User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 11

Prakash Raj mother tongue..
Prakash has confirmed several times in all his interviews that his mother tongue is Kannada and not Tulu. His father's lang is Tulu. Stop reverting the change. Stop giving wrong information. Pls watch Open heart with Rk, a telugu interview where he clearly makes fun of it sating tulu is his father tongue but Kannada is his mother tongue Prakashlyrics (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A pie for you!
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
 * style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg
 * style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]Hello. Your recent edit to List of pastors in Nigeria appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note
Thomas W. You're an experienced editor, so I'm leaving you a personal note regarding this. Firstly, it's not about "getting someone blocked"—it's about educating and advising a new editor o how not to get blocked. Secondly, their edits were clearly disruptive, and as I noted in my edit-summary, their only edit since their previous warnings may not even be disruption; it is certainly not vandalism. Thirdly, if someone deserves a level-four warning for disruption—there isn't one; per WP:UWLEVELS, if an editor continues to engage in such edits, after a level 3 warning; consideration can be given to reporting the matter at a relevant noticeboard: in other words they will bre treated as a vandal anyway, so no need for your extra warning. Lastly, misuse of warning templates is a thing (for which, ironically, one can be templated: See ), and edit-warring over another editor's talkpage is—unnecessary, shall we say? Happy editing, all the same —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 14:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC) The edit done at RNA virus yesterday is not a disruptive editing.The material is a essay of Nature."The evolutionary history of vertebrate RNA viruses"(doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0012-7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordic butterfly (talk • contribs) 02:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote a message on your talk page while you wrote the message above. I suggest you read it... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Emblem of Kievan Rus'
In my opinion, this emblem can be the symbol of Kievan Rus. It was on coins of Rus and many states of Europe in this era had a symbol of prince's or king's dynasty. I really hope that you will turn this emblem.And the emblem of Ukraine is different from the emblem of Kievan Rus. Vitaliy Віталій Добрівський (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A) It's original research and explicitly not allowed by Wikipedia's rules, and B), the modern day state symbol of the Ukraine can not be used to symbolize Kievan Rus', a country that predates the modern country of Ukraine by about a thousand years, since it implies that the Ukraine is the only currently existing country that can claim heritage from the Kievan Rus', when in fact other countries also have a right to make such a claim. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction to City name references within articles
Hi,

Needed your help in understanding - why not to correct the name of the city on the Wiki pages.. 'Bengaluru' is the official name & is off late (Finally) becoming the commonly used term to refer to the city. Isn't it the right time to cascade this change? Wiki should be giving right information about the places right?

Also, within the same page there is inconsistency - where in there is a mix of references to the OLD name & NEW name.. Should this not be made consistent?

The article name is left unchanged - as per the policy reference you have shared.

Ref: You have rolled back the corrections I did on pages like - Indiranagar, CV Raman Nagar, Bangalore Kannada, etc..

Appreciate any help.. Or, I'll also lose faith in this project!

Thanks, Prashanthi Vasishta (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Prashanthi Vasishta
 * The English language Wikipedia is an international English language encyclopaedia geolocating to the United States, not an Indian English language encyclopaedia, and per WP:COMMONNAME we are to use names etc that are in common use in English language media and sources world wide, regardless of what local laws and regulations say, which, since Bangalore is still the by far most widely used name in English of the city, not only world wide but also in India (including in Bangalore itself), we continue using Bangalore, and not Bengaluru. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

So who decides that old name was popular not the new name ? Is there any survey which cites this ? Bombay is equally popular to Mumbai till date, so why doesn't the same law apply there? Why is this hypocrisy ? If you cant post an official survey data which shows that Bangalore is more popular than Bengaluru. Then the claim falls flat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar5 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There have been many discussions and formal requested moves on Talk:Bangalore, see talk page header and talk page archives. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Thomas, for sharing your views. I haven't changed the title (of course I don't have those privileges yet). I read the policy you referred & if i have understood it correctly, it refers to the article titles. In the referred wiki pages, I was only updating the name within the article (I just started this excercise & with just a few edits - got your feedback. In fact, in some pages there were references to Bengaluru as well as Bangalore - which is inconsistent. I tried keeping it uniform/consistent - though I had to exclude title from this exercise. If the "international" documents keep referring to the old names, when do you think the actual names become "commonly" used? Another point is that name of a city or a person - cannot be different in local language (in my case - Kannada), for a country (Indian English - as you have highlighted) or across nations (International). My name remains same across languages.. Prashanthi Vasishta (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It also applies to the names used in the respective articles, since they should be the same as the article title. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please
Did you even look at the change? I moved the coordinates from someone's random house to the roundabout near the heart of the city. Also my change brought the coords very close to Google Maps coords, which they also chose based on centering reasons. Your excessive reaction is puzzling in the extreme and suggests WP:Ownership issues on your part. Abductive (reasoning) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's up to you to explain what you're doing in an edit summary (that's what edit summaries are for...), not up to whoever patrols edits to check on Google Maps whenever someone makes seemingly random changes to map co-ordinates, especially when, as in this case, you first change to one set of co-ordinates, and then, three minutes later, to another set of co-ordinates. Which is why I wrote "unsourced and unexplained changes" in my message to you... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Artsakh (History)
Hello there. I'd like to respectfully challenge your accusation that I copied without attribution, because I literally spent hours writing the text myself. Two or three small passages were indeed copied from other articles found on Wikipedia, but I've reworded most of them and have included their references, and absolutely nothing was copied from external sources. If you think I should cite more references, please mark the passages that you believe require it (I didn't have time to add the references I mean to add, but I will when I get a chance). Also, you've reverted other edits that were completely unrelated (like the color of the map legend that was in its own completely unrelated edit). Kentronhayastan (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please come back, Wikipedia needs you!
I can understand why you've lost faith in this project. I've been editing less than a month and lost faith on day 2. That being said, I have seen some remarkable contributions from you in this short time. I've witnessed you standing up to malicious editors who are acting as gatekeepers on particular Wiki pages. Without people such as yourself standing up to bullies, new editors like me might leave far more abruptly than you have yourself. Please reconsider! Thank you for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Assault rifle
In a recent edit, you mentioned that newly-added content was "undiscussed." I'm curious why you would mention this in an edit summary, as there is no requirement to discuss content before adding it to an article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like a garbage edit and it contained a lot of badly written material other than the wound characteristics. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Contentious edits on a very contentious (because of US gun politics) article such as Assault rifle should be discussed before being made. The edit added WP:UNDUE material (the wound characteristics are no different for assault rifles than for any other small-caliber high velocity rifles, so why single out assault rifles?), and was made by an editor who had already been reverted multiple times for making other contentious edits on the article. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 07:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:International Mini Meeting
Someone requested the redirect be created at WP:AFC/R, which I accepted using a script. Apparently, you beat me to creating it, but the script went ahead and tagged the talk page anyway. Hopefully, there are no hard feelings. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries
What's with the edit summary This sounds like an attempt to right great wrongs while harassing another user. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "I haven't checked your edits on other articles, but I'll take your word for that kind of edit being routine for you. Which doesn't bode well, because one of the things that I have learnt during my 12 years here is that people who make that kind of edit, on articles that are under discretionary sanctions to boot, and continue doing the edits even long after other editors have disagreed with them, usually find themselves blocked after a while".
 * I suggest you check Farcaster's recent edits on gun articles (Assault rifle and Assault weapon), and read the entire discussion on their talk page, including the edit that my post was a reply to, instead of coming here. They may be a valuable law-abiding editor in other areas, but their recent edits on gun articles, an area that is under discretionary sanctions, have been ignorant POV-pushing (full of factual errors, deliberate omissions etc etc), and edit-warring. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree Tom. K.e.coffman, please stop assuming that people who don't agree with your views on firearms (which are as far to the other side of center as you might assume mine to be).  Springee (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above ("...please stop assuming...") does not seem to be a complete sentence. What were you trying to say? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to play games do it somewhere else, not on my talk page. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Tom for finishing my reply here. Sorry, it was. I got pulled away for a moment. Anyway, please don't assume that editors who are opposed to many of these firearms inclusions are somehow not following the rules etc. You accused me of advocacy on another firearms article. Keep in mind that I see you advocating etc just in the other direction. We simply disagree with what is in scope for these articles and some people, reasonably, don't want every firearms article to turn into some type of anti-gun article. We have articles for those topics. I'm sure you feel you are acting in good faith. So do I and a number of other editors. Springee (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Tom: Sure, this will be my last post here. I'd still like to point out that (1) there's no need to copy your entire message into an edit summary; and (2) "ignorant POV-pushing" can be perceived as a personal attack. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding to adding multiple links in Visvesvaraya Technological University
Hey, I am sorry for adding multiple links to Visvesvaraya_Technological_University. Since I am new to wikipedia edits so i didn't know how it works. I have added one single useful link if you think its not good then you can remove that. I never meant to spam here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandsingh004 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed references were updated with new reference
In the Acura RDX article, the only removed references were the references in the Sales section of the article. They were replaced with 1 single source that showed annual sales of the RDX in the US and Canada since its initial release date. Some years that did not have references now have a reference that has the correct information from a single source. All other information added to 3 separate sections included 3 reliable sources. I have used similar sources before in numerous other articles and never had issues. If this is still an issue, I apologize, but I did not see a problem myself. 2601:800:C200:3540:6827:A626:4C98:9C7C (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no sales figures on the page you linked to, only a blurb about the upcoming 2019 Acura RDX. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Canadian sales figures were added, with all of the sales totals matching the new source, minus the 2017 US Sales numbers. It is also still the same person, I just have an IPV4 address. 2601:800:C200:3540:B41D:DEA7:DA06:5E7D (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When I clicked on the reference link that was called "Sales figures" in your edit there was no sales data there at all, only a blurb about the upcoming 2019 Acura RDX. So maybe you provided the wrong link... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 00:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a screenshot of the added sales figures with new reference if you follow that link. -> https://s33.postimg.cc/n6e7odnxr/Screen_Shot_2018-05-31_at_8.32.04_PM.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:800:C200:3540:1C5:FE2:B93F:3CAB (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, double checking my edit, I just realized that I overlooked the mistake with the reference. This was suppose to be the link: http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/acura-rdx-sales-figures/ 2601:800:C200:3540:147C:5CD2:B17D:74A3 (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo
Why did you revert my edits? I am in Nigeria and I researched this case very well putting accurate info out on it. Your edits are not accurate and potentially libelous. Too many people are vandalizing the page.

Refs 11 is tabloid Journalism. The case was not about an affair. It was about a newstip posted by a Journalist sent by a church member about a pastor. Wikiyabo (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Pls review #9 She was not detained in an immigration center. She was detained in a women's maximum prison according to the Toronto Sun Wikiyabo (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted because a) much of it was pure unencyclopaedic trivia and simply doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia (as I pointed out in my edit summary by saying that "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook or a personal blog..."), and b) much if was unsourced, and the rest was mostly sourced to web sites that are not considered as reliable sources here. There was also far too much about her "fundraising", i.e. her attempts to get people to donate money to her to pay for her recovery for "post traumatic stress" (after her short stint in jail), in the blogs etc you used as sources. And to be honest I question whether she's notable enough, by Wikipedia's standards, to even have an article here. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Refs 15 She was not released in April 2017. She was granted bail but conditions weren't met. Pls review my edits.

Refs 18,19 She was not incarcerated for defamation. She was neither convicted nor sentenced. She was DETAINED in prison. Nigeria doesn't have city and state jails. The case was withdrawn. Pls review my edits!! This is libelous. Wikiyabo (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Also she is known as MadamKOO on social media no longer Snitchlady a name on the streets of Toronto not on social media. A name that received death threats Wikiyabo (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

But can you get the information right on her arrest. The sources I used were reliable sources. Punch newspapers the leading daily. If you think she's not notable then the article should be removed. I read wikipedia notes of editors FIGHTING over that. Encyclopedia info still had to be accurate. Wikiyabo (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed every mention of her arrest from the article, for being insufficiently sourced for that kind of material. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tom two last questions. Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo is a US notable pharmacist and her external links to her site was removed. HNNAfrica was down while she was detained. Can I link it and social media pages once they are back up? Wiki is not a resume but why was her pharmacist degree taking out? She is notable as both. She had 3 degrees notable as two. Wikiyabo (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can use only reliable sources independent of the subject (see WP:RS), i.e. not sources that are even remotely connected to her. Which if she really is "a US notable pharmacist" shouldn't be hard to find. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I see the " formerly" known as Snitchlady. What about the immigration detention center part of the Deportation? I see a prison detention at Vanier Women's Center. Can this article be expanded in the Activism part? Wikiyabo (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that the changes you made (including using stories on umpteen blogs mentioning her fundraising efforts as sources) and the changes you now want are intended to help her get money from people in Nigeria, by making them feel sorry for her. Were you hired to do this? - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect this is the same editor as and almost certainly multiple other accounts who've made similar edits to that page and have been blocked.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thomas what exactly is a reliable independent source? Nigeria had thousands of syndicated blogs. I tend to only use newspapers. I simply scan celebrity stories that are notable enough for an encyclopedia. I don't know any of these people in let alone get hired by them. Her fundraiser is all over the internet. Only mentioned it because it was related to that arrest. It's not important now since an arrest section does not exist.Please do not block me based on the word libelous. I now know the channels to resolve disputes. Now was the pharmacist part removed because her health news blog was removed under external links? Also can I expand the Activism part? There is an article I found on female genital mutilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiyabo (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Miss Grand Puerto Rico Column Deletion
Hi, how are you doing today?

Recently, you wrote on my talk page "Hello. I have reverted your edits since the article is about Miss Puerto Rico only, not Miss Grand Puerto Rico, so do not add it back again. Thank you. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)."

I am a little confused of why you deleted the Miss Grand Puerto Rico column on Miss Puerto Rico. Miss Grand Puerto Rico is a beauty pageant too and I think it should be on there. What can I do to make it so it can stay on there? It has multiple pageants including Miss Universe Puerto Rico, Miss Puerto Rico World, Miss Puerto Rico Earth, Miss Puerto Rico International, and Miss Puerto Rico America. I am kind of wondering why those 5 can be on 1 page, but Miss Grand Puerto Rico can't be included

Thanks Braniac2000 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this Shingling334?
Hi Tom, I reverted and marked this Special:Contributions/86.17.71.33 as being Shingling334, but maybe I'm mistaken. I know you're familiar with them, maybe you can take a look? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's Shingling334. It might be a friend or a copycat but I can't see any signs of it being a proxy, which means the geolocation is wrong for Shingling, both because he has edited from Turkey as recently as a couple of days ago, as he does every summer, and because it doesn't match his known geolocation even if he was in the UK. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Change Shahapur, Karnataka to Shahapur, Yadagiri (Karnataka)
Hi there, I agree with your point that no one outside the India know where is Yadagiri but for the Kannadigas it is quite confusing because there are many places in Karnataka in the name of Shahapur(For ex-Shahapur, Belgaum). So, I request you to change the name from Shahapur, Karnataka to Shahapur, Yadagiri or Shahapur, Yadagiri(Karnataka). Rishi Muni (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are redirects from "Shahapur, Yadagiri", "Shahpur, Yadgir" and "Shahpur, Karnataka" to the article, so anyone who writes either of those names in the searchbox is led to Shahapur, Karnataka. And the article clearly states that it's about the Shahapur that is located in Yadgir/Yadagiri district of Karnataka, so there should be no misunderstandings. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, You understand what I'm trying to say. Kindly think also from the local point of view. If a person intending to search for Shahapur, Belgaum types Shahapur then he will see Shahapur of Thane district and below that Shahapur, Karnataka which directs to the city in Yadagiri district. If he sees Shahapur, Yadagiri instead of Shahapur, Karnataka he could skip that unnecessary click. Please change the name to Shahapur, Yadagiri. Rishi Muni (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Readers who type "Shahapur, Belgaum" will get to Shahapur, Belgaum, an article about the village in the Belgaum district. A small village that with all probability isn't the most well known, and most searched for, "Shahapur" in Karnataka (there are also several "Shahapur" in Maharashtra, and probably elsewhere too...). If you want to move the article, start a formal requested move discussion. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed trivial awards, mainly sourced to own press releases
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ixigo&oldid=848716084

Hello, Thank you for the edit.

All the awards listed had external links to reputed media houses and can be easily given multiple citations. I am relatively new to the wikipedia community. Could you please help me add the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav jalan (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they did not all have "external links to reputed media houses", almost all of them were sourced only to websites that publish company press releases, i.e. sourced to the subject of the article itself. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability (see Wikipedia's general notability guidelines), and the article, in it's current state, falls short of those requirements, so I also restored the notability tag that you removed. I also removed tonnes of inline external links, including multiple download links to the company's mobile apps, since they're not allowed. I very strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources, verifiability and notability, and find sources that comply with our rules, or the article risks being deleted. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

NLSIU edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Law_School_of_India_University

Hello,

I am new to this, but I had a few questions with regards to your edits. The costs and tuition are present on the pages of universities such as Harvard Law and Yale Law, which is why I thought they were relevant to the page as well. Further, I was wondering why the institution of a scholarship policy that was recognised independently as robust would be inappropriate as well.

Thanks! ShreedharKale (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Shreedhar

Hey
Dropping by to reply to: "They had already been reverted once for posting trivia when I noticed it, meaning they have now been reverted three times by two different editors. Responding to it in an aggressive way, including reverting my removal of their first post on my talk page... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)" I'm aware. The first and second reverts, WikiHannibal's and your first revert, concern completely different material, though they were reverted for the same reason. If you had to give a template message with your revert, given that their talk page did not at the time exist, it should have been a level 1 gentle prod. Personally, I think a welcome template and an explanation is the best first step when dealing with a good faith user. There is little way for Markness to know what's wrong with their edits, unless they are familiar with our guidelines and policies. They may have registered in 2015, but they've only made a handful of previous edits. Templates while useful, come across as impersonal and potentially aggressive. Refer to point 15 of "How to avoid being a biter": Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcome to new users. It's for article deletion notifications, but it applies well enough to warnings. I'm more suggesting that a less heavy-handed approach would probably yield better results. Not always though, deal with vandals and bad faith users in the usual way. Go easy on the newbies. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And I suggest checking the page history of Liberland... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, before I even posted on their talk page. So unless there's an SPI coming, then there's nothing for me to see. Markness made an edit on August 7th, it was reverted by WikiHannibal two days later for trivia. Markness made a new edit with new material today, you reverted it, for trivia, and posted an lv3 disruptive editing warning to their page. If you weren't aware, Markness did not repost the same material. They put wholly new material into the article. This is not, nor is it even remotely similar, to this. Markness reverted your revert, and you responded with another revert and a lv4 warning. Markness has made all of 1 revert, and that was after you posted an lv3 warning to their page for disruptive editing. There is no way for Markness to have known what was wrong with their edit when they made it, short of being familiar with our policies, which editors with few edits generally aren't. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Violation of AR-15 style rifle arbitration remedies
Your revert of my revert violates the discretionary sanctions in place on AR-15 style rifle:"Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.".

Please self-revert. If you do not, I will open an ANI and you may be blocked from editing. Thanks.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you really, seriously, expect me to feel intimidated by your post? A discussion at WP:ANI will put as much focus on you, and your tendentious editing on multiple gun politics-related articles, as on my revert of your "I don't agree"-edit (scrutinizing the behaviour also of whoever files a report is standard procedure at ANI...). Putting you in at least as great a risk of getting blocked as me... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to make the revert myself under WP:GAME. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree WW's actions look like WP:GAME Springee (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK - as you will.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 22:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 22:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

guns
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Reopening of a SPI case that you started
Sockpuppet investigations/Darcruz iyari has been reopened, as it turns out that when I closed it I had made a mistake. You may like to read the new comments there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sweden
Please, kindly explain, as per you message - if the only changes to the Sweden articles is adding double"[" and "]" tags around different country names - is this vandalism? I felt that this is beneficiary for people like me that want to see more context. I can call our Swedish attache as well and ask them if this will resolve the issues for you. But, correct me if I am wrong? Thanks. Svilenv
 * You also added "germany" after the native name of the country, and that's what you were warned for... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Another DS violation
Would you care to revert this edit? It's another violation of the remedies on that page (you cannot restore material that has been challenged by reversion).  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 20:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Get real. The material wasn't "challenged", it was removed with a misleading edit summary by an editor who to my knowledge has never edited the article before, and thus treated as test edit/blanking/vandalism. So no, I see no reason to self-revert, but you are of course free to report me. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It was challenged on the grounds of being literal nonsense. As per my statement just now on talk. Please self-revert immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A) Your edit summary ("RV an illegible edit") did not explain what you did, and why. B) Having objections to how part of a sentence is worded is not reason enough to remove 1,800K of material, with sources and all, especially not on an article about a very contentious subject (a subject under discreationary sanctions). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted that paragraph for precisely the reason I stated in the edit summary - it was garbled nonsense and needed to be completely rewritten to be of any use to anyone. You deciding my opinion constitutes vandalism doesn't make it so though, and I'm going to ask you one final time, self-revert your edit which violated the DS on the page. Simonm223 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Enforcement
I've started an enforcement request at WP:AE regarding your breach of discretionary sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing there... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to notify you before posting the request. Look again. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

AR-15
How is this [] not illegible? it is unbelievably poorly written.Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being poorly phrased/written doesn't make it "illegible". Bad handwriting can be illegible, and old and worn signs also often are illegible, but none of the text on AR-15 style rifle is... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough, but you really think that edit as it stands should be there? It is unbelievably badly written, and yes I would say so all over the place it is not that easy to follow its flow. It is mess that should not be in the article. Hell it even manages (because it is such a mess) to makes false claims about what sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about whether the text should be in the article or not, all I did was revert a drive-by removal of a big chunk of sourced text, with a misleading edit summary... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Going to a new page to fix a ghastly edit is not a drive-by. As you can see, I am quite engaged with this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not up to other editors to guess what your intentions were, it's up to you to clearly explain (in the edit summary) what you're doing, and why you're doing it. And your attempts to explain it afterwards don't change anything, my revert should be judged based on what information was available when the revert was made. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to self-revert after clarity was provided though is entirely on you. Had you said, "OK, I see your point," on the three occasions I asked you to self-revert we wouldn't be here now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean like the fact the material was poorly written and disruptive?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wedkipediaguru's talk page
Hey man, long time no chat! I hope you're doing well and that you're having a good day. I'm not going to lecture, scold, wave any fingers at you or whatever... I mean, I get it and we've all been there... but dude, don't feed the trolls! Responding to his talk page and calling him a "spammer" in return like this gives him exactly what he wants. Those messages are just attempts to bait you and reel you in with his trolling, and the only thing responses like that do is encourage him to behave worse and take things to the next level. He'll have all the incentive and desire to keep it up; create more accounts, troll you further, because he knows you'll react to it and respond when he does it.

I find it way more effective and satisfying to just completely ignore trolls that do that crap. Let them kick, scream, and pound sand for awhile (so long as it doesn't get serious of course, haha)... they'll get annoyed that nobody is listening, they'll get tired and bored of trying, and they'll leave. Like I said, I get it... I've been there before and it can be tempting at times to kick them back and "declare victory" with the last word. Again... not trying to scold, lecture, or point my finger at you and yell "BAD" (lol). I'm just trying to keep the peace and give you some food for thought. Cheers :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
DO you have some objection to my edit? And why are you concealing it from WP? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:58B6:3BF9:1F74:9353 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You were blocked indefinitely in 2016 as Special:Contributions/Lurie2, and aren't allowed to make any edits here, regardless of it you're using a named account or an IP... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Lennart Meri
Lennart Meri finished Tartu University with a cum laude in history. He is considered to be a historian, among others by the parliament of Estonia. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit on Vladimir the Great
Hello. Thanks for your editing. I know about coat of arms of Ukraine because I am ukrainian myself. Maybe the symbol I tried to add not the coat of arms in modern understanding, but I recommend you visit Symbols of the Rurikids, because modern coat of arms of Ukraine was the personal symbol of Vladimir the Great. Please, do not revert my edit, I would be pleased, if you help me add it more correctly, because I`m bad at wikiediting. - Agrail


 * The image you tried to add is a simplified version of the small coat-of-arms of modern-day Ukraine, in the exact same colours as that, a coat of arms where the bit in the center is similar to a symbol found on some coins issued during the rule of Vladimir the Great. But no-one knows if it was Vladimir's "coat-of-arms" as claimed, and above all no-one knows what colours it had, if it was Vladimir's coat of arms, so to present a simplified version of the small coat-of-arms of the modern-day country of Ukraine, a country that wasn't founded until a thousand years after Vladimir's death, as the coat-of-arms of Vladimir the Great is just yet another attempt to claim the legacy of the Kievan Rus' for Ukraine alone... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, let it be so. Thanks for discussion. Agrailtalk

You warned me because of some my changes on Wikipedia
Do you really think that you know better situation in Montenegro than us who live here? It is about political divisions for the remainder on power of DPS. They made that artificial, man-made divisions on political stage of Montenegro, because they are criminals, and as you can see, they are 30 years on power. Montenegrin is language that is formed from Serbian, and they made it, for aforimentioned reason, and they had a help of the big powers of West. PetMil99 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A language is a dialect with an army and navy. Whether something is a dialect or a language is very often a political decision, and we report what the sources say, so if Montenegro, Bosnia and Croatia decide to call their respective versions of Serbian Montenegrin, Bosnian and Croatian instead of Serbian, and sources start using those names, then those are the names that we use, whether you like it or not. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Vikings
Hej, sorry for the rash edit, I live near Roslagen and thought "damn kids, trying to get their neighbourhood on an historical article!" You live and learn. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Adel (name)
Hello.

Wikipedia is awfully complicated. I am unsure how to initiate a talk/discussion on the article (with confidence that I've done it properly) and can't work out how to reply to your messages to me (received them all just a moment ago). I think e-mail or Skype messaging would be more efficient than what ever this is.

Could you please initiate a talk for me or give me clear instructions how to open a group chat, talk, reply, etc. to discuss the tweaks to the article?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versalex (talk • contribs) 08:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't communicate with other editors off-Wiki, so there won't be any email exchange, and there most definitely won't be any contact on Skype. Your use of an edit summary already on your very first edit, and your attempt to bludgeon your changes through by first claiming to be an expert historian, and then also claiming to be an attorney (as if that would make any difference), made me assume you were more experienced than you now claim to be. Starting a discussion on the talk page of the article (Talk:Adel (name)), explaining what you want to do and why you want to do it, is no different from starting a conversation on a user talk page, which you obviously know how to do, so I'm sure you'll manage without help. Other than the advice to sign your talk page posts by adding a space directly followed by four tildes ( " ~" ) at the end of your post. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Adel (name)
Hello again, Thomas.

I wish to advise that I have since worked out how to use Wikipedia talk functions to open discussions. As a newbie to Wikipedia, it was all rather complex and confusing for me. I am more confident now and have opened a discussion/case accordingly. Please note that my direct message to you was achieved without confidence and by fluke.

I will also take this opportunity to respond to your other messages.

Firstly, I mentioned "historian" in the revision-history correspondence because I am not basic or general in my fields of study/knowledge. Think of it as an assurance of sorts.

Secondly, I mentioned "attorney" because I objected to your reverting actions and implicit authority, welcoming a debate/discussion of your initiation pursuant to "WP:BRD" and your reference to it. I reviewed and interpreted it as an attorney would without bias and had several grounds to challenge your implicit authority. With all due respect, perhaps you should read/examine the entirety of the article before referring to it as an exemption for authoritative reverting actions. To that effect, your later reference to "WP:NLT" in conjunction with my mentioning of "attorney" is irrelevant and unnecessary, as I was not making a legal threat. On what grounds could I even make a legal threat? This is your second misinterpretation. I apologise for my part if my correspondence was perceived indeterminable.

Thirdly, I stand my ground in conjunction with contributory tweaks being neither a major rewrite nor beyond the scope of the article. If you were an expert in linguistics and on this topic, you would know the relevance of "Adalheidis", its modern forms, and their spin-offs. I think it is also worth pointing out that your reverted article states "Adele" as a feminine variant in the opening paragraphs and annotation above. This is a very basic/general statement, and clearly demonstrates that female variants are relevant and acceptable to mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adel_(name)

Kind regards

Charles

Versalex (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , you can also find female variants next to "Name day" and "Related names" under the Prince Adel image, as well as "Feminine forms" under "Variations of the name" in the article. Beyond the scope? Versalex (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comment
Based on your suggestion, we have proposed the same at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. this is to let you know. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI time again?
Lenz called them Nordic, but once again we see this sort of edit. Most of today's seem to be reverted. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have so far reverted 40 edits of theirs today, almost all of them indiscriminately changing every mention of Scandinavia/Scandinavians into links to their own POV-fork, North Germanic peoples, and have also slapped a level 3 warning for disruptive editing on their talk page, in the hope that it will put a stop to their very disruptive behaviour. But if it doesn't the next step would be WP:ANI and a request for an indefinite topic ban from anything and everything even remotely connected to Scandinavia/Scandinavians and/or North Germanic peoples... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that it was you. I've reinforced your warning. Doug Weller  talk 16:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Who did Lenz call Nordic? The claim that "Lenz took the view that Slavs were inferior to Nordic peoples" is unsourced and not a quote, and can therefore be removed or changed at will. Germanic peoples is not a POV-fork created by me as you claim. Please be more careful the next time you issue warnings. Krakkos (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this does cross from content dispute into a behavioral problem, although I am not familiar with exactly which policies might be applied here. Krakkos already knows the consensus is against this sort of change. also mentioned this might need to go to ANI. Maybe we could AfD North Germanic peoples while we're at it? —DIYeditor (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want it deleted, I want it moved to "Scandinavians". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too! Even if that doesn't happen, I wouldn't want it deleted, just for Krakkos to stop trying to divert all links to Norsemen, Scandinavians, Nordic people etc etc to it. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I misinterpreted "POV-fork". —DIYeditor (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly understandable that you're misinterpreting what's going on, DIYeditor. Thomas.W is deliberately misrepresenting what i'm doing, falsely writing in his edit summary that i'm piping and linking to POV-forks. Even the great Doug Weller has been misled by this deception. Rather than blindly trusting the accusations of other editors, i would encourage you to study the issue yourself and make up your own conclusion. Krakkos (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Johnbod - Scandinavians and Nordic people are disambiguation pages and should not be linked to as per WP:INTDAB. No links to Norsemen have been diverted in relation to this discussion. In fact, the vast majority of edits discussed do not involve the diversion of links, but the adding of links (when it is appropriate). This can easily be confirmed by inspecting the edits i made on September 10. Please stop misrepresenting my edits. Krakkos (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your claim that no links to Norsemen have been changed "in this discussion" is grossly misleading, since it's a discussion that has been going on for almost two months, and wasn't started even by your indiscriminate mass edits changing internal links to Norsemen to instead point to your article North Germanic peoples (see this), but by you creating that article as a POV-fork after your undiscussed major rewrite, and change of scope, of Norsemen was reverted by U|Frayae on 14 July. So it's one single discussion about an ongoing problem, not many separate discussions about isolated incidents, as you seem to want people to believe. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This thread was created a result of edits made yesterday. None of the edits made yesterday involved Norsemen, and very few involved a diversion of links. They involved the adding of links. That is a fact. You of course don't want to discuss your own controversial edits yesterday, which have been criticized, but rather dabble in edits made by Fraye on 14 July in a dicussion which has since been closed. It's interesting that on 14 July, you yourself suggested creating an article North Germanic tribes "covering all North Germanic tribes and all time periods". It's peculiar that you're accusing an article created on your own suggestion of being a POV-fork. Krakkos (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ????? Since when is a thread on a user talk page limited to discussing only what has happened over the past day or two? This thread is about your problematic behaviour on articles relating to Scandinavian peoples, a behaviour that has been going on for at least two months. If a report is filed at WP:ANI that report will of course also cover the entire time period, that is everything that has happened since you first entered this subject area, and will most probably also be expanded by others to cover your behaviour on articles about Iranian peoples, etc, because that's how it works at WP:ANI. There's no statute of limitations here... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Seasick Steve
Hello Thomas

I had not visited the Seasick Steve article for awhile so dropped by yesterday and found some disruptive editing by User talk:79.205.165.75. This IP editor had removed part of the lead along with its long standing reference, several times. The reference was rescued by User:AnomieBOT but not the edited lead info. This type of editing by User talk:79.205.165.75 smelled alot like User talk:80.195.100.70 from the Bristol area who had been engaged in this same type of disruptive editing for years, who you exposed, warned repeatedly and who was eventually blocked for six months. Coincidentally, the block has just ended, as far as I can tell. I was wondering if you could drop by the article and have a look and possibly restore the long standing lead (Born 1940/1941) ect.and at the same time, have a look at this 'new' IP editor?

Appreciate your skills and time Aircastle (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverted to last good. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Aircastle (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

About the existence of Turkey
Hello. Please see the Turkey article for more information. To say that Turkey didn't exist before the early 20th century is just wrong. Akocsg (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The country of Turkey didn't exist back when doner kebab was "invented", and we do not assign "nationality" retroactively. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course it did, even if officially not under the name Turkey. The country was called Ottoman Empire (-> or Turkish Empire) before. Please stop this bogus. And restoring content/information after someone removed it without explaining and reason isn't wrong I think. Akocsg (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There, I fixed it. I think that solution should be fine now. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, Turkey did NOT exist back then, other than perhaps as a subdivision of the Ottoman Empire. We do NOT assign "nationality" retroactively! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

WP: Disruptive user
Hi, I'm asking you kindly here to stick to current topics on the Talk pages, without Assuming bad faith. Or engaging activities that are considered to be Disruptive.

Your latest edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oeselians&diff=862283527&oldid=862283282 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oeselians&diff=862282677&oldid=862282038

"A disruptive user is primarily someone who is not attacking an article per se, but rather a user associated with the article. There is a fine line on Wikipedia between users offering critical analysis and advice on other users and their work, and people simply attacking other users and articles without warrant or cause." I feel like you are mostly attacking me personally, not my comments or sources. Please stop doing that. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking you personally, all I'm doing is strongly opposing your POV/fringe-pushing, on all articles where you're doing it. And I have no intention of ceasing to oppose your POV-pushing, and let you turn Wikipedia articles into pure fantasy, and alternative history. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not very nice. You're also spreading false accustions against me. You claimed "What you have tried to do here, an article that is almost exclusively about the Viking Age, is change the article to say that the Oeselians (without specifying time period) were a "subdivision of the Estonian people" " But actually you changed that article. The article has claimed Oeselians have been a historical subdivision of Estonians for ages. You are the one who took that claim away. Your diff history. Why are you doing this? Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected about who changed the article to say "subdivision of the Estonian people", it was changed by another user in 2012, a claim that both when it was added and when I removed it was totally unsourced (what the article originally said when it was created in 2006, though, was what I changed it to, i.e. "historical people"...). But you repeatedly changed it back, to suit your POV elsewhere, after it had been removed for being both unsourced and highly dubious, which makes you responsible for it, since every editor is responsible for everything they add, even if they're just reverting to a previous version. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you claim it was unsourced when there were five sources attached? The edit you did, has 0 sources. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There were no sources, neither when it was originally added nor when I removed it. And none of the sources you added said what you claimed they said (i.e. that the Oeselians were a "subdivision of the Estonian people"...). As has already been pointed out to you by both me and others. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

About Led Zeppelin III art cover link
Ok, I've just added a more accurate link regarding the sentance in which it was placed. Why was it removed without proper justification ? It goes well on the French Page, but it's no good enough for the English one..? Plus none of you answered my questions which, I reckon, I shouldn't have posted in the edit section. But the other guy didn't talk to me either ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.159.49.140 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "the other guy didn't talk to me either" I did start a discussion here. As I write, there are no replies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Oeselians
Hi, would you be interested in helping to clear up the Oeselians article of WP:SYNTH? Most of the article is probably incorrect, because the article doesn't contain any sources saying that "vikings from Estonia" were called Oeselians. It's "maybe" only passable if we use the general english term for all inhabitants of Saaremaa, which indeed is the word "Oeselians". The first mentions in sources for "Oeselians" seem to be from henry of livonia, which doesn't have much to do with the viking age. Most of the article seems to be a wp:synth invention. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is a "synth invention", created to give readers the impression that there were ethnic Estonian Vikings. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that Oeselians is wp:synth and maybe the entire article should be deleted. Over time, since the Viking Age in Estonia page has not existed before, people have just been piling all related mentions there. Regarding ethnicity: I'm a little vary in commenting about this, because I really don't want to get into another argument and would prefer to work together on topics. But here's how I see this: There were definitely no "ethnic estonian vikings" back then, because "estonians" in its modern concept did not exist back then. I firmly believe that there were people of Finnic ethnicity whom the norse vikings called vikings though. And who in every sensible meaning of the word, were "vikings", living the associated lifestyle. Also because they lived in the scandinavian cultural sphere. And it's highly probable that there were also Norsemen living in Estonia. Over time, all these people, and others, mixed and are the direct ancestors of "Estonians" today. So when a Northwest Estonian person in 2018 says they have viking heritage, especially someone from the islands, that claim is as true as for someone living in Gotland. The claim that the historic people of Saaremaa were " one of the historical ancestors of modern-day Estonians" is correct. It does not have to necessarily mean that the historic people living in Saaremaa were not Norse, or were Norse, or were 100% Finnic - it was likely both and is generally irrelevant as well. But that's another topic though. I'm glad we agree on the Oeselians topic. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: I've moved over all relevant content from the Oeselians page, but that content now needs help with references, possible rephrasing, maybe better categorization, etc. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Update2: Had two more analogies come to mind: 1) There were no "ethnic Estonian vikings" in the same way there were no "ethnic Norwegian vikings", as "norwegians" in its modern term also did not exist back then. 2) Estonians living in Northwestern Estonia can claim as much "viking heritage" as someone living in Götaland. As the geats were not the same tribe as the sveas back then. ; I agree with Andres Tvauri when he said that trying to translate ethnic topics from the iron age to the modern world is a fairly imprecise attempt. All that can be said is that the people inhabiting those areas were the direct ancestors of the people living in those areas nowadays. Which explains why some modern sources use the term "norwegians", as they do "estonians", when talking about the people of that time Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Can you tell me if just a normal IP address? Thanks. I really need to get my head around this. And figure out which range to block for the one you mention at RPP. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a static business IP (TalkTalk Business Division, UK), not a webhosting service or similar, and I can't find any information about it being a proxy, so it looks like just a normal (business) IP. Their edit also doesn't seem to be connected to the ones that were posted on the article through proxies (the ones on the article seemed to want to glorify MacDonald, while the talk page comment posted by this IP wanted to highlight his negative sides...). But if you want a more thorough check I suggest you post a request at WikiProject on open proxies. The one I mentioned at RfPP has already been blocked, BTW (see User talk:BU Rob13), so there's no need for you to worry about that one. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's what I thought but wasn't absolutely confident. I've been fooled too often. Doug Weller  talk 15:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Thomas.W. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AThomas.W granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Colt AR-15 / AR-15 style rifle article split
I'm reaching out to active editors who were involved with the discussions related to the split of the AR-15 topic into two primary articles (Here [], here[], other?). I somewhat recall the discussions leading to this split. What I don't recall is where all the discussions took place. I've linked to a discussion on the Colt AR-15 talk archive but I recall discussions occurring in other locations. I was hoping to get some suggestions for finding those other discussions. I'm doing this because I'm trying to understand the intended scope of the AR-15 style rifle article []. Was it meant to be just "clones" of the Colt AR-15 or also include derivative rifles (different operating mechanisms etc)? Also what other article names were considered and why. Thanks for any suggestions you might have. Springee (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Seasick Steve
Hello Thomas

User:Ghmyrtle has reinstated Matthew Wrights name back into the Seasick Steve article. The edit was possible in good faith but as you know the authors name was finally removed by Administrator User:Ohnoitsjamie as self advertising and the section re worked by him to be more neutral.

I was wondering if you could have a look?

Thanks and all the best. Aircastle (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems uncontentious to me that, where allegations have been widely publicised, the name of the person making the allegations should be stated. Whether or not that person edited a Wikipedia page in the past - for which I haven't seen any evidence - seems to me to be completely irrelevant.   Anyway, this needs to be discussed on the article talk page, not on a user talk page like this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you start by looking at User talk:HoboLow, and then check the page history of Seasick Steve from 13 June 2016 and a few weeks on. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK... I hadn't been aware of that saga, and I understand where you're coming from.  However, that does not alter the fact that it was Wright who made the claims that have been widely reported in reliable sources and are summarised in the article, and the fact that he disrupted Wikipedia in the past doesn't mean that his name should be excised from the article.  As I said, this discussion should take place on the article talk page, not here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Allahabad
Tom, could you please chime in on the Allahabad talk page? While not terribly proper, I believe the name change is now official.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Ignoring these pings will be seen as you are no more interested in the talk page debate. and we will have to proceed without your participation.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have posted a comment on the talk page of the article... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you did not get perturbed by those silly attacks. you will always get support when you do the right thing. Please accept my thanks for your contributions so far. Since now you have the page mover right, you can install User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap that helps you move over a redirect.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Things like that don't bother me the least, but thanks for your kind words. Cheers, - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Swedish Mauser Gevär 7"
Hello Tom, sorry for not citing properly on the Gewähr 7. the thing is, that there are hardly any publications on this swedish mauser. But I happen to own one and I also habe a copy of a G7 Singapore service file. How to cite these? Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield8 (talk • contribs) Hello Tom, My contribution may have been unprofessionaly edited, but it was definitely neither a hoax or an act of Vandalism. I shoot a Gevär 7 in competitions. And i can assure you that it is real an produces excellent groups. Kehaya/Poyer mention CG 63 m/6 and m/7 rifles in theit article „The swedish mauser rifles“ listed under references. You might take this an a hint that there is more than just the pure CG m/63. There are differences between the CG m/63 and the Gevär 7. For example the CG 63 usually kept the registered number of the parent rifle which supplied the system block. My Gevär 7 was renumbered and the number of the parent m/94 can be found when the scope mount is dismanteled. No M/63 was delivered with a scope mount. The G7 has a lateral scope mount with the registered rifle number. Unlike the m/63 it has two sling swivels under the forward stock.The Gevär 6 was supplied with a short unloading stick under the barrel. Under gunscollecting.com, post war long guns you find an article and some excellent photographs of the Gevär 7 I own a copy of a singapore file on this rifle and there are swedish publications, mentioning it. I would be glad to cooperate with you to improve the article. I may not know much about wiki regulations, but I might contribute some of my knowlege on sewdish mausers. Please take into consideration, that literature not necessaryly means divine wisdom and that it might be our job to contribute some hard facts. I will later try to send you some sewdish reference on the Gevär 7. best regards Enfield 8
 * There is no such thing as a "Swedish Mauser Gevär 7". I have never heard of it (and I know quite a bit about the Swedish Mauser), there's absolutely nothing about it on the web, and also nothing about it in the best and most comprehensive books you can find about the Swedish Mauser. The CG-63 was also made for the civilian market only, not for the military, so, IMO, what you added to the article is a hoax... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tom, Please google CG 63 Claes Göran Ros. Excellent article on the development and the varieties of the CG 63. On page one he mentions Gevär 7 and on page 18 he mentions Gevär 6 and 7 as military variants. There was a CG 63E in.308, produced in fair numbers for export, but the Gevär 7 was different. The CG 63 was a match rifle according to the regulations of the 60s. The Gevär 7 with its scope, as far as I know, did not fit into any registrred sport shooting of those days. In my Singapore file it is listed as a sniper. Best regards Enfield 8

Just found more pictures of a Gevär 7 Gunboards forum swedish magic.

Kehaya/Poyer p 181, good description of Gewär 7, listed as CG 63 sniper for Singapore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield8 (talk • contribs)


 * A civilian rifle with nothing but the surplus m/96-action in common with the Swedish Mauser-rifles isn't a "Swedish Mauser", no more than a civilian hunting rifle built on a surplus Mauser 98 action is a Gewehr/Karabiner 98. Regardless of what Kehaya and Poyer think. Even the CG 63 is a borderline case, but they were at least in the same caliber as the real Swedish Mauser, i.e. 6.5x55mm, and used by "Frivilliga Skytterörelsen". Husqvarna Vapenfabrik built a large number of hunting rifles on the m/96 action, BTW, beginning already in the late 1920s, but they're not "Swedish Mausers" either... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * After checking the revised second edition of Kehaya and Poyer's book I can add that the rifles on the m/96 action that were sold to Singapore (or to be precise the Singapore Police Force, which makes them purely civilian rifles), of which around 70 were made, were called the "Model 63 Sniper Rifle", not "Gevär 7", and had nothing but the surplus action in common with the real "Swedish Mausers".
 * Quote from p 186-187: "The m/63 Sniper is characterized as follows: 1) the addition of a sling swivel 2 inches behind the forend tip as well as a rear sling swivel on the buttstock, 2) the bolt handle bent and milled and ground flat to clear the scope, 3) the addition of an O.I.P. 3.6 X telescopic sight adjustable for elevation only to 800 meters, 4) the addition of a buttpad made of hard rubber or plastic with the "Crown/C" logotype of the Carl Gustaf factory molded in. The buttpad is the same as that used on the standard m/63 match rifle, 5) m/7 variation of the CG 63 chambered for the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO cartridge, 6) also with the GF diopter rear sight and globe front sights and 7) a serrated trigger. The m/63 Sniper rifles were marked, in addition to the normal CG 63 markings, with "SPF" (Singapore Police Force) roll-stamped onto the top of the receiver and a two digit number stamped on the right side of the receiver ring. The two markings are parallel with the stock. The receiver marking can be either the Carl Gustaf or Husgvarna standard markings."
 * - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can add that the confusion seems to have been caused by there being an "m/7"-version of the CG 63 match rifle ("CG 63 m/7"), i.e. a rifle with a diopter sight and not a scope, used for a limited number of CG 63 match rifles chambered for the 7.62x51mm that were ordered by the Swedish Armed Forces for use in shooting competitions, to tell them apart from the standard CG 63 match rifle in 6.5x55mm that the Swedish Armed Forces also ordered, which were referred to as the "CG 63 m/6". The CG 63 existed in two versions, BTW, Type 1 and Type 2, with slightly different stocks, with the Type 2 stock receiving a number of improvements asked for by the Swedish Armed Forces when they ordered the "CG 63 m/6" and "CG 63 m/7". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tom, so we now at least aggree, that the rifle in my locker is real and that it is a late decendant of the m/94. We also agree, that we mot necessaryly take all literature for plain trith. My doubts on the book are different. For example my rifle has a three digit number and there is no SPF marking on the reciever. There would not be much space for it as the m/94 reciever is a bit overcrowded anyhow. The new number, the proof mark and the inspectors signature fill all the space left by the scope mount. And the new number also appears on all other parts. SPF would have been wrong anyhow as the rifle file i have in copy is a SAF i.e. Singapore armed forces file. it shows, that a three digit sniper CG 63, in 7.62 entered service in 1981 and left in 1983 after about 5000 shots and with a „rusty muzzle“ If you now kindly read the swedish article on the CG 63, you will see a lot about the development of this riffle. The swedish author really knows, what he is writing about and he mentions the Gevär 6 and 7 as military versions of the CG 63. Hunting is definitly not mentioned and carrying this heavy piece of equipment into the woods would make no sense anyhow. It was definitely a military match rifle development, just as it was common in other scandinavian states too(there also was a norvegisn Krag military match rifle). Certainly the producers also supplied the sport shooters worldwide, but that was not the only reason for the .308. The swedish army was about to change their main rifle caliber and so it was sensible to introduce this calibre for a military match rifle. I definitely do not agre with your ideas about the pure swedish mauser. What all swedish mausers have in common is the reciever and the bolt. It is those components that really matter and define the lifetime of a rifle construction.My Gevär 7 has the reciever and probably bolt of a 1914 m/94. No new hunting production, no fancy new sporting 6,5x55. But my best group was 5 shots, 13mm at 100m. To me this shows, how these components, developped in 1892 and produced in 1914 still could be used for an excellent military match or sniper rifle in 1963. I am no collector, just a sport shooter interseted im the historical background of my rifles. To me the endless variations of swedish mausers from the m/94 to the CG80 are fascinating. There is a lot about these Varieties in Wiki. Ican not see, why adding the M or G 7 and adding the history of the singapore contract could be wrong. best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield8 (talk • contribs) Hello Tom, I still ask you kindly to read the CG 63 article of Claes Göran Ros. He is the chairman of the Elskilstuna weapon hisory society. They have quite a nice homepage and seem to have access to documents and samples of the former Carl Gustaf staats factory. I presume, that this might be a reliable reference. When he writes about Gevär 6 and Gevär 7, we might at least accept, that this was, what these rifles were called in Sweden. And if he calls them „military variations“ of the CG 63 this might be whatcthey were made for in sweden. If export customers had difficulties with the Umlaut ä in Gewär and prefered the M6/7 designation, this does not change the cited name of this gun in its country of origin.
 * I can't find any reliable sources mentioning "CG 63"-based sniper rifles sold to the Singapore Armed Forces, only the 70 or so I mentioned above that were sold to the Singapore Police Force, and since there are lots of fakes on the market there will be no mention of any "CG 63"-based military sniper rifles in the article unless you can provide reliable sources for it (and, no, a photocopy of a piece of paper isn't enough, since they're easily forged...). And, as I have also told you, there is no "Swedish Mauser Gevär 7", or "M7", they're made-up "model designations" used only on forums and blogs, the closest you get to it is "CG 63 m/7", which denotes standard "CG 63" match rifles with type 2 stock and diopter sight, chambered for the 7.62x51mm. Your "Gevär 7" being built on an m/94 receiver also seems a bit odd, considering that all sources I have seen say that "CG 63s" were built on m/96 and m/38 receivers only, I also know for a fact that Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori (now Bofors Carl Gustaf), who made the genuine conversions, only accepted m/96s and m/38s for conversion to "CG 63". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not think, that my M/G/Gevär 7 is a fake. Just the reproduction of this guns scope mount would cost twice as much as the collectors price. My rifle has a 23x number and the file copy is about a 24x rifle. Maybe there werde more of these rifles made than just the 70+ for the singapore contract. I seriously doubt, that they did all this redesign with new scope mount just for 70 rifles. And they must have produced rifles for testing or as samples for other customers. The 94 bolt, by the way ,is ideal for a sniper rifle, as it does not interfere with the scope. My 6,5x 55 CG 63 is based on a m96. But why should they not have used the m/94 reciever? The carbines were phased out in large numbers in the 60s. I will keep the m94 issue in focus and will inform you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield8 (talk • contribs) Hello Tom, Please google sniper rifle CG 637 questions. There was a gunboards forum discussion on this rifle, which seems to be your M7/ my Gevär 7. the rifle is equipped with a scope mount. Google pictures still shows pictures of the rifle. Best regards Enfield 8 Hi Tom, The manual of the CG 637 is from FFV. The scope mount is just like the one on my rifle, but it does not have the GF diopter. Ros shows quite a lot of different CG 63 versions, all made by FFV. So if we do a short overlook on what we know and mostly agree on now: The swedish armed forces ordered „military“ Versions of the CG 63 match rifle. Their official designations included „6“ for the 6,5x55 caliber and „7“ for the 7.62 Nato/ .308 Caliber. The „6“ Version is rare, the „7“ even more. Ros cites Per Kellin, CO of the Rikshämver, who in 1964 sees the demand for a long range rifle to supplement the automatic wespons about to be introduced, says, that the gevär 6 or CG 63 will not come for HV.He mentions budget reasons and hopes to obtain at least a few without explicit budget funding. The „Gevär 6 B / Hv“ for the home guard has a slightly different specification than the Gevär 6. Ros lists: amongst other the GF diopter and Shows a picture of the low front sight. (Like on my rifle) The Hv also wants the unloading stick of the „Gevär 7“ There also was a civilian match version of the CG 63, called CG 63E (Export?) chambered in .308. This was a must for Export out of Scandinavia/Europe in the 60s, and Norma developped an excellent round in this cal. Ros gives a lot of Infos and references. FFV cooperated with Parker Hale for commonwealth Exports, providing the guns, while Parker hale supplied the stgahts. The photo in the Parker Hale Flyer shows a CG 63 with a modified m94 bolt handels. The CG 637 has the same. These are definitely not bent m/96 bolthandels. Other CG 63s and a CG 63A show the straight m/94 bolt handel. There was a singapore contract for a 7.62 Nato version with a scope ,a WF diopter and a second forward sling swivel. There also was a CG 637 Export sniper rifle, which looks like the singapore rifle description you cited, with a manual in english and with a side mounted scope, that looks like the Hensold 4x24, used on the AK4 OR, which was also produced at the FFV factory. Ros provides a lot of Information on the attempts to sell the CG 63 match abroad he lists 22 countries where the rifle was presented to sports hooting associations but he also mentions the high price in competing with P14/17, Enfield and many Mauser descendants. The samples for these countries have m/94 bolts.they have a second forward sling in the gravity center. To me it seems obvious, that the „Gevär“ is part of the official designation in Sweden, just as „Gewehr“ is in Germany.I can not find any big aftermarket repro or rebuild but a lot of FFV versions. The sportsarms of Waldbronn, probably the most important surplus arms dealer in Germany told me that he has bought a large number of CG 63 from swedish arsenals, just like m/96 and m/38. I saw quite a few when I selected mine. They were all 63s and they had at least 4,different diopters, just like the Hv‘s m/96
 * "Gevär 6" and "Gevär 7" (simply meaning "Rifle 6" and "Rifle 7") were Swedish colloquial names for the "CG 63 m/6" and "CG 63 m/7" match rifles that I mentioned in my post above, not official model designations, and the only thing military about them were that the Swedish Armed Forces bought them for use in shooting competitions, so they were not scoped and were not sniper rifles. The genuine sniper rifles sold to the Singapore Police Force had simple 3.6x scopes made in Czechoslovakia by the way, with each scope prominently marked with "SPF" and the same two-digit serial number that the rifle they belonged to had, anything else is "aftermarket" and not genuine. The m/96 was made in much larger numbers than the m/94 (some 600,000 m/96s and m/38s compared to around 100,000 m/94s), and fitted with sling mounts, unlike most m/94s, sling mounts that were transferred to the new stock when the rifle was rebarelled and converted to "CG 63" configuration. So using m/96s and m/38s instead of m/94s saved money. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my rifle I have doubts regarding its designation, mainly The missing hole for the Gevär 7 unloading stick. But I will try to contact swedish experts and try to get more informations about the Import and about the singapore contract. M7, Gevär7, CG 63E or the 637? We will see. Best regards Enfield 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield8 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Gevär" in "Gevär 6" and "Gevär 7" were not part of the official designation, in fact those rifles didn't have any "official designations", only the semi-official designations "CG 63 m/6" and "CG 63 m/7". Carl Gustafs, Husqvarna and Norma all made many experimental/test models, based on the "CG 63", with only a small number of each experimental/test model built (and none of them, with the exception of the 70-some rifles bought by the Singapore Police Force entering service anywhere), but they're not Swedish Mausers, and thus don't merit a mention in the article. The main version of the "CG 63" is already mentioned at the bottom of the article, because of being built in comparatively large numbers, but derivatives of the "CG 63" built in small numbers do not belong in the article, since it's expressly about the military Swedish Mausers, not civilian/aftermarket rifles built around the receiver/action of surplus military rifles.
 * I intend to close this discussion now, sice it has turned into just a waste of time. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for gun enthusiasts, so I suggest you take your discussion to a forum somewhere, instead of my talk page. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom, O. Janson of Gotha arms shows a fine CG 63 of the FSR, made from a m/94. he also writes of a „Gewär 6“ I think that we might accept, that „Gevär“6 or 7 are the official word for the thing in its country of origin, no matter if it can be pronounced properliy in other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield8 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Heo Hwang Ok
Hello.I noticed that u have undid my posts to the article Heo Hwang Ok.Is there any particular reason to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari147 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. See your own talk page. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there.There is a tomb dedicated to Heo Hwang-ok in Gimhae,South Korea and her remains.Although it cant be confirmed if she was from india,there exists her tomb.Thank you. Furthermore,i would like to add that the image is taken from Sureungwon Garden,Gimhae,South Korea and the statue is in fact dedicated to the (be it historical person or myth/legend).There is no reason for the image uploaded to be removed from the article even if the referred person is a myth/legend. -Hari147 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari147 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't a "tomb with her remains" there, only a monument to a queen described only in legends. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hausa people
Why are you threatening me? I only updated Hausa people population to 55 million and cited CIA World factbook which states that Hausa people are 27.4% of Nigeria’s 190 million population. Where then did I vandalize Wikipedia? Check the “Yoruba people” editor’s claim of 40 million and its reference to the same CIA world Facebook falsely claiming 21% of Nigeria’s population as against the 13.9% that the CIA factbook recorded. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? WHO IS VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA HERE, ME? Ppdallo (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You did far more than that, and even added different numbers in different places on the same article (Hausa people), as if you were just making the numbers up (and 27,4% of 190 million is not the 55-60 million you added to the article...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sixty million is overall Hausa population in Nigeria, Niger and other countries. and 55 million is close to 27.4% of 190.6 million. Now what would you do with what I reported about the “Yoruba People” false claim of 40million and fraudulently citing 21% when in fact the CIA factbook listed 13.9%. If at all Wikipedia is an honorable reservoir of info. Then you have to do something about this fraud otherwise your colors will be very clear. Ppdallo (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What you're saying you did is not what you actually did, as can be seen in the diff I linked to above. In the edits of yours on Hausa people that I reverted you claimed there are 55 milion Hausa in Nigeria in the infobox and then claimed there are 60 million Hausa in Nigeria further down in the same article, even though the CIA source supports neither of those numbers, you also tripled the number of Hausa in the Ivory Coast, without providing any source at all for it. And this discussion is about your edits, adding fake numbers, not about edits other editors have made on other articles... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And the edits of yours that I reverted aren't a one-off thing, but a typical example of what you've been doing here ever since you created your account. Two days ago reverted these edits of yours, also adding totally made-up numbers on the same article, and three days ago this edit of yours, falsifying content on the same article, was reverted, an edit that for example changed what the article said about the Hausa adopting the foods and style of dress of other peoples to say that it was the other peoples who adopted the foods and style of dress the Hausa... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Issue of population inflation is common on Wikipedia, just as the “Yoruba People” page I have informed you about. Singling me out is quite unfair and does not say much good about Wikipedia.ALSO check Joshua project Hausa people in cote devoir he listed 1.03 million. So I did not just triple it, it is there just check it. About the food of other people, Cassava provides about 80% of Yoruba local food and it is a fact that CASSAVA WAS INTRODUCED to the Yorubas in the 1800s by the Portuguese from Brazil while the Hausa have been cultivating sweet cassava for centuries before that time. Just google it and see for yourself then you will know what I mean by Hausa did not incorporate Yoruba food into their culture. Even the people you mentioned have confessed that my edits are ok. Only Oshwah faulted me on population figures. Ok I have learnt my mistakes. But I will not let the Hausa population figure be downplayed and I am telling you here that the CIA factbook say 27.4% of 190.6 million people which is 52..2 million people and it will be interesting to see you blocking me for making that correction. Ppdallo (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! And keep up the good work with articles about real music, it's much appreciated! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

LIberland
Why do you keep deleting ALL my edits? You are only concerned with one part which is your FALSE CLAIM that it is a microstate. It wouldn't be too bad if you stuck to that part of the dispute but you keep deleting my entire contribution. --Ishmailer (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A) The definition for "self-declared state" that we use requires a permanent population, which Liberland doesn't have, so it's a micronation; B) the Czech name for Liberland is totally irrelevant here. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know the templates. Following your decision to reinsert "microstate" to Liberland for a 4th time inside of five and a half hours, I have had no choice other than to report you to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Ishmailer (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Ishmailer. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Paucity
Or, if you want, we can delete the page, and then I will recreate the redirect. Take care! —— SerialNumber  54129  13:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My intention was to have both of the POV-forks created (Free Republic of Liberland and Liberland (Free Republic)) deleted, and then create new redirects... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "delete" them, and then "recreate" them? And what practical purpose is that supposed to serve? --Ishmailer (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It removes copy-pasted text, i.e. text without a history of who did what, and when, from public view (it can still be seen by administrators, but not by other editors). All articles have a complete page history, going back to when the article was first created, with a complete history of who did what, and when, which is why copy-paste moves (and, as in this case, copy-pasted content forks), moving large chunks of text without the history of where it comes from and who originally added/edited it, aren't allowed. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * @T.W, in that case, excellent, carry on with my "blessing" (not that you require it, but you know what I mean). ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Read http://www.pbscensus.gov.pk/ and https://tribune.com.pk/story/1490674/57-increase-pakistans-population-19-years-shows-new-census/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Census_of_Pakistan It was even talked about on the talk page of the list of countries next time look instead of reverting edits you lost cause the estimation of the population given is lower than the actual census results that was done in 2017 by the goverment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs)
 * The census results are not out yet, and none of the links you give above supports the 212 million you added to the article. When the official census results are out, whenever that is, they can be added, but not until then! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow you are one funny guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Census_of_Pakistan read all of it its 212 million and its fully done but certain parts still need to be released and only two parts of pakistan which are ajk and gilgit have not been fully released but their populations have but only certain information has not been relased Ajk population https://nation.com.pk/27-Aug-2017/census-2017-ajk-population-rises-to-over-4m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia articles can not be used as references, per Wikipedia's rules, which is a good thing, considering that the number in the census article you linked to is just an estimate, and ought to be removed for being unsourced/synth/original research. We go by official numbers only, not someone's estimate. Period. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay I'll agree to that sorry for bothering you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs)

False claim
Not true at all. I apologize I am new to Wikipedia editing and don't no the correct procedure and rules but I have not added unsourced content. The content I deleted and replaced was unsourced. "It could have been inhabited by Scythians or caspian tribes" please provide me the source for this ridiculous claim. You can't because it is not true. On the contrary it seems you, who ever you are, are biased towards Armenia and Armenians. I will figure out how to report you to the proper admin. ArkaHayer (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Who do you think you're fooling? I've looked at all of your edits, and every single one of them is a POV edit promoting Armenia, ranging from "just" POV removal of existing content to edits that falsify existing content by replacing the names of other countries with Armenia, replacing the names of ancient tribes with "Armenian peoples", changing "Georgian cuisine" to "Armenian cuisine", etc., all of them with misleading edit summaries such as "fixing typo". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Liberland....again
You're not supposed to be editing that article whatsoever. It was part of the agreement here when I was blocked. It was found that if you and Softlavender (dunno if ypu're the same editor but your timing makes it look like you are) leave the article alone (as clearly you cannot contribute to it with knowledge), then no harm gets done. --Ishmailer (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not agreed to keep away from Liberland, you may have wished that others would stay away, so that you would have free reins, but no one, and I mean literally no one, has agreed to anything of what you wanted... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No minor fixes cannot done later, when an edit is good, leave it alone. Wanna switch bits? Do it bit by bit. --Ishmailer (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ishmailer - You appear to be accusing Thomas.W of being a sockpuppet of Softlavender (or vice versa) "...you and Softlavender (dunno if ypu're the same editor but your timing makes it look like you are)" - you might want to redact that, unless you have evidence to support the claim. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ishmailer has been CU-blocked as a sock of a sockmaster that I've had regular run-ins with for the past several years (which is why he's been targetting me), so he's history now... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry
I was just about to rollback my edits because I saw what was happening at the article. Yes, I'll wait to instate the minor changes. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Romania as a "colonial empire"
Greetings! I am not the IP who made that edit on the Colonial empire article, but I was notified because it linked to the Romanian concession in Sarandë, an article which I did make. And this sparked my interest. There may actually be some ground on which we can call Romania a "colonial empire", based on certain regions it acquired and owned for a significant amount of time. In 1880, the population of Northern Dobruja was only 28% Romanian. Now, still part of the Romanian state, it's 91% Romanian. I found a source for this on Google Books, but not yet used it. Southern Dobruja was always a colony while under Romanian rule, as Romanians kept moving in with encouragement from the Romanian authorities yet never rose above 20-25% of the population. But I'd address the case of the Dobruja region as a whole, and state that the Northern part was successfully integrated in the Romanian state, but the other was ceded. Next on, we can move to the region of Bukovina (check the population section). When Romania acquired this ex-Austrian Duchy in 1918, barely over a third of the population was Romanian. It rose to 44.5% in 1930, but still was not the majority. Much like Dobruja, Bukovina was ultimately split: the South remained in Romania and is now fully integrated and with a Romanian majority, while the North is now in Ukraine. In both cases, we have whole historic regions that were part of Romania for decades, and had no Romanian majority at the moment of their acquisition, nor did they acquire it and were ultimately split. Add to this the obvious case of WW2 Transnistria, and maybe the Sarande concession for good measure, and I'd say we have a fairly decent case for Romania being a de facto/controversial colonial empire. Prefectul (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

How to discover your user ID number
"My user ID is # 3,045,327.." How does one find out their own user ID number? Inquiring minds want to know.. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A few ways! You can run this API in the sandbox, you can run this simple query, or in the javascript console in your browser, you can run  . ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 02:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ... or you can do as I did: go to your contributions, click on "Edit count" at the bottom of the page, and you will then find your User ID under "General statistics"/"Basic information". Without the need for any additional scripts... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just went to "page information" from my user page. But since all the smart people are here, is there a way to look up a user if you know the ID? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Saaremaa
Order of exonyms. I've no problem with putting "Swedish" before "German". I'd just assumed that the order was alphabetical ...and thought I was tidying up! -- Picapica (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

AR-15
it was also not a minor edit.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Also it is in the wrong section (in fact we do not even have development section).Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're too trigger-happy for your own good, it's going to get you DS-sanctioned one day... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This does not address the issue. This was not a minor edit (and that alone was enough to get it reverted). It removed long standing material and it added material that was not in the right section.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but contrary to what you seem to believe you don't call the shots on the article. I think it's a good addition, and the user who first added it obviously also thinks it's a good addition. And last time I checked two was more than one. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know what a minor edit is, but can't see what that has got to do with me, since I haven't marked any edit as minor (I never do, unless it really is a minor edit, and in most cases not even then...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Genocide
I JUST SELLING THE TRUE! THE JAPANESE SOLDIERS KILLED CHINESE IS GENOCIDE, JUST LIKE THE NAZIS KILLED THE JEWS! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAKFANS (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see your Talk page for an explanation of why your edits were reverted. Also, lay off the capslock key and sign your edits on any Talk page.  General Ization  Talk  19:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @NAKFANS: 由于你显然对英语知之甚少，并且无法在你自己的谈话页面上理解消息，我建议你只编辑中文维基百科，而不是英文维基百科. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
You start by finding enough reliable sources to meet the requirements in Wikipedia's notability guidelines, because if you can't find a sufficient number of reliable sources (and blogs etc do not count...) your articles will be deleted, no matter how much time you spend on them. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm Really Sorry For My Recent Behavior
I'm Sorry For My Recent Behavior But, Thomas I Have Created The Data To Be Verified & Change If I Did Some Mistake In The Table. I Just Want To Make Wikipedia More Secure & Look Nice & Tidy So, If You Found Some Data Wrong Please Replace It But Don't Change Whole Scheme Please I Have Done Hard Work On It. Sorry Again, Your Friend Arabeditor11786 (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Kalaburagi updates reverted
Hey Tom... Why were my changes to Kalaburagi pages reverted? Name of the city and district have been changed effective Nov 1st 2014.

Xmas
Happy holidays.2018 Holidays (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings.
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Thomas.W: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ  00:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year
 Happy New Year! Thomas.W,

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

Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Pewdiepie on the Sweden article.
Sorry sir but you talk about Kjellberg not being big enough to be in this article when there is mention of Swedes like Greta Garbo, the A-teens, that to be frank, no one knows. Now, I understand from your profile that you might not be that aware of Kjellberg's popularity but I assure you he's much more popular than most of the Swedes mentioned in the article. As a matter of fact, he's probably the most famous Swede at the moment if you exclude maybe Zlatan Ibrahimovic. So I want you to re think your revision and come back to me. Have a happy new year! Γιαννης Παπαδογκονας (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Depressive
God, you have no life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.224.118.117 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're globally locked/blocked and not allowed to edit any Wikipedia site... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI
With regards to user:83.240.186.98 see Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino -- PBS (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious sock, see my comment on the SPI. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

My talk page
"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Serbs, you may be blocked from editing. Warning for politically motivated POV editing." You wrote this on my Talk page. You said that I edited the article "Serbs" badly. When I checked it, it was about the number of Serbs. There it says that 10 million, which is not true, according to official statistics, there are between 11 and 12 million Serbs. I wrote that, but you described it as harmful editing. I also arranged a part where it says that 146,000 Serbs live in the Republic of Kosovo. I wrote that these 146,000 live in the province of Kosovo and Metohija. I was right because the Serbs who live there, as well as over seventy countries that did not recognize this state consider it part of the territory of the Republic of Serbia. You also described this as a political, biased, and harmful change. That's why you told me on the Talk page a warning that I am publishing political changes. This is not true and I demand that this warning must be removed immediately. Because of you and the user of Jingiby, I was prevented from editing based on false statements. Andrejsrbrus17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrejsrbrus17 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In effect writing the Republic of Kosovo off the map, as you did with your editing (referring to Kosovo as Kosovo-Metohija, and saying that Kosovo Albanians are Serbian Albanians...), is politically motivated POV, just as I wrote, and will get blocked if you continue. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Denounce
I'll denounce you for offending me directly naming me sockpuppet to Italian authorities.Here and all over EU it's penal code.I don't know what are you talking about.82.53.120.78 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Get real. Per WP:DUCK (geolocation, edits and general behaviour...) you're a sock of globally blocked user Benniejets, and have forfeited your right to make any edit on any article on any language version of Wikipedia... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll face judge in my town.82.53.120.78 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're funny, do you really, seriously, think that threatening to take me to court in Italy will get you your editing rights on Wikipedia back? - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood person.So give up or i'll do it.It'll be valid all over EU as penal and civil denounce.82.53.120.78 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I wrote: get real... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Real world is Carabinieri HQ 1km from my home.You are warned. Real world isn't Wikipedia.They 'll find all about you.Please ask me sorry and stop.82.53.120.78 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

While you edit, i go to Crabinieri. See you soon.82.53.120.78 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your trip. And while you make the trip to the "Crabinieri" I'll sit here and laugh at you...
 * Reality check: EU has no penal code. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Penal code is valid all over EU for crpenal crimes.I'm sorry for all people and companies involved in this case.82.53.120.78 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there is no "EU penal code", has never been one, and never will be one. Each country has its own laws, and Italian law does not apply on Wikipedia since it's registered and headquartered in the US. But even if it did, it wouldn't get you your editing rights back, since Wikipedia is a privately owned website, and can make its own rules... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't threaten me
you are not a nice person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.100.94 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to be nice, I'm here to keep articles clean and encyclopaedic, without selfpromotion, spam and other crap... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Gonda Betrix
Morning Tom, you left a note about this article I translated. I had included the tag This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Afrikaans, sorry I thought this was the correct way to attribute where it had come from. I will check how to do it correctly and fix it. Equine-man (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the correct tag (see the links I posted on your talk page). The tag you added says it may be expanded with text from the Afrikaans WP, not that your article is a direct translation of the article on the Afrikaans WP, there is also no attribution. The tag is also doubly wrong since everything in the Afrikaans article already is included in your translation, so that there's nothing there to expand the article with... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Realised my mistake when you pointed it out thanks. Have corrected it. Equine-man (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Indonesia GDP
About Indonesia GDP of 2019, why you're reverting my edit since the Philippines also used the 2019 version, just check the link of the Philippines GDP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Giuseppe (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See message on your own talk page. Having the wrong numbers on the article about the Philippines is no excuse for adding wrong numbers on Indonesia, BTW... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

- Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Hi thomas, could you check the other country page, they also use "2019 staff estimate". such as the Philippines does. Then, I think you should changed that too, back in 2018 source by IMF, if you are seeing this "2019" staff estimate" as an issues, since IMF itself didn't released yet the GDP for all countries this year. You should change other country page as well then, not just Indonesia. It's not fair if you guys are just started to revert the update on Indonesian page only, while the other country start to change it as well, its kinda weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Giuseppe (talk • contribs)

Would you review something for me?
Tom, somewhat against my will I roped myself into writing a response to a Signpost proposed article here [] (link to article []). My draft reply is here []. Primarily I would like to know if the logic comes across as sound but I'm also open to any and all suggestions. There is quite a reasonable chance I have some grammar or copy edit errors in the thing. Thanks! Springee (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet is back
I thought I'd let you know that a suspected sockpuppet Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino has returned. I don't know how to go through the process, but I noticed you reverted edits from the individual, so I figured I'd notify you. The sockpuppet is making similar edits as before. Here's an example: Again, I don't know how to deal with the person, other than reverting the edits, but I'll let you decide on how to open another case, if need be. TMF2020 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Confusion in Biafra
Hello, do you think it likely that this fellow is the same person as this fellow? If so, what should one do about it, apart from undoing the edit, which I have done? MPS1992 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor has been blocked by a video game character so I think this is resolved. MPS1992 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Indonesian Air Force Equipment
Hey Thomas, thanks for replying, i do hope you read my reply. Please forgive me if i do something wrong, or did it the wrong way, as i am new to Wikipedia editing stuffs. Sorry again. -EvoSwatch — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvoSwatch (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Balts
Hi, I accepted the reversal of a reverting edit under Pending Changes. I do not accept the IP editor's characterisation of your edits as "Nonsense" - of course - but it is not Pending Changes editors' role to perfect the material, but to ensure that edits are normal and have at least arguable validity, and as neither the IP nor yourself had citations, both points appear possible. The points are issue are two:

-Thus, Baltic languages lie on a linguistic spectrum from west to east: Celtic → Germanic → Baltic → Slavic.
 * Do the Balts speak languages in a sub-family, or just on the main Indo-European spectrum
 * Is this agreed in scholarly work to be the case:

I hope these points can be resolved in a referenced and respectful way.

Regards, SeoR (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP you accepted an edit from is not the same as the IP-hopper I have repeatedly reverted, and the "nonsense" comment wasn't directed at me. The IP-hopper I have been reverting is claiming that Balts are closely related to Finns/Finnic peoples, which they're not, and has over the past couple of years been blocked many times as many IPs for their edits (on Balts, Finnic peoples and Finno-Ugric peoples), and there is currently a two-year rangeblock on at least one major IP-range because of their edits, so they should be reverted on sight. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

B61 nuclear bomb
Your reversion jockeying is the reason why I do not spend great effort trying to communicate with editors on Wikipedia. Your actions haven't actually resolved (or indeed, seemed to identify) the issue in the article. I implore you to not going back to mashing revert. I will not reply to any further message. 89.107.6.187 (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mass removal of sourced material, with deliberately misleading/false edit summaries claiming it was removed for being unsourced, isn't popular around here, so you can expect to have every single edit of yours scrutinized from now on. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

List of aircraft carriers in service
Hello Thomas, nice to meet your ~ on you summary of this edit ~ here ~ they're just small amphibious landing ships,~ the San Giorgio-class is described as a type of helicopter carrier. In the helicopter article, helicopter carrier is described as a type of aircraft carrier ~ I was just wondering how they are not classified as aircraft carriers when wiki describes them as aircraft carriers~ once again nice meeting you ~mitch~ (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC) "sounds great, Tom, thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They're *very* small ships even for just being helicopter carriers, only abt 133 m long, with a displacement of about 7,000 tons (that is the length and tonnage of a modern frigate, and *much* smaller than a typical WW II escort carrier), and can carry only a very small number of medium size and smaller helicopters, while the second smallest ship in the list is a Thai (ex French) ship that is 183 m long, and a typical modern helicopter carrier is 200-260 m long, with a displacement of 20,000-40,000 tons. And we have to draw the line somewhere, or people will start adding any and all ships of all types that can carry a helicopter... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Copy/pasting cmt into the edit summary field
This is highly disruptive and unnecessary, please stop. Thank you, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was being a bit frustrated by having had to repeatedly explain that being a "nominee" for award A isn't the same as being a "nominee" for award B, since the terminology used by the two organisations differ, and that we shouldn't include mentions of awards in articles until after the candidates have passed through a selection process (like the initial selection of "nominated films" at the Academy Awards), merely being eligible for an award, or being a "pre-selection nominee", supported by perhaps only a single member of an organisation, isn't notable. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not a valid rational for doing so, please stop it. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)