Page semi-protected

User talk:Ian.thomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

I'm asleep or otherwise having a life outside of Wikipedia.

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 (~~~~)

Providence(religious movement)

Rather than going back and forth on the editor assistance page, I would like to offer a compromise:

I will submit the additional sources I obtained following the original dispute resolution, which as of yet have not been acknowledged nor analyzed.

These sources raise the concerns surrounding Jung's trial that I mentioned on the talk page and other forums. Several include photograph's of Do Hun's letters.

GIOSCali (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more open to trusting you on that if your prior censorship and WP:ADVOCACY in the article hadn't demonstrated that you are incapable of following WP:NPOV with regards to that topic, probably because you are yet another Providence member. And I'm not the only part of the consensus, you'd have to convince everyone else who has told you to quit turning the article into a Providence puff-piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting, I think, that an experienced editor would claim WP:ADVOCACY without first examining the sources in question.
Not only that, do you pass judgment on me, without knowing anything about me?
You should have been the first to call everyone to examine the new sources.
GIOSCali (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That you have repeatedly tried to turn the article into a puff piece for Providence is good enough evidence. You have censored any sources that state that Jung was convicted and replaced them with WP:UNDUE material on the SBS broadcast and on Kim (as if those were the entire basis for the trial), as well as opinion articles about the trial. You then went WP:FORUMSHOPing, repeating dismissed arguments as if that would work because you refused to pay any attention to the consensus or the reasons for it. There is no reason for a non-member to behave that way.
You keep saying you have new sources, but you never present them -- empty talk. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Several sources I am talking about were presented already... when I posted the edits on the proceedings against Jung following dispute res. These were among those not analyzed.
How do you claim puffery, WP:UNDUE and say arguments have been "dismissed" without having analyzed the sources? Look at the sources first. That should be something basic for an experienced editor.
I heard the reasons for consensus, but the sources give valid reason to challenge it.
I will post some -- again -- on the talk page likely within the next day or so.
Look at them closely.
GIOSCali (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion discussing the merits of the sources, since you seem incapable of doing so. You've given us little reason to trust you or your assessment of sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The edit you reverted on the Providence article is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It says thousands of women are being currently held in storage. If true, such a statement should have made headlines in a variety of sources. In any case, wikipedia policy states that such statements must be supported by multiple sources, which this is not.
Accuse me of bias if you want. I am a Christian, by the way.

GIOSCali (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

"As of 2012" means "currently"...? The statement includes nothing about storage.
I've added another source. If I could find it, I don't know how you couldn't. You did try, didn't you?
You're Christian? Gee, and Providence doesn't self-identify as Christian? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
GIOSCal Perhaps it is exceptional, but then again, so are JMS' 'habits'. Just out of curiosity, GIOSCal, why are you offering a "compromise" here? Ian.tomson's talk page is not the place to discuss what does and does not go on Providence (religious movement). If you want to have such a discussion, GIOSCal, it should be on talk:Providence (religious movement). Not hidden on someone else's talk page. This would appear to be another example of your wp:forum shopping habits. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 05:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Will be out of town

Effectively from July 31 to August 8 (and I shouldn't be on much tomorrow), and I won't be bringing my laptop with me. Any talk page stalkers feel free to be respond either like vogons or Randal Graves on my behalf until I get back. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)