User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 40

The nihilistic approach that makes people lose hope...
On the consciousness after death section it falsely says "science established consciousness comes from the physical functions etc" which is extremely false as science had never established that consciousness is originating from any physical function, actually it is the opposite, the more evidence shows that consciousness is an immaterial entity which has always been the case, furthermore there was no reliable citation for that false claim either, it was made to upset people and make them think that life is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirikagure (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's not censored. Science is only concerned with the physical, not the metaphysical.  The problem isn't science, it's either the expectation of a physical soul or else a failure to understand what science does.
 * And, even as a Christian, I must point out that too many people avoid finding meaning in this life because they think it'll work out in the next (whether it's reincarnation, heaven, or whatever). Also, you seem to have Annihilationism, secularism, empiricism, nihilism, and atheism all mixed up, which are distinct (if potentially compatible) concepts.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your post to RSN this morning
That editor seems to have competence problems at the least. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I was getting ready for grocery shopping and didn't want to go investigating too much, but even asking if Bill Warner (writer) is reliable is a red flag. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your complete failure at reading my requested edits on Central Asia in my report
@Ian Thomson, I was arguing against Afghanistan being recognized by Humboldt and Mongolia being recognized as part of it by him this whole time, your confusion about what I am actually saying only proved that you never bothered reading my edit. I would highly advise you re-reading what I actually wrote in my written citations and in my report of the other user, Casperti. The other user is apparently writing deliberately misleading information about Afghanistan being part of Central Asia while omitting Mongolia, which blatantly misquotes his own citations of Humboldt (There is no mention of the Hindu Kush being the southern limit of Central Asia while he explicitly mentioned the Eastern limit being that of the Khingan Mountains of Eastern Inner Mongolia). Please check the citation yourself. Again, I don't have the time to visit this website often and arguing with you people, just fix it if you care about any academic factuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirgen666 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now made the edit, you can check the authenticity of my sources yourself on the Central Asia Page. Here is my edit summary:

Previous editor content did not match the editor's own citations. No mention about Central Asia's southern border being the Hindu Kush, etc. in the original text by Humboldt in French. In addition, my own additional citations are taken out of L.I. Miroshnikov's works in the book "History of Civilizations of Central Asia, p.477-478. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirgen666 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't care about the content of the article, don't post here about that again.
 * What I care about is that you were edit warring against the consensus on the talk page.
 * What I care about is that you think that working for a PhD on a few months makes you a better person than everyone here when you show less cooperation than the toddlers I work with.
 * What I care about is that you responded to everyone with incivility and even tried to engage in offsite harassment, and yet have the damn gall to try to call out anyone else's professionalism.
 * Do not post on my talk page again, or make any of those prior mistakes, or I'm going to have to assume that you can't or won't cooperate with this community's practices. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, how am I engaging you with less civility than you first engaged me? With you name calling me first and inability to address the matter at hand? This in fact speaks to your professionalism. And make no mistake, I am not coming here to start edit wars, I was arguing to defend my contribution. If you think this is part of not cooperating with community practices, then we can appeal to some higher wikipedia moderators if you wish.

I in fact don't think I'm better than anyone else. Try to not have slanderous assumptions about people please. My own background is indeed irrelevant, but I have my citations to speak for themselves, which is not defended by the other side. Anything else - well that's the appopriate response to your own inappropriate language as a moderator, I believe.

Jirgen666 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I told you not to post here again. Between that, your prior attempt to harass me offline, and your continued refusal to consider the possibility that maybe there's some problem on your end, I'm blocking you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hethinksheissomeone
I was wondering how long it would take. I also wonder whose sock it is, I have my suspicions but it nothing definite.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Long-term issues at Habesha peoples
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:NPOVN. Gyrofrog (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (Just FYI if nothing else. See also: Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter. You'd opened a previous SPI for this user.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps,, you should read WP:CANVAS, WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:ADMINSHOP. John from Idegon (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it was not unfair to ask me. That article has had proven sockpuppetry in the past, of the sort that usually doesn't just suddenly stop but requires a constant drag against.  The only reason I haven't really gotten into it was that I looked at the article history in a long while and would need time to refamiliarize myself with the goings-on there before reaching my own conclusion.  Gyrofrog and I don't regularly arrive at completely opposing conclusions in such matters, which is why I wouldn't consider it a waste of my time to confirm matters for myself -- if I had the time to prioritize it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Waldensians
Hi Ian,

fist of all I think your article on the Waldensians is amazing!

I wanted to just put in a few edits because I have read alot about them and have direct ancestors that were Vaudois from the French side of the Cottian Alps that escaped, first to Geneva and then to the dutchy of Württemberg. A generation later, they emigrated to Philadelphia. I have become therefor quite interested in their situation.

There is extensive writing about them. For instance the book written by the Vaudois pastor Antoine Monastier in 1847 in 2 volumes, translated and published in London:

https://books.google.no/books?id=8i0EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=origin+of+the+name+vaudois&source=bl&ots=1WTKcsZfCo&sig=ACfU3U1eCibZ6wLMme4JfXkvwXX9J5WZ1g&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4k-vl6vjoAhVE-yoKHcKqDQkQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20the%20name%20vaudois&f=false

https://archive.org/details/ahistoryvaudois00monagoog/page/n70/mode/2up

The Waldensians' most important belief is in the scriptures from the New Testament and especially important is The Sermon on the Mount.

In chapter XII, from page 52-60 regarding the origin of the name, Vaudois and Pierre Valdo or Peter Waldo, is very interesting and truly worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article. It would give a nuanced approach. The Waldensians existed before Peter Waldo.

Gabby 08:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedlagt (talk • contribs)
 * It's not "my" article, it's the community's. The community has some standards about sourcing, and those standards favor modern non-sectarian scholarship over outdated sectarian works.
 * I'm aware of Monastier's book, it is already discussed in the article.
 * The Waldensians themselves, and mainstream historians, both affirm that the movement started with Waldo. Repeating Monastier's claims doesn't make them valid. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Waldensians themselves, and mainstream historians, both affirm that the movement started with Waldo. Repeating Monastier's claims doesn't make them valid. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course. Is it correct that you accept edits of the article? If so, I wonder if it would be possible to mention, in the beginning, that it is the belief of modern main steam historians that the Waldensian movement was founded by Peter Waldo but that there is strong evidence that it existed hundreds of years before him? Starting out with a more reflected view and then mentioning Peter Waldo after the opening? It was just a thought. However I understand that in using Waldo as the 'founder', they gain more of an acceptance in society. He was a wealthy merchant that gave up his wealth, etc.

Gabby 18:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedlagt (talk • contribs)
 * Start by reflecting on your own views.
 * You are sticking to a lone sectarian author who was biased by an agenda, and ignoring the entirety of mainstream scholarship (which doesn't work for the Catholic church and so has no particular agenda there).
 * Given how popular the Da Vinci Code was a few years ago, don't you think that secular scholarship would love to prove that any group, even the Waldensians, pre-dated the Catholic church? And yet there's no secular source to support the claim.
 * Repeatedly asking, even nicely, doesn't give Monastier's claims more validity.
 * We not under any obligation to give "both sides" false equivalence. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

How to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted

 * , Thank you for such fantastic suggestions on my talk page. You just simplified all the policy jargon in simple words I could understand in no time. However, I am still struggling to get my head around 8a? Could you kindly elaborate? Earthianyogi (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , Fab! Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

About fascism or something
Yes I understand the saying opinion peaces on a Wikipedia article is a big no no but the edit I did was very minor I was just trying to make it more specific as the article specifically talks about the Nazi regime not "fascist" Regimes in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatkidwiththehair (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you admit that that's just like, your opinion or whatever.
 * We're not asking you to explain or excuse yourself, just to not do that again. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Janineiswrong
I blocked - anyone who adds someone's name to an article is nothere. I also rev/deleted their edits. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your comment on the "Religion" discussion
You seem to feel that I should take your comment in good faith, no matter what it is. Well all right, if you insist. My problem with it is that I find it incomprehensible nor do I know why you made it. It doesn't seem to me any administrator intervention was required. Until you told me that I should assume good faith on your part I would have said it was belligerent. I assumed you were a regular editor. Now I find out you are an administrator. Now I'm really confused. Do administrators get to make post-discussional comments on individual contributors? It seems to me you created an issue and then admonished me on it. However, this is just between you and me. On Wikipedia I have restored the appearance of good faith. If you want to apologize in private for giving me the wrong impression, my faith in your credibility will be strengthened. There is that grey area between genuine discussion and vandalism. Please assure me that you, an administrator on Wikipedia, are firmly in the "genuine discussion" category, and that I did wrong in mistaking your intent. My problem with it is that it is post-discussional and seems to say nothing meaningful but seems instead to be berating me! For what? Your good faith assurances would be helpful.Botteville (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have me confused with, whose comment about Angkor Wat I can only guess at, and whose talk page does contain a section on disruptive editing.
 * I do apologize - they were all jammed together. Naturally, it makes a difference.
 * Your comment "Maybe we should leave the discussion around" suggested that perhaps you weren't familiar with the talk page archival procedures. The comparison with iconoclasm suggested potential confusion over the reason for opposition.  I was not berating you, merely clarifying matters.
 * Nothing on that talk page approached vandalism, please read WP:NOTVAND.
 * As for something being "post-discussional," the discussion was not formally closed (which is not something all discussions need), nor yet stale. Anyone is free to back out by simply not responding further, but just because you started the conversation doesn't really give you any right to suggest that other people can't comment further.  For all we know, leaving that thread open might result in someone coming along with a picture that everyone agrees accurately portrays religion.
 * No one involved thus far (you, me, Moxy) have done anything yet that requires apology. That you have demonstrated that you weren't aware of common procedure, have mixed up two users, and (by your own admission) assumed belligerence, does suggest that you need to bear in mind that other users might be more experienced than you and be open to their advice.
 * The way I spell out WP:Assume good faith in this guide I wrote for new users is "Assume that anything you write will be read in the most stupid and hostile tone possible. Read what others write in the most pleasant tone possible." Ian.thomson (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that it was I who made the error there is little that I can say in my defense. There is nothing wrong with what you said. As for what the other user said, well, I repeat, it isn't comprehensible and I don't know what it is doing there. It shouldn't be jammed up against yours giving the impression that it is yours. I'm going to move it down a line. This is the second time I have been caught in that snare. I know that old discussions are archived. I was hinting that maybe a copy of it should be left in the current. And finally, I admit your knowledge of the system is superior to mine. You bested me there. I therefore have to accept your admonition, although I have cleared it away from my page already. Frankly my readiness to blame you was influenced by interactions with less objective, less knowledgeable administrators than you. I will be on the lookout for other jammed-together comments. As for the discussion being closed, well, none of the discussion was probably done by the letter of the code. You'd know more about that than I. What I mean is, the real issue was already settled. There seemed no point to an additional incomprehensible apparently belligerent comment. Well if there is nothing further, there are a lot of articles to work on here. I just had an idea! Maybe we need a handbook for administrators of less objectivity and experience so that we can quote procedure to them too!Botteville (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

.

Stefan Molyneux wiki edits
Hi Ian - I don’t know to whom I should bring this, and I can’t edit the page as it is. I will get to the point: Canadian podcaster and YouTube personality Stefan Molyneux has categorically denied being a white nationalist in the past, and the given source for him being one doesn’t substantiate that claim about him. You recently made an edit to his page reviving the below verbiage that said he was a white nationalist (justifiably, since the prior edit removing it had no edit comment to substantiate the change).

“Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a far-right, white nationalist[2] Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.[3][4][5][6][7]”

Source [2] claims Stefan is a white nationalist in the body of the article, but it gives no explanation or source showing how or why that label is appropriate. All the article substantiates is that Stefan’s Verified Twitter at the time argued against believing officials’ initial explanations of the Notre Dame cathedral fires; and, paradoxically to him being a fringe voice of extremism, that other, conservative media suggested the same.

As a viewer of his content, I can unequivocally state he denies the labels of far-right, white nationalist, and scientific racist. To the former two, he has given explanations ranging from how he is an anarchist (anti-government in all forms, including the type of government necessitated by white nationalism), and to the latter he has said he only interviewed credentialed academics years ago on topics touching upon race and IQ; including the possibility of environmental explanations for differences, and how white people do not on average score highest as a race.

I care about this because I care about his messaging around non-violent parenting, promoting the non-aggression principle in politics, and urging family stability. We could separately argue “de-FOO’ing” and what that may or may not entail, but for the purposes of the opening salvo in his profile, none of those labels are apt. SPLC is not an authoritative and definitive source of people’s political orientations, and making such strong assertions in the immediate sentences of Stefan’s profile should require at least one primary source with context. The onus is on whoever editing the page to demonstrate his putative white nationalism, scientific racism, and far-right political orientation; respectfully, and assuming everyone’s good intentions, it’s a form of soft censorship by ostracism for the labels to stand without clear and compelling primary source substantiation.

I urge you to take this into consideration and possibly raise it with others on the page. I don’t know if a flagging feature exists for the article. I’m happy to research and show his disavowals of political extremism, but I can’t prove a negative inasmuch as some media outlets may wantonly label him and be used by Wikipedia as a definitive source of the man’s worldview. Tester2939 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ian, I have inquired of a CheckUser. Tester2939, please don't create extra accounts for yourself. See my note on your talkpage. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Already checked, . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ivanvector. And I have already blocked per WP:DUCK. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Thanks, y'all. Yeah, once Britcom found out I have Scottish ancestors, he did a 180 and was suddenly wanting to civilly "negotiate" and any other fan of his would just assume I'm another "biased" leftist.
 * Hell, even if it wasn't, my last post on that talk page were clips, in their original context, that anyone not on their way to a WP:CIR block should understand are proof of these claims about Molyneux. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Wadefrazier
Due to your past involvement with User:Wadefrazier and his large-scale WP:COPYVIOs, POV-pushing, meat-puppetry, and general wrongdoing I consider it worth noting that this user continues to use his talk page to link to his website and to attack other editors as "obscene," "anonymous cowards," perpetrating a "kangaroo court" and to specifically call out User:Philip Cross (along with unspecified other editors) as having "intelligence connections." I'm not sure if this meets the threshold for an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block, but it's very concerning behavior that needs to stop.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've left a message about that on his talk page. If his behavior continues as before, a not here block seems likely. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

ZoomerRight
Hey. That subreddit really was banned. The section of the Wikipedia article could permanently prove this, since the article asked users to submit Reddit communities that actually were deleted, due to the controversy which surrounded them. There's no news article which reported on the ban, but endless Reddit and Twitter posts are still available showcasing everything which was written in my entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewRuins012 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've missed the entire point of my last message to you, so please pay attention this time.
 * WP:CITE -- All information must cite a source. You did not cite a source.  This is an extension of our foundational site policy on WP:Verifiability.
 * WP:Identifying reliable sources -- Wikipedia prefers professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Random Reddit threads and Twitter posts are not reliable sources.
 * WP:No original research -- Wikipedia does not use original research. Telling people to look it up for themselves is original research.
 * WP:BURDEN -- It is your responsibility to follow these procedures when you add anything.
 * These are social contracts for this community. If there's no news articles about it yet, then it's not yet noteworthy.  Wait until there is news about it.  I'm not saying you're lying, I'm telling you these are the procedures that this community agreed upon.  Please actually read the message I left on your talk page until you understand it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Swastika article
Hi, the IP seems to have copy-pasted that content from this website https://swarajyamag. com/ideas/swastika-is-hindu-and-the-hooked-cross-is-nazi-the-rest-is-conspiracy. The website is blacklisted. I am not sure but I think it is a copyright violation.- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've WP:revdelled it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sta-lker!
You're stalking me! Stop it, please! Dragonlover21 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits are public info and I'm trying to help the site and you (in that order). WP:Assume good faith is one of the foundational site policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine, just please don't comment-on/delete my every comment. Dragonlover21 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then don't use the talk pages as general discussion forums. You don't need to comment on threads that were over a decade ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Again,I didn't realize that they were over a decade ago. Dragonlover21 (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry
Hey. Sorry if you are indeed a practicing Christian. It's just that I read your profile and it said you were a Zen Baptist that supports homosexuality. I hope you can understand that that would be confusing to most people. You said you don't practice Zen, so I am confused as to why you would call yourself a Zen Baptist. Such a statement implies that you believe in and practice Zen. Anyways, please accept my apology. Saxophilist (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A conditional apology with continued arguments to claim that the condition for the apology is negative isn't really an apology. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you believe in the Trinity, the resurrection, and have been properly baptized, then you are a Christian. You must admit that it is reasonable for any person reading that you are a "Zen Baptist" to think that you may hold heterodox theological views. You haven't clarified your beliefs, so I don't know for sure if you are a practicing Christian or not. That's why I added the condition. If someone called themselves a "Wiccan Jew", or a "Polytheistic Catholic", or an "atheist who believes in God", or a "Zen Baptist", of course it's natural to raise an eyebrow. Saxophilist (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If Ian says he's Christian, then he's Christian, end of story. Sro23 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A reasonable application of our WP:CIVILity policy would be to avoid saying that somebody does not belong to a community they identify with, even if one personally disagrees with that assessment. Likewise, our neutrality policy would suggest keeping one's mouth shut when it goes against the academic consensus.  There are certain groups and certain members of otherwise acceptable groups that self-identify as Christian that I do not see as my spiritual siblings.  I don't think it will cause any controversy to cite the Westboro Baptist Church or Christian Identity as examples of groups I believe know less than nothing of the teachings of Jesus -- but I recognize that to avoid unjust, bigoted, petty, and/or sectarian mislabellings, academia merely reports what identification a group claims for itself, that we follow suit, and so avoid even mentioning the less controversial groups or persons I would not worship with.  (For the record, my aunt, who was pretty much a second mother to me, was Catholic and so I hold Catholicism in as high a regard as I hold any mainline Protestant denomination... And I am an extreme ecumenist).  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI
Since it's likely what you intended I'm amending your block of to be a full sitewide block – it seems like your block did not actually prevent the user from editing in any way. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's weird, yeah, that was what I intended. Don't know how or why it came out that way. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

user:Verygoodsingerboy
Thanks. i was trying to remember the master. Meters (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't remember who it is that does that, but I'd honestly say "Bee Movie = Block" if that was the first time it had ever been done. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. I was posting a NOTHERE request when you blocked. Meters (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Goldmund page Teahouse help
Hi! I just want to thank you for your advice on Teahouse. I couldn't figure out how to reply directly there... I'm reading your guide for those who are lost as I guess this is my case. All the best Cicivasc (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd
I don't have time atm. But you seem to be active on the article. Someone may want to review these edits. G M G talk  21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now's actually when I'm supposed to be getting ready to go to work but I'll try to take a quick glance. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the biggest problematic edit was undone (perhaps accidentally). In light of this past edit, an eye should be kept on them.  This past edit makes their approach to the Floyd article ironic. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See.
this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still, despite Architect134's involvement, I'm suspecting off-site collusion at this point.  Didn't find anything on a cursory search and don't feel like trawling the wretched hives of scum and villainy where Evola apologists would congregate.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

VeritasVox
I hope you're OK with my comments at WP:ANI and user talk:VeritasVox. Guy (help!) 18:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said on that talk page, I thought it was fair for him to deny any involvement with off-site collusion, even on the Evola talk page. If anything, rather than offense at his comments I find relief that  a quote attributed their use of to Hitler should eliminate any chance of them ever appealing their topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation of Frewhts
I saw you are leading a sock puppet investigation on Frewhts. You probably have this info already bu just in case I wanted to let you know that user made edits before he/she was blocked that were clearly vandalism on the Chimpanzee article. They’ve been reverted but I just want to make sure they are factored into the discussion. Thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't see any WP:DUCK level matches between their edit to Chimpanzee and any other users, but that edit did factor into their vandalism-only block. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOMEONEDIDIT
Hello, I think that this page should state that Wikipedia is not necessarily written by accredited scholars, not that it isn't written by accredited scholars. Can you please make this edit for me? Thank you. 92.26.48.248 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the need to point that out, per WP:Credentials_are_irrelevant, User:Misza13/Nobody_cares_about_your_credentials, and WP:Ignore_all_credentials. If Noam Chomsky edited the Linguistics article, Neil deGrasse Tyson the Astrophysics article, or whoever edited whatever, their accredited expertise would be utterly irrelevant as they would still need to cite published sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While we're having this discussion, "discouraging violence by caning students" is a bad (joke) example because you could theoretically beat someone into not performing an action, while "discouraging gang violence by joining a gang" is a better example of lessons that miss the point by giving a gang additional members. I'm not seeing much reason for removing the Tide Pod Challenge from the "teaching healthy dieting" bit because the point is that both challenges are bad for one's health (cinnamon being "natural" doesn't make it safe to eat by the tablespoon).  Overall, this and actions such as such as giving "white trash" as an example of an ethnic slur directed at minorities gives the impression that you might be missing the entire point of those joke examples.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)