.(Kanika (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC))

@Kanika K (CEJN): I have already given you very detailed instructions on your talk page. Try reading them. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Hello,

It is good to learn that you are among the Warren Commission apologists among WP Admins (I am assuming you are an Admin). It is good to know also that even among WP Admins there are those who dismiss any qualifications whatsoever about the Warren Commission conclusions as simply "conspiracy theories." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Snoopyd

Shouldn't the DS have been gg? Doug Weller talk 19:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: added for good measure. BTW, can we get a link or something the whole "change paraphilia/transgender to GamerGate" discussion? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, on iPad and watcitv. I've no idea as I wasn't watching it at the time. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I considered GG but thought that the primary topic might distract ("I never edited in that area!"), but thought that BLP might be more to the point. I don't know if it'd take an act of congress to pull it off, but there are a few overlapping DS areas that would combo nicely enough (like the alternative medicine and pseudoscience ones, or Palestine/Israel and post-1932 US politics) that maybe it'd be worthwhile for the DS alert template to have the option to say "hey, both of these apply for this reason." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

he's editing in the area now. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the GG template also says "any gender-related controversy." Missed that when I was skimming the template instructions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The dreaded "Hamster Halt"

Do you think I could popularize this furry foot award? Errm, caution with tools? Naahhh, not possible. Shenme (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If trouting is a thing, I don't see why we can't have a Hamster Halt template. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Confused

I got this notification some time ago: "Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Adam, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)"

I have never edited (or even read) the page "Adam" on Wikipedia. What gave you the notion that I made "test edits"? 103.37.195.4 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Abhimanyu

As can be seen here, your IP address was used to edit the article Adam shortly before I left the above message. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Cleopatra FAC

Hello! Judging by the talk page archives, I see that you have shown a strong interest for the article Cleopatra in the past. Would you be interested in reviewing it as a Featured Article Candidate? If so, please share your thoughts and critiques at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cleopatra/archive1. It would be most appreciated. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really, sorry. I can only remember commenting to address fringe comments, and adding the article to my watchlist to deal with the occasional disruptive editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit War and Ianthomson

Hi Ianthomson,

I signed in to wiki after a month and I see a nice long note you left me. I wasn't even surprised because I saw your history in the wiki world. You do know that you have a long history of war editing:o yourself... How dare you accuse someone who made one post. And how protective you are of your entries;)

Looks like people like you sign in to wiki and live your life making edits to maintain your entries. I am certainly not one of them as my own history speaks for itself. By the way, look up a famous tennis player Juan Carlos Ferrero and soccer player Bum Kun Cha. Those are my 2 other entries made 9 years ago. Some of my lines are still there!!! I had a different account which I didn't use since then. What I notice is that wiki entries are constantly evolving, except for Waldenses because you own it!!! What kind of agenda do you have about this subject?

I do want to thank you for showing me how things are done in wiki world. I certainly don't have enough time to be living my life editing these entries and for me truth is not written by people like you. FCL, war editing? Really? You my friend are the warrior on a tear.

Good luck and go on with your war editing life. I'll probably sign in next month to see what else is going on. Is once a month participation considered war editing?

By the way, nice to know some people are very passionate about Waldensians. How did you get into that subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmhong (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pmhong: One post? You made not just one or two, but three reverts. That's not just "one post," that's edit warring. If you had actually read any of the policies and guidelines I linked and summarized for you, you'd know that.

Regarding your Backhanded compliments - See WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian, I don't read foolish and hypocritical instructional posts left by people who do editing wars. You need to realize that you have no life other than updating and guarding your wiki posts. I do this on rare occasion and I am actually glad I ran into you and experience editing war in first hand. If I were really doing what you accuse me of, I would still be editing Waldensian article. But I realize that you are on it every day and guarding it with your life. So keep going and I will be back when I'm have some time to spare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmhong (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pmhong: Do you want to get blocked? Because that's how you get blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

PA

Thanks for redacting. I was going to do it myself after blocking but you beat me to it. I don't stand on ceremony with people like that - it's even worse than trolling.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Not sure that was me (though I'm still getting caffeine so maybe I'm assuming this is about the wrong thing). I went to bed after my last post on 166qq's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello I. Did you mean to sign this close? I know things are different on the RD than AN and AN/I so I thought I should check with you. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've seen enough inconsistency in closure that I never know whether to sign or not. Guess I will. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency is the right word for that talk page :-) I do appreciate your closing that thread. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

ChristopherJEHudson

Hello Sir,

My name is Chris Hudson and I would like your thoughts.

I am not only new to coding, I'm really not sure what I'm doing exactly (yes, I have knowledge, but not certain how to express properly in this language (code) format).

We've had the pleasure of interacting once previously, was some time ago, and I admittedly made mistakes; thank you for having corrected me.

I was looking at making a new page, (or adding information?), to the Grange Manor House which is my ancestral house now known as the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Myself and Prof. D'Arcy Boulton VII just held multiple celebrations over 2017 as it was our homes bicentennial (1817-2017); I held my wedding there and it was specifically called, "Grange Bicentennial Wedding Celebration"... I had over the past 2 days been attempting to create a page but now find that all the information is gone.

I do confess, I find it funny sometimes that so many of my family, Knights (multiple), Professors (Hist/Quantum/Demography), so many who've actually changed the world are not listed, and then so many others are... my fathers listed on a wikipedia page as a world champion... regardless,

Digress,... I was looking to make a page regarding, The "Grange Bicentennial Wedding Celebration", would you be able to lend assistance.

I have multiple references both hard and soft copy. What else is needed?

Look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards,

Chris Hudson — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherJEHudson (talk • contribs) 00:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like I'd be more than happy to provide the phone number for the coordinator at the Art Gallery of Ontario and she can confirm that my family donated 100 acres of downtown Toronto, $300 million and the Grange.

Best Regards,

Chris HudsonChristopherJEHudson (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A good example of some observations I've made on Wikipedia...

Sir Douglas Colin Cameron, KCMG, doesn't come up, however Sir Augustus Meredith Nanton does... barely. Massive contributions to society.

This is interesting because Professor Theodore (Ted) Duddell Newton, (Newton–Wigner localization), is barely mentioned for quantum physics.

Ted Newton married Elspeth (Eppie) Mary Cameron, the descendant of Sir Douglas Colin Cameron, KCMG, & Sir Augustus Meredith Nanton.

You have Professor Thomas (Tad) Homer Dixon, but not Sir Thomas Dixon, KNL, KL, or Sir Benjamin Homer Dixon, KNL.

There's a small piece on Prince Anatoly Pavlovich Lieven, who married Margot Homer Dixon; my cousin Princess Tamara is the last descendant.

This is a small glimpse at only 2 or 3 generations of my family's ancestry sir, there's many more examples, ie. D'Arcy Jonathan Dacre Boulton.

I would appreciate a word with you when you have a moment.

Sincerely,

Christopher Jason Eugene HudsonChristopherJEHudson (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

...Perhaps reading instructions would help. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch

You inquired over it, so I'm responding personally. She has been blocked for socking. Read her user page User:Ms Sarah Welch, it says it clearly there they have been blocked for being a sock. The content was erased in the past along with many sources under reasons like "remove duplicate / repetition / failed verification, add sources some from Navratri: see its edit history for attrib". 61.0.202.171 (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

She's been blocked for over a month now. I also removed content from Thol. Thirumavalavan who is a politician and his book's title itself indicates it is POV by calling to overthrow Hindutva. Now can I restore all the information removed by Ms Sarah Welch who as visible her user page has been blocked for socking and didn't individually give reasons for removal of content? 61.0.202.171 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake, I didn't realize that she had been blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: Responding to an alert! I appealed, the ARBCom reversed the decision. I will take another look at this along with the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

weclome to the machine

There's two edits I revdeled that they should not know about unless they wrote them. WMF people notified.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw. See User_talk:Csworldwide2. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, not going to spell out the particular tics that has my teacher senses going "ok, one of y'all did both of y'all's homework here" whenever I read one of their posts, but yeah, I keep having to check the address bar to remember which user I'm talking with. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I filed a Dispute resolution request about the HIV denialism article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism#Contradiction 190.173.150.216 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

COSMO1994

I was going to file at WP:SPI but I see you have blocked Katemasdon12 who I was listing as the master. Are you blocking COSMO1994 too? They have reverted me three times and left aggressive WP:OWN statements [1] [2] on my talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drm310: It's a WP:DUCK case and I'm going to block shortly, but an SPI might be able to spot additional accounts from the marketing department (though it feels like every third or fourth request I make to check for sleepers gets shot down with "this isn't pixie dust") or at least serve as useful record keeping if they come back. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've added COSMO1994 as a {{connected contributor}} on the article talk page so it's recorded there too. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just asking

I saw you were on my talk page. Anyway, I wanted to ask something. How do you add those userboxes? I'm sure I'll figure it out. Also I hope you watch this page because if you don't then you won't be able to respond. --Tin Can (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Friendly heads up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Talk:Julius_Evola Look forward to working this out with you. VeritasVox (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Talk:Julius Evola, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Infowars

Explain to me how infowars is fake news and how it fits your worldview. You sound like a hypocrite. Truther1515 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Truther1515: Alex Jones' lawyers had to argue that he's just playing a character because he makes a living selling utter bullshit. Go read the controversies section: he's an anti-vaxxer, he lies about kids that got shot at, he accuses random pizza places of running pedophile rings -- he sells fake news. If you don't understand that this essay may apply to your capacity to edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

See also User:MastCell#The_Cynic's_Guide_to_Wikipedia, item 15. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a reason "Truth" in username is in WP:BINGO. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sahansdal

Seems to me you are the one who should watch being blocked. Others don't have this edge you seem to have, some kinda chip on your shoulder.Sahansdal (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sahansdal: I'm not the one spamming material while admitting it goes against mainstream academic consensus, using the talk pages as forums instead of for article improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I need to request you that please delete four pages - User talk:Ram The Editor, User talk:Misser Boss, User talk:Yisrael Kristal and User talk:Widr farted as the reason G6. We don't need those pages any more. Thank you. 122.162.31.207 (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock?

Hi Ian, 2A00:23A8:4C18:C000:B9A2:311F:9F17:72A3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is almost certainly the same person as 2A00:23A8:4C18:C000:E95F:1ECD:60E6:BEA2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Would a rangeblock be a viable option to prevent further abuse? I'm afraid this might turn into a case of LTA, as the anon is incredibly persistent with their vandalism and personal attacks. Thanks, Nanophosis (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nanophosis: When I plugged both addresses into the rangeblock calculator, I got this range, which looks like it's just those two and that it's already been blocked by DoRD. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, saw the rangeblock was added by DoRD while I was typing this message. The anon was a headache to deal with the first time, so I'm glad the rangeblock is in place now, hopefully that will stop the abuse. Thank you for checking anyway. Nanophosis (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a (likely) residential broadband connection, which are usually allocated as a /64 range (special:contribs/2A00:23A8:4C18:C000::/64) so I blocked the whole thing to prevent further abuse. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by 107.242.117.7

Hi. Since you previously blocked this user for vandalism, I thought I'd let you know that he is still at it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I had blocked them because I was under the impression that a rather bigoted vandal was currently active. The IP range is shared by a number of cell phone users. Looking over the range, the same user doesn't seem to be active on that range. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Theistic evolution

You say, "Davids doesn't appear to be a Christian, so (if he was a reliable source) it's rather disingenuous to cite him as the representative for Theistic evolution." Who cited him as a "representative"? Who cares If he’s not a Christian. If he’s studied theistic evolution, then he is aware of the many disagreements and challenges within theistic evolution (the challenges of merging original sin and the Fall with evolution are not trivial). Does the Communism page only accept citations from real communists? Is the Satanist page supported by all satanist authors? Just for you, I’ll put something together with Christian sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyfritz (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Freddyfritz: Your original citation of him makes a claim about adherents of theistic evolution that would only begin to work if he was either a professional scholar of theology (regardless of his religion) or a representative of the theistic evolution perspective (as was the case with your Applegate and Stump citation). Davids is not a professional scholar. Even in the video you linked, he has to mention that maybe there are or will be churches that reconcile the two but that he doesn't know because his work is a Straw man. Davids is not documenting existing belief systems but trying to force followers of a belief system he doesn't even accept to follow the religion the way he wants, so that he can argue against it from an artificial perspective that's easier to "win." His entire platform is "I don't understand how to reconcile the Bible and science when I ignore everything but a single forced interpretation, so it must be wrong." He should never have been cited to begin with.

And again, the Catholic Church doesn't "struggle" with reconciling the fall with evolution. Are they not Christians?

Don't cite sources to "prove a point" (see WP:ADVOCACY and WP:No original research), just read what mainstream scholarship writes and summarize what it says. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The BioLogos Foundation has plenty of articles about the Fall and Original Sin. Looking over some of the articles, such as [3] and [4], it becomes pretty apparent that:

• While the idea of Atonement is a foundational belief for Christianity, theories explaining that Atonement post-date and attempt to explain the scriptural idea.
• The idea of original sin was an explanation in response to the idea of Atonement, even if the existence of sin was what necessitated Atonement. This is one of the reasons why original sin doesn't appear in Judaism.
• There were and still are multiple theories of Atonement that have appeared throughout history, and some of them are still taught side-by-side, even from the same pulpit.
• "The" "doctrine" of original sin as is commonly understood is really the Augustine's theory to explain the idea of original sin. It is not explicitly found in Genesis (or else it would also be a Jewish doctrine, which, again, it isn't). It is not spelled out in the writings of Paul, either.
• There is no adequate reason for why Augustine's particular theory should be held equal to scripture instead of equal to the post-scriptural theories of Atonement. This is not even questioning the idea of original sin, just one attempt to explain it, just as someone who teaches Penal substitution is not doubting Atonement for not teaching Satisfaction theory of atonement.
• Theistic evolution has no deadline. It is free to evolve.

Now, "take your time, weigh your options, we don't have to make a decision right now and we don't have to decide on just one thing" really cannot be called a struggle. A struggle implies a victor, but the articles on BioLogos pretty clearly advocate calm resolution. If anything, it suggests that it's those outside of Theistic evolution, especially those incapable of working outside of a single interpretation (like Davids or Ken Ham) are the ones struggling. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

RfCs

Help! What should I do with these? talk:Alex Jones#Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added? talk:InfoWars#Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added? I am a bit over my head. Maybe way over my head... Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I'm involved enough in those articles (though not the RfCs) that maybe I shouldn't close it, but it looks there's consensus to include a sentence to me. I don't think I've started an RfC before, so I'm about as lost as you. WP:RFCEND would indicate that since it's almost unanimous, you don't actually need to close it or anything.

Looking over the closest that anyone gave to actual reasons for opposing inclusion, and the few potential qualms regard phrasing, I'd suggest starting a second round of RfCs that would ask: "Should these Sandy Hook lawsuit be mentioned as a development with regard to his claims regarding school shootings or another entry in the section on lawsuits? Also, should the phrasing presented here be used or are there suggestions for alternatives?"

The closest thing to objections I'm seeing kinda fall under WP:NOTNEWS (even if that's not what's cited). So it kinda needs to be established whether the material is "including information on recent developments " (which) "is sometimes appropriate" or if it's "breaking news" and/or "routine news reporting." IMO, it'd fall under "recent developments" if it's an extension of the Sandy Hook claims, but may be routine or breaking news if it's part of the lawsuits (unless something else happens besides the lawsuit just being filed)... But I can see there being arguments otherwise even if I can't think of what they might be. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Am I the one to do a second round? I thought this would be rather simple. It has gotten much bigger than I was expecting. Can I turn it over to someone else? How do I ask? Thanks for your advice. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I don't see why you'd be required to do the second RfC or why someone else doing the second RfC would be illegitimate or something.

I'll try to look at doing it, since I didn't comment at all in the first RfC. No promises, I'd have to figure out the instructions in that sweet spot between when the caffeine hits and when other stuff comes up.

If I don't get to it, maybe ask one of the non-regulars who supported the first RfC. I'd say "any non-regular who commented on the first RfC," but asking someone who opposed it could (understandably) annoy them. A non-regular should be seen as having less of a stake in the article, but a supporter would be more inclined to see it follow through. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, didn't realize we had a bot for all that. Started RfCs on both pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions and work here. Jim1138 (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

About The Wikia Answer

Thank you for answering my question! I had two articles and I was about to click that Publish button but I decided to check first to see if it was fine. TheSmartPersonUS1 (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Concerning A Troll You Recently Blocked...

This edit suggests that the troll is another sockpuppet of a vandal originally by the username "Arturo"--Mr Fink (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I didn't immediately spot an "Arturo" on any page histories and I'm winding down for the evening. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Might I recommend a hot toddy?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Would, but trying to cut out non-water drinks where possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Krippendorff

@Ian.thomson can you revert so I can copy and paste just to have the content outline I would like to search for in journals, etc?