User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 17

Only got a few hours sleep last night, so if I'm problematic, just say "Ian, you're tired." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Michaelt54
I just want to say that i'm sorry and I have learned my lesson. I will no longer be a problem and I have a favor to ask because I got in trouble for deleting material off of your page, will you delete my posts off of your Page? I want a clean start. I will understand if you dont't want to because i was a problem, but i will no longer be one.--Michaelt54 (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Clean start is a different deal from vanishing. Your posts on my page were honestly nothing to be upset over.Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Graph
Adherents only shows the top 22 largest religions. Do u know of a source showing the top 40 or 50 largest religions? Pass a Method  talk  06:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The closest I can find is this, which cheats by breaking things down into denominations, and which I cannot verify is an RS anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
i think you need to learn what vandalism on Wikipedia is, as by putting on a Notes page is not vandalism at all as it is a bus page so really i dont see why i am a sockpuppet of Josh24B when i am making the page less confusing. Oldbagservice (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edits removed all the templates, categories, and references from the page. First time, I could accept that it was a mistake.  Second time, no. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

i didn't realise as you must of edited it after i was saving it and i had to copy all info to paste it back as it failed to save Oldbagservice (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
(You know what for.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding New World Order (conspiracy theory)
Dear Mr. Ian, How is NWO a conspiracy which is defined a secret by wikipedia when I specifically provided the link to proof of the 1991 broadcast to the public. You are the person who is attempting to use wikipedia to present an opinion of making NWO a conspiracy instead of public knowledge. Please explain how wikipedia is not biased by forcing public knowledge and presenting it as a secret conspiracy. If you understand this, please help keeping wikipedia neutral by presenting public info as it is. Not a secret so people get confused. Also provide a link to the proof. Regards, Khawar Khawar.nehal (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The coincidental use of the words "new" and "order" in reference to the world does not demonstrate the existence of anything.
 * And if there was a worldwide conspiracy, wouldn't we be a part of it? :)
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheetoh (cat)
I just looked on the TICA website and Cheetoh isn't there. Am I missing something? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When I searched for Cheetoh on their website, their Standing Rules, on page 55 (p. 59 of the PDF) reads "701.4.5 The following is a list of the names and current abbreviations for experimental breeds as of 05/01/12: ... XCT- ExperimentalCheetoh". Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that, but that doesn't support anything in the article. I'd feel more comfortable going back to the revert unless we find some sourcing.  Otherwise, the article seems to be a coatrack ad for the breeder who has a link in it.  NawlinWiki (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, upon further investigation, that's starting to look likely. Checking books.google.com, I only found a passing mention in Domestication by Clive Roots, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007.  Enough to add to the Bengal article, but not enough for an article on its own.  I'm redirecting Cheetoh Cat to Bengal (cat), though, since Chester Cheetah isn't a housecat.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement page
This page is about the Truth Movement, not about the official theory. It is appalingly unfair that this widely discredited theory should be restated within the page dedivcated to alternatives. Therefore I suggest either remove that section or reinstate comments that clearly show why this theory is discrdited. Christian Revuelta Architect. Chrrev (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is about some paranoids' delusional denial of known facts, and the article details both the delusion and the facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Listen buddy
Regarding the Hayk Orion info, if you havent known yet here is the truth of the matter. You see how long ago the Hayk info of Orion in the Bible in the Hayk article is? And also in this Orion article? Well, here is news to you, I was the one, yes the person you requesting block, was the one that put "all yes all even the Bible mentioning of Orion in the Armenian Bible", so since you realize now, my I kindly suggest you to put back however it was in the Orion constellation page. Since you have such a issue with putting it in Hayk article. Thank you.

p.s. And dont remove certain parts of the sentence, which I repeat all of this was put by me even the Hayk article which was years ago (over 4-5 years ago!). 69.85.145.62 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates off of verifiability, so cite sources. The Sun god bit is unverified and countered by reliable sources.  That bit is, from Wikipedia's perspective, wrong.  You don't own the article, you don't own any words you add here.  It says right at the top of the editing window "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I already told you all this Hayk/Orion info was put by me 4 or 5 years ago? Ok? Do you understand English? That means when you reverted in the Orion article, you reverted parts of my sentence without any source on that sentence. You are contradicting what you are saying to me here. 69.85.145.62 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if you're the one who added it. You do not own the article or what you added to it, and you need a source for what you add!  See WP:CITE and WP:OWN.  The burden of proof lies on YOU to provide a source for any addition, sources are not needed to removed unsourced mistakes.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir, sir, When you reverted it back, you didnt add a source for that very sentence, you simply took out words from the sentence as you pleased, and I already had explained to you of that issue in the Request for block IP user page. 69.85.145.62 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And as I have pointed out before, sources are needed for additions. Do you know what "addition" means? In English, it means something that added or put in, not removed or exchanged. I did not add anything, I removed bits that were not supported by a source, because you failed to cite a source. There is a source for the other stuff already in the article.
 * As I have pointed out, repeatedly, enough that a brain damaged child could understand, sources are not needed to remove unsourced mistakes, they are needed to add material. You added something without a source, I removed it because it did not have a source.  There is no policy or guideline against what I did, there are plenty against what you BRD Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost778
Hello Ian. Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost778 which I just filed. The main concern right now is to be sure we block all of his ranges, whenever practical. He is more of a nuisance than a serious vandal, but in case new cases appear, people shouldn't have to waste time investigating them from scratch. If you notice him using new IPs and you are confident in your diagnosis, you can add to their user page. If you want to add anything to the SPI report, please do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. You seem to have covered everything.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Leave your political leanings out of the Sri Lankan page
The introduction is not the place to present political statements. There are specific human rights sections below which tend to these matters. Please don't insist on adding politically oriented statements to the introduction. BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And what political leanings would I have? I have nothing to do with Sri Lanka, unlike you.  The introduction is there to summarize the article.  If those bits belong in the article at all, then it's ok to mention them in the introduction. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ian, please do go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. BlueLotusLK opened an RfC, which I closed as premature, but the lot of you should discuss whether or not the info belongs. BlueLotus, of course, should avoid the charges of "political motivation", but I'll monitor that on the other side. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * All you have to do to communicate Ben is go to a talk page, click the new section tag at the top, then write your message and save it. You do not need tildes because there is a pencil icon in the edit window toolbar which you click to sign and date your post.--Charles (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Gao
There are two things that Lihaas reverts in his edit: 1. change from 2012 Northern Mali conflict to 2012 northern Mali conflict and 2. removal of "Islamist victory" from the infobox. First thing is to be re-reverted because name of the article is 2012 Northern Mali conflict, and not 2012 northern Mali conflict. Second thing, well, Battle of Gao was a battle between MNLA and islamists which islamists won, so it would be nice to state it clearly in the infobox.

Thank you for your attention. --93.136.113.166 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, respond. --93.139.25.76 (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ben Q Nunn
I typed a long message but it just vanished before i could send! basically to recap - thanks for your editing, and this is not a user-friendly site (in my rookie opinion) 4 tildes Ben Q Nunn (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)there isn't a send button do i "save"? see what i mean about user friendly? bye from ben Ben Q Nunn (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Idolatry
Oh man! I thought I was taking that out, not putting it back in. That's what I get for editing during commercial breaks. Thanks for undoing that and that IPs other additions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm ashamed I let that edit in in the first place. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Your insistence on BCE in place of BC
the label BC is a more accurate denotation since its name is an honest one regarding what the current year is measurement of, your abbreviation was purposefully formed using used words with initials similar enough to those of Before Christ for it to be confused as the same denotation just long enough to normalize CE/BCE as the new anti-Christian designation of the current Christian Year. Weather or not an...umm "ordinal" i believe was your word of choice (i understand why you wouldn't want to say "CHRISTIAN DEFINITIONS NOT ALLOWED" might not be well received, but weather you say AD 2012 or 2012CE it is a Christian designation, because no matter the label out year is a measurement of the years since the birth of Christ.

by the way, i think most people see through your false "Methodist" claim and could guess accurately to what you really are "Mr. Thomson" --RDPortman (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ignore him. He's heading for a block. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sure, since his first edit used a dishonest edit summary. Happy Thanksgiving. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, BC actually stands for "before the estimated birth of Jesus of Nazareth, (the Christ), as understood by a sixth-century monk, who turns out to have probably been wrong by a few years." I'm a fan of "vulgar era" myself.--Tznkai (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He's Henry the VIII he is
Yes, I opened by own investigation request almost at the same time, but initially mesed it up, so it appears as a separate one. Hence also my rather uninhibited edit summaries! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:HenryVIIIyes. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bus Page
Ian i am leaving it you can change it back i've got other stuff to be doing not got time to be editing other pages when i need to edit Population pages (Pyramids, Graphs, Policies) Connexsions (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

AIV
Hey, Ian, can I ask you to self-revert your comment on AIV? I've already declined the report, and of course no admin with a quarter of a brain would actually act on it. I don't think the comment is going to do anything but fan the flames. I'm not going to revert it myself or anything, but self-reversion might be a good option. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Message from AnthonyMark00
If I can help it, I dont want to see you on my user page! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you should've tried assumed good faith and not edit warred over spam. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

About the British English issue in the article about the Age of Kings.
I know I should respect other people's dialects of English, but if I'm right, the talk page doesn't say the article is in British English, and I think AoE is an American game, so I think I should change different dialects of English into the American dialect. McBenjamin (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was already in British English (as evidenced by its use of British spelling), and the usual rule is "leave something the way it was unless there's a lot of discussion to change it to something else." There is no rule requiring talk pages to specify which dialect of English an article is written in, unless there has been some common edit warring over the subject. You may find out more about British spelling at Manual of Style/Spelling. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep it civil please
I haven't been following whatever's been going on at all, but I'm sure you can keep things a bit nicer than this and the associated edit summary. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish everyone could just drop it, to be honest. It would be so much simpler if everyone would just walk away. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And just to clarify I was not trying to single you (Ian) out in particular, but I've noticed that warning combative SPA's is usually not worth the time it takes to type them in.  The way things are going with similar editors on some of the lesser-watched articles on my watchlist, I will probably require a similar reminder at some point.  a13ean (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

?
I made several changes on many articles and if you check them on many sources you will see how accurate they are. Also I corrected some mistakes and added new useful information. Why my changes are constantly deleted and please dont tell me it is just spamming because there are more non-informative details having spam edits. I want to make some changes even without referance links or whatever you want to call them. Adding to this free source website should be more free than this.

Denizkupon (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 

I am sorry but I am the expert on most of these articles and also most of the information given on these pages are unsourced too. Adding a source sould not be a crime. Correcting mistakes and adding new useful information should be allowed. I want my changes on Ephesus and Tiberius Julius Celsus Polemaeanus articles to be undone or I want to change those articles again. You can not punish people on your suspiciouns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizkupon (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So if personal websites are not allowed can you explain me why referance number 41 and 42 are allowed under Ephesus article. At least website I added is not commercial or spamming one and reliablity of the information can be checked easily. I can understand deletion of links but why to delete all information given to people ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizkupon (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but you should find the differance between two sites. What we call couple of locals are people living and working here. Also by defending other sites you show your suspiciouns drive you to punish people. I do not ask you about the design or being personal. I just wanted clear explanation about why referance 41 and 42 are allowed and similar ones not. If we delete locals own this website information and replace it with this is a commercial website putting spam on wikipedia, will we be allowed to do that too. Denizkupon (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)denizkupon

So now I should have right to edit Ephesus article and if you have any problem or doubts with referances please check the information first. And by seeing other websites having less clearity and total commercial use, I should be allowed to add our websites link to referances. Denizkupon (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)denizkupon

Ok the only thing I want to say is If I add information to article in the same way the others did and add similar sources to the mentioned website, will it be removed while others can stay. And this edit wont be in many different pages. It will be just on Ephesus article with lots of new and useful information. Two wrongs don't make a right but also even one wrong gives a right to me for giving a thanks to our website which has no commercial benefit as you can easily see. If you check our website you will see it is not benefiting from spams in any way. Denizkupon (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)denizkupon
 * Hi Denizpron. As Ian may be asleep or busy at present I will point out that personal websites that do not show sources for the information are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. You need to use sources such as published books or peer reviewed journals. See Identifying reliable sources and Citing sources.--Charles (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying talk pages for your mother
Regarding your proposal at WP:VP/T about simpler user talk pages: the Wikilove tab is controlled by MediaWiki:Wikilove, and an edit to it would change everyone's talk page. MediaWiki:Addsection controls the "New section" tab, but it doesn't look like it can be changed in a way that would only affect usertalkspace. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian
I recognize now that my original edits did not align with the letter of Wikipedia policy (although they were entirely accurate). The present edits of the article, however, have been made in line with Wikipedia policy, and in fact are corrections/deletions of article contents that were in violation of Wikipedia policy. Speaking of the letter, as opposed perhaps to the spirit, of Wikipedia editing policy: I haven't broken the 3 reversion rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.223.99 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You made a manual revert, which IS a revert. That's against both the letter and spirit of 3RR.  Your edits also went against both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies!  You've been adding original research to push your own point of view! Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bigotry
If someone accuses you of being some kind of gender bigot in the future, ping me on my talk page. I'll be happy to tell them our policies on commenting on the contributions, not the contributor; and to block them if they can't learn the easy way. There is no reason for you to suffer such harassment because of your sex. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will do. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Tetramorph, Cherubim, Living Creatures
Ian: you could edit out that specific reference very easily I think; it would have been much easier to just delete a line of text than for me to have to write it all out again. This is highly discouraging to contributors. With your permission I would revert your deletion of my edits, and subsequently simply edit out that part which you identified as problematic, as it would be much easier. I await your reply and eventual identifications of what other parts may have been problematic and therfore not worth adding again. Again, this reversion, with your permission, would simply be for simplicity's sake, and the final result would not include that aspect you identified as problematic. Sincerely, Ben Ammi (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored and then manually removed the parts that go against WP:No original research, WP:Identifying reliable sources, and so forth. When trying to do so for Living creatures (Bible), the manual edit ended up the same as the revert: we don't cite blogs, and we don't cross reference different parts of primary texts to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in either work. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert/edit. Ben Ammi (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Think
What d'ya think of this image: ? Pass a Method  talk  17:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly OK with it. I think the Raelian logo needs to be the same color as the other symbols, and I'm guessing (though I don't necessarily agree) that some other editors might say that there's undue weight on new religious movements (even though Eckankar and Raelianism provide a means to study the rise of religions) and minority religions (even though Zoroastrianism is a major influence on world religion).  I'd also like to see the Arabic name Allah used for Islam, but I know from previous discussion that the Ottomon influence is going to fall under WP:COMMONNAME.
 * Overall, Support. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not expect you to respond that fast, lol. Pass a Method   talk  17:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the color. Is it better? pic Pass a Method   talk  18:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks. Having one symbol be blue while the rest were black gave undue emphasis on that one symbol. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. Pass a Method   talk  18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note: I reverted the addition of the image to Religion because I felt it was inappropriate to give religions with several thousand adherents like Raëlism, Neo-Druidism, Satanism, and Wicca, equal weight with religions with billions of adherents like Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. I've seen religion textbooks, but I've never seen Raëlism and Neo-Druidism listed alongside major world religions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there isn't much left to discuss sincce we have already had conversations about due weight in religion before and did not reach agreement. Pass a Method   talk  21:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Eckankar really isn't a new religion - it seems to be described in independent sources as a variant form of Sikhism, so it is very questionable whether it really qualifies as a separate religion unto itself. The Raelians are just one of a number of UFO religions, as described in independent reliable sources. I can and do think, maybe, including that article might be not unreasonable for inclusion. Similarly, new religious movements and neopaganism as overview articles might qualify as for inclusion, but I haven't seen any clear evidence of any specific forms of it. Regarding questions of weight in such matters, we actually do have several relevant policies and guidelines where such questions could be raised. It is also possible to perhaps raise an RfC on the matter, although, in all honesty, I would have to say that, based on previous discussions regarding such matters, it is perhaps unlikely that any individual UFO religions would qualify for inclusion, with the possible exception of Scientology, given the amount of global attention it has received. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP/FRINGE
Greetings, just wanted to point out that you reverted the referenced fact about scientists for a 2nd time even though i accounted for your1st revert by taking out the WP/FRINGE source. David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you actually read my latest edit summary, you'll find that that's not the case this time. A study that's not specifically about B12, and that only deals with a few dozen people hardly represents any sort of scientific consensus.  Also, it'd've been to your advantage to read the edit warring warning I left on your page.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing about a scientific "consensus" any more. The fact stated is supported by a valid reference, that is, valid to Wikipedia standards. You can disagree with the scientists, but it doesn't make your view trump their's, especially in an encyclopedia, lol. David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal interpretation of the results and novel application to the article goes against original research policy, and your constant reversion goes against our edit warring policy. Your addition "Further, it is currently believed among scientists that certain algae are reliable sources of vitamin B12 for humans" is an assertion of a scientific consensus that the source (again, not directly related to B12 and only examining 30 people) does not demonstrate to exist.  This isn't the place for you to push a pro-vegan POV.  Have you even considered why multiple editors have reverted you?  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Religion#Image
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Religion. — Sowlos 17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC) — Sowlos 17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
I really appreciated the barnstar - Thank you! AlexTiefling (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So called advertising
References are no advertisment. There are thousands of references to books in Wikipedia. We can call them all "advertisment" if we want to. The consequence would be, that you must delete them ALL. A book read in the public, already known by scientists working on this subject, should be listed here. Is Wikipedia a collection of antiquated literature? Evolution and Geological Planet Formation is clearly based on the Gaia-Hypothesis of Lynn Margulis: References page 31: http://www.uploadarea.de/upload/ufxgr7yu1eiet4pdnnk8yo86b.html. If you are personally against Gaia-Hypothesis and you think your personal scientific opinion or the main-stream opinion was crucial for the decision which literature should be listed in an encyclopedia, why don't you delete the whole page? Earth Formation (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many references in Wikipedia which are basically spam. We call them refspam and they should be replaced where possible by better quality independent sources. That is why we prefer scholarly sources such as peer reviewed academic journals.--Charles (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A high percentage of the books in the references is not peer-reviewed. Why don't you delete them ALL? Our encyclopedia must represent the full spectrum of scientific research. Menthors are not technically qualified to judge about "academic quality". The book is full of references to peer-reviewed articles. Do you know how many books there are in our references with irrelevant contents? This one is relevant and worthy to be discussed. I know this from highly qualified natural scientits working at universities in UK and Germany. Replacing refs where possible means to keep them, as long as there are no other publications on this subject. Otherwise America will soon be called a scientifically less developped country Earth Formation (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources cited are:
 * Actually cited for information in them instead of going "hey, I exist! (Buy me!)"
 * Actually published by organizations with reputations for fact checking (either being peer-reviewed journals, or published by university presses, or by other academic publishers)
 * It really does not matter what your book is based on. Simply throwing the title out so that people who don't know about it will know about it IS promotion.  You can try to equivocate and call it something else, you can lie to yourself about what you're doing all you want, but you are spamming.
 * Multiple editors have warned you to quit promoting stuff. The admins can and will block you if you keep spamming. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Earth Formation, your short history of editing here shows you have done nothing other than promote one book. Persist in this and you soon will be blocked.--Charles (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Demon
Can you have a look at this too? I'm not sure if to delete it entirely or just fix it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of it looks a little iffy, but enough of it looks good enough that I'm hesitant to revert it without looking more into the sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to Angels in Judaism (and Demon) page
Hi Ian, As you have noticed, the Angels in Judaism page (as well as the Demon page, to lesser extent) is being revised considerably. It is a course project. I would appreciate it if you could wait a while before performing any further deletions of entire sections, as the students need to present (and edit) their work. Thanks! MTB2112 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tidying up
After all the discussions at the Jesus talk page, I think will most likely be my last edit of substance regarding historicity. I think I have now added sources for almost all issues I can think of, or find. The 1 Thessalonians 2:14 item was the last missing piece I think. I will gradually slow down now, and given that you are younger, brighter and more energetic your help in watching these other pages will also be appreciated; Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus are pretty complete now, and pretty stable. Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Christ and Mara Bar-Serapion on Jesus are also in good shape, and fully sourced. They are essential historicity elements that have now been cleaned up, but will need attention for sure. Funnily enough Richard Carrier's blog once referred to the Josephus on Jesus page as a valid source.... Go figure.

I think on of the most fun items was explaining that a person born in 1380 could not have manufactured a document that was used in 1374!. That was fun. So, anyway, I think this will hopefully be the last page I have to build - but it was necessary for this, a page that may also need long term attention. But now, it is done. After Christmas I will really be slowing down. I know this has sounded like the "next good by forever concert" that many people sell tickets for, but in all cases, there is a last good by forever concert. Anyway, Merry Christmas in advance. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your good work, and Merry Christmas to you too. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way I used the wrong link above. It is this.... History2007 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Youtube
Ok on the people who think they are jesus brian marshall does youtube videos and was kicked out of a country for giving fake aids cure he has tried to get people to kill the queen and more and u dont think he should be added but aj miller is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.71.95 (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article, you'll see that there's actually a news source cited for that part. I left you a note asking you to cite sources, so I don't understand what your objection is, assuming you actually read my message.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure how to do anything on here never have before can u help me?≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.71.95 (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you get the links? 174.101.71.95 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked over them and have left a note on your user page about them. I also left a note explicitly stating that Wikipedia does not use forum posts or youtube videos for sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: original research at Demon (and Angels in Judaism)
If you have anything specific that needs to be changed on these pages, please let me know. Currently my students are ensuring that everything is cited from reliable sources. It would be a shame to lose all their hard work.MTB2112 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Re: original research at Demon (and Angels in Judaism)
Thank you so much for all your comments. I have directed my students to keep checking my talk page for your comments on their revisions. MTB2112 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection
Hello, I overhauled Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection by removing much of the trivia (for which I could not find reliable sources) and adding a "Shared themes" section. I think the article is in much better shape. While it is more sparse, I think there is a stronger case for having a stand-alone article as long as the standard is maintained. Please let me know at the AfD discussion what you think. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll revise my views. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)