User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 31

Request
I'm hoping you'll intervene in the Malleus Maleficarum article and talk page, where Asterixf2 continues to stubbornly engage in a familiar type of behavior which is normally called troll activity, especially on the talk page. To use one representative example: when I criticized him for just giving his own personal opinions and I presented seven sourced citations from historians yesterday to show him how we're supposed to do things, he claimed I hadn't presented any sources, then proceeded to give his own personal views against the citations from historians I had added to the article, and ironically claimed that I was the one who was just presenting my own personal views rather than the other way around. This type of ironic "projection" has been his standard routine: you may recall that he did something similar to you a few days ago, responding to your valid points about his OR by erroneously claiming YOU were allegedly guilty of OR instead. Some of his accusations are completely random, such as his claim that I was guilty of "synthesis" for summarizing Wolfgang Behringer's position, despite the fact that I was accurately paraphrasing Behringer's views. Since Asterixf2 himself has never read Behringer's article and would have no way of knowing whether I was guilty of synthesis or not, he was just making up an accusation as a means of dodging the points Behringer raises. He also routinely makes up historical information out of thin air, such as his idea that the Malleus was removed from the Index of Forbidden Books even though there's not a shred of evidence for that and he hasn't presented any evidence; and only yesterday he was claiming it was never placed on the Index to begin with, which was also entirely unsourced. He clearly isn't arguing in good faith, in fact it's almost a textbook example of trolling. His edits to the article have mostly been an attempt to remove the consensus view among historians by replacing it with his own preferred view, which he implies is the dominant view among historians but his main sources are a literature professor and a linguist. He also uses the typical troll tactic of trying to dominate the article and wear down his opponent by his sheer volume of edits (look at his edit history lately). I've just spent more than a dozen hours over the last two days looking up information from reliable sources in response to his numerous claims, only to have him dishonestly dismiss it all as "OR". This is not how Wikipedia's editing process is supposed to be done, and we've already had far too many other similar discussions over and over again in this article and the many related articles. Most of his ideas have been refuted repeatedly, so I would ask that you please protect the article (after restoring the last good version if he changes it again) and block him at least for a few days so he gets the point. Ryn78 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked it over some. At first glance, it looks like both of you need to look in the mirror while reading WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI thing
Well, that was a weird little episode. Apologies for violating WP:DFTT, if inadvertently. Maybe there's a backstory here that I'm not aware of. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, you figured out who the account was a sock of. The kind of troll that would make a racist account followed by an account pretending to be anti-racist is just looking for any sort of attention and commotion.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DFTT is an essay; you don't "violate" it, strictly speaking. Adam9007 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A little help?
Hi, I'm new here and would greatly appreciate some assistance.

I've been trying to get a movie added to Robin Williams' wiki filmography. I know that this list is only a partial, but I thought it was a brilliant portrayal on his part. The movie in question is: "The Final Cut" (2004). Please give me some guidance.

Thank you! Lady Jkattz >"<. Lady Jkattz (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum

 * Since you've been involved in the Malleus Maleficarum article, I'm hoping you'll help with an impasse. Asterix won't even respond to my notes on the talk page (as of this writing), instead he simply reverts all the citations from historians who don't take his own view and then frantically stuffs the article with more authors who do support his view. This is a profound NPOV violation, needless to say, and hence would normally be termed vandalism as far as I know - I've been editing Wikipedia for over a decade, and this is one of the most obvious cases I've seen of someone not only making repeated wholesale deletions of large citations from mainstream experts, but also being quite open about it and then sitting online literally almost all day to spam the article with so much stuff that it becomes difficult to weed out the bad parts. He claims he's "improving" it, but this obviously isn't an improvement.
 * Even when he used to offer some sort of explanation for his deletions, they were often transparently dishonest, such as when he deleted an entire chunk of text from a mainstream book written by some of the foremost historians in this field and then tried to justify it using the excuse that the citation happened to have contained a typo (the authors were listed as "Joyy et al" rather than "Jolly et al"). When I fixed the typo and restored the corrected text, he deleted it again without explanation, then refused to discuss it. He then added lots of text from an author (Montague Summers) who was mainly known for books designed to prove his (publicly admitted) personal belief in vampires and werewolves. Summers wasn't an expert on the Malleus, much less a mainstream one.  Is this the type of author who should replace historians with PhDs and respected careers?  Shouldn't the latter group be included at least a little bit, here and there?  The previous longstanding stable version of the article has now been replaced with an unbalanced mess filled with authors whose claims have been thoroughly debunked by respected mainstream historians.
 * I can't do anything further and have left his edits in place since he stubbornly reverts every single edit that I make while refusing to discuss anything; so I'm asking that you please intervene in whatever capacity the rules allow. I seem to recall other cases in which this type of behavior has resulted in the offender being blocked and/or the article restored to the last neutral version, which in this case would be the last one before either he or I made any of our own additions (before c. 14:00 on October 17th).  That isn't "my" version since I only contributed a small amount to the previous form of the article, hence it should be a reasonably neutral version that doesn't favor either of us.  Here's the last neutral point I'm referring to:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malleus_Maleficarum&oldid=744802840    Ryn78 (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if you two aren't going to assume the least bit of good faith or respect for each other, are just going to view everything the other person does as unforgivably wrong, and try to justify this with huge walls of text that nobody cares to read instead of succinct points -- I don't have the time or interest for it. Try WP:TO or WP:DRN.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I initially tried to assume good faith until his behavior made it impossible to continue that assumption. And you may recall that I only posted a note to him on the talk page after you decided to criticize him there on Oct 19th, so I thought I should back you up by posting my own note. You're now just leaving me to fight a hopeless battle alone, when there's not a thing I can do in this case without administrative tools. Dispute resolution only works if the other side is willing to discuss, which he isn't. Ryn78 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Asterixf2. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Vami IV (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Gott mit Uns!

A cup of coffee for you!

 * When I glanced at his article contribs, they were still standing and they did appear to be good (which is why I left them alone). Even when I first glanced at the Marketing page, his edits were the one in place -- the revert he mentions happened over a week ago, did include reasons in the edit summary, and further reasons were given on the reverting editor's talk page.  It was not "without discussion."  Threatening to leave over this is not something to be encouraged.  That said, his continued presence is a sign that you've done a good job in encouraging him to continue editing productively.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This fine gentleman...
Good block. Thanks for handling so quickly! <3  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you did just as well in taking this target from me. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum
Thank you for your general consideration for this article. I'd like to bring your attention to a few issues in case you missed anything:

FYI1:

FYI2:

FYI3: a part of (long)

FYI4 (short):

Please note that this takes a considerable amount of time and lots of valuable content may not be written because of this. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any point in trying to sort out issues between you and Ryn78. When I have time, I may try to synthesize the versions you and Ryn78 have put up (because both versions have good and bad points), with detailed explanations for each change.  It will consist of including authors that each of you has problems with, noting their field so that the reader can make up their own mind regarding the authority of each claim.  Wikipedia doesn't say "this isn't good scholarship," it just presents whatever isn't rejected by mainstream academia.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion you are wrong regarding his content. Perhaps it is caused by the fact(?) that you have not analyzed his statements with sources or miss subtle manipulations distortions. Also, you are wrong regarding fringe (I guess you understand fringe very well, just referring to this comment). Wikipedia writes about fringe and even pseudoscience, but the condition is that it must satisfy WP:DUE. Therefore, you may have a wrong impression that I am completely rejecting sth Ryn78 has written because it's fringe. No, I am rejecting it if it distorts the source by omission of details, lack of context, direct distortion of source or because of WP:UNDUE (for example if it is in lead section). Alternatively, if it violates WP:RS. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: IP editors are allowed to remove warnings
Sorry, but I find it pretty sketchy and just a sign of ignorance if anything else. Parsley Man (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPO and WP:OWNTALK, which are part of the Talk page guidelines, any user (including IP users) are allowed to remove warnings. The only thing that's sketchy or ignorant is that sometimes vandals try to "hide" their warnings, but until they try to argue "I was never warned" in their unblock request we can't say whether it's that or that they're just acknowledging the warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel this user was trying to "hide" their warnings. And it simply annoys me so. Parsley Man (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tough for you. They were within their rights to remove the warnings and it would have not been a problem if they were trying to hide the warnings. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesus/Moses/Ignatius
The information is neutral, notice the wording "Some suggest". Tertiary sources are being added. Stop reverting the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Request
Hello.

User:Cavadxangence1992 (and through his other accounts) constantly changes the population numbers of the city of Ganja by bloating them up to 825,900 for the city and 1,000,000 for the metropolitan area, contradicting the official sources about its actual population which stands at 325,000 (as of the year 2015) and does it cross wiki in the Ganja city articles, including in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia (The population of Ganja has never reached these made up numbers let alone half a million. With over 2 million people, Baku is the only large city in Azerbaijan and the second and third largest cities have a population below 400,000). You confused me with the unrelated sockpuppet User:BatuhanDemirhan who previously edited in the same article for another unreleated reason and you blocked me while I reverted Cavadxangence1992's made up population numbers. Please check the official population sources of the city of Ganja yourself and revert them accordingly. Please don't impulsively and automatically revert articles without checking the sources yourself, as you did previously, and there were also spelling errors. Checking and correcting articles is also your duty in Wikipedia along with patrolling as an administrator.

Thank you.

31.200.15.226 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

OK
Watching. Nothing as of now. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think he's gone to bed.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirect links
Hello Ian.thomson, could you please delete the following redirect links: Acts of Shmona and of Guria and of Habbib, Acts of Sharbel and of Barsamya, & Acts of Sharbel and Barsamya. I created these redirect links thinking they were alternative titles, but I misinterpreted the academic sources. Thank you. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Those would have also qualified for  . Ian.thomson (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson Thanks for the quick response, your efforts are always appreciated. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What is actual difference between Christian mythology and Christian demonology?
What is the difference and why so much bias in favour of Christian mythological demons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.113.112 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Phuckzeitgayshit
You beat me to it. Nicely done! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gotta make second breakfast, so your turn. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Christian Mythology
The word "Holy" (Kadosh in Hebrew) is meant to distinguish it from other spirits.

And what is that supposed to mean? That Christian holy Ghost exists? Do you have any evidence that this holy Ghost thing exists? If not then stop pushing your agenda. Christians have as much evidence of their holy Ghost as Muslims have for Allah. And why only Christian Ghost deserves the word "holy" and not those other spirits (from which Christian Ghost is being distinguished)?

Your complaints about propaganda are more than ironic, given that your user page is nothing but propaganda.

Prove to me that anything I have posted on my user page is propaganda and contains no truth. I have also provided numerous links to external websites. Can you do the same without providing links to Christian websites which obviously believe like you do? And I'm not here to push anything but the truth. And I have posted that on my own user page and also provided a note on top of the page. And Wikipedia policy regarding management of a user's page by that user doesn't prohibit me from doing that. As I have already said previously, the content on my user page does not promote hatred, racism, homophobia, bigotry, sexism or any other kind of discrimination. Also the content on my page is not inflammatory, promoting violence, pornography or any other kind of negative thing. So it is perfectly valid for me to write whatever I wish on my page. 99% (or may be even 100%) of Christianity is nothing but mythology and there is nothing wrong in calling it Mythology and I have also provided valid sources and references wherever necessary. Also do yourself a favour and provide me valid links to prove that Adam and Eve existed, End times is real, and garden of Eden existed and that earth was created 6000 years ago and many other such things. Christian Mythology (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I was going to explain the concept of a title and define propaganda for you, but you're getting to be nothing but a waste of time and bandwidth. Do something useful for the site or I will block you under WP:NOTHERE.  I strongly recommend you stay away from religion articles because you are just illustrating the Dunning–Kruger effect.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:THE REAL EXPRESS
You may wish to revoke talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Abuse
Yeah, pretty sure mentioning someone's ethnicity is NOT abusive. Seriously?HeinrichMueller (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial and Trolling
OK, firstly, you have the wrong user. You are accusing me of abuse, trolling, holocaust denial, and whatever else. I mentioned the ethnicity of a couple people that was being disputed, to help clear that up. Also, someone pointed out that there was not one holocaust involving Jews. He mentioned there were MANY holocaust. YOU are the one denying that any other group of people have suffered a holocaust. Not ME.

It is clear that YOU are the troll here. Not to mention you must be stalking me, as I doubt you coincidentally came across two random entries of mine.HeinrichMueller (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I share the same concerns that Ian has, and your last couple of article talkpage posts increase that concern.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Since you are stalking me, you would see I generally contribute to articles on German topics. Topics generally dealing with ancient topics from 500-1,000 years ago. Nothing I have contributed is anything of what you say. I was on the page to the Ambassador to the Philippines, becasue I lived there for the past decade and had some business with him. I heard recently that he was no longer serving the Mission there and was checking it out, as he is still listed on the Manila Embassy website. I also heard there was a controversy recently about his homosexuality, and wanted to see about it.HeinrichMueller (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This troll has been blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I go to bed and miss all the fun.  Yeah, if not troll, then WP:CIR.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Roh Moo-hyun
There seems to be EW on this page. Traitor v. Hero. Not sure who is correct. Take a look, if you please? Thanks again! Jim1138 (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is, but it's currently slow moving enough that I don't see protection or blocking necessarily helping. Adding to watchlist in case that changes or 71.244.130.4 keeps acting up. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Beals back on Commons
If I remember right you had some trouble with this guy. He did an overwrite on a Trump pic at Commons tonight. The new account is, which I've reported for locking. Thought I'd give you and Mike Rosoft a heads up. lNeverCry  06:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted?
I was told to talk to you about the deletion of my Wikipedia page. So what's the scoop? Whyed you delete it? Everything on there was true and interesting! If you don't believe me google search DJ Darren Chraplak and go under news. You can also see pictures in images.

Thanks DJ Darren Chraplak (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Boinchi
Hello. Am the local resident of Boinchi and I know everything about mah town. Come here or send your representatives to verify that contents that am providing. One request to you. The user called ARNUNEEK has a personal cruel with me. Thats why he is continuously reporting me and mah edits. Look about it and I hope I will get justice. I have faith on Wikipedia till now. I created that page Boinchi about one year ago. You can look it in edit history and can also find ARNUNEEK in same. Thank u Suman6746 (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if you live there, you still need to cite a professionally published mainstream academic, journalistic, or government sources for new information. And looking at the history of the article, I see that it was created by a user named Bainchi.hooghly, and that Arnuneek has been removing advertisements from that user's draft. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello u need professional source? ?????? Ok am giving a professional source. Wait. And I like to tell u that I AM ALSO an ADMINISTRATOR of Bainchi Hooghly. Am giving source and then pls u guys pls dont remove that items from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman6746 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What if I said that I'm from Boinchi and I know you're not? It's not true, but do you see how that doesn't work?  That is why rely on books and websites, not what people say.  We do not even know if you really are from Boinchi, and we do not care.  We do not use original research, all information must come from a professionally PUBLISHED source.  You are not a book, you are not a website, therefore you are not a source.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

All right. Pls follow www.boinchi.in

.its our town s websites. And now you guys reset the whole things back that am trying to add. Thank u. Hope u will do it after verify all things from www.boinchi.in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman6746 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That website uses material from Wikipedia, which means that it is not a reliable source -- Wikipedia does not cite Wikipedia. Also, your other edits to the Boinchi article plagiarize from the website -- Wikipedia does not tolerate plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Damn. Bro I created that paragraphs. Every lines. Every sentences. As I said am one of the administrator of boinchi.in. so we used same paragraph s in both wiki in .in website. Now I am really fade. Alright no problem. Now I have no faith on wiki..... thank u guys. Pls block mah account. Or deactivate it. Thank you Suman6746 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Mah fb id - fb.com/sumanghosh.bubul1. Visit it. Mah wapp- 9933908269. And u will surely get that am not joking that am a resident of boinchi. Alright. I have done. Wikipedia should on shame. No faith on wiki anymore. Thank you for giving me time. Good bye. Am deleting mah wiki profile. Suman6746 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only person keeping you logged in and on the site is you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Block of X-Skull
Thanks for blocking that user. As I've said to JamesBWatson on his talk page, it's just the latest in a long line of accounts originated by Phantasus Magician. has a similar name, userpage, and has tag-teamed with X-Skull on several of the same articles, and they will likely log into this other account to continue vandalising.  Ss 112  03:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not likely anymore. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why...
Then if you don't promote music careers...why are all those other munitions on here? DJ Darren Chraplak (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Protecting a page
Hi, I would like to ask on how to put a semi-protected on a wikipedia article. i hope you respond to this. SS1902 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can request page protection at WP:RFPP, which I see you've already done. Other than that, becoming an admin, which takes a looong while. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you help?
Care to do something about this uncited OR? It hasn't been 24 hours, so I can't, and I'm not going to waste my time at ANI. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, though it has been about 25 hours since this revert by my count. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It has, but it would still have been my third revert in 24 hours. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice
An IP you blocked four times for being a block evader is back at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.105.169.53

--Nucdian (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

IELTS
I have attempted to score good marks in IELTS, areas I feel short are reading: even if i think i am writing the correct thing, the answer is wrong. At times the question and the pertaining paragraph are confusing and cant crack it under the time limit; writing: even if i plan to write things in a certain manner nothing works as supposed mostly due to time, no. of lines required and flow of thought on the subject changes while writing, better ones comes up. speaking: blanking out and hard to return to the conversation without breaking the ambience. I am also looking to improve my writing style, when I read other people's essays some have a more attractive writing style - can you help me to understand about writing styles and provide suggestions or point out on how to move past these issues.61.3.126.178 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I teach just speaking classes, other teachers handle the reading and writing classes. I will have to check with some of the other teachers for tips on those.  For now, the usual advice I give to my students: Are you using mind maps or word maps for your notes instead of a linear outline?  The second part of the speaking test almost requires word maps, and there's no time to write out the whole speech.  I'm not finding the best illustrations of mind maps right now, but the upside to those is that you don't have to worry losing your spot.  They can be arranged however you need them to be arranged, since they're basically spider diagrams.  If you forget what you were going to say, just move on to a connected bubble on the mind map and keep working your way around it.  Plus, if you have a large enough mind map, all you need to do is say one or two sentences about each bubble, throw in things transitions, you've got an easy speech.
 * Also, try studying public speaking tips. There should be a whole online video course here, and plenty of other videos on YouTube.  One of the biggest things to remember is that the person listening to you almost never knows you made a presentation mistake unless you call attention to it.  Yes, it's their job to spot grammar errors and such, but they won't know that your speech was "out of order" or that you forgot something unless they look at your notes.
 * As for reading and writing: the only thing I can recommend off the top of my head is practice, practice, practice, especially if timing is an issue. There are different techniques for Speed reading, but different person will have better luck with each technique.  Before reading something, you may want to skim it really quick to look for keywords, then read it again in depth.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, your speaking tips and insights is proving to be good and I haven't read about it as such before. I came close with memory palace but employing it seemed a bit hard and something that required practice. If you find any material/book regarding writing styles (ways of expressing a incident or subject) kindly hint here. I feel I lack good comprehensive reading skill (do you have anything on this other than SQ3R) and reading style technique from Speed reading. My experience says skimming and scanning requires a good understanding of synonyms.I hope repetitive practice will help. Thank you again and Good day. 61.3.126.178 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear instructions
I never did find the blurb about putting donation language on Shaheen's website (3x?), but I'm sure it's in my pages and messages somewhere. There's been a lot to read and absorb so I'm not surprised I missed it. Your info was clear, short, and to the point. I went right to the website and put the notice on. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
LOL. I just clicked on the heart and found out I can send you a special note of thanks!

Cstwct (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC) 

Vandalism reports
Can I have you take a look at these two accounts:



AIV is protected, and since I saw that you were just there, I thought that I'd leave these here. Thanks! 71.237.141.40 (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

125.60.156.240
Ah, just found another one... is back at it again after your previous 24 hour block. 71.237.141.40 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Unblock
Please unblock MisterAnthony. --24.251.87.219 (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent block is back
User:223.225.142.245 who you just blocked is back as User:Amanbir II. CMD (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Genesis flood narrative
I'm curious: you berate my comments as "waaay the fuck out of line", and then proceed to undo my edits, changing to the present tense where the present perfect is necessary. I realize that you're an administrator, and are therefore infallible; I wouldn't dream of saying that you're wrong, but using non-standard verb tenses just makes the prose confusing. Is reverting me really that important? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't realize how calling those who disagree with you idiots and the tin foil hat crowd goes against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, then maybe you should do something else for a while.
 * The tense is a different issue, and WP:AGF would require viewing it as such. I left the core part of your change: consensus doesn't "show," it just "is."  I changed it from past tense ("was") to present tense ("is").  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No sir, you did not. You changed it from the present perfect tense to the present tense. It did not say "was", it said "has been". It was never written in the past tense, and had it been, it would have needed to be changed to present perfect, not present. The present tense is entirely incorrect. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, you've been way too touchy about all this. You really need to back off, take a deep breath, and not come back until you can approach this with no hostility whatsoever.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI 666 in Genesis 28:14
Re - recent edit on 666 page (source Genesis 28:14) Please see: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/28-14.htm‎ כַּעֲפַ֣ר‎ – as the dust – 20 + 70 + 80 + 200 = 370‎ הָאָ֔רֶץ‎ – of the earth – 5 + 1 + 200 + 90 = 296‎ ‎370 + 296 = 666‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.160.26 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is original research, which Wikipedia does not use. You need secondary or tertiary professionally published academic sources that document the claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Urgh. Now I remember why I don't bother editing Wiki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.160.26 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that anyone will be bothered to publish my finding so you might as well delete it from the wiki. Have a good day!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.160.26 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S - Genesis may never mention the term 'gematria' but it certainly employs Gematria - only it is for the Paleo-Hebrew script and so standard is wrong. Shin = 3 and Tav = 4 for Paleo-Hebrew (that is also O.R. however).

Like this (which you also can't publish on Wiki):

Genesis 1:2 says: והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים: "And the earth was without form and void - and darkness(37) - was on - the face (140) of the deep (55)". Also note that in 1:3 the gematria for light א֑וֹר is 207.

Now look what happens when we add light and subtract the darkness from the face of the deep: 140 + 55 = 195 (Face of the Deep) 195 - 37 (Darkness) = 158 158 + 207 (Light) = 365 - the number of days in a year.

That's because the Merkabah was concerned with times, seasons, the alphabet, lights in the sky etc...

I hope you've had a nice thanks giving. Over and OUT! LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.160.26 (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok
So what if the artists didn't write it or didnt. I also did put a link in my article with a newspaper article that was NOT written by me! I also have a radio show, t.v. show. Check them out! DJ Darren Chraplak (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine
Fine, I accept that you don't want anything to do with me. Can you at least get me all that text back. It took me hours of time to were that. Thanks😊 DJ Darren Chraplak (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your email is not enabled, so I am not able to email the text to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:24.251.87.219
The blocked user editing from the IP is being HIGHLY disruptive Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro. Can we blokc him?Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

non-Wikipedia bots having access to user talk pages; request for privacy
Hi Ian. I was just made aware that it's possible for non-Wikipedia bots to access user talk pages and turn the information into searchable internet content. I've been very open with Wikipedia, using given names because I thought the pages were protected. Because of the non-Wikipedia bots, for privacy reasons, I've replaced my given name, and my father's and my husband's names, with initials. You used my given name and the website name a couple of times in your posts on Diannaa's page. Would you be so kind as to replace my name with the initials CS and refer to the website name as AS.com? I'd really appreciate it. Thank you very much.Cstwct (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:LTA
You mentioned WP:LTA in this talk page post and I'm curious to connect the dots, because reasons. Which LTA case were you referring to? Elizium23 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This one, though I don't think they're the same guy now. That IP is definitely Heinrich not getting the point, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A slice for you
Nice job cleaning up pizzagate, are you going to move it into mainspace? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still concerned over WP:EFFECT. I'll wait til the MfD finishes. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Annoying that people vote delete without reading the article and looking at the sources. In general at deletion talks, I think the first !vote is a strong influence for the next two votes which are usually knee jerks without actually reading the article in question. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI: I've increased protection to extended confirmed to start to deal with issues like the most recent unpleasantness.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw, thanks. Good to have an uninvolved admin on the scene.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus at ANI was that the mention of the falsity of the accusations is an essential part of BLP compliance, and I've blocked, protected and warned on the same basis. I see little point in debating, it just drags you into "involved" accusations. Revert, warn and block. Hopefully the protection will confine the disruption to the talkpage, though that might have to be protected too, a la the first use of 50/300 with GamerGate. It helped greatly there, and this is far more straightforward.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already re-written a draft and argued for it at MfD, so there's material to claim I'm involved. I don't want to be, and I'd consider another admin uninvolved, but I know that it could be used against me.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh look: the first brand-new account has appeared on the talkpage to argue! I'd suggest leaving those explanations to someone else, it will just be aggravating.   Acroterion   (talk)   01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gotta go teach, anyway, and I still haven't had breakfast. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

BatuhanDemirhan
looks to be evading their block here. Sro23 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior
Hello Ian.

I am an administrator of the Wikipedia Lusofona and I am here to ask you for a help with the user. I am creating a summary of the user's behavior so that, if necessary, I require infinite blocking in lusophony.

I realized by another user, that Andre has a similar behavior with the Lusophone Wikipedia. This one has been making questionable edits and then it shoots offensive words, summarizing a coarse behavior and without any respect to the other users. Requiring the blocking of users just by being reversed by these and calling them vandals and trolls.

In a small review on the user's talk page I see the similarity in behavior. Funny that this had only 3 issues in Lusophone up to 15 days ago. In a short time it has been giving problems. So if possible it would be very helpful to summarize you by reporting user behavior so that I can add in the evidence in the blocking request. Thanks for listening. Le Comte Edmond Dantès  msg 05:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Gean,
 * Here's what I know about him, in summary:
 * Andre claims to have tried to create Emprego garantido at pt.wikipedia, and made some rather insulting claims about the admins.
 * After that, he advocated a disproven and libelous conspiracy theory at Pizzagate. When multiple professionally published mainstream news sources were presented, he screamed about being right without ever presenting sources (as can be seen on his talk page).  He then edit warred to add citation needed tags to Pizzagate, even though it is a disambiguation page and so does not have references per WP:DABREF.  This was explained at Talk:Pizzagate.  He was blocked for disruptive editing, during which time he hypocritically demanded sources that had already been presented, despite his own continued failure to provide sources.  He was given repeated and detailed warnings about the community's views on conspiracy theories and libel, to which he responded with personal attacks, claiming that Wikipedia is somehow worse than the Soviet Union (a favorite complaint of his).  Once unblocked, he continued demanding that sources be presented while somehow acknowledging that they had, and started fighting to support the disproven conspiracy theory at Comet Ping Pong.  When WP:DABREF was explained to him so clearly that he could no longer pretend to be ignorant of it, he accused me of being involved in the imagined conspiracy and of deleting a draft I had simply renamed.  He was blocked indefinitely shortly after, to which he responded by claiming that everyone else should be blocked.
 * There appear to have been some other issues before he posted on the administrator's noticeboard, but I'm not familiar with them and have not investigated them. I'm not aware of what standards pt.wikipedia blocks or bans users, but by en.wikipedia's standards, he shows concerning competency issues relating to assuming good faith, civility, providing sources, identifying reliable sources. He is not here to collaborate but to advocate for debunked conspiracy theories that violate our policy on biographies of living persons.
 * In short: he cannot work with others, he cannot discuss matters reasonably, and he does not know the difference between real and fake sources. Good luck dealing with him.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the text (abstract). The page Emprego garantido in pt.wiki was with a horrible translation. The user has been offensive since the first message to another user. I had no knowledge that he made those statements about other users.


 * In the wiki, users have a little more patience and good faith presumption. I applied for a block of three days, at the beginning, he created several badly written articles. Any Portuguese teacher would cry while reading. Then he started with his behavior, he blamed the Wikipedia translator, defended that Wikipedia is free and even required blocking other users for it. Shortly after they requested his blockade, another user did not make the blockade in the first instance, but André kept shouting, calling the others of vandals and wrote several words of low slang. So I blocked it for three days. After the deadlock expired, it returned by making some questionable edits, reverted, and returned to its behavior.


 * I passed the same messages to the other users involved with André, I ask your permission to use your text to request an infinite blockade of André.


 * I would like to apologize for mistakes, I have a fluent level in English, but I have problems with sleep and with many tasks outside the wikipedia that are leaving me exhausted. That's why I'm using the translator. Le Comte Edmond Dantès  msg 06:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are quite welcome to cite my experiences. Don't worry about mistakes in your last message, I understood it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just revoked his talk page access because he just compared good editors to the Inquisition, the Nazis, and the Soviets. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help, I hope the blockade will be carried out without opening a debate. Lusophone Wikipedia is facing some problems, administrators and deleters are loaded. And yet a totally offensive being appears. Thanks for the help again. Good contributions. Le Comte Edmond Dantès  msg 07:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

James Corbett
You sure know how to sweet talk guy who's just trying to make an article. RT is a news channel, like it or not, or perhaps you should remove the all of the RT related articles. And for the record, Jesus Christ, there are a lot of people with JC initials. Fictional like Jesus Christ and John Connor, and real like James Corbett in Japan and me here in Windsor Ontario. I don't know how you do it but check the IP thingy. Also, he's likely too busy to care about Wikipedia articles because he's reporting on geopolitical abuses of power which occasionally gets termed "fringe" or the CIA's vilification term "conspiracy theory" because it drills through the torrent of mainstream media and government propaganda lies. I can list some if you like. Now that you've given me some overly harsh criticism I can address the issues and make it better. The draft should not be deleted, but I admitted at the top of it, that it needs more work. (copied here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:James Corbett (journalist) and here: User talk:Ian.thomson and here: User talk:JasonCarswell) ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   09:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * RT news is a propaganda arm of the Russian government and known for spreading pro-Russian and/or anti-Western misinformation. I'm not a checkuser.  Wikipedia is not here for you to advocate conspiracy theories on, and if you can't or won't accept that then you are not welcome here.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

i need yuor help sir can you plese post my article because iam not able to upload it and picture is not uploaded in article iam facing problem can you please upload my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Wonder pekhwar (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

New page
Made a new page for Michael G. Flynn. Feel free to edit it and change it. How does it look so far? Sagecandor (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work. I don't plan on getting too much more involved.  My main reason for getting involved with the Pizzagate stuff was concerns about BLP and Fringe -- removing unsourced material and only citing what others brought up.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So you don't have any of those concerns about this page? Sagecandor (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put it on my watchlist because I'm sure some Pizzagater will come along at some point and try to replace the content with some martyr story, but the content that's there as of this posting seems to be just fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Maya Jenkins
Question - I'm still somewhat new to the AfD discussions and how the consensus process works but if a user is found to be in violation of wiki rules, such as how User:WikiPR1234 was and is then blocked, is their 'vote' on the discussion removed or discounted? Chrissymad ❯❯❯  Talk   14:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only rule they were in violation of is having a username that does not meet our guidelines. They were even encouraged to create a new account.  Their comments/vote should not be removed.  It could be discounted by the closing admin as they have a declared COI and their opinion is biased.  - GB fan 14:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

December Black Lives Matter edits
Hi there. I noticed you reverted some changes to the Black Lives Matter article citing behavior of the editor ActorBoss. It wasn't clear, however, what was wrong with the content itself. I checked out the provided sources and (aside from being Daily Mail and FoxNews) the content seemed to check out. Was this an issue of content or just disruptive behavior? Perhaps vith some modification, it seems like it belongs on the article. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone else thinks that it's worth adding, that's fine, but can you blame me for being cautious about any addition made by an avowed believer in white pride who had been attacking any editor who didn't likewise advocate white pride? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No doubt, I understand. Just making sure there weren't other reasons I was missing, thanks for clarifying. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, to be clearer, I'm not necessarily for adding it either. I'm neutral to the actual content.  If someone thinks it's not worth adding, that's also fine.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, thank you. Also noted and I assumed as such. It's currently being discussed. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User talk:ActorBoss
After you blocked ActorBoss, an IP came behind and. I was bold, reverted the edit, and left a warning on the IP's talk page. Just an FYI. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You're good you
You're good at keeping a cool head and remaining polite and civil in frustrating situations. I can see why they made you an admin. :) Sagecandor (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, really, I could've dug up plenty that'd've killed my RfA. Done some since that that would've killed it, as well.  Nice to hear that one of us sees why, though.  You've been contributing quite a bit to contentious topics while avoiding trouble, as far as I've seen (not that I've been digging through).  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, thank you, I guess? Sagecandor (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, forgot to include the "good job." Was trying to get ready for the weekly (currently aborted) D&D game. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you spoke too soon. I'm at WP:ANI now. :( I hope my reply looks somewhat understandable to newcomers. Sagecandor (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir
sir i have written an article but submitted it in draft form but i did not get any kind of suggesstion regarding it.Can you read it or how it can be approved for publishing it on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Wonder pekhwar (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DEIPHIX


The article DEIPHIX has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Blank page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GXXF T • C 22:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"grudge"
Speaking of GF, it's hard for me to believe you'd mischaracterize me as having a "grudge" against an editor with whom I've had exactly one interaction with prior to ANI - in a Talk page in which he/she edited my comments, six days ago - merely on the basis of me pointing-out said violation of WP:TPO. "Grudge" usually means ill-will developed over a long period, not making a very brief, factually correct observation of what a total stranger did six days ago. I don't know anything about User:Sagecandor beyond that single interaction and I don't edit the types of articles he/she is active on so it is unrealistic to suppose I have any type of "grudge." An apology would be appropriate, though, whether or not you offer one is obviously beyond my control. Best regards - LavaBaron (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's all your prior interaction and you jumped to "block indefinitely," then you really need to read WP:Assume good faith (over and over, until your eyes bleed) and quit being so damn bloodthirsty. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked you not to mischaracterize my relationship with the other editor as being a "grudge". I'll now also as you not to misquote me as having called for an indefinite block when I said I supported a "72-Hour Block".
 * Anyway, this is obviously not a discussion that is going in a productive direction so, out of respect for you, I'll cap my comments there. I'd just politely ask you to consider, in the future, that there are human beings behind these usernames and declamations like "you're bloodthirsty" can, and do, hurt real feelings.
 * I'm sincerely sorry our first contact with each other on WP didn't go better, but very much wish you the best in any case - LavaBaron (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 72 hours, indefinite, whatever... Over a good-faith mistake that happened over a week ago that the user was warned about and expressed contrition over, that you did argue was usually cause for an indefinite block... That's bloodthirstiness. And to express that bloodthirstiness over one prior interaction is ridiculous.  Did you consider that there's a human being behind the name "Sagecandor" before you started calling for a block, over, again, a mistake over a week ago?  You're not in any position to lecture here.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "That is usually cause for an indefinite block. I think I'm being generous by only suggesting 72 hours." Indefinite was mentioned by the user. Sagecandor (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - and this may be another "whatever" error - but I don't believe the editor was either warned or expressed contrition about editing my Talk comments. The warning and contrition seemed to be about a different matter entirely. Between "grudge" and "indefinite block" and "warning / contrition" there seems to be some oversight on the correct details of this incident. And I have no problem in politely and professionally recommending editors be blocked; blocking is preventative, not punitive, and does not impugn an editor's character or personality. To call someone "bloodthirsty," however, is to say that person is savage, sub-human. It made me feel bad about myself. I would never cut another human with either a knife or with words and I hope, one day, you decide to follow that path as well. Have a great evening - LavaBaron (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me state it was wrong of me to edit talk page comments of others. At the time I felt victim to a violation of WP:NPA, I see now from advice from helpful editors including, that sometimes it is best to let the offending words remain for others to see, and judge for themselves of the character of the person that deigned to write them. Sagecandor (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Sagecandor. I do appreciate your apology and recognition of the issue. Obviously in the heat of editing we can make mistakes and apologizing is a good way to signal others that it was, indeed, a mistake and not an attack. I accept your apology without hesitation and sincerely thank you for offering it. I appreciate all your hard work on WP. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope that in the future, we can all focus on content not on contributors, and especially not assume bad faith and cast aspersions as to particular users editing times. Sagecandor (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome! LavaBaron (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing old block notices
I think it is conventional to leave the old block notice. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does that apply to redundant block notice when two admins try to block someone at the same time? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, ah, check and mate on me, my friend! For some reason, I thought that was a temp block from a year ago. No clue why my eyes didn't land on the date. Cheers! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I figured it out. I saw this and thought the notice was from the 29 November 2008 by John block. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
When making updates/changes, please use NPOV as per its wp page. Everyone in their right mind knows Alex Jones is a nuttjob, however, the article should be balanced and fact driven in nature which is not reflected by indiduals saying that it is "fake news" because a website said it was. 25162995 (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reducing it to "other online media outlets" makes it look US News and World Report is equal to InfoWars, and that the fake news label is just business competition. Also, Daily Dot article cites a professor of communications, so it's not just their opinion.  You are feeding the POV of conspiracy theorists.  No reliable sources would contest the description as a fake news site.
 * And really, do we need to go through citation overkill before we just go with what the sources say, instead of framing it as just their opinion?
 * You are feeding the POV of conspiracy theorists. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Very true, and it should be edited and amended to reflect the facts that we have rather than whitewashed with individual opinion. There is no source to attribute that it is actually fakenews. Instead, opinion from the media has labeled it as such, which is not fact but opinion. Again, the latter should be reflected in the article to make it balanced and fair. 25162995 (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The original text was "has been labelled a fake news website." Saying that it's just their opinion that a website that claims the US gov't was behind 9/11 as part of some New World Order plot is fake news is ridiculous.  And again, the Daily Dot article cites a communications professor.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Therefore it should be fleshed out and the information you have just provided should be added to give the layman a better understanding firstly of why it is considered "fakenews" and what research/factfinding has been undertaken. It should probably have its own subsection about the "fakenews" if there are substantial amounts of information about the latter. 25162995 (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)