User talk:Ian.thomson
Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!
Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil.
If I'm not responding, that's probably because
and I may be asleep, in classes, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond. |
New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).
Partial clean up, stuff is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars.
Actually, I agree. An encyclopedia has to be about reliable sources. I like your User/Talk page and I am borrowing part of the format for my talk page. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- How'd I miss this? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Took these to SPI
Ran into one of them today in an article on my watch list, then found the ANI discussion plus another editor's comments in an edit summary, so [1]. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I kinda forgot... >.> I'l be watching. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI: Partial undo
FYI, I partially undid your edit to ANI, here. I think you accidentally hit the "Gallery" button on the editor, and inserted an example gallery in someone else's comment. Just wanted to let you know. All the best! — Jess· Δ♥ 00:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I usually don't click near there, weird. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
187.21.139.252
Just to let you know that 187.21.139.252 (talk · contribs) was obviously a sock of Jackiestud (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. I'll keep that in mind if I run into that sort of stuff again. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
my apologies, I had apparently misread your edit. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.
I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Feedback Dashboard task force
Hi Ian.thomson,
I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.
Thanks for replying to User_talk:Benjy1966 regarding the question he posted on my talk page. I have been so utterly busy that i just couldn't find the time to write a decent reply to his questions, so i would say it was a very welcome sight to see you step in there. So, thank you very much for taking care of that one for me! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
re:You got some 'splainin' to do
Can you try again, but this time actually link to the discussion? Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Wellness Layers Inc
Thanks for responding back about why my page could have been deleted. I did post outside sources from other written work that was independent of the company and the sources were respected bloggers/writers. The company has also received coverage at health tech events and they have notable clients on their client list. I want to create a bunch of pages on health tech start ups that are starting to become notable but just not as much so as the big health tech giants, do you have any suggestions as to how I should go about this without having the pages deleted? I'm relatively new to the site, as I'm sure you can tell. OZak29 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)OZak29
Wheres Dan
May need to be dealt with other than at RSN. WQA at the least, maybe ANI. Wikibreak for me in a few hours. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah... He's just on the end of the rope for WQA, 3RRNB, and ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Spartacus shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)