User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 1

Ak-74
my friend i am in the GREEK ARMY SPECIAL FORCES for 15 years, my squad and i use AK-74M since 2009. The AK-74M is using by the Hellenic Armed Forces since 2009. It is using by the BMP-1P AIFV Infanrty Forces, The Paratroopers special units (E.T.A) (I am a paratrooper using this gun...), the Under Water Demolitions and of course the Greek army units in Cyprus. The AK-74M replaced the FN FAL in the paratroopers units in 2009.

I am 100000% sure that the AK-74M is using by the Hellenic Armed Forces and by the police special anti-terrorist units (EKAM)

so please don't delete my post.

Thank you a lot (unsigned comment added by HELLAS123 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2012)

- Anyone can claim to be a paratrooper or whatever, so unless you have proper references your changes will be reverted, by me or someone else. Thomas.W (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Thomas.W. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have  rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Calmer  Waters  16:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Deletions of external links on Type 30 rifle and Type 97 sniper rifle
Hello. I would like to know why you deleted the external links I've added on those articles. Thank you very much. Wilhelm Wiesel (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because just adding a link to a blog with no information about what the reader can expect to find there was seen by me as an just an attempt to promote a blog. The blog page on the Type 97 has a large number of interesting pictures though, so I suggest you re-add that link, with a short text that tells readers that there's a large number of pictures of a Type 97 there, including close-ups. But don't just add the link without any further info. I don't see the blog page on the Type 30 as particularly interesting though since there's only a single picture, and there's already a picture of a Type 30 on the WP page.Thomas.W (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've checked the link to the Type 30 rifle and find out that in fact there were two links to this rifle: the real one and a blank firing training version. I'm going to add them with the proper description. Wilhelm Wiesel (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Measurements
I've noticed you've brrn tweaking conversions of ship measurements. Where a measurement is given only in feet, then to the tenth of a metre is adequate. Where a measurement is given in feet and inches, the use of conversion to two decimal places is justifiable as 2" = 0.05m approx. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ since having two decimal places would mean a converted measurement that is exact down to 3/8 of an inch, i e more exact than the original measurement. IMHO only measurements that are given in fractions of an inch, for example "304 ft 7 3/4 in", should have two decimal places in the metric conversion (or be rounded to "304 ft 8 in" since a quarter of an inch doesn't really matter when we're talking about the length of a ship). But maybe I haven't read WP:MOS as carefully/thoroughly as I should have. Thomas.W (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oslo Airport, Gardermoen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NOK(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

tell me what I've done
Sorry off what I have done can you tell me what I've done so I doint do it agin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Google9999 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of information on your own talk page, both friendly advice and warnings/cautions, given by both me and other users. So read that, and make sure you understand it. Then follow the rules here by providing references for all edits, not editing stuff/code that you don't understand (because I'm tired of cleaning up the mess your edits cause...) and not making major changes without discussing the changes on the talk page of each article, and reaching consensus, before making the edits. Thomas.W (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I edit
Can I update the population on the table please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Google9999 (talk •contribs) 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason he undid the edit on List of United States cities by population is because that page is a list for cities proper. The population you put in for Indianapolis is its metropolitan population.  There is a separate page for List of United States metropolitan statistical areas.  Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume that comment was aimed at Google9999. He's currently blocked for making hundreds of unreferenced and unhelpful edits to a large number of pages and then trying to evade the warnings he got by editing as an IP-user. Thomas.W (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it was directed at him...good to know! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tag
You called this edit vandalism, but its not. There are many refs which use the term, including Professing in the contact zone: bringing theory and practice together - Page 124, Janice M. Wolff - 2002, Lesbian and gay studies and the teaching of English Page 236, William J. Spurlin - 2000, Fysche II Fysche Raw Fysche Gold Fysche - Page 294, Fysche - 2002, Teachers; Discourses; Authority- Page 154, Xin Liu Gale - 1996. Can you self-revert please? Pass a Method  talk  22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Adding "San Fagcisco" to the SF infobox with no reference or edit summary is vandalism, however unintentional. But if you want to you can add it again yourself, this time with proper reference and edit summary. But I am not going to do it. The SF article is frequently vandalised with all sorts of anti-gay slur, often several times a day, so the "vandalism threshold" is fairly low. Meaning that if I hadn't reverted it someone else would have done it, probably only minutes later. Thomas.W (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Automotive industry in India
Just so you are aware, there was a massive amount of copyright violating content in Automotive industry in India, which I have now removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good, TY. And to be honest I'm not the least surprised, because Jemappelleungarcon (talk) went at it as if he'd been hired to promote the auto industry in India, hijacking articles by shifting focus to Indian companies, twisting facts to make Indian companies look good (such as promoting Suzuki's comparatively minor Indian subsidiary Maruti Suzuki to "Suzuki's sister-company") and sneaking in some negative comments about Pakistan on the way. Thomas.W (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll sort him/her out eventually. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco
I see you are a fan of guns do I will refrain from using vulgarities towards you. Just let me edit San Francisco page. I feel my contributions are better than yours. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a contest or a matter of whose contributions are the "best". Adding a collage instead of a single image in the infobox has been discussed on the talk page, and consensus is to keep a single image. That's why your edits are being reverted, not only by me but also by others. Thomas.W (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco
Look, I'll compromise alright? I got rid of the night panorama and put a new montage in. It is better sized, has a few more photos, and includes most major things about San Francisco. Let's just stop this editing war and leave the article alone so we can have peace okay?

(-- large image removed --)

Sincerly, Pollack man34

Unconstructive and disruptive edits?
What is this? So I undid an edit by an IP user who reverted sourced information and this makes my editing unconstructive and disruptive? Please understand what is going on before making such claims. -YMB29 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And you made a revert here too, which is against consensus as pointed out to you by another user.
 * I don't know who you are, but it looks like you are looking to start a conflict out of nothing... -YMB29 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To start with I do know what is going on. As I wrote on Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 a while ago a "kill" is not a kill unless it has been confirmed, until then it is only a claim and should be clearly presented as such. So considering that you have repeatedly reverted changes to the Syria kills/claims the warning I gave you was well deserved. As for the Continuation War there's nothing on the talk page that shows a consensus either way, so claiming that there is a consensus in favor of "victory" and not "partial victory" is ridiculous. And as I wrote in my edit summary the outcome of the war was clearly apartial victory, since the goals, as set out in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before the war, which put Finland under Soviet control, were not achieved. What various people say after the war about the conquest of Finland not being a goal are of little interest, since the Soviet Union would never publicly admit that they failed not only once but twice, both in the Winter War and in the Continuation War, to achieve the goals they set for themselves before the war. Thomas.W (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you have shown again that you don't know what is going on. You can't just jump into a topic and ignore what has been discussed many times...
 * You don't see anything on the talk page? It is a good idea to look at the archives...
 * As for the kills vs. claims I have explained everything on that article's talk page. Discuss there before making changes. -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A) There's nothing on Talk:Continuation War to see since "victory" vs "partial victory" hasn't been discussed before, which is why I have started a new discussion. B) It doesn't matter what you feel you have "explained" when it comes to kills vs claims, it's about consensus, and there is no consensus that supports your view. As a matter of fact the current stand in the discussion is against you. And considering your long history of edit warring, which has resulted in both numerous blocks and other restrictions, you ought to know the consequences of not following the rules. Thomas.W (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are not following the rules by making uninformed reverts, which is very disruptive.
 * You made a revert before starting a new discussion...
 * And what consensus are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 of course. But I didn't claim that a consensus has been reached, only that there is an ongoing discussion. I never make uninformed reverts BTW, but always know what I'm doing, I also know the rules. And unlike you I never act as if I own the articles I contribute to. Thomas.W (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your last few reverts show otherwise.
 * You should continue the discussion before making reverts. -YMB29 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits
(-- Totally unwarranted copy-pasted user warnings removed --) -YMB29 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice piece of copy-paste, copying the user warnings from your own talk page and pasting them here. Is this a new stunt you're pulling or something you do every time you're involved in an edit war?Thomas.W (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Jags etc
Hi, writing to you here to get clear of the other discussion. I see (by what you just said to the other guy) you still don't seem to get the concept of the business that makes the vehicles being different from the entity that owns it. Let's say you owned a business making slot cars and it was highly profitable. The business is there and it is all yours, you own the machinery and all the employees work for you but it is a separate entity isn't it. You could sell it and it could go on quite happily under someone else's ownership, it is not a part of you. Does that help get the concept over? If you disagree can you tell me where I go wrong? Eddaido (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The old Jaguar Cars Ltd, now renamed Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, is the company that makes the cars. The new Jaguar Cars Ltd (previously known as Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Ltd) is a head office, the new Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC (previously known as Jaguar Land Rover PLC) is Tata's subsidiary, and through that the owner of the other companies. Clues: the "Nature of Business" (which indicates the main activities of a company) of the new Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, as registered at Companies House, is "Manufacture of motor vehicles", whereas the "Nature of Business" of the new Jaguar Cars Ltd is "Activities of head offices". As I have written on Talk:Jaguar Cars. I don't know why Tata is reshuffling the names of the companies, but my guess is that they're trying to sell all, or at least part of, their Jaguar/Land Rover business, and renamning/reshuffling the companies could be part of the preparations for that. Ratan Tata, the head/owner of Tata has even gone so far as saying, in the press, that buying Jaguar and Land Rover was a mistake since it ties up a lot of cash that they'd need elsewhere during the current economic hard times in Europe. Thomas.W (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are currently specially concerned about who owns this business of making Jaguar cars. It happens I agree with you on your reading of the ownership situation but I am trying to get across the very necessary and essential concept of a distinction between a business and its owner. In this sentence here (from above) "The old Jaguar Cars Ltd, now renamed Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, is the company that makes the cars."you are talking about the owner of the business, not the business (but you do seem to think you are talking about both as one thing and they are not one thing). I suspect you do not see what I mean because it is to do with your concept of what constitutes "a company". The company is only the legal entity or person that owns the business, not the business itself. I also suspect I am becoming repetitive so - over to you. Please can we discuss this very important point? With kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand exactly what you mean, and want to put more focus on the marque as such. That's why I felt that GraemeLeggets suggestion that the article be renamed "Jaguar (marque)" instead of "Jaguar Cars" (a company name) was a good idea. And why I pointed out that the article is made up of two parts, an infobox about the company that currently owns the marque and the rest about the marque as such. But we can't remove all mention of the company, that is the legal entity, that owns the marque and that the people who actually make the cars work for and get their wages from. And just to get things right it should be pointed out that the old Jaguar Cars Ltd, i.e. the new Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, isn't the company that actually owns Jaguar since there are at least a couple of levels above that, with Tata currently at the top. Which means that from a corporate point of view Jaguar Cars Ltd/Jaguar Land Rover Ltd is "just" the company that makes the cars. Thomas.W (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its good you understand me but I do wish you would not muddle company and business - two quite different things. You still seem to be determined to refer to a business as a company, why? Do you see that you are confusing me? Eddaido (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because where there is a business there's also a company, of one form or another (a private company, a limited company or whatever, depending on jurisdiction), unless we're talking about a plumber or a carpenter or similar who works on his own. Jaguar is a marque (of car), but without a company that builds the cars there wouldn't be any Jaguar cars. The people who design the cars, who build the cars and who market the cars all work for a company, and get their pay from that company, which is why the company is important. Thomas.W (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd rather describe this by saying there is 1. a business (with all its functionaries and equipment and premises) and it will have 2. an owner (- as you rightly point out). The owner can be any one human person, group of people or a corporate body. It is confusing things to say the owner must be a company but, just as you say, as a rule a business has an identifiable owner. Whatever legal shape or form the owner has it is still just an owner. The split between business entity and the entity which owns it is all I want to establish.


 * if you can cope with that concept (of 2 separate entities) then I think we can claim to be harmonising, using the same song or hymn sheet or whatever its called now! Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that you're using the word "business" in the (IMHO mostly American) sense "commercial enterprise or establishment" while I use the more precise word "company" in order to specify that I'm talking about the legal entity that conducts that business. So we are, generally speaking, talking about the same thing, though I'm a bit more precise... Thomas.W (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that means we talk along the same lines except you seem to confuse the owner with the business and I am really anxious that it be recognised they are quite different. Its a core idea in the subject under discussion. In this respect there is no conceptual difference (yes, I understand you do not see it) between, as you put it, a plumber or a carpenter, and a major industrial group. Using the word company so vaguely as you say you wish to do would compound the very confusion we are aching about. What, precisely does your word "company" mean? You have defined business in just the right way for our purposes and the OED specifically says this is now the most common sense in which it is used. I am a British English native speaker with commercial experience only in territories (including UK) using that language. Please do not be alarmed, this really is central to our discussion, you will be speaking for lots of people who use "company" in a similar relaxed manner having no need for precision. Aside from enterprise there is the word undertaking but that might lose something in translation :0)  Eddaido (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quack quack!
See Sockpuppet investigations/Jemappelleungarcon. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it ;) Thomas.W (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of complaints filed rel Continuation War that may affect you
Hi there Thomas.W, Thanks for the heads up rel the sandbox thing. It's sure been a learning experience. It's nice to finally make a connection with you after all the "allegations" of same. :) Just filed three complaints at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, two of which--those against Paul Siebert and AdminFutPerf--allude to you, but not by name. Best, Pvo ... Paavo273 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

M60 Machine gun
Thank you! I will Remember Hoangprs5 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links for Proton Prevé
Hi Thomas,

Shortly after you added th:โปรตอนเพรเว่ to Wikidata (thanks for that), I createdthโปรตอน พรีเว่. The second, new page has the correct translation of Proton Prevé in Thai, the initial, old page's translation was wrong. After creating thโปรตอน พรีเว่, I tried to change the interwiki link at Wikidata (you may check the history for proof), but it kept referring to the older th:โปรตอนเพรเว่. That's why I re-added the new interwiki link, thโปรตอน พรีเว่ manually at Proton Prevé.

Anyway, thanks for correcting the problem. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't being an illiterate idiot, as you may or may not have assumed based on my misunderstood edits. Cheers. Aero777 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Thomas,

Visitcumbria.com
I see you removed links i added today to pages in the visitcumbria.com website - eg ennerdale lake - claiming they were commercial. The site is not commercial other than promoting the most beautiful part of england with thousands of photographs. I have just spent 6 months redesinging and updating the site - and thus any links in wikipedia that i (and mainly others) have added are not incorrect. I was going to correct them, and add ones that weren't there for pages with significant content. However - your attitude seems to suggest that this is rather pointless. Julian Thurgood — Preceding unsigned comment added byJuliancumbria (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 March, 2013


 * For starters WP:ADV says "in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". Which is reason enough to remove the links. In addition to thatWP:LINKSPAM says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed". Your claim that your site isn't commercial is BTW contradicted by the fact that you, judging by the link on the front page of your site, invite companies and others to buy advertising space on your site. Which doesn't automatically disqualify your links though, since links to commercial web sites are allowed under certain circumstances (see External links and WP:LINKSTOAVOID), but the rules (WP:ADV) explicitly say "Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link", and I can't see how links to your website would be of an immediate benefit to the readers of each and every one of the articles you added your links to. Thomas.W (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Thomas, I am sure you would like to be more informed, please have a look at Visit Cumbria - past the footer link (which incidentally says that we are not accepting advertising at the moment) to see the 1,000 plus true content information page NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID FOR - nearly every one of which contains external links, most to Wikipedia.
 * None of our external links benefit us and none of them have been paid for.
 * I take exception to the fact that you have clearly not researched your subject before removing new AND EXISTING links that we corrected today.
 * I thought the purpose of a WikiGnome, among others, was the repairing and replacement of broken links.
 * Are you working for a commercial site that does not like this community resource that raises barely enough revenue to keep it online and depends on the goodwill of local Cumbrian residents to maintain it?
 * We only only make money for the purposes of covering our operating costs - and in fact our editors contribute their own money to keep the site running. We do not generate money for profit.
 * I also object to your singling out our Beatrix Potter pages in previous correspondence -in particular the Hill Top page. I presume you are not aware of the significance of Hill Top and also that there were no external links to more information pages.
 * Neither in fact is there now a single external link on Wikipedia 'Cumbria' page and there is no other site more qualified to be linked to than ours based on original content and scope.
 * Would you please tell us what criteria must be met to result in an external link to the 'Cumbria' page - or do you just have a specific dislike to Cumbria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessabryony(talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Implying that I removed your links because I work for a competitor of yours and/or dislike Cumbria is plain silly, as a matter of fact I currently don't even live in the UK, and have never had any connection to Cumbria. The first of your links that I noticed yesterday were onWindermere, since that article is on my watchlist, and when looking at that article I noticed that there were not only one but twoexternal links to your web site, one to general information about Windermere and the other pointing directly to a page where visitors can book accomodation through your web site. A type of page that can not be linked to on WP since it can be classified as a referral page (WP:OTHERSPAM- "Even if they are related to the subject or are an official page for the subject, external links containing affiliate or referral codes are considered spam."). In addition to that your addition of links to your website through an anonymous IP yesterday triggered an automated spam filter on WP (see page history on Beatrix Potter), indicating that it was spam and should be removed. Thomas.W (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thomas.W. I came here to ask you to clarify this edit but I see you're already involved in a debate concerning the Visit Cumbria website. The site carries advertising, but so do many other sites these days. It doesn't appear to be making a commercial promotion of the locations it discusses, so I don't see it as a commercial site. I wonder if a better place for this discussion is Reliable sources/Noticeboard - I would certainly recommend finding consensus from somewhere before bulk-removing links to a particular site. (I'm going to be away for a couple of weeks and may not be able to respond quickly to any discussion.) --Northernhenge (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of "bulk-removing" links to Visitcumbria (mostly because I find the site interesting), so I've asked forof the rules here on WP, and, judging by the answers I got, external links directly to pages which contain affiliate or referral codes, for example pages on Visitcumbria where people can book accommodation through the site (like one of the links to Visitcumbria I found on Windermere), are not allowed, but external links to relevant "information pages" on Visitcumbria are, even if there are navigation links on those pages leading to the other type of pages. As for why I removed the link on Little Salkeld you'll find the answer to that in the post right above yours in this discussion. Thomas.W (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Suzuki
Hi tom, i would like to explain why i edited suzuki. I did it because i thought it would make sense to the car buffs out there.Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by75.67.3.121 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It didn't make sense, and it wasn't funny. Adding "Yay" somewhere in the middle of an article will, regardless of which article it is, be seen as either a "test edit" or vandalism, mostly depending on whether the perpetrator has done it before or not. And since you made a number of edits like that to Suzuki just a few days ago, and got warned for it, doing it again today is definitely vandalism. Thomas.W(talk) 19:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

sorry, i didnt man to put that yay in, it was just a joke.take a joke. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 75.67.3.121 (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC) hey, i did it because many people feel that way about david tyree's catch how do you feel about it? [on the subject of david tyree catch]

BTR-80
I want to say some people edited the Bangladesh army with wrong information and they r saying Bangladesh army has 130 BTR-80 but Bangladesh has 1025+ page very Badly they always edit Bangladesh army's weapon page wrong pls edit It again or Unlock this .Sir U want a reference its a common thing Bangladesh has 1025+ btr-80M with 128 Btr-82A on order that's why Russia wanted to make and will make a BTR-80 management plant here in Bangladesh the news is sure you can visit the international web news Sir Pls my request to you pls sir Edit it again that Bangladesh has 1025+ btr-80M and Bangladesh uses BTR-80M as a main APC of UN mission 166+ btr-80 active in UN mission sir you can visit www.bdmilitary.com for the information Sir pls try to understand ........ — Preceding unsigned comment added byMD.Rohan (talk •contribs) 15:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The higher figure you and others are trying to add is not going to be added unless you or someone else provides a reliable referencefor it. That's the way it works here on WP. Thomas.W (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bam Aquino
Sorry for not putting any reasons about the deletion of the trivia section. Anyway, please do not restore it as per Wikipedia's BLP Guidelines. Thanks. 203.87.176.19 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Land Rover Defender manufacturers
So you and Biker Biker believe that the Land Rover Defender should have other manufacturers listed in the info box. Would you feel better if I've added the other manufacturers in the infobox? Seqqis (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "should have no other manufacturers listed in the info box". If so you're correct, the names of the multiple licensees do not belong in the info box, and will be removed. The article is about the Land Rover Defender as such, not the multiple companies that have aquired a license to make them, some for just a few years, others for decades. Thomas.W (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem right not to include the othe manufactures. Since they're a lot of licensed manufactures, how about I put them in a collapsible list under Land Rover in the infobox example;
 * Seqqis (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Take the discussion to the article talk page so that everyone who is interested in it can take part in the discussion. Thomas.W (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion
here to discuss religion at the Colombian Expo - better than getting the Admins involved. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. And I've answered there. Thomas.W (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sound from AK-47 page
Hi Thomas.W,

I've seen you've reversed my edit on the AK-47 page. May I asked you why you think that the sound of a firing AK-47 is not noteworthy but 16 images depicting the AK-47 is noteworthy? As I see it registration of all senses has important encyclopedic value. Some of us don't have access to the visual sense and could use this extra media file.

best, --Martsniez (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A sound file with the sound of a couple of shots being fired has IMHO very little encyclopaedic value. In addition to that the sound file has more to do with 7.62x39mm than with AK-47, so try your luck there. Thomas.W (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Blagoi Ivanov's recent info
Hello, you've warned me very impolitely about adding info to the Blagoi Ivanov's section of en.wikipedia.org The information I've provided is directly from his family (I communicate with them from time to time). I am no journalist nor reporter so the questioned info can not be written in newspaper or article and vice versa referenced adequately. Nonetheless this source in no way makes my information poor or false (most trusted I think)! Next time please treat the people which improve en.wikipedia.org more kindly!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by77.70.36.136 (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You got the standard user warning for adding unsourced info to a biography of a living person, nothing else. All information added to biographies of living persons must be properly sourced, or it will get deleted, and "information direct from his family" is"original research" and explicitly disallowed. Thomas.W (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(Totally unwarranted 3RR-warning removed, issued by Mark Marathon as a revenge for getting a well deserved 3RR-warning himself for edit-warring on Longest recorded sniper kill.)

Micevski, not Michevski
Hi Thomas.W,

you have restored my changes I have made it recently on Toni Micevski's surname.You see his surname is incorrectly written as Mičevski, which is not the same as Micevski.If you read it like it is written now it would sound like Michevski, which again it is not the same as Mitsevski.I would like you to know that I did not make any act of vandalism and I would like you to consider that fact and fix this awkwardness.I forgot to mention that I am from Macedonia and know this player since he played in Macedonian First League and from the Macedonian national team. Best regards, Шишмиш (talk)
 * Discuss it on the article talk page not here. The article is named Toni Mičevski on both the English, the Dutch and the German WP, and it's also the spelling used on many other websites. And unless there's a consensus on the talk page for changing it that's the way it will stay. Thomas.W (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.Шишмиш (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Шишмиш

RentAGoat
Hey there, I've reverted the changes from an earlier postings in the page Rentagoat. Can you please review the article and let me know if it meets the notability criteria? If not deletion seems the best route! — Precedingunsigned comment added by 75.108.139.2 (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Push poll discussion
There is a POV discussion at Talk:Push poll that you may wish to contribute to. --Andrewaskew (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

IMI Tavor TAR-21

 * Hi there, the reason that it was there in the first place (someone removed it without checking properly) is due to some jerk from Austria who keeps harping about the similairities between TAR-21/SAR-21/CR-21 to the Steyr AUG and that the AUG, as he claimed, was the father/trendsetter of all subsequent bullpup designs. Thereafter, the Thorneycroft carbine which I've sourced and quoted preceded the AUG by a good seventy-eighty years, and the Austrian guy has shut up/stopped his nonsense ever since I pre-empted him. Frankly, you have no idea what monsters these nationalistic editors (I've encounted numerous, like Argentinians, Austrians, Indonesians, Italians, Spanish and Swedish) can become when their "national passions" are pushed aside and ignored; wihtout us addressing their nonsense with straight facts to correct them, there simply will be no end! Seriously, just keep the text there and I also need your cooperation or else there will be no peace when he comes back to harp on it again. Peace, out. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is on my watch list, so if he adds nonsense to the article it will be removed, and he will be warned in accordance with the rules. Without the text about the Thorneycroft carbine. And BTW, I do know what "monsters" nationalistic editors can be since I deal with them almost every day. Thomas.W (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * SO you do know what we are dealing here... let's just help each other to prevent disruption or nonsense by these egomaniacs, shall we? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Ibrahim article editing conflict resolution
Your recent edits suggest that you might have something to contribute to the resolution of an editing conflict on the Raymond Ibrahim article. Your comments at talk:Raymond Ibrahim would be appreciated. Thanks.Mavigogun (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing to Quentin Groves
Thomas. W Each time I remove information and give reason for removal, I notice that it gets placed back. I don't see the concern is granting my request. Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjbear 5 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The text you repeatedly remove is well sourced and, judging by the comments of other users who revert your deletions of the text, relevant to the article. So you can't just delete the text because you personally dislike it. Start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead, and try to reach an agreement with other editors. Thomas.W (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing Kıtalararası Derbi
Dear Thomas W.,

You repeatedly remove my well referenced (although they are common knowledge, indeed) additions to "Kıtalararası Derbi" entry. The reason you put forward is "Rv unconstructive and unsourced edits." To begin with they were not "unsourced" but you removed my references. Most of the references below the entry are newspaper pages as well as my additions you removed. "Unconstructive" is even a worse excuse since it is subjective. Moreover, the rest of the page is full of "really unconstructive" sections and information, such as the "Graeme Souness flag incident". I also doubt you have any idea about the topic. Can you please provide me with sound arguments or else restore my edits?

Regards, Sahin Erturk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahinerturk(talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted two edits by an anonymous IP user on 25 April, 2013, one was a case of unexplained section blanking/deletion of content from the article, and the other was an addition of potentially controversial content with no source/reference given. Both of them in total accordance with the rules. Thomas.W (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

List of ships of the Bangladesh Navy
Hi Thomas, In the page List of ships of the Bangladesh Navy, you created a list that looks crazy. You have two main categories there. 1. Surface Fleet. 2. Submarines. However, you have put all the surface ships (except for Frigates) under the category Submarine, which is absolutely incorrect. The ships like Corvette, OPV, LPD, LCM, LPC, FAC etc should be under the category of surface fleet. Please, make sure the order is correct. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added byKamrul512 (talk • contribs) 05 May, 2013 12.15 (UTC)
 * I haven't put anything anywhere, all I have done is revert your unsourced/improperly sourced additions to the article. Thomas.W(talk) 12:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Iksander
I removed a bunch of stuff on that page that came from a source that was questionable to say the least. Sorry that I forgot to add a reason. I'm still kind of new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added byJwend392 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What blocked user?
This is a little unspecific. What user?Bishonen &#124; talk 21:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC).
 * This IP-user in Russia. But as soon as he was blocked for sockpuppetry he started to IP-hop, each time adding the frivolous systemic bias tag to Spanish Civil War, which is against consensus on the talk page, as his signature, so blocking IPs only stops him temporarily. Which is why the article has been semi-protected since the end of March.Thomas.W (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC).

== AboutUser claiming to be the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party.... ==

Hi Thomas.W

Hand-written message added to the user's talk-page. Should we perhaps wait a little while and see whether further action is needed?

Pete in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me, I'll leave it for a while. I have, BTW, no personal interest in Goodson, Goodson's controversial views on various things, his party or South African politics, I just fight vandalism and stumbled across the article when Kehlstein's actions triggered a vandalism filter (Section blanking). Thomas.W (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Doreply
Just looked at some of Doreply's contributions. I was trying to AGF, but you were right. At best he was trolling, and if he ever did have genuine intentions, he managed to go about them in totally the wrong way. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Lavasa
Let me know if that IP comes back. Mkdw talk 07:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Filipino vandal
I notice that you have been spending a lot of time blocking one particular Filipino vandal using dynamic IPs. Thanks for the assistance, I have been reverting this user for a few months now (he sometimes operates with various usernames incorporating "jajadelera") and am happy that I'm not the only one to notice. I wish there was a way to block him/her instead of having to chase a never-ending stream of IPs. Please tell me if there's anything I can do.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  06:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My pictures
Hi! I want to explain pictures that I uploaded. I uploaded three kind of images, first my own pictures that I take from footballers and actors and actresses. The second, I uploaded some pictures from fa.wikipedia that was uploaded many times ago and users in Persian wiki agreed those as free images. And third, I cropped some pictures uploaded in commons. I don't think uploading cropped pictures is banned in Wiki as I see other versions. Please stop deleting my free images but I think I have mistake about Zakani picture (is not free). Tabarez (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The images I tagged are clear copy violations, and will be removed. Period. And your uploads don't look good, I chose four images at random, three of them were clear copyvios and the fourth one a possible such. Thomas.W (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * About Alireza Zakani.jpg I'm sure I have mistake it was copyright. But Mehdi Kiani.JPG was a picture that uploaded in fa.wikipedia two years ago and the uploader are one of the fa.wikipedia's admin. Tabarez (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Glock
I saw your AIV report about Heroicchickens. I don't see how you're reverting vandalism and it appears that you're both in an edit war and have violated the 3RR. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Heroicchickens repeatedly added material with a forged reference (a reference he copied from another entry on the page), which is vandalism. For which he has just been blocked by Anthony Bradbury. Thomas.W (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How do we know it's forged? Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's not in the book he referred to (Kasler, Peter: "Glock: The New Wave in Combat Handguns", Paladin, 1992). Which can be confirmed online through a search in the book on Amazon.com. Thomas.W (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at page 79 of that book and the material this editor was adding is in fact on that page.  What do you propose to do about this?  Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * People's Armed Police of China? More than 20 years ago? A search on Amazon returned nothing for Japan, South Korea or China, but gave the correct answers for a few other countries I tested. Thomas.W (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. While a search on "National Police Agency" (without quotes) does indeed show page 79, you are correct that this was indeed vandalism. This is about as sneaky as vandalism gets and I take my hat off to you sir for finding it. Excellent work! Toddst1 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, a bit more accurate description in your edit summaries would have helped a doddery old git of an admin like me. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I usually check, doublecheck and triplecheck everything before accusing anyone of anything. But I'll try to write more informative edit summaries from now on. Thomas.W (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is about as good as administrative or anti-vandalism work gets on Wikipedia. Great job. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, you have not been blocked and Toddst1 gave you enough time to answer. Voilà :)Farhikht (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ACR

 * Hi, thanks for pointing it out. The 500/600 m on the M4 are IMHO unrealistic, but since the figures come from a U.S.Army Fact File I guess we'll have to accept it. So I have changed the range of the ACR to the same as the M4 Carbine, using the M4 fact file as reference.Thomas.W (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And there you have it...

 * Man,... after encountering Argentinians, Austrians, Indonesians, Italians, Spanish and the Swedish, I think we can safely add in you-know-who to that long list of monsters. ... -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't badmouth Swedes, I'm 50% Swedish... :) Thomas.W (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you're not that other cheeky 50%. The Swedes I knew personally are in a class of their own, Captains and Admirals that is. :) -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, please read this → WP:OWB and especially this → WP:OWB. Sums up our views very aptly, true or true? :) -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(Totally unwarranted 3RR-warning posted by User:Reisio removed. Posted as a revenge for getting a well deserved 3RR-warning himself/herself for edit-warring on I.)

SKS and Heydrich
Apologies for the mix up, however, my edits on the SKS and Heydrich pages I personally thought were completely valid. On Heydrich's page, it was obvious the individual who wrote before used a citation from a 'spooky' and overly emotional book, that although the quote was true about Hitler calling him the 'Man with the Iron Heart' was simply a play on words of his name 'Rein Hard' - which, in old German, means 'Iron Heart' - not due to his 'cold and calculating killing ability, as the previous author so emotionally tried to portray. And as for my SKS revision, for people interested in weapons, the link between the SKS and the PTRS41 is a very important link which I was surprised to have not been mentioned - I did however, post a link to the PTRS41 wikipedia page, which clearly states, and without a citation or reference, the following: "In 1943 Simonov used a scaled down PTRS-41 design for the SKS-45, that would accommodate the new 1943 designed M/43 7.62x39mm cartridge.". I was under the assumption that since that reference was accepted by wikipedia, that my revision would be acceptable as well - the two weapons are literally the same, just different sizes. Please respond with your thoughts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added byMilitaryHistoryAficionado (talk •contribs) 09:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC) --MilitaryHistoryAficionado (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Alchemy Arms Spectre
Hey dumbass, I have full permissions to that image. Ask the site moderator. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Nabaker (talk •contribs) 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then do it as it's supposed to be done. Images should be uploaded with proper credits, and proof of permission if the copyright is owned by someone else (in this case most probably 50ae.net). Uploading someone else's images as "own work" constitutes copyright violation. Thomas.W (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, the work is owned by me and the site moderator. I have allowed him to share my work and he has returned the favor. Do you want me to take screenshots of the emails as proof? You cannot delete my work without any evidence, and this one page will be the straw that breaks the camel's back if you do not undo this misdeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added byNabaker (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

More or less of the same here

 * See User talk:Geeciii, talk is finally open so would you be kind enough to give him your opinion? Just be careful not to bite, though. Cheers and best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing fringe?
Seriously, I like the way you accuse me of "trying to preserve [an article] that is full of fringe theories and unsourced or badly sourced claims" and state categorically that there is "nothing fringe" in the IP's edits, and then go and revert the exact same edits by the IP to two of the three articles with the edit comments that you are reverting fringe theories. I don't have any stake in Ancient kings of Finland or King of Kvenland, and only reverted the IP edits because they were clearly not an improvement, not because I wanted to preserve the articles as they were before the IP started editing (see for example my edit comment to my final edit to Ancient kings of Finland: "this article needs improving, but pushing your fringe theories is not an improvement"). As to Runes, if you think that adding "Use of Finnish language in interpreting the oldest runes warrants further study on the linguistic origins of the runes" to a prominent position in the lede is not pushing fringe theories then we are living on different planets. And I might add that other respected editors such asBloodofox and Yngvadottir‎ have also been reverting the edits to these articles by the same IP -- are we all (and apparently you now as well) in a conspiracy to "preserve fringe theories and unsourced or badly sourced claims" ?BabelStone (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood my comments. Since the articles were already full of fringe theories and unsourced or improperly sourced material protecting the articles in order to prevent the IP from editing would calm things down for a while, but it wouldn't solve the main problem, the low quality of the articles as you seemed to want to preserve them. Because all of those articles need a major rewrite, a rewrite that seems to be underway now. Without page protection. Requesting page protection, thereby potentially preventing other IPs from editing, would also not be needed if the troublesome IP user had been dealt with according to the book, that is given proper user warnings for adding unsourced material and for edit warring, and if needed reported to the administrators for further action. Thomas.W (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think semi-protection was not appropriate that's fine, and I'm OK with that, but I do not think accusing me of fringe-pushing was helpful. I was going to let it pass and take the articles off my watch list, but when I saw that you made exactly the same revert to the IP's edit to King of Kvenland today as I did yesterday (my edit, your edit, what's the difference?) I felt somewhat aggrieved by your comments about the relative merits of my edits and the IP's edits on Requests for page protection. Anyway, enough of my petty grievances, now that more editors have noticed these problematic articles I hope they will be improved and better sourced.BabelStone (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Butting in here thanks to Echo notification) I do too. But the IP is not talking so much as averring, and their sources are weak and in the case of the Andersson cite, I believe they're either accidentally or carelessly twisting the meaning. The overarching intent seems to be to promote the ideas of Kalevi Wiik as Truth. I note that our article on him isn't bad, but could use more references both for responses to him and for the reasons his theory is generally rejected. ... And this is very much on the edge of my competence. I hope we'll get some folks with good references to hand. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thomas, it looks to me like you owe BableStone an apology and you could do well with being a lot more careful with your edits. You also complain about the quality of the articles, claiming that the three articles are "already full of fringe theories" and stating that "all of those articles need a major rewrite". What do you see on runes? Or are you now simply backtracking? Sure, these articles need work (all articles need to be brought to at least WP:GA status before they're remotely "good") but your claims don't stand up at runes. Please stop wasting the time of others with careless edits and with claims that you could apparently use more background in. &#58;bloodofox:(talk) 20:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't owe anyone an apology, and I'm not backtracking. A) the articles were hardly of featured article quality and could need a lot of input, even from IP editors (who are not allowed to edit semi-protected articles), B) the articles deal with subjects that are open to interpretation and where there legitimately can be several different views, so even someone who is pushing fringe theories might have a legitimate right to make himself heard, as long as the material added is properly sourced and not given undue weight, and C) a single editor with a static IP address was edit warring, posting unsourced and/or insufficiently sourced material, pushing fringe theories and editing in an NPOV/tendentious way, and there were two or more of you opposing him/her. Meaning that there were many ways to put an end to the edit warring without requesting protection for the articles. Just as I wrote a few posts up. Thomas.W (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The apology would have been the polite thing to do. Nobody said anything about "featured article quality"; you're again attempting to tone down your previous comments that led to this thread in the first place. Do yourself and us a favor and stay out of topics you're unfamiliar with; brush up first. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Stay out of topics you're unfamiliar with"? What do you know about what I'm familiar with or not?This page comes to mind. Quote: "Are you qualified to edit this article?"Thomas.W (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Peugeot Pars
The reason I've Removed the infobox because it seems to have the same information as the one on top of it Seqqis (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Thomas.W (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The userpage move
Thanks for moving User:BooksWiki94 back where it belongs (and for adding the ANI notice to their restored talk page). I have never had reason to move a userpage, so I was hesitant to get into it in case there was an obscure technical issue involved. Regards Taroaldo    ✉   04:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuze v. Fuse
Sorry if I gave offense. It has been my understanding that for several years now the debate on WP between 's' and 'z' had been resolved in favor of the "Fuses communicate fire, fuzes initiate detonation" definition. If that is no longer the case. ..

Just reviewed the intro on the Fuze article. It seems to support my edit but I'm not so obsessive that I'm going to go any further than this comment. If you'd perhaps care to review the article and make your own determination.

Cheers,

Another Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by76.25.216.211 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, take two. I guess I am **that** obsessive. My 2nd edition OE(m)D shows no distinction between Z and S. Ergo, it's not a Brit. v. U.S. issue. My '57 Encyclopedia Brittanica supports my take on 'z' v. 's'. Given the WP article on 'Fuze,', I'm afraid that I'm going to revert and ask you to support your position. We're not talking dialects of English, if anything, we're talking terms of art and the WP "Be Bold" position.

I await your reply.

Cheers again,

Thomas D. K. 76.25.216.211 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to join in here, as I have reverted back to "fuse". If you want to discount the wp:engvar issue - which I'm not sure is the correct thing to do, but so be it - and rely upon dictionary usage then we are still good with "fuse" asMOS states to retain the existing type of use when confronted with alternatives that people cannot agree on.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So be it. Ain't nothing but a thang.  I do wonder if you took the time to review the "Fuze" article but I'm out here, regardless.

Cheers,

TDK 76.25.216.211 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure did, especially this bit: "...although historically this has by no means been a hard-and-fast rule, with "fuse" often used as the spelling in many sources, as the example "hand grenade fuse" shows." Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being pedantic, that would be because a hand grenade fuse  communicates fire.  That's why I've never considered making changes to the hand grenade page.


 * Cheers,


 * TDK 75.71.97.212 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Iskander
Hello, in an effort to avoid an edit war I decided to talk over the issues you feel the inclusion of Iskander M's in Armenia by Russian forces present in the Iskander article. There are a number of sources that confirm Russia has the missiles in Armenia. If you'd like I can provide them. Their station in a third country is important and ought to be included in the article. I look forward to hearing a constructive response from you.--Moosh88 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The logical thing would be to mention a Russian deployment of Iskanders to Armenia under the header "Deployment and operational history", two steps above "Operators". But claiming that a Russian deployment of Iskanders to Armenia makes Armenia an operator is not OK, since the missiles, by all available information, are still Russian owned, Russian controlled and Russian manned. (Which means it wouldn't be an edit war but a case of you including unsourced/factually wrong information, which if repeated is treated as vandalism.) Thomas.W(talk) 07:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That works. You could have made the edits yourself instead of the constant reverts.  Cheers!--Moosh88 (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the one who wants it mentioned, not me. Thomas.W (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because it is a big deal and should be mentioned in the article.--Moosh88 (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)