User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 2

All old business is in the history if you really must read it for some reason, I just don't feel like having to scroll down the next time I get a message. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Discordian Pope
Hi, this is high enough so you don't have to schroll down. Have you considered putting the Discordian Pope userbox on your user page (see mine, I have that one and a Thelema link). Fnord, Aleister Wilson (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Pher, in the Sky, with dyed mints
Please look at my last two edits before Lima reverts. The page seems much fairer with those edits (please look at them as "previous" on the history page if they are gone). Christians have the named Devil and Satan and whatever else to have as an enemy, but Jesus Himself did not call that being Lucifer. Identifying that word with the Devil only gives it more energy in that direction, and to demystify it and, as Wikipedia is good at, giving accurate data, brings it back to its original meaning, which was and is very nice and poetic. I'm not a Christian, and neither was Jesus, and the article has such a Christian bias that Wikipedia standards are being disregarded, IMHO. Anyway, please look at the edits, because if they are reverted (I seldom get reverted) I'll bring this up on the discussion page. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nephilim
Re your exceeding WP:3RR, I feel that a block is not warranted this time. I trust that in future you will not exceed 3RR and realise that there are plenty of other editors apart from yourself to deal with vandalism or repeated re-insertion of deleted material. There are also other avenues open such as WP:WARN, WP:AIV and WP:ANI to use. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mithras
Thanks for reverting the moronic "Saturnalia" edits on the Mithras page! Roger Pearse (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Boore
Hello Ian.thomson, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Boore - a page you tagged - because: '''WP:CSD excludes contributions in foreign languages. They should be listed at WP:PNT.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for letting me know. I didn't recognize it as a language, sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - it certainly looked odd. I think it's Somali, but Google Translate hasn't got round to that yet. At PNT there is a chance that somebody will recognise it and maybe even translate; if it lingers there for two weeks untranslated, it gets PRODded. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You Are Warned
You keep putting back unreliable and debunked sources, and will be reported. I already provided the reasoning why the information was deleted from the Semitic page. I have asked mediators to get involved since you are just trolling my pages and reverting my edits out of spite.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check the discussion page again before accusing someone of not providing counter links. I provided a link to a counter scientific article that debunked that author's work. All his articles are heavily disputed and he is controversial. It is currently the ONLY study out there. Look, I apologize if I'm falsely accusing you of following me around Wikipedia. But that is how it looks to me when you immediately revert another article of mine that you haven't edited yourself. I don't have a personal agenda. I'm not a sad, paranoid person for seeing false and disreputable information being put on an article page? Unreliable and false information is supposed to be removed from Wikipedia, especially if there's a slant. It is highly offensive to have debunked sources to support some ridiculous claim about Iranians and Armenians being semitic. I've shown over and over that the author and his studies have been literally thrown out of respected journals for false conclusions. Why should I not care if false information and propaganda by a disreputable organization is being passed as fact just because I happen to be Persian?

Below is a sample of evidence from respected scientists. I left you the credible link, and supported my reasoning of why the information needs to be deleted, but I don't think you bothered to read any of the links or one of the counter papers by scientists that I provided.

Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002); doi:10.1038/415115b

Sir â€“ Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting.

The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews". They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewishâ€“Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times."

It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.

Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons.

Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

Neil Risch Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

Alberto Piazza Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy

L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...415115b_r.html

FYI: I made it clear, that the points I made on the Magi page, etc. were open to discussion from other people. I purposely left the information out there for others to discuss and reach a consensus. I also mentioned that there is no point in editing again right now, because you'll just go back and revert everything. I hope you respect the fact that the discussion is open to others to chime in and not bash me again and say I have some agenda. I only ask that you take into consideration my sources and historical research, and the feedback from other people. I guess we'll just agree to disagree for now. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

An addendum: The author who has made some outrageous claims in other studies has been discredited and his other articles debunked. All claims based on one genetic marker? Really? --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gents, I think the problem is largely one of editing style. Would you like to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magi#How_to_edit.2C_how_not_to_edit

for some suggestions on how to edit in a way that no-one can argue with, and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Semitic#Bad_paragraph

for a couple of points on a paragraph that needs improvement? I'm not actually interested in either subject, but the problem could be resolved by attacking the editing in a different way. Just my thoughts, and of course only suggestions. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Genetics?
Hi, what do you mean, when write about genetic similarities? --Zara-arush (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC) It may explain the following: "Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF), also known as the Armenian disease[1][2] is a hereditary inflammatory disorder[3]:149 that affects groups of people originating from around the Mediterranean Sea (hence its name). It is prominently present in the Armenian people, Sephardi Jews (and, to a much lesser extent, Ashkenazi Jews), Greeks, and people from Turkey and the Arab countries."
 * And it is only one fact, and there are other facts. I may have my own explanations of these genetic similarities, but they may be just speculations. But the results of an objective examination are needed.--Zara-arush (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Truce
Now that I've had time to reflect on the whole discussion, I'd like to take the higher road, and call a truce. I'm going to just say that we're both passionate people, and I actually respect that in someone, regardless if they agree or disagree with me. Apparently, tempers can flare in situations like these, but we're only human. While we can disagree, I sincerely apologize if I it seemed as if I my "tone" came across as unladylike. I had a meeting with group of women last night, and we discussed "acting with grace". So, after a heated discussion, I think it's best to offer a hand and say, that I've taken another poster's advice and will work on presenting my arguments in a different manner. I don't disrespect you as a person, so I hope you accept my offer of a truce. Peace be with you.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. And also with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good stuff! Roger Pearse (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are continuing disruptive editing as already indicated by other editors above
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Infinity G. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Infinity G. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.(UTC)FarmForce


 * For those interested, this was from a fellow that got angry that I warned him over the 3RR, because he wanted to copy and paste a copyrighted press release statement in the Infiniti G article, despite WP:ADVERT and the parts of WP:NOT explaining that Wikipedia is not a collection of every GD detail on the planet about every single thing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not angry. Just posted the same note you posted on my user talk. Same applies to you. And the above threads show you taking a liking to hack edits. It's really no big deal. I am backing out. It was a hobby for me to begin to share what I found and knew. I tried to contribute and inform. You have apparently a history of coming in and hacking threads. I spend hours over hours creating info on that thread over the course of the entire year for example uploading the transmission thread after I wrote it and you troll in and delete it with out any apparent back ground on the subject. Good luck to you. You will find your match too. :) FarmForce


 * I've only carried out 3 reverts, no more than that. You carried out 4 reverts. That's 1 more than 3, and the three revert rule says don't revert MORE than 3 times. I reverted 3 times, which is 0 times more than 3. You reverted 4 times, which means you reverted 1 time more than you were supposed to. Also, you know nothing about the above situations. I'm not asking you to leave, just please do not violate the rules against advertising, violating copyrights, and including way too much minutia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. You can count! As I indicated I am backing out. I spent many, many hours of contributing to this thread over 12 months as an owner and enthusiast. You came in without any subject matter expertise and deleted the last addition. I edited my contribution down to mere bullet point facts and a link to a press release (which are all over WikiPedia) to accomodate the concerns and removed potentially questionable content. You continued to flat out delete my entire contribution. In the end I am no longer interested to spend my time seriously trying to contribute in an honest manner and provide information and someone just comes in and deletes your contributions based on some reference to rules. Maybe I was not fully in compliance. Take a look that happens all over WikiPedia. Now if an official WikiPedia editor would have come in and asked my to revise giving guidance that's something else. But a self appointed rules enforcer repeatedly just deleting even as I was editing down is part of the end of engagement of the masses. I am not here for an editing fight or posting war. So long. FarmForce

Not to worry. :)
It's a bug in the software. Sometimes it'll credit the poor user who tries to mark an article for deletion with its creation instead. I just laugh and move on. :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For this! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * :) You're welcome and thanks! Jamie  S93  20:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Kurz and Allison
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Kurz and Allison. I do not think that Kurz and Allison fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because "major publisher of chromolithographs in the late 19th century" is a claim of significance. I request that you consider not re-tagging Kurz and Allison for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of my point is that a claim with "nothing supporting it" is itself reason to decline an A7, or more importantly not to tag, unless the claim is inherently incredible, that is absurd, (such as "Jow Blow is the current emperor of the United States") regardless of the reputation of the wiki editor involved. I was fairly active in the debates that led to the initial approval of A7 and had I known how over used it would be, i would have argued against it rather than in favor. WP:CSD says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." and "If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." Thgis is too often ignored, IMO. DES (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

satanism
Hey, ian. I'm a bit confused, though. it just seems awkwardly phrased and real definite, like just putting a statement out there: Music can't make anyone Satanist. It...I don't know, just seems slightly biased, no offence. just want to add to it a bit better. I want to edit to it as much as u do, man. Sorry if I did anything wrong. hope it isnt too big of a problem...I didnt change it though. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've modified it to be a little less definate. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, really, sorry to bother u again, but can satanists declare themselves openly on wikipedia? if they can't, well... Please, everyone is equal here, right? Iotamikadoshi (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * People are allowed to say what their religion is on their user page. I've seen some before.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could one, then, say, a fellow Satanist, use Wikipedia to talk about such subjects? I see from your user page that you are apparently interested in the occult, but you're also a...Christian...so I'm not sure if discussions with you might offend you...If you know anyone, please introduce him/her to me as soon as possible. There is much of interest that can be discussed. Thanks, :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

KK, TY!!!!!!! UVE BEEN SO MUHC, MUHC HELP!!!!!!!!!! YAY! NOW, I KNOW WHAT I CAN DO! (by the way, once, I was like many other ppl, but now...I know the right way to be truly free. ty! i do know a satanist, but he's really gey, so...) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

well, though i will try to respect ur beliefs, and i dont want to annoy u that much, but I know now if some religious admin tries to ban me for tihis, could u give me ur email, so i can totally tell u about it. i mean, if some1 does that, he/she's ip could be traced and ppl could even be arrested, rite? ty so much! :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ty, u've helped me alot. but, then...WHY r u christian? have u ever considered something...different? (hint, hint!) :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request from user
The user 187.22.194.155 Request that the User Ian.thomson remove this page about Carlos Alberto de Nóbrega of talk to article. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.22.194.155 (talk) 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it, it must have been deleted. I recommend putting at the top of the talk page something like "dear fellow editors, instead of placing a speedy deletion tag, could you please move this to the article space?" Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian, what happened that I could don't longer get in touch with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.22.194.155 (talk) 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please put stuff in my discussion page, not my user page. I went to bed late last night, so I didn't get out of bed until after noon.  I've only been out of bed for a few hours, and most of that was making breakfast.  Or lunch.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Henry Blomberg
Hello Ian.thomson, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Henry Blomberg - a page you tagged - because: Claim of having received the Distinguished Service Cross is more than sufficient for A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

question
so...I'm guessing you won't convert to devil worship/satanism? this is...awkward... Iotamikadoshi (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

...kk...Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

cmon, dude, i thought u KNEW most satanists r nice (well, maybe some aint, but, stil)...so, why u put pg on ur WATCHLIST? plz, tell me... Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

dude, i thought u were secretly a satanist, but then u went all, i'm a christian...wuts up with that, yo? dont u know what is GREATEST RELIGION ON EARTH? just lil hyper, lol..., but still...cmon...ur beliefs r SO diffrent from mine, its FUNNY. srry, no offence, but just need some1 to talk to here...:) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

look, i respect ur christian beliefs, but, cmon, most christians are TAUGHT to be christian by their mums and dads. satanists not so much. it aint taking a genius to figure out which faith is the stronger 1. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ian? dude? cmon, were best pals, right? (well, for now, at least) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

dude, though i remember japan only vaguely, from where i come from, christianity's way less powerful, so...HOW does this aply to me? (srry, dont get ur explanation...r all christians like this, ian?) :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WAIT, WAIT, hold on, i TOTALLY get u. ur PRETENDING TO BE CHRISTIAN TO SECRETLY HELP UR TRUE FAITH ON WIKIPEDIA, rite? sneaky...i'm impressed, thomson...wait, that is what u meant from ur message, right? cmon, not so good at english, but think i got that much...come then, if you mean it, and we have MUCH OF PLEASURE to discuss as peers! Iotamikadoshi (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

just curious, u like the japanese? (TRY NOT TO B RACIST, YO.)! Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

very well, very well, ian, BUT JAPAN IS WAY STRONGEST COUNTRY ON EARTH, RITE? (i mean, serius, look at ww2, it beat the crap out of america, china, korea, vietnam, manchuria, even torturing hitler's troops) AINT THAT WORTHY OF ADMIRATION? Iotamikadoshi (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

please, it is not so pleasant for me to hear of such poor things regarding this. I mean, the 'proper military' comment...kindly try to re-word your comments into something more appropriate (such as: IT CAN DEFEAT ANY COUNTRY ON EARTH!) kk? ty. :) Iotamikadoshi (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

email
Did you get my emails? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My Page
I would like to create a Guide page to the game Heroes of Gaia, but when I create a page it is nominated for speedy deletion, any way you can help me fix it to where I can continue to work on it? Anetic (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)