User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 7

Cleaning up the page again, everything is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom, people.

You said 1.3.2010:

"Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Satanism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"

Which change are you referring to? I do not recall making any improper changes but only strictly valid ones.

128.214.164.62 (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) npyrhone


 * As you can see here, and here this IP address deleted references without explaining these deletions. It is common courtesy to explain your reasoning when deleting what isn't blatent vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Untitled Ska Album
Prod tag was removed on the Untitled Ska Album article. I've sent it to AFD: Articles for deletion/Untitled Ska Album – thought you might like to know. matt (talk · cont) 11:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll head over there now. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Hello. When you patrol new pages, all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled, whether you marked them for deletion or deemed them acceptable, unless you are not sure. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you. GorillaWarfare talk 01:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Response
If by "attack" you mean prove you wrong, than I am sorry. Don't be offended by the fact that you tried to make an absurd claim that needed to be fixed. And I am not new to Wikipedia. I used to use another account for years, but asked for a block so I could focus more on school. This is my new one, as I am giving it a try again. And I know I should respond on my page, but I fear you will ignore me, so this is how it goes. --Fdf3 (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By personal attack, I did not mean you disagreeing with me. Saying things like "you clearly know nothing about history" are only meant to be hurtful.  When you said "please don't try to argue Abraham is more famous than Hitler or you are a complete moron," the word "complete" was unnecessary, unless you were implying something.  In fact, the whole sentence was unnecessary except to imply that I am stupid or something.  Could I see the talk page for your previous account so I have evidence you were indeed blocked for the reasons you claimed?  Because according to the blocking policy, you cannot request for your own account to be blocked for personal reasons.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why would I tell you it? So you can try to get my old account unblocked? Anyway, I have studying for finals to do. Maybe we can continue this tomorrow or something if I come on. --Fdf3 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, but not knowing what your account is, there really isn't anything for me to work on. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mockingbird
Good catch, sorry I added it. I misread List_of_U.S._state_birds, hasn't been since 1948 that the northern mocker was the state bird of SC. 018 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just learning the whole wiki editing thing. It's cool. When I edit articles you (guys) only correct what is nessesary and that is very helpful to me in better understanding the articles itself or wiki morales. At first, i added to an article about Shotokan training and spoke basically about my own experiences with the sport which is basically only an opinion and not a universal fact. I understand that there are people with totally different experiences with Shotokan. Thank you for any further corrections as this helps build character. I will further agree to never again be bias on anything I edit. this teaches me how to edit documents properly. By the way, this is the only way i could figure out how to talk to someone here. Thanks to everyone involved in editing wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.208.68 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm
Thank You for your interest but I would like to state: I don't think you are in any way qualified enough to determine what can and can't be included as good enough "sources", as wikipedia clearly states that's not allowed. (2) The author "Godfrey Higgins" not supported by.... is worthless - has no bearing as these claims (if any) said about him are "unsubstantiated". Can you show me a specific source which says Samuel Lytler Metcalfe (his) theories on Scythian origins extending into Persia and India are "not supported by modern scholarship"? (3) Please Read the sources that talk about Greater Iran (map included) or Persia in each source and if you know anything about the area for mentioned, it extends into Pakistan/India proper and substantiated in the source provided. Your claim(s) have no real support of any kind not to warrent inclusion. Jewels03420:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)




 * I would like to see the guideline that says I'm not allowed to say that the source is not good enough. Page 52 of Metcalfe's work does not mention the Scythians at all.  If you had just added "and Northern India," I wouldn't have seen any issue with it.  I assumed that you had put the wrong page number, and searched through the rest of the book (both volumes) for all mentions of Scythia and India.  This was the only thing that mentioned both:


 * From p733, of Metcalfe Volume 2 of Caloric
 * The late Godfrey Higgins has also shown, in his very elaborate work on the origin of nations, languages, and religions, that southeast Asia was the ancient mother of nations,-that men gradually spread themselves from India and Arabia, across the Red Sea to Ethiopia, whence they descended the Nile to Lower Egypt, and from north Africa to other portions of the continent:- that from the Peninsula of Malacca, they passed over to Sumatra, Borneo, New Guinea, New Holland, New Zealand, and other islands of the southern Pacific:-that from the north of India and Persia they extended over ancient Scythia...


 * The only part of the work that connects the Scythians with Northern India was repeating Godfrey Higgins's claim that humanity started in Asia. Metcalfe does not repudiate Higgins's claims, but affirms them.  Modern scholarship holds that humanity came out of Africa, not out of India.  Since Caloric advocates a fringe theory, and is not peer-reviewed, it does not qualify as a reliable source.  It is a questionable source, and questionable sources can only be used sources of material on themselves according to the guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we misunderstanding each other? You have provided no proof showing any criticism on that specific theory about Scythians which shows you have no SUPPORT to your claims. We both have 2 reverts so let's discuss this and compromise, P.52 clearly states “were in fact Scythians, that came originally from the north of India and Persia”

http://books.google.ca/books?id=oUIIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=Caloric:+its+mechanical,+chemical+and+vital+agencies+in+the+phenomena+of+nature%22%3B+p.+52&source=bl&ots=twlfWdlF3z&sig=KGXqdvkTKqPLa7YQAfbTJUJ_dV0&hl=en&ei=GaPkS5LqE8L68Ab-vuyTDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Can you please provide criticism pertaining to the relevant text?? Don't understand why you are making claims and not providing relevant material to back it up. Jewels034 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're ducking the issue of whether or not the source is questionable. I'm taking this to the article talk page, I would recommend you wait until we have a consensus from other editors.  Metcalfe's book Caloric makes claims about the origin of humanity that are not supported by modern scholarship, claims based on the works of Godfrey Higgins, claims that are repudiated by modern scholarship.  I am not disagreeing that the Scythians come from Iran/North India, that part isn't an issue.  Caloric states that humanity originated in Asia.  That goes against modern scholarship, that makes the book a questionable source, which means that it should not be treated as a reliable one.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I'm not ducking anything. I understand what you mean his belief in the origin of all mankind is now outdated, but this book was written in 1843 and 1859 right??? I mean DNA studies only recently in the last 10 years have confirmed that we all come out Africa (I agree with this but other geneticist have differing opinions still!). But in the 1700-1800's even up until the early 1930's there was several competing theories of the origins of mankind.


 * But does not mean everything is outdated or junk. I see no criticism specifically containing any mentioned on these specific theories he was drawing on.  Where do we go from here? I honestly think you are a good-hearted editor and want to solve this with you. Thank you. Jewels034(talk  22:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One good apple does not unspoil the whole rotten bunch. The work is questionable, even if one part of it is accurate, I don't think it should be used.  Metcalfe was drawing on Higgins, whose works are not included in the history section of libraries, but the religious section, because it's really only accepted in some religious circles.  Honestly, I'd just sneak in the words "and Northern India" and call it a day.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think you understand the depth of history here, tt was written in 1800's when several theories of the origin of mankind was still being debated! I wouldn't call it a bad source as Harvard carries it in their collection right? Think University of Toronto received a copy as well. I will be adding it (and will respect the revert rules) but I warrant it's clear enough to be attributed in some way. So...how do you think it would suffice? Jewels034(talk 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More Proof of this not being a bad source in your context:

Human Evolution article: Wikipedia "Carolus Linnaeus and other scientists of his time also considered the great apes to be the closest relatives of humans due to morphological and anatomical similarities. The possibility of linking humans with earlier apes by descent only became clear after 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This argued for the idea of the evolution of new species from earlier ones. Darwin's book did not address the question of human evolution, saying only that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#History_of_ideas

Jewels034(talk 22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey I have confirmed it's from the Harvard University Collections - Legit! http://www.archive.org/details/caloric00unkngoog

Jewels034(talk 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes it 'legit' in what way? Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Gary Coleman
No problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian
The pages that I created are for food items which are completely different from the ones which to which you have re-directed them to. I can appreciate that there is some cross-over in the descriptions, but they are actually completely different foods. Taco chips are differnt from nachos, and taco sauce is different from salsa. For this reason, I am requesting that you un-do the changes that you have made to those pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red paint wxmfan (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How are they different? The only difference I can find between Taco chips and Nachos are that potato slabs are used instead of corn crisps.  Every description and recipe I can find for taco sauce is pretty much common salsa ingrediants.  The addition of worchestershire sauce or possible substitution of sour cream with mayo doesn't change enough to keep it from being a variation of the rather varied dish salsa. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tariel


The article Tariel has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Thanks for your good work in smoking out that seraphim.com spammer. In the course of searching for and removing some of those links, I found a couple of articles of dubious notability - this is one. I'm dropping you a note because you made a few edits on it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note there. JohnInDC (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We're going to up the ante on GK, you better keep track of everything that you write from here on because fanatics like you don't belong here in wikipedia
my arguments are completely sound, you're arguments are feeble ... in fact you seem to contradict yourself , you asserted that the referencing of unreliable sources is inappropriate conduct and yet you seem to support it ...

again, regarding the gk article ....

1 ) the source is unreliable

2 ) the painting IS by aldin rasid

3 ) fantasies, such as your christian fantasies , do not belong within wikipedia nor within the gk article

you have got nothing on my arguments and i've got you cornerned - even so that now you are constantly contradicting your own assertions that you've made in the reply to my discussion topic ... people like you are degrading wikipedia's standards and i am going to be following your edits and contributions from here on and making certain that you don't inject your fantasies into what are supposed to be factual articles.

take your christian crusades onto somewhere else. e.g. urban dictionary. Wernergerman (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's tone it down please. Thanks. _ Tommy2010  [message] 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wernergerman, what does me being a Christian have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. You should take a break until you calm down. You keep making assertions without showing any evidence for them. Wikipedia does not care about what is "right," it is only concerned about sources, which you are not presenting. Wikipedia is based on cooperation, and if you're not willing to work with other editors and are only going to insult them, you should leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wanna barnstar?
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. Homework2 Talk What I do!  03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Until recently, I'd say "sure, why not," and I'd still like to help. However, I'm afraid that I've recently signed up to answer questions on KGB, and may also do the same for ChaCha depending on the workload (don't worry, I'm steering clear of those articles regardless of whether they accept me).  Both places may send me an e-mail saying "sorry, don't need you," or I may get almost no work.  Due to various circumstances in my life that I don't want to bother you with, I'm not exactly in any position to get a real job, and can't promise when I'll be active.  Thank you for asking, though, it's an honor.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
I appreciate your warning off that dingaling sockpuppet from messing with my talk page. I am truly grateful that there are folks like you watching my back. Many, many thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's no problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Guerrilla proofreading
Re your most edit: "leave off the last 's' for 'savings'" is how I always remember it. Sorry, but your droll edit begged for a reply and that's the best I could do on just one cup of coffee. Regards, --~TPW 12:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I accuse you of...
I accuse you of stalking, vandalizing and terrorizing edits and of trying to dominate Wikipedia.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WTH????! What in the world did he do to you... Homework2  Talk What I do!  15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That does it, I'm going to the Wikiquette boards. I'm tired of you regularly ignoring the principle WP:AGF and accusing editors of vandalism for correcting your mistakes, and of terrorizing for trying to hold you to the site's standards for sourcing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hathor
As a part of the Ancient Egyptian project and an Egyptologist myself, I laughed out loud at your edit to Hathor. Who added that one sentence about Hathor being sevenfold and eternal or whatever?:P Okay, well thanks for helping clean up:) -Setna- (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That'd be Special:Contributions/Arubafirina, who has been doing all kinds of flakey new-age edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA yeah, the 7 Hathors! How flaky and "new agey"! HAHAHA Try it's mentioned in an ANCIENT EGYPTIAN TEXT called THE PEASANT WHO BECAME KING! Not new age! You guys are real experts!


 * You might want to try this thing called context. The user I refered to did other edits besides that one.  The Peasant Who Became King doesn't outright refer to Hathor as "the infinite seven-fold spirit and the river of life."  Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ).  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)