User talk:Ian.thomson

Cleaning up the page again, everything is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks!

It would seem that I had a hacked-off meatpuppet messing with my page earlier today. Thanks for stepping in on my behalf. I am truly lucky to have you at my back. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, I'm speechless. :) Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching edit comments to edits

Know you have other things to do... After reading some comments on a page I was "watching", a user made a small edit and it appeared that when he did he attached his reasons for making that edit (like - "The previous version had the Minnesota Twins winning the pennent in 1996 when they actually finished in last place in the AL Central. This was corrected."). I'm not talking about making a "Discussion" thread. It would appear to me that reasons for the changes one made would help out you editors rather than thinking someone is a slash and burner, biased, or malicious. If you could point me to where it explains this in the help section or wherever, I'd be greatly appreciative. Ckruschke (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Oh - that's what that's for... Thanks again! Ckruschke (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

They just don't learn, do they?

Especially since I happen to have the power to block vandals, heh, heh. :) Thanks again, my friend. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Ian, thank you for your help and advice. Regarding my edit to the "Lucifer" entry, I think you may find a quick look the entry for the book of Isaiah will in fact back up my edit of the book being a prophetic work. To that extent, while I may have worded my edit incorrectly, it was in no way biased but based upon solid historical fact. I will work on new verbiage for the edit and attach a citation to the book of Isaiah entry on my next try. Again thank you for your help.Kraze21 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o) Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. :D Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BC vrs BCE

Thank you for clarity on that... I never got around to checking that out. I will have to make some corrections on other pages where this problem is common. Jasonasosa (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no real rule either way, except that it's supposed to remain regular throughout the article. I believe the article on various Saints use "AD," while the one on Muhammed probably uses "CE." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about when it is appropriate to use BC vrs BCE... my first thought was... to use BC for christian doctrines that occured before christ... but then I thought... wait... how can a christian doctrine occur before christ when christ is the starting point? A paradox!? or is it really secular vrs christians?! Jasonasosa (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of preference. BCE can also mean "Before Christian Era" so there is no "appropriate" time to use BCE over BC or CE over AD... this is all prefence. CE (Christian Era, Common Era, Current Era) Its all how one looks at it.Jasonasosa (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

(Warning struck out so people don't think it was directed to me Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)) Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Azrael, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because you are religious or just it does not have a source? --144.122.124.93 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesseee... Your edit didn't have a source... The notice says "be prepared to cite a reliable source..." And you have no evidence that I even believe Azrael exists (it's not hard for a Jew or Christian to believe he doesn't exist, Azrael isn't God)... Assume good faith, don't assume I'm a religious bigot. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding another editor

I just got home from Midnight Mass, so that is why I am awake. I probably won't be on here until after the holidays. Unfortunately, we have had to also deal with my aunt passing away recently. Editing off-and-on has been a fairly decent distraction, but the holidays are for spending time for family. Anyway, I would like to get your input in dealing with Educatedlady. I have gone out of my to show some compromise with editing an article, but she just attacks me when I have not attacked her. I have already stated in seeking arbitration, so that is not the issue I want to ask you about. I have another user who is helping editing the generation pages, and I am also asking for his opinion on the matter. However, I would appreciate your input as well since you have dealt with her yourself. Do you think Educatedlady is out of line? I do not want to engage in senseless arguing. I would like to know if I wrote something inappropriate on the discussion page for her to respond the way she did. I only said that she kept referencing one book by William Strauss and Neil Howe, and not the countless books Howe has published since Millennials Rising was published in 2000. Would you read the comments on the Generation Y talk page, in the William Strauss and Neil Howe section? If you could respond on here or on my talk page under the section "Help with another editor" (unless you'd like to comment elsewhere), that would be appreciated. Hope you are having a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your aunt, mine (a fellow Catholic) passed in August. Not taking a stand on the articles but on editor behavior, I can't say that anyone's behavior is actually wrong. She may be frustrating, but she's not actually being uncivil. Sorry. Best bet is getting outside editors to comment (I'm not really viable since I haven't read the sources, and all the sources seem viable, it's just figuring out how they should be incorporated into the article). Sorry I wasn't much help. Hope you and your's still have a Merry Christmas and happy new year. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British are coming

Do you know the wiki rules about word usage when editing?:

color vrs. colour
honor vrs. honour
gray vrs. grey

If not, its cool. I just dont know. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, basically, use the same word throughout the whole article, except for topics especially tied with a nation (The American Civil War article will alway use American spelling), and try to stick with what was there earliest. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jasonasosa (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatia

Hi Ian.thomson

I am a Wiki novice, and don't intend any further activities in the field, but the image of Hypatia became important to me and I signed on to Wiki to try and maintain the Fayud image for Hypatia.

I have posted my reasons on my user page, please let me know if this is sufficient/insufficient or correct/incorrect ....

Best wishes, Barroncd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barroncd (talk • contribs) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about what is "true," but verifiable: Cite sources because original research is not accepted. Neither picture can be verified to truely look like Hypatia, but there is no verification that the ancient picture represents her, while it is verified that the Raphael picture is accepted as representing Hypatia (as shown by the contents of the <ref>references tags</ref>). If you can find a reliable source to cite (with <ref>references tags</ref>) that say that the ancient picture is indeed supposed to represent Hypatia, then it probably would be used instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatia to Hipparchia

Hi Ian.thomson I have read your page and where you're coming from.. as a clergyman's daughter (not quite in the Orwellian sense) and with a maintenace still in the areas of theos and alchemy, I can identify with Nietzchean leanings (great poet!) and Gehenna/Abaddon curiosities. I became interested in the last decade Minoan human sacrifice made at Anemospilia at the time of the volcanic activity, a discovery made by Sakellarakis who has just died. The eternal return. Re. Hypatia's image.... I have been thoroughly ticked off for that, unreasonably I think. It was like a swarm of hornets descending, and I thought my case quite reasonable. The three-reverts rule that has been quoted to me by Fur.Perf. doesn't apply to me. The rule states 3 changes within twenty-four hours, and I have not changed more than once within 24 hours. As already stated, I'm caring for my husband with altzheimer's and have already more time on Wiki than I should. He's a good man, and worked all his life in third world aid. If I had the nervous energy of twenty years ago i might consider sticking around, but as it is, I'm going to move on from Hypatia to Hipparchia. It seems the right thing to do. I tried to message Fut.Perf. but he seems not to be taking reply. I also posted another plea on the Hypatia talk page without changing the image, so it will probably not be seen. Keep up the good work!!! Best wishes - Chris Barron Barroncd (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion at indigo children

I added references to the scientist who discovered aura and other things. Steelmate (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waldensians Changes

Hi friend, not trying to start an edit war here. In regards to today's edits, I to my knowledge have not removed any material regarding the Catholic viewpoint, so I'm not trying to axe grind. (although I moved some Catholic material to other section(s) which I thought more appropriate). In addition I added a large deal of sources which took some time to do. Also stating that the founding date is disputed is not POV, it's quite factual as there are two differing opinions (one Catholic one Protestant), both with many supporters. Continual undoing may constituent edit warring which is against wikipedia policy and thus should not be done. Willfults (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some people contest the date of the founding for their own ecclesiastical politics does not mean it isn't established. A lot of the sources you used are outdated Nijhoff, De Pressensé, Martinet, Faber, Allix... Uriah Smith's work is nothing but SDA propaganda. Robert L. Odom's work is not an academic work, it's more denominational propaganda. Your version presents what secular academia and the Waldensians themselves say about their founding as buying into Catholic out cries against the group. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]