User talk:Ian.thomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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
Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is approximately 8:04 AM 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 (~~~~)

Contents

Should be on Wiki-break[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Ian is a serial harrasser on Wikipedia that pushes his political agenda under the guise of a Wikipedia veteran.

His account should be banned for harassment and political bias. Mikereynolds4444 (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding MoldyOne[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

@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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

{ 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 AthensTalk 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

Hi Ian, 2A00:23A8:4C18:C000:B9A2:311F:9F17:72A3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is almost certainly the same person as 2A00:23A8:4C18:C000:E95F:1ECD:60E6:BEA2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

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[edit]

@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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slotmachiner (talkcontribs) 18:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slotmachiner: I could email you a copy, but that would only hinder you from doing a proper job in writing a legitimate article.
Look for independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about Krippendorff but not affiliated with him, and then summarize and paraphrase those.
None of the sources you cited were useful for establishing notability and some of them failed our reliable sourcing guidelines -- the sources you had in the original draft were useless.
Looking for sources to fit what you wrote would be a waste of time because what you wrote was too promotional.
Again, I can email you a copy if you really want it, but the best case scenario is that the copy will provide no help at all toward what you need to do (find independent sources and summarize those). Are you sure you want that? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ian yes please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slotmachiner (talkcontribs) 13:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slotmachiner: You don't have an email address attached to your account. You can enable email at Special:Preferences, do not post your email address on site. I'm not restoring the material on site because it violates our policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please help in my article .[edit]

thank you for your kind response. On your notice, I had already applied for change of username. and regarding my first article Spandana Palli I would like to confirm you that I am not being paid for this article. I love writing . So I choosen a topic in which I could write then I did my home work and published it. I had tried my best to follow all the guidelines of wikipedia. but unknowingly I made mistake in uploading the image of subject. I am ready to resolve it but don't know how to.. Please help

Am2623 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I replied to you on the Strivingsoul SPI. Is it at least starting to look suspicious? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk:EdwinCerso[edit]

Think you might want to revoke their talk. I figured this was a WP:CIR case, didn't realize it was something this long-term. Home Lander (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. I only figured it was something long term after checking the previous creators of that talk page, and looking for a user name matching that page title. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, they were pretty persistent in removing the tags. I think an IP was doing the same earlier, probably the version that Amorymeltzer deleted. Home Lander (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Algernon Sydney Logan[edit]

Ian: Thank you very much for your very clear explanation of the editing policies of Wikipedia and as well providing very clear assistance on how to write and ensure proper sources for an article. However (and I am sorry to go on) it does seem a bit disappointing to me though that a somewhat interesting person such as this poet and writer will apparently never be in an encyclopedia as expansive and informative as Wikipedia due to the fact that there simply is very little personal information about him aside from a great deal of all kinds of information written by his son. That this information does not exist, or at least has not yet come to light, is in some ways understandable because Algernon Sydney Logan lived a quiet life and although he wrote several books none of them sold well at all. Yet just as historians have over time recognized that many of the non-descript or forgotten people of history have, in fact, as important if not 'notable' lives as more well-known people or figures, I think that lesser known and even unknown persons can deserve mention in an Encyclopedia, as well. In any case, Thank You very much for your time and attention and thoughtfulness.Kevin Plunkett (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kevin Plunkett: Sorry, but Wikipedia is just a tertiary source that summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. This standard, by and large, is used to prevent the place from becoming a mixture of Facebook and Craigslist.
Looking a bit for sources, I found this small review. He's also apparently discussed briefly in this book. That isn't quite the in-depth coverage required by WP:NOTE, but it shows that there is potential for academic interest. Maybe you could try to use your research on him as the subject for master's or doctoral thesis somewhere. Penn State seems to be interested in Logan research. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ian: Thank you for your assistance and your suggestions once again. Have a very fine day. Kevin Plunkett Kevin Plunkett (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

How am I doing?[edit]

Hi Ian. I saw your response at the help desk about my post which was about me obtaining autopatrolled. Since then, I have written 2 articles: Dixie Days (1930 film) and College Capers. I took on-board your advice whilst writing these two articles. I have came here to ask how I am doing. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 13:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@In Memoriam A.H.H.: Autopatrolled is one of the more reasonable hats to want if one really is just trying to write articles. To be honest, I was thinking of making a decision after like four to six more articles. I saw College Capers after you published it, it's good, though the citation regarding that cartoon being public domain is a bit WP:OR. A source that specifically mentions Van Beuren would be markedly better, or else citing that source in an initial talk page post saying "hey, it's fine to link to this as it's public domain because (original research)." I'll look over the other after lunch. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
As response of your response on College Capers, I removed the WP:OR source, reworded the sentence, and added in another source. Thank you for your comments. In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 20:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

PCCooler[edit]

Hi I requested creation protection in WP:RPP. Is it ok? I saw you explaining how to write a "successful" PCCooler to Blackwongpcc. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Since he's gonna need to go through AfC, there's not really a reason for him to re-create the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I think I'll leave it alone. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Oh, I did salt the page, I was just explaining why. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I was confused. You didn't answer my question explicitly ;-) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

OCB[edit]

FYI: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kathy from Paddington School - they're one in the same. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, how am I doing?[edit]

Hello Ian. Apologies if I seem as overly eager to get autopatrolled, I'm just here to see how I'm doing. Since I asked you the first time. I have written two more articles: I'm Afraid to Go Home in the Dark and Chinatown, My Chinatown (film). I have added notices on both of their talk pages about them being public domain. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 17:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@In Memoriam A.H.H.: Hey, sorry for the late response. Two issues with Hot Dog (1930 film):
  • It cites a Google search. It's not spelled out explicitly in WP:RS, but search results themselves are generally not regarded as reliable. Instead, a specific result or results should be cited. Google Dictionary appears to have gotten its results from the Oxford American College Dictionary or maybe the Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary.
  • It cites TvTropes, which is user-generated.
As it is, I'm only like 95% certain it'd survive AfD.
Chinatown, My Chinatown (film) only seems to have (had) two sources that provide coverage about the cartoon independent of the subject, "The First Hollywood Sound Shorts" and "The Film Daily." That doesn't leave me 100% certain that it'd survive WP:AfD. I'd say it'd have a much better chance of surviving than not, but three sources is the point where anyone trying to delete the article has really work. The Atlas Obscura piece is good for context, but since it doesn't mention the cartoon it doesn't support notability. The Library of Congress just kind of establishes that a media document exists (they take pretty much anything that's not explicitly illegal, which is kinda the point).
I'm Afraid to Go Home in the Dark seems to be fine. I'm assuming that contemporary reviews count as much as current ones. I vaguely recall a couple of instances where those were argued to be something like primary sources on the grounds that they required interpretation, but those cases were before the 20th century from sources that (if Wikipedia had existed then) would be "questionable sources." For these cartoons, contemporary reviews from what would now be reliable sources should be no problem at all.
Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I've removed both unreliable sources in Hot Dog (1930 film), so how am I standing autopatrolled wise? Sorry if I'm seen as overly eager, as that is not my intention. Thanks again. In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 15:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A well-deserved barnstar for thee![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
I cannot thank you enough for aiding my voyage towards gaining autopatrolled. Your feedback and positive feedback have both invaluably helped me in this journey. Have a nice 4th of July! Thank you! In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Should I comment on the sockpuppet investigation of the user who attacked me?[edit]

As you know, the user Oleotusks was attacking me, and you blocked that user. I noticed that there is a sockpuppet investigation going on about this user. I was wondering whether I have anything to say, especially since I noticed a few IPs who also wrote insulting edit summaries attacking me while reverting my actions. I'm new here, so I'm not sure what to do. I don't want to falsely accuse anyone, but I'm feeling suspicious about these attackers - and of course, personal attacks are not welcome in general on Wikipedia. My contributions are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Diamond_Blizzard In some of the articles which don't say "current," the IPs were attacking me. I understand if you can't go through all of them just to find the IPs, obviously. It's just that I may not be able to be on Wikipedia for sometime after this, and I don't want to falsely accuse anyone, so I'm not listing the specific IPs at the moment. A bit of advice about this situation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Diamond Blizzard (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) It is not necessary as the filer has provided the necessary evidence. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 05:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I did suspect that whoever started the Oleotusks account might have had previous activity here, but I haven't spotted enough of a pattern to draw any conclusions.
I went through Oleotusks's contributions to look for patterns in the IPs that you reverted. This IP in North Carolina insulted you, but the IP before that is in Hyderabad. However, going through your contributions, I found this other IP in NC, which gives me this range. Looking for similarly ranges (2600:1004:), I found this one, which expands the range to this. They're all Verizon wireless IPs. The disruptive edits in that range are probably Oleotusks's cell phone, as the IPs are active at the same time as the accounts. However, only the three individual IPs I found seem to be Oleotusk, the rest of the edits on that range are certainly not.
It doesn't look content related or like some sort of vendetta. I'm guessing that some idiot decided to try to troll the first Wikipedian he saw fitting whatever category his tiny brain couldn't handle that day. If it was going to continue, we probably would have seen additional puppets by now (but that'd also give us more to work with). @Diamond Blizzard: Your continued activity on this site, aside from being appreciated, would be a good way to give him the finger. If there's any more personal attacks, feel free to let admins know. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Yep, Oleotusks was yet another sock of "Ann HHero". Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Please check your email Thank You. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


You forgot to redact the Revision made by the IP Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Working on that. WP:OVERSIGHT is more appropriate for that kind of material, but an administrator start the clean up process. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You can still see the edit summariesThegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
That's been removed and I've sent an email to Oversight so that even I won't be able to see it soon. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Ian.thomson. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Turner Diaries[edit]

Short version : the editor is attempting to retroactively fit a text with a particularly modern interpretation in the service of a particular agenda. That agenda, regardless of it's merits, has no place on this page.

It attempts to smear a current strand of feminist thought by associating it with the extreme far right, which is having real world consequences including physical violence and a chilling effect on dialogue.


I edited the wiki page on the Turner Diaries because a previous edit attempted to conflate gender critical feminism with violent white nationalism. This is a recent trend within certain activist circles that is dangerous as it has lead to physical attacks on women in public spaces.

Here's a link on that: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5607919/Transgender-activist-battered-radical-feminist-Speakers-Corner-brawl.html

And another: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2018/06/24/lesbians-attacked-by-trans-activists-at-san-francisco-dyke-march/

The prior editor (Beyond My Ken) is acting in bad faith, not me.

Their edit to the plot summary includes references to gender that do not exist in the text. The terms gender and biological do not appear in the text.

The relevant quote from the book espouses exactly the opposite viewpoint that they claim it does, which is likely why that edit included the tag "check me on this".

Here is the relevant quote from page 78 of the novel: [1]

"Consider rape, for example, which has become such an omnipresent pestilence these days. It had already been increasing at a rate of 20 to 25 per cent per year since the early 1970's until last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that all laws making rape a crime are unconstitutional, because they presume a legal difference between the sexes. Rape, the judges ruled, can only be prosecuted under the statutes covering nonsexual assaults.

In other words, rape has been reduced to the status of a punch in the nose. In cases where no physical injury can be proved, it is now virtually impossible to obtain a prosecution or even an arrest. The result of this judicial mischief has been that the incidence of rape has zoomed to the point that the legal statisticians have recently estimated that one out of every two American women can expect to be raped at least once in her lifetime. In many of our big cities, of course, the statistics are much worse.

The women's-lib groups have greeted this development with dismay. It isn't exactly what they had in mind when they began agitating for "equality" two decades ago."

Thanks for your time. Void138 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Void138: The Daily Mail and Wordpress blogs are not a reliable sources.
That you say The prior editor (Beyond My Ken) is acting in bad faith, not me shows you didn't read my message to you at all. Since that's the case, I don't see why I should bother responding any further to yours. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly the response I expected. The daily mail and a wordpress blog might not meet your standards but a *direct quote* from the novel in question *definitely* does. I see you.

Go ahead and revert the edit back to the lie like you're planning to. This will be escalated over your head until it's fixed.

The era of men dictating to women what they can say is long over. Bye now. Void138 (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Void138: You don't seem to understand that this is an encyclopedia where one summarizes mainstream academic or journalistic sources. This is not a place for you (or anyone) to crusade for their own views regarding sex and gender. We don't use original research. Like I said, that you said that Beyond My Ken is acting in bad faith is proof that you did not read my message to assume good faith from other editors. And now you're failing to do that with me. I've had no idea whatever your gender might be, so it's just plain dishonest to imply that that's what the issue is here. If you are not willing to assume good faith from others, then you will not be welcomed into the community. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, go on and explain more about "what I don't understand". Make sure you drizzle all that word salad with an extra helping of privileged condescension.

Once again: I provided you a direct quotation from the actual subject of the article that contradicts the edit, and that's the response.

Conversation's over. Void138 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe, if you actually read what people wrote and assumed good faith from them, you'd have an easier time here. If you think my last response is "word salad," then you're having trouble reading. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Thinking of writting an WP:FL soon[edit]

Hi Ian. I am writing about the prosperity of me possibly writing an WP:FL soon. I was wondering on how I should do that. I know that I need to follow the criteria, but I was wondering on how to do it. How much sources do I need? How long does the list need to be? Those kind of questions. Apologies if I'm seen as overambitious, it's just that I feel that I want to try something new. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 21:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@In Memoriam A.H.H.: Um... I've never done that. A Featured List should be a much safer project than a Featured Article (or even a Good Article). I recall that I rather annoyed one editor who was trying to turn an article on my watchlist into just a Good Article, because my quibbles over sourcing were enough to make it fail the Good Article assessment (and I wasn't even aiming for that).
Looking at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, it looks like it's a matter of making sure that it:
  • has a good topic
  • has a good lede
  • covers everything it can for that topic
  • has nicely-formatted pictures where possible
  • fits the Manual of Style
The biggest potential issues I'm imagining (at least they'd be for me) are pictures (finding properly licensed ones especially) and working with the Manual of Style (I'll admit that, aside from citing WP:PBUH when reverting, I generally let other people handle the MOS). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Akai template[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for your help creating a template for Akai professional yesterday . CheersIjustwannabeawinner (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page[edit]

I've seen the advice you sometimes post on creating a Wikipedia article. It's full of good recommendations, and if new users follow it, we'll have fewer unacceptable articles being submitted. But I wonder if it could be even more effective if is started with something like

  1. ) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

After all, most of those who try to create their first article have already gone wrong (by choosing a non-notable subject) before they get to your step 1. Maproom (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Added. I skipped over that step because steps 1 and 2 force them to focus on just the sources that prove notability (and because I've gotten into way too many arguments with new users who want to redefine our standards of notability, reliability, and even independence), but it would still be good for them to check first. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Banned User[edit]

Why was this guy banned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skyblue100

I've just come across him while looking through the European Broadcasting Union where his helpful edits were reverted. He added a few broadcasting unions to the "see also" section, which contain some of the broadcasting networks/organisations which are in the EBU, so I can't see a reason why they'd be seen as "unhelpful".

I've just had a quick scroll through his contributions and they all look along similar lines. Helpful additions to the "see also" sections for topics related to the articles in question. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Lucian Gray - advice needed[edit]

H Ian, Greetings to you. Need advice for the above. The page was created by user Fehifu152 and nominated AfD by me. The the result of the AfD was delete. I noticed user Fehifu152 create the article and immediately redirect to their user page. Can this be done as Lucian Gray is not notable and what action should be taken. I have come across many times a page created and immediately redirect to a general article when the subjects are not notable but the users do that for the reason to secure the author creation name when the subject become notable and create by other users. Thanks advance for the advice. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Deleted. We've got a criteria to delete pages that were already deleted because of a deletion discussion. I also left the user a note and am now watching the redlink. If it is created again (except as a move from a Articles for Creation draft), someone's probably getting into trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Thank you for the advise. One more question, as I not an admin, so I cant delete page. In future, should I see such incident, where/who should I report the incident? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: If someone re-creates a page that was deleted as a result of an XfD discussion, you should be able to tag the page with a {{Db-repost}} speedy deletion template (see WP:G4). If it was deleted because of a speedy deletion template, many admins will not consider G4 applicable (but may cooperate if the previous reason for speedy deletion applies). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ian. Ok thank you for the info and advice. Appreciate it. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sinha Roy - need advice[edit]

Hi Ian, Sorry to bother you again. I AfD Draft:Sinha Roy yesterday and the author user:Sinha Roy redirect the draft copy to their user page. I believe the draft page should stay at it is should not be redirect, kindly advise. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The article can wait while it goes through AfD. The draft is independent of the article. In their current state, there's not really much to do but wait. I am somewhat concerned the user might have a conflict of interest, but they're not quite being promotional. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Ok thank you for the reply. Will wait and see how this article would fare in AfD then. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

How's my proposed new name[edit]

Hello Ian. I was thinking of renaming my account in November. This is because I tried to rename last year, but was told to wait another year. The name that I would propose is 'Chivalry of Nonsense'. I was wondering if you thought the name is good. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 15:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S: I was also wondering if adding 'the' into the name would make be better, like (The Chivalry of Nonsense.) Thanks again. In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 15:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@In Memoriam A.H.H.: That user name does not violate our username policy, with or without the "the" (which will be capitalized because the first letter is automatically capitalized by the software). I don't have the power to change usernames. According to meta:Global rename policy, "Frivolous, repeated, or inappropriate requests will be declined," but I think that's more to stop users from changing their user name every time they get a haircut, so they'll probably be OK with it if you haven't changed your username before and don't plan on doing so ever again. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Prop9[edit]

Do you see any merit in filing an SPI against this user to determine via checkuser whether he is, in fact, the master of the Stepscanto account, or do you think that your 48 hour block is sufficient punishment regardless and that the issue is therefore moot? Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: I filed out of the prospect that there's a third party trolling Prop9 and FreeKnowledgeCreator. If I was certain enough to not file, I'd've blocked indefinitely. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

About Article...[edit]

Dear Ian,,, thank you very much for your respectful contributions to wiki, am so pleased to say hello you you..Actually, there was a writing to you about a article on the Teahouse,,but there was no feedback from you...so here leaving message again..please help it the article survived well in the Wikipedia.. "hello...thank you very much for the advice,, it is so impressive. Yes,, so there removed for the the word 'world premiere' kind of..and also the figures which the magazine deals are public figures from Asian traditional, Because the contents resources and the figures are unknown in English and the Western cultures, so they don't have many of public resources or reputation and that's why the magazine are making the article for them as like. Please help it the page can be survive...! and that page was not version of translation. Thank you very much for your kindness...awesome!!!! "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashappyday (talkcontribs)

@Thomashappyday: If you're referring to this message from yesterday, you posted in an archive. An archive is where finished materials that are not going to be changed further are put away for storage.
The problem is that the sources in the article are either:
  • Not reliable
  • Not independent
  • Not about TeRra
It does not matter what the magazine does, or what they write about, or who they pay to write about them. Other news organizations or even academic scholars must notice TeRra and write about them without being paid by TeRra. The Chicago Evening Post piece you cited was a Press release written by one of TeRra's staff. This New York Times article says nothing about TeRra.
If there are no independent reliable sources about a subject, the subject does not get an article.
When you say that's why the magazine are making the article for them as like, that raises very serious concerns. We have policies on paid editing, conflicts of interest, and promotionalism that would forbid anyone who works for TeRra from working on any article about TeRra. If we had an article on TeRra, TeRra would have no ownership of it -- it would be Wikipdia's article, not theirs.
Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dobrearsov11[edit]

Just to let you know, I've just blocked Dobrearsov11 (talk · contribs) because they returned to editing and refused to communicate or follow any of the conditions we collectively laid out for them. And their edits were highly disruptive and uploading of copyrighted images and claiming them as their own. So I think they're done. Canterbury Tail talk 14:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thumbs up. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI issue[edit]

Regarding the user you just indef'd from ANI, I had posted a message at the time you were doing that... and my edit was rolled into the close template.

Should this IP user be blocked, too? See this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I assume it's WikiVolunteerBen (IP locates to Germany, user claims to be from Germany). BlockedIan.thomson (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for the Herman page[edit]

I posted it here: [5] Prop9 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for going about this that way. Like I said, though, I'm not concerned with what the article says, just making sure behavioral policies are being followed. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hi please remove my confirmed right since I’m already autoconfirmed. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk to me) 04:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt): Done. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious[edit]

You typed these out or you copied from elsewhere? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a whole ton of them saved in a txt file on my desktop. I should probably upload them somewhere at some point, I've been told to do so before. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Oic. Maybe I should do it too :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notification[edit]

Regarding your decision that a certain IP editor had exhausted their WP:ROPE here, I thought you might want to know that they have registered an account (User:OnlyRealSpike) and have returned to the VPP discussion without much apparent change in attitude or indication that the block has instilled in them an understanding of the need to contribute civilly and non-disruptively. I would not say anything they have said yet crosses the line into blockable offense, even given their being on notice as to the general sanctions and what is required of them in this regard, but the WP:IDHT clearly remains strong with this one and I'll be genuinely surprised if the other shoe is long in dropping. Snow let's rap 14:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: he's had a chance to learn and he's not taking it. I've explained how he can get out of this and still contribute in the area he's interested in. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm impressed with the amount of patience you showed him in the face of some of those increasingly vitriolic comments. It's always encouraging when an admin goes about things in a pro forma / "give them every last possible opportunity to dig themselves out, even when its manifestly clear they are WP:NOTHERE and not going to make use of those opportunities" philosophy. This one just clearly has basic and apparently insurmountable CIR problems. But then, the decision to give every initially disruptive editor a chance to pull back from their nose dive is not really about how realistic that possibility is in a given case--it's more about who we are as a community. So props to you for the effort anyway, and for keeping your cool throughout. Snow let's rap 00:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Protecting my user pages[edit]

Hi Ian. Is it possible for you to extended confirm protect my user pages? I was wondering if that were possible. This is to prevent other people from unneedingly editing these pages. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. The Duke of NonsenseWhat is necessary for thee?. 18:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Duke of Nonsense: I recall that the discussions for the community even approving ECP included some points about mostly saving it for topics where either ArbCom has had to make some sort of ruling or for cases where indefinite semi-protection has been utterly useless at preventing constant vandalism. I get the impression that applying ECP to a user page would probably get me yelled at (unless maybe said user's page was already the target of multiple harassment campaigns that regularly required WP:Oversight to clean up).
Looking at WP:UPROT, it seems that user pages are now all effectively semi-protected by default and that further protection is only thrown in if there's actual vandalism going on. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Help[edit]

I got your message and understand it but how do you warn users that are vandals. I’m talking about like a page where it gives you it. And also I’ll try and read the edits on the vandal log. ARMcgrath (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@ARMcgrath: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace has a variety of messages for warning users. Check the user's contribution's page (here's yours, for example) and click "(diff)" to see what the edit was. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay I saved the page onto my watchlist so it’s easier for me to get to Thanks for helping I’ll be a better user on stopping vandals ARMcgrath (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hide edit summary[edit]

Emoji spam ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding paragraph about Off-Broadway show to Indiggo[edit]

Hi,

I was active on Wikipedia 8 years ago, primarily working on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

I’m interested in adding a section to the Indiggo page about a show that appeared Off-Broadway in New York, New York, USA in 2017 and 2018. I intend to use as my source news items and reviews that appears in www.cityguideny.com, www.broadway.com, and www.theatermania.com.

Based on my rereading of WP:RS and finding that these three websites have been used as sources in wikipedia articles, I believe I can write a properly sourced paragraph.

In reviewing the revision history for Indiggo, I noticed that you reverted changes by an IP editor (67.245.109.174) that included a paragraph on the show with the comment “rv editing by the group's manager, again,” and that you have reverted changes to Indiggo in the past. I also found accounts that had been blocked for being sock puppets.

Besides the relationship of the IP editor to the group and the violation of WP:NPOV, did you have any other problems I should be aware of before I put further time and effort into adding a section about the group’s show?

Thank you for your attention. Vyeh (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vyeh: Those probably are reliable sources, and I'll trust you to write it neutrally. One of the biggest things I use to spot the manager's socks (I suspect sometimes the band members themselves) is how they'll try to twist or censor what happened on America's Got Talent, sometimes citing clearly unreliable sources (such as Wikia) to do so; or promoting relatively new material mostly citing WP:PRIMARY sources. Frankly, more good-faith editors like yourself would be a good thing to have there. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Musk[edit]

Can you just block the IP? They seem to want to have a discussion about something that is really not up for discussion. We arnt going to allow hypotheticals about non-notable people on talkpages. I think there are older revisions that need to be removed as well, from before I changed the section title to remove the divers name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: Received message after carrying out block. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah cheers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Slander[edit]

Why do you state that I am giving PR to white supremacists that's slanderous to even assume let alone say. because my view point doesn't reflect yours gives you no right to make accusations against my character. I in no way support hate. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@OMEGAUNIT: This edit of yours tries to soften a white supremacist concept and make it more mainstream. If you are truly against hate, then you need to cut that out right now. Arguing does not make you look better, it only makes it harder for us to not conclude that you're yet another white supremacist troll trying to soften public perception of their hateful ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop pushing your political bias[edit]

Your despicable use of political bias is abhorrent. You are everything that's become bad about Wikipedia. Mikereynolds4444 (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mikereynolds4444: InfoWars is obvious fake news to anyone with even a minimal grasp on reality -- that's why it's listed as a perennially unreliable source for this site. If you try to censor or downplay the fake news aspect of InfoWars again, you will be blocked for vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) @Mikereynolds4444: Please also avoid personal attacks. —PaleoNeonate – 04:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ablust[edit]

It looks like you placed an indefinite block template on their talkpage, but the block is still set to expire in 72 hours. Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:F115:1EE5:2361:5735 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indef block of Nergaal[edit]

Greetings Ian. In the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT I should be grateful if you could provide an explanation for your recent indefinite block of User:Nergaal. I understand that their behaviour at Sarah Jeong has been substandard and overly emotional. However it seems to me that a shorter block would have allowed them to calm down, and would have been enough to prevent disruption to the project. It is well-established policy that sanctions are not meant to be punitive. A maximal sanction looks unwarranted, given this editor's otherwise long history of collaborative work. I am particularly puzzled by your WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR rationales in the block log.[6]JFG talk 11:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: If the community decides to shorten it, I'm not going to fight it, but while Nergaal may have been here to help in the past, the issue of Sarah Jeong dramatically changed him. He began regularly accusing everyone of bad-faith, especially if they got in his way, leading to the first block. His response to the topic ban was to use a controversial hashtag specifically and only relating to the topic as an edit summary. Their response to the warning about using the hashtag was to:
  • continue using it
  • create a userpage with that tag
  • play dumb as to what being topic banned from any "discussion (in any namespace) on wikipedia" about the topic might possibly mean.
When blocked, their response was to write an essay, using the hashtag as their title and edit summary, announcing their retirement and denouncing the site for not giving him his way on the topic.
If we got such behavior from a new account, no one would blink at the results. Yes, he was helpful. That stopped. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I see these incidents as rapidly escalating emotional responses to rapidly escalating sanctions. Not the best outcome, neither for this editor nor for this project. Apparently Nergaal's strongly-expressed feelings of being unduly silenced, or threatened of "cancellation" in the hashtag's analogy, were not taken into account. As a welcoming and diverse community, we can do better than that. — JFG talk 17:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah, NeilN, Favonian, SQL, Kleuske, Abecedare, Paul Erik, and Drmies: I'd like to hear opinion from the other admins involved in the escalation of sanctions. What could we do better to mitigate such intense emotional distress temporarily exhibited by a longstanding editor? — JFG talk 17:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ian. It is very common for people to violate their AE topic bans, and (when it is one of mine) I usually go ahead with a time-limited block. But in addition to the issue of topic bans, there is something about this topic area which makes people insane, and an otherwise normal editor might have lost their cool. So I'd encourage any consideration of changing the indef to time-limited. Negotiation with the blocked editor can sometimes be considered though in Nergaal's case I wouldn't hope for any favorable response. On the other hand if a time-limited block were given a chance to run, Nergaal might conceivably change their mind in the future. I'd be opposed to any immediate unblock unless Nergaal made a promise to change their behavior. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • JFG, while I appreciate your advocacy, I think you're poisoning the well with phrases like "feelings of being unduly silenced", and I think you're suggesting that the editor actually felt like they were "silenced" because they were white--it kind of sounds like gay panic defense. (I don't know whether Nergaal is white or not, it's not my beeswax.) We can't really "mitigate" emotional distress; we're not therapy. As I noted on the talk page, they were doing the same thing on the same article for days on end, with a block in between, and that's disruptive, possibly obsessively so--but again, I'm not that kind of doctor, and we're not therapy. Editors need to know when to step back. Here's the thing: I'm all for editors returning (I think most admins know that, as do my former ArbCom colleagues), but it has to come with words, like an allocution. The last edits by Neergal suggest to me that if indeed they are in some emotional pit (which is sad, since typing words on a website shouldn't lead to that), they are not yet out of it. When they are, and when they are ready to discuss, then we can talk. Please remind them that indefinite is not infinite. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The "feeling of being unduly silenced" was clearly expressed by Nergaal, perhaps clumsily, in response to a cascade of warnings, TBANs and blocks. It's not up us to evaluate whether such a feeling was due; the damage was done regardless. In such a situation, it's up to us to help an editor calm down, even though indeed "we are not therapy". What irks me is that Nergaal's antics over a controversial article suddenly erased their years of positive contributions as s/he was labeled with WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR, which are among the strongest marks of rejection that the Wikipedia community can bestow upon one of its members. I have only seen those applied to drive-by vandals or to particularly obnoxious long-term battlegroundish profiles. Nergaal was neither. I do agree with you that "when they are ready to discuss, then we can talk." I will not remind them of anything because I do not email people and a message on their talk page may not get their attention. I would think that one of the admins could extend a courtesy gesture by telling Nergaal, by email, how and when it would be appropriate to request a block lift. — JFG talk 18:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Nergaal was neither. Was. The Nergaal who was helpful replaced himself with a Nergaal who:
  • was here to right great wrongs on a particular topic
  • had little to no interest in assuming good faith from any member of the community who did not help him achieve his goals on that topic
  • believed that WP:POINT-y behavior was the most appropriate response to sanctions on that topic
It's sad but it's his problem, not ours. I did not disable email, so Nergaal can use UTRS or even directly email an administrator if he wishes to discuss things in a calm and mature manner. I wouldn't want apologies or anything like that, just a promise to drop the stick and abide by the topic ban. As it is, I get the feeling that any administrator contacting him now without promising to lift the topic ban is only going to aggravate him further. After a short time, an administrator might only re-open wounds. If, after a long time, he is willing to return, he can email us. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep, what Ian says, JFG. Nergaal is, as you say, a longtime contributor, so it is pretty much impossible that they wouldn't know how to respond to a block or how to request an unblock, or that indefinite is not infinite. They've placed unblock requests before. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping, and after ec) I believe User:Nergaal (knowingly) pretty-much forced Ian's hand with this edit (in context of the recent Sarah Jeong discussion the "cancel" hashtag is a wink at accusations of white genocide, although whether the hashtag is used conspiratorially, snarkily, ironically etc depends upon the speaker, context and readers' interpretation). However, given the user's past contributions and conduct, I don't think indefinite means forever in this instance. And if Negraal wishes to return, they should IMO be unblocked with as little drama as possible, ie no demands for apologies/takebacks on our behalf; no repeat posting of such manifestos on theirs.
Just for the record, I would object to lifting of the topic-ban from Sarah Jeong related articles, but I assume no one is proposing that. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not the first time we see an editor perform a rage quit when they feel unduly sanctioned, even if the sanction was perfectly due. That's no big deal, let them vent, unless they threaten somebody or are otherwise being abusive themselves. Nergaal's rant was not abusive, he just explained why he did not feel he should continue contributing to the community, as he perceived being punished for wrongthink. Those "final words" included a comment stating: This took some time to write and I would appreciate if instead of deleting, this section will be copied to my userpage. But I suspect it is more likely that somebody from the thought police will show up and even remove this short rant/essay from my own talkpage. Guess what, that's exactly what happened,[7] within all of 4 minutes, of course because he had just been banned from using a certain word. The irony! Whether we call it suicide by admin or excess bureaucracy, it does not sound like the optimal outcome to me. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned enough not to beat a dead editor. — JFG talk 18:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't share your framing of the events or what "old fashioned" wikipedia values are or should be. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm with Abecedare on this one – including an absolute NO to (hypothetically) lifting the topic ban. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • My comment can be viewed here: [8], and is mostly a direct quote from policy. I didn't have anything to do with the sanctions (page came up on my watchlist) - so I'm not sure exactly why I'm being pinged here. While I was dissapointed that the editor re-instated that section header name, I had not intended to press the matter further. SQLQuery me! 20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Ultimately the ball is in Nergaal's court. Perhaps someone could reach out to them in email and see if they are prepared to accept the topic ban (that apparently has very little chance of being lifted). I can sympathize with their argument but not the way they presented it and this is not their first trip to the rodeo as their recent blocks testify. There can be no doubt their FA work is outstanding and one could hopr they would resume that if only to give themselves some inner peace.--MONGO (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • EdJohnston put it well; "there is something about this topic area which makes people insane." Indefinite is not infinite, and we can hope that when the Sarah Jeong insanity fades away Nergaal will pull himself together and make a persuasive unblock request. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • JFG, thank you for inviting me into this discussion via the ping. I did take some time to reflect upon my actions yesterday, soon after they occurred, wondering if I might have acted in a way that could have helped move things in a different direction. And I have thought further after reading your comments. I think I acted quickly yesterday with the block (which I undid 22 minutes later because I thought the topic ban was a better path to try) largely out of my perception that Nergaal was acting quickly, editing multiple namespaces over the course of about 12 minutes to add and re-add the same accusations of bad faith and namecalling all over the place. If I had it to do over, I wish I had left a message on their talkpage along the lines of "Hold on. Take a breath. What kind of outcome are you hoping for?" That might have created a moment in which Nergaal was not feeling silenced.

    That said, I can't disagree with what Abecedare and others have said here. I suppose it is possible that Nergaal's escalating behaviour was a reaction to escalating sanctions, but the escalation was appearing before there were individual sanctions or blocks against them (look at their repeated use of the word "whiteknights", a term that seems chosen to stir an angry reaction in others). Their escalating behaviour and frustration appeared (to me) to be more an escalation of a situation in which the Wrong Version of an article was not being remedied. It is possible I may have been incorrect about that impression.

    JFG, I think you are right to prompt us to ensure we give some consideration to the long-term contributor who may be having a frustrating time and is not at their best. I will add, however, that consideration also is due to those whose participation may be affected by that editor's behaviour. I can't tell you the number of times I have simply stayed out of a heated debate about an article or policy simply because I did not want to put myself in the line of fire of someone who appeared to be spitting venom; at those times, I have often silently wished that admins would do more to reduce the toxic atmosphere. So, when I examine my potential biases that might have led me to block someone I see as contributing to a toxic discussion atmosphere, I think it may stem from my sympathies towards the more timid editor who is lurking rather than participating. Going forward, I will think more on this. Thanks – and apologies for the long post. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I am sorry for my part of the blame, since I closed Nergaal's AfD early. However, Nergaal's edit warring over the AfD closure contradicted our deletion policy, and Nergaal would know that. I am also sorry for the 4im vandalism warning I gave Nergaal. wumbolo ^^^ 01:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your comments. There seems to be consensus that Nergaal should be able to formulate an unblock request after a reasonable amount of time, provided that neither him nor the involved admins would re-ignite the drama. Hopefully the Sarah Jeong story will have faded away by then. — JFG talk 08:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit problem on "Abdul Mannan Choudhury" wiki page[edit]

Hello Ian, I am hereby to inform you that the page named "Abdul Mannan Choudhury" I am trying to edit, no one is paying me for editing. He is renowned person of my country but in Wikipedia there is only a little information about him. I found some authentic resources about him and trying to edit his information. Now can you please give me some suggestions what can I do to publish my information in Wikipedia. Each time I am trying to publish admins are removing my edits.Thank you --Rakib CIS (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Well how should I respond [[9]]?Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If we reply to the "Users are impuging my character on this page" tantrum section, it will distract from Talk:InfoWars and make other users scanning the page think this is just more drama rooted in a content dispute, where two users are just looking for anything to snipe at each other with. If we do not reply to it but focus on Talk:InfoWars instead, users who scan the page are more likely to either get caught up on the fake news issue (where that user's WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT have been disruptive), while those who read everything to get the bigger picture are more likely to view that subsection as a sign that IPT is the source of the drama.
I understand your frustration with him but when right and wrong aren't totally clear there's a risk of the thread becoming a matter of whose frustration reaches a breaking point first. That's why we need to focus on something where everyone (but him) says he's so far in the wrong he should realize where he is.
The consensus as to whether his current userpage or his username is actionable seems to be "ehhh..." and I'm not seeing that changing. That's enough that he's not going to put anything explicit enough on his userpage to prompt action. I don't see that route going anywhere.
His behavior at Talk:InfoWars is the closest thing we've got to a sure thing. Even though ANI doesn't do content disputes, there's not really any risk of someone dismissing a focus on Talk:InfoWars as a mere content dispute. If someone was inclined to do so, it's one of those cases where one side is so wrong that it is tantamount to disruptive editing regardless of their approach. The thread could end with him promising to "do better in the future" with regard to Talk:InfoWars. However, if he could be convinced of anything, he would have let alone by now, so that promise would amount to fly under the radar while still being a nuisance -- action will be necessary at some point (I'm seeing that having as much a chance of that happening in the next thread as this one). He hasn't done enough to warrant a block (yet), so a TBan is the best solution. If he follows it, the problem is solved. If he doesn't, the problem will be solved. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) Sometimes this happens too... —PaleoNeonate – 20:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

My brain went stupid on the correct bracket type for a second there; was fixing when you did it. Appreciate the catch. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

Titta1920. Gentlemen and Ladies, I have received your several messages regarding my role in editing the page for the former secretary of the Navy. I can attest that I am not being paid for my services. I was employed by Mr. Lehman to help with his new book and that employment AND COMPENSATION terminated in February, 2018. I have continued to help out "OFF THE CLOCK" in small ways such as 1 or 2 edits to his Wikipedia page. I am retired for 7 years now, and prior to that I was employed by Mr. Lehman for 22 years. HE IS MY FRIEND!!

There was never any intention to skirt your rules or engage in inappropriate behavior. Further more, the changes were: a) an error listing another author and his book as being written by Mr. Lehman, and b) adding a glaring omission  to his c.v. which was his tenure at the National Security Council (which Cullen 328 corrected). 

What I don't understand is the difference between a total stranger correcting and adding the same material to someone affiliated doing it. The product is exactly the same. Moreover, it improves the reporting and makes the Wikipedia material more accurate. But, those are your rules and I would have abided by them if I knew.

In any event, after 25 years of employment and friendship with Mr. Lehman, I took no compensation for the work you are signaling concern about. MAnd now that I am finishing helping out with his book talks around the country, I am resuming my retired life.

Thank you. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titta1920 (talkcontribs) 20:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Titta1920: Here you said I am writing on behalf of my boss. You need to disclose your employment (even if it is former) on your user page, no arguments. If Mr. Lehman is your friend, that just means your conflict of interest is even stronger. Because you have a conflict of interest, you are not in a position to decide what is or is not neutral editing with regards to the relevant article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

RobThomas15 socking[edit]

Just a question about RobThomas15. Are his IPs also getting blocked? I'm just curious how he's able to create new account after new account. Granted, if his ISP is using IPv6, the host IPs change frequently, so a block may not be useful. Again, it's just a curiosity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Yes. Actually, WP:BEANS, but now that you make me think about it, with the options I chose when blocking him, the fact that he made another account after I blocked him rather suggests the possibility of certain deliberate efforts that no one operating in good-faith would consider. There are innocuous set ups that would render those measures moot, but that would either require enough of an understanding of how systems work that he should understand on some level why he was blocked (assuming he put the system together) or else the willingness to submit to someone's authority (if someone else set up the system). As such, if I see another sock, I'm not going to even bother communicating, just going to block and lock as with a LTA. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)