User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 37

Warning of upcoming plagiarism
Hi, Ian. I've added a concise and expressive post of yours to my short list of "Clever stuff by others, for plagiarizing" on my page of tips to myself: It caught my eye because I'm just in the throes of trying to explain the use of talkpages to this user. I hope you like the compliment, and won't object to the coming plagiarism! (Of course I'll remove it if you prefer.) Bishonen &#124; talk 11:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Three years of adminiship
Wishing Ian.thomson a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Only three years? I thought you were one of the old guard. Anyway, this inspired me to abusively Wikistalk your contributions, where I found this priceless edit summary. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent block
First, thank you. My tinfoil hat concession cannot keep up as it is. Might I suggest tho you add BLP violation to your block rationale. NOTHERE could be questioned. Calling a former first lady a witch is indisputable. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Good idea to cover all my tracks, though I've get to have anyone question when I block people just for defending InfoWars. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with blocking the clueless at the earliest opportunity presented. Wish more administrators agreed with me. We need less people stuck in the ethos of the first decade here, and I'm glad to see we're getting more administrators that aren't. Every administrator should have to put in several months at the Teahouse. We'd get a lot better as a community in cracking down on clear POV pushers and paid editors if they did. Other than the high drama for those involved, I was glad to see the incident this weekend happening before the election. John from Idegon (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel I missed something, though for now I don't have the time to even get close enough to drama to toast marshmallows in it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Little School Mouse
I don't know what is with that editor who removes that content. Won't communicate and adamant about its removal. Doesn't like Tom winning? Also doesn't like the boomerang mention on my talk page. It has been removed a number of times. As if I don't have better things to do. Thanks for the cleanup! Cheers Jim1138 talk 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Tower of Babel
Hey so about the Tower of Babel page...sorry I don't know how to respond to you in like a separate chat than the actual homepage? So based on this: "Your edit to Tower of Babel was reverted because you changed the height of Etemenanki, also known as the Great Ziggurat of Babylon, which has only been raised as a possible inspiration for the tower of Babel story and not necessarily the tower itself. Even if we're going to assume that scholarship on the Book of Jubilees is wrong and it was not written during the late Second Temple period, it would stand to reason that the tower in Jubilees is not Etemenanki. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)" I respond: This is a bit confusing to me...are you saying that the Book of Jubilees is unreliable? Even if it was not in a certain time period like you said, the Book of Jubilees is still referenced later on in the page and it shows the actual height of what I was trying to state in the beginning of the page. I feel like it's misleading others to believe that the Tower of Babel is 91 meters when it's first searched when it's actually the 2,484 meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z5tequ2u (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

LyubenaFox
Hello,

Thank you for your time to review my article. I wrote an article about myself, since I am an artist and want to spread to word about my art. I want to ask if possible, since it was not clear: The article was declined since I'm not notable enough to have a wikipage or because of the copyright text that I quoted? (since the I own the copyright to the text and am willing to donate the rights)

Thank you for your time! Lyubena Fox LyubenaFox (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was rejected because the text was copied and pasted from your website. However, the lack of demonstrated notability would also be a problem even if you went through the process of donating the text.
 * Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a place to "spread the word". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that only cites, summarizes, and paraphrases professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply, I am asking since I have a acquaintance who has a wikipage about himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Smyth) and he is not more notable or famous than me so I though it would be acceptable. Would it be possible to ask about your advice in this situation? Why was his wiki article accepted and not mine? Thank you for your time Lyubena Fox LyubenaFox (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are only so many volunteers on the site at any given time, so it's never safe to assume that any other article is a reasonable example of what is or isn't accepted. However, in this case, there are two major differences:
 * -Smyth does not have a page about himself, we have an article about him. The user who started the page does not appear to be the Smyth.
 * -Also, notice that it's mostly a summary of the professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are cited, rather than a copy of his "About me" page with potential sources shuffled to the end only as "press." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review of Wadefrazier stuff
Ian, I've come across this kerfuffle at Talk:Edward_S._Herman via off-wiki contact with a work colleague, and I've volunteered to look into it, via the deletion review that you suggested. I'm told that Wade sent a permissions email with an appropriate license (for the parts he wrote, anyway), but I don't know whether you had any way to know that, and I don't know how I can track it. If you have any info that would help in filing a meaningful and neutral review, please do let me know. Note that I am not seeking to restore anything to the article, just to the history if copyright concerns can be addressed, so that others can see it and help figure out whether there's something useful among it all. Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, I see that WP:DRV is about article deletions. Is there a better place to review REVDELs? Ah, here, I see at Revision_deletion that I'm supposed to discuss or appeal at WP:AN; does that seem correct to you? Dicklyon (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm not really up to speed yet; just noticed that most of the deletions where of material copying others', not Wade's, writing; or he had already copied them into this site. Was it matter of too much literal quoting, not clear enough attribution, or something like that? Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I recall, it was other peoples' writings and they were no more presented as quotes than what I'm typing right now. I thought I'd seen DRV used for revdel review as well but yeah, you're right, the page does say to review at AN instead.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can I get a copy of the material from you by email or something, for review? Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since your reply, I've going through the material and the sources line-by-line without tools to refresh my memory to more thoroughly comment before sending it, and I'm seeing what happened.
 * I was relying on Earwig's Copyvio Detector to find where material came from and Duplication Detector to see what material was lifted. While I excluded anything prefaced as a quote, with over 20% of the article consisting of rather long block quotes, Duplication Detector could not show that for the block quotes.
 * After that, a couple of users who demonstrated no other interest but advocating for Herman basically acting like I'm just a jackboot stomping on the face of the proles gave me little reason to go through with the sort of review I did just now.
 * I will unrevdel the revisions in question. Not going to make any further effort in restoring the material because, after having had to read every single line in it and compare it with some of the sources, it's largely about his opinions on other people (rather than other people's assessment of his work and is rather on a quest to show that he was right and unbiased and anyone who criticized him was wrong and politically motivated.  I'd very much like to see a neutral article that explains his views with no more deification or demonization than we do for any other political philosopher.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. Yes, I saw that the discussion was not constructive before.  I'm not likely to take on trying to write this bio, but I might take a look into what they did, try to understand it, and cherry-pick a few bits. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Same situation (on a smaller scale) at Manufacturing Consent, Propaganda model, and The Political Economy of Human Rights. Can you un-Revdel those, too? Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And then there's Brian O'Leary. I might like to dig into what happened there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All that included material taken from Frazier's website, where it was published first. I'm seeing that was also the case with the Herman article as well.  I see that on his home page, he says that his site is "licensed under CC-BY-NC."  I suspect this is the origin of claims of permission.  However, CC-BY-NC is not a compatible license for Wikipedia because it prohibits commercial use, which our licensing can't actually forbid.  I'm going to have to go back on the unrevdel but you can see what he posted on his website - http://ahealedplanet.net/herman.htm, http://ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm .  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand about the NC, and told them so. But I'm told (by my colleague) that Wade Frazier separately sent an email (to OTRS) with explicit CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license.  I don't know for sure that that's true.  So, as I asked at the start, do you know a way to track that down?  Is there a process to search OTRS tickets, or someone I can ask to check on it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I found WP:OTRSN, and asked there: OTRS_noticeboard. We'll see what they can find. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * it's and is sort of in order; I can't go into details here but the gist is that content posted from the website is covered by CC-BY-SA-4.0.  One issue though the licence is for CC-BY-SA-4.0 and if this conversation relates to text, Wikipedia text is CC-BY-SA-3.0; is there backwards compatibility? Nthep (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Your contributions to adaptations of BY-SA 4.0 materials may only be licensed under: BY-SA 4.0, or a later version of the BY-SA license."
 * Adding open license text to Wikipedia an Copying text from other sources say it's backwards compatible for images but specifically not text, the latter noting According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licenses under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however media files uploaded under this license are fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably he was given wrong info then (copied from Commons I suppose), and might be willing to clear up that technicality by sending a new email, referencing that ticket number. Let me work on that end... Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to flag this up on userpages but the OTRS ticket confirms identity and therefore User:Wadefrazier has not created any copyvios by copying content from http://ahealedplanet.net, AFAIK reproducing your own material in various places under different licences isn't disbarred. Obviously other users cannot copy from ahealedplanet.net but could attribute any reuse of the material posted on WP to WP rather than ahealedplanet.net. Nthep (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (from OTRSN) I've put Verified account on his user and talk pages. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , if you agree with Nthep's analysis, please undo the Revdels. If you're still not sure, let's figure out where to get an official WMF legal opinion on how this self-copying licensing works.  In the mean time,, if an update to the ticket comes in, let us know. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Unrevdeling. I'm rather under the impression that one is not supposed to upload their stuff to our site without releasing it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 because subsequent edits would mean that other users would be violating copyright (which is one of the many, many, reasons we don't allow people to post their "about me" pages into articles about themselves) but it does look like Frazier was trying to release it from copyright even if he was choosing the wrong forms. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure about the licensing stuff; would like to get a more definitive answer if you know who to ask.  One more article:  Brian O'Leary; not sure if the copyvio here was the same sort, or something different. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I could've sworn I had unrevdelled that one. Nothing's happening when I click the "Change visibility of selected revisions" button.  Going to have to do it in chunks, it seems.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Got you
Got you Zebless (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Benjaminzyg
I do want my old account back.i stayed away from Wikipedia for a very long time and I stopped sockpuppetery. I want my account benjaminzyg to be returned. --1.159.52.47 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not your "old" account. We're talking about this set of edits, right? Ian, I'll let you give the official response; it's late here and I've seen too much nonsense for one day. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm about to turn into a pumpkin as well but given that I revoked TPA for Jenulot but not benjaminzyg, this might as well be be sockpuppeteer confessing to being Jenulot. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I stayed away from Wikipedia for a very long time, my account was locked by therenotime.2001:8003:DC1C:9E00:FDFA:18D9:6DAD:1AD8 (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * More block evasion from Jenulot. Blocked. SQL Query me!  05:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Hello, Ian.thomson, you stated on my User talk:EvanTeaches that I had tried to put false information upon the website. The page of which I editted (White Power) was not a victim of vandilization as you stated. In pages like Black Pride, you can see that it is a vision of pride and nationalism. White power is also an idea of pride associated with being an individual of Caucasian decent. It was brought up with the new ideals in the "black lives matter" movements and ideas. So, henceforth, my ideals were not false and my section was redacted for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanTeaches (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Black pride is a reaction against historical institutional racism, "white pride" was the white supremacists' reaction against the "threat" of equality. If you continue to push white supremacist bullshit anywhere on the site, you'll be shown the door.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018

Ian.thomson, I am not spreading white supremacy, I was trying to show of which modern White Pride, could insenuate, I did not mean to come off as an issue, however I wish not to be misconstrued. I know what old White Pride, could intail, but, new pride organizations push the movement of "All Lives Matter". I wish not to start arguements, as which I have detailed, but it is not white supremicism to depict what it could represent now. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanTeaches (talk • contribs)
 * The "All Lives Matter" meme is there to deny the existence of institutional racism -- it only helps white supremacists. The rebranding of "white pride" as not being white supremacist was started by the white supremacists in an attempt to appear more family friendly, it is nothing but a trick.  Final warning: stop spreading white supremacist bullshit.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2018

@User:Ian.thomson, I'm sorry we do not see eye to eye. Bottom line, we both wish to spread equality and we had a miscommunication. I'm sorry for any minor inconvienience; or major. Have a good afternoon.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanTeaches (talk • contribs)
 * If you really wanted equality, you wouldn't be trying to bolster groups who are historically and still currently "more equal" than others, using slogans created by racists. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to bolster any majority. I see your point, and I so hope forth that just because I had a different viewpoint you slander not me, as I shalt not slander group of thy, for that is not my point. I understand the culture of racism that America has, hell, I'm Irish (though not a major point in American oppression). So I wish to put this aside and wish you the best of luck.

PCarnifex
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-HyHZsa79LU well heres a pretty good source on the polistes carnifex changes, this video came out this morning and exactly what i described the sting of the insect to be took place. LucasIsNotAToy (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

IP 213.205.242.207
You may wish to remove TPA.-- Thegooduser  Let's Chat  🍁 23:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Thegooduser  Let's Chat  🍁 23:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Stotfold
I am trying to satisfy you regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stotfold_(grade_II_listed_Arts_%26_Crafts_house).

Your comment yesterday seemed to say that secondary sources are preferable to primary ones, and I have to conclude that I have failed to grasp some subtlety here, since it is self-evident in law - English law in any event, which is the law I have been practising since 1984 - that the best evidence should be preferred to secondary evidence; for example, this is the foundation of the so-called rule against hearsay.

I wondered whether you may have been indicating that there was no evidence that Stotfold was important enough to have a Wikipedia page, although that was more likely my misinterpretation of a standard (I assume) set of comments that you seem to have sent me.

In any event:

(1) it is a Grade II listed building, which is a classification only given to important historic buildings in the UK, and I have explained that in the text;

2) I have referred particularly to two sources, Bromley Council, and Historic England, and have included the citation appearing on the register of listed buildings, which largely refers to a primary source in 1907 and so must be regarded as a secondary source I think (I am unsure how you would regard the other two); and

3) I have deleted more information which I think interested readers may wish to know, on the basis that the less text there is, the less chance there can be of my draft page offending Wikipedia.

I see no evidence of other Wikipedia pages having been forced to pass the same test - and quite the opposite; I have given you the example (one of doubtless tens of thousands) of the page concerning the Leicestershire village of Stotfold which contains unsupported assertions of fact; and indeed I think (from memory) of opinion.

I do hope that it now meets your approval.

Many thanks

Mark Daley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotidianus (talk • contribs) 11:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, non-primary sources are absolutely preferred over primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTE.  Those are site policies, the social contracts of this community.  Primary sources only prove existence, not notability (i.e. that anyone else cares).  if you go to Twitter or Facebook, you'll find plenty of primary sources on people who we do not have articles on, never will have articles on, and should not be expected to have articles on.  Directories (be it the Historic England website or the phone book) only collect information from primary sources (without analysis) and so are generally treated as primary sources themselves.  This is not to say that Stotfold is yet another random house that no one cares about but you need to provide evidence that completely unaffiliated authors have noticed it by using secondary or tertiary sources.
 * The instructions I left in "How to write articles that get accepted" were carefully written to lead to the only route to getting the article accepted: citing at least three secondary or tertiary professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that provide in-depth coverage specifically about Stotfold without being dependent upon nor affiliated with it.
 * I am saying this to help you: trying to take other routes or trying to argue the point will only be a waste of your time and effort. You don't necessarily have to use the eight steps I provided (although it's the most efficient route), you just need to show significant coverage in reliable (non-primary) sources that are independent of Stotfold.
 * Mistakes on other pages don't matter. We're not omnipotent, the best we can do is try to stop new mistakes from being made.  At any rate, comparing a village to a single estate is not really even apples and oranges.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed the portion of the article which does not have a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.39.17.41 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Morningstar Debate
Ian Thomson, you keep changing and editing the talk about morningstar. You not only removed the whole part about angels, but you also removed and keep removing all the additional information. It's very evident that you fail to understand the refernece to stars as many of them are called morningstars. A lot of religious folks and pagans a like have the desire to claim ownership of the sun or the moon to their particular diety, now if you are religious, please put away your bias regarding that. I see a lot of bias in Wikipedia regarding the topics of the Bible particularly Lucifer and Morningstar. On wikipedia you remain unbias, truthful with references to trustworthy sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniora Sophia (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That last line is ironic considering you've cited no professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources to support your interpretation.
 * Wikipedia really isn't about "truth" as much as summarizing professional academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Aww
You didn't give me a chance to give myself the holiday treat of saying "Fuck off Nazi" to a Nazi. (sniff) Probably just as well. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't use automated edit summaries, but that really should be an option. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Tantrum?
So are "fiction" entries allowed? If so we shouldn't exclude Carl Sagan. --2602:306:BC74:6240:C92:EF19:7EF1:5EFF (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * wasn't clear.
 * Sheldon Cooper is a fictional character and chances are when he says "praise Jesus" it's probably sarcasm.
 * The Puddle Theory is an earnest satire of the Fine-tuned Universe argument. The article cites two sources that are not Adams' book, only citing Adams' book for the quote.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfwic (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year
 Happy New Year! Ian.thomson,

Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

User talk:49.145.253.126
IP-editor vandalizing talk page over and over again. Please see contributions. Shearonink (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Already taken care of. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just saw that. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Hello Ian.thomson: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, ― Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 05:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks
for your post on Talk:Did Six Million Really Die? in response to my query there. It does seem clear to me that this was a case of NOTHERE etc., but I didn't want to possibly go beyond the 3RR brightline. Shearonink (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)