User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 3

Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom
You have said:

I have removed the section named "Sideways house move" in the article for three reasons: A) it is totally unsourced (see WP:Citing sources, WP:BURDEN and WP:No original research) B) it's accuracy has been disputed as being cherrypicked data (again see WP:BURDEN), and C) it has been given undue weight considering the almost stub nature of the article. Thomas.W   talk to me  19:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My response is:

A) You will see all the figures are sourced if you read the complete article. Which ones are you challenging? HMRC's Stamp Duty bands or the average agent commission as reported by ``Which?

B) After hundreds of views one editor claims the data is cherry-picked, completely missing the point that the bands are set by Government and the chart shows the effect of crossing a band.

C) The table is the core of the article: it illustrates the cost of moving in the UK, which is what the article is all about.

By removing the table you have truly turned the article into a stub. I suggest you restore the table and then recommend the article for deletion to obtain a consensus view.Tomintoul(talk) 22:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You have again removed fully referenced content from this article based on personal opinion. Please seek wider consensus before making changes that simply diminish an article.Tomintoul(talk) 09:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. You seem to have misunderstood how it works. It's up to you to seek a wider consensus for introducing material that is at best marginally related to the subject of the article. See WP:BRD. You were bold and added it to the article, but were reverted. So now it's up to you to discuss it on the talk page, and seek consensus for it. Thomas.W   talk to me  09:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have started an article on the talk page, but would remind you:

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones.Tomintoul (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't try to teach me what the rules say. Your addition of mortgage arrangement fees to the article was reverted because it's only indirectly related to the subject of the article. As I have already clearly pointed out to you. You made a bold edit and added it, I reverted you because common sense says that it doesn't belong there any more than other indirectly related costs, such as the cost of moving furniture etc from the old house to the new one. Thomas.W   talk to me  14:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you do need reminding of the rules, including 'good faith'. It is your opinion that the item does not belong, it is not common sense.Tomintoul (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Good faith" can't be used as an excuse for repeated additions of non-WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and/or badly sourced material. Which is what you have repeatedly added to the article in question. Your edit history on Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom clearly shows that you're out on a mission, so don't expect anyone to assume "good faith" anymore. Thomas.W   talk to me  15:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am trying to build an article likely to have wide interest; you simply keep deleting things and adding nothing.Tomintoul (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the impression that I get is that you try to make the article conform with the views of certain interest groups in the UK (Homeowners Alliance, Stamp Duty Reform, Stamp Out Stamp Duty UK). Groups that you have also added links to in the text (links that after having been removed were then added to the article again by an IP in Leicester). Thomas.W   talk to me  18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Zhufan
Thomas.W, You criticized this edit. However, the original text, to which you reverted, does not make any sense and has many errors. I rephrased the text but maintained the meaning (yes, I did have one typo in leaving the "in the 1980s"). Should the text simply be deleted without a source? Your revert restored like "Zhufan lay on the West the Tangzi Rive before 1980s" with both typographical and grammatical errors.

Your comment was: "Hello again. We appreciate your efforts but please be more careful when editing. Your edits to Zhufan introduced errors into the article, such as changing "Zhufan lay on the West the Tangzi Rive before 1980s. So it is all called by the local Hexi (River West). Because of flood, In 1980s the villagers moved to the northeast of the village to build the new one." to "Zhufan lies on the West bank of the Tangzi River before 1980s. It is therefore referred to as the Hexi (River West). Because of flooding in the 1980s, the villagers moved within the village and the current village is in the Northeast corner of the previous village.". Which is totally different from what it originally said. So be more careful when editing. Thank you. Thomas.W talk to me 14:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)"Decmanterp (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There were plenty of grammatical errors in the original text, so if all you had done was correcting the grammar I wouldn't have reverted you. But you did much more than that, from introducing new grammatical errors (changing "lay on ... before 1980" to "lies on ... before 1980") to claiming that the villagers "moved within the village" when the original text clearly said that they "moved to the northeast of the village to build the new one". Which is a very careless edit. And if you continue to make careless edits like that other editors will continue to revert you. Thomas.W   talk to me 15:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W - With all of your expertise, can you please show me the proper way to correct the following sentences: "Zhufan lies on the West the Tangzi River. So it is all called by the local Hexi (River West). Because of flood, In 1980s the villagers moved to the northeast of the village to build the new one." I would be most appreciative of your expert mentorship here. That would be very helpful and could help me avoid the very careless edits that you pointed out in such a productive manner. Thank you in advance for your assistance.Decmanterp (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been worked over by another editor so there's no longer any need for you to do anything there. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W - Your reply was not genuine. You said there was no need for me to do anything due to the edits of another editor. You then proceeded to edit the article yourself. I am trying to learn how to make changes as a new editor and although you have time for criticism it does not seem that you have time to provide constructive guidance. Decmanterp (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't agreed to be your tutor, and have no intention of doing so either, since I have neither the time nor the genuine interest in it that being a tutor requires. So I suggest you find someone else. Thomas.W  talk to me  19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment
Thanks for the comment made on my talk page. I will include my explanations in Sri Lanka talk page. I removed the statement based on few reasons.

Statement is abrupt and have no connectivity to other paragraphs or an another sentences. It represent subjective opinion of the writer based on one news papers article(source is not very reputable one). As I stated in my talk page I like to acknowledged that there were few incidents of violent hate-speech against Muslim by Hardline Sinhala Buddhist organization like Bodu Bala Sena and Ravana Balaya for last several months. This was not the persistence or long-term situation in country and recent minor development. But in contrary this sentence indicate persistence long-term discrimination against Muslim which is incorrect(not acknowledge by any watch dog, UN or US).This kind of statement is not worth to include in a country profile. I did not try to cover up the statement. In my opinion writer should either include this as a recent development or should elaborate it more. Lipwe (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fail Lab September 2013
"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Theodore Garland, Jr.. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. The article is not a personal résumé, or a place for adding Youtube-links that can best be described as trivia. Thank you." I HARDLY THINK THAT EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS ASSOCIATED WITH DISCOVERY ARE TRIVIA. YOU ARE EXPRESSING A PERSONAL OPINION THAT IS MARGINALLY OFFENSIVE. WHATIGUANA

"All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible." I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS NON-NEUTRAL. WHAT IS YOUR LOGIC HERE? WHATIGUANA

Remington 870
Thomas.W thank you for your efforts in attempting to make my minor edit more appropriate. I am new at this and have not been able to enter my source as required in the format used at the bottom of the page. The source is the Washington Post article written by Ashley Halsey III, Aaron C. Davis and Michael Laris, entitled "Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis carved an indiscriminate path through Building 197", published September 18, 2013. Where can I find instructions for properly accomplishing this? The entire page concerning the Remington 870 is a blatant advertisement for the weapon the photographs attached obviously from the manufacturer itself in order to promote the gun. It does have some redeeming value in those parts concerning history and the countries using the weapon but overall it is an outrageous attempt to sell more firearms. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 1scruffy1 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The text that you have repeatedly tried to add to the article does not belong there, it's as simple as that. I don't for a second doubt that the reference you provided is correct but text about what murders have been committed with which weapon does not belong here, it's outside the scope of the articles. AFAIK most murders are committed with knives, but you don't see a list of murders in that article, nor do you see a list of atrocities committed with the Kar98k, AK-47 or M-16 in those articles. So do yourself a favour and stop trying to add it. Thomas.W  talk to me  21:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

driveby ANI notification
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just following this out of interest - I never knew about the Geolocate link at the bottom of IP contributions. Fascinating, and useful - cheers for that.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Korean Punjabi Urdu
Please re word to match WP standards because Modern Linguistics researches are very positive initiative on isolates like Korean, Japanese and Burushiski Language. Let them be reflected so that further research on isolates could be motivated to solve the mistry of isolates.Malignea (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page, with links to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The text that you are trying to add is a very fringe claim made by an unknown local linguist, with no reliable sources what-so-ever. You can't add it unless you find a proper reliable source for it. But even if you do manage to find a proper reliable source for it, it can't be made as prominent as you try to make it since fringe theories can not be given undue weight. Thomas.W   talk to me  12:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New user
Hi Thomas. I've just added a welcome to User talk:Eden Roses. I hope you don't mind but I put it above your friendly warning. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. But FYI it's not a new user, only the latest in a line of throw-away accounts adding external spamlinks. If you look at the edit history ofKirkby Stephen you'll find another such spam-account,, a couple of steps below the latest one. And just so you know it I don't bite newcomers unless they vandalise or add spam... Thomas.W   talk to me  19:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm too gullible! --Northernhenge (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not being gullible, it's assuming good faith, so there's nothing wrong with that. But I have what seems to be an unusually good memory so I usually remember these things even if it's being done months apart. Thomas.W   talk to me 20:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi - sorry if you consider me a 'spammer' I thought what I added was useful information. I'll not bother again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eden Roses (talk • contribs) 11:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Consensus
The page now reads exactly as it did before Mach 2.35 was added in the first place. I.e. '2+ (2,495kph at 10,975m)'. That can be verified if necessary via edit history.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Saab Network
I believe links to The Saab Network have just as much right to be there as links to Saabmuseum.com. Both sites are run by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. I will not re-add links you have removed since you are so senior and I respect that. I will not add any further links as well. Rsvp99 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all about Wikipedia's rules and has nothing to do with seniority. External links to blogs and forums simply don't belong on Wikipedia. See WP:ELNO, which expressly states that links to "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority" have no place here. Thomas.W   talk to me  07:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate the explanation and the rule being applied to all Saab fan sites, not just my own. Rsvp99 (talk)

Sockpuppets
Hello Thomas! I have seen that you have started a sockpuppet investigation. Maybe this is helpful. Sorry for all this trouble. --Richardharrison999 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This may be part of it. I'm not sure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Blow me
You can fuck off. Warn all you want douche lol 24.153.216.129 (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, whatever. Now go back to playing with your toy soldiers. Thomas.W   talk to me  09:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a static IP. Blocked for a while. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Thanks. It seems like anonymous IP editors don't like me. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Toy soldiers? That made NO sense but okay buddy....lol 24.153.216.129 (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Toyota Group affiliates/subsidiaries
Toyota Group including Hino Motors are affiliate with both Scania AB and Nike Inc..

180.199.53.211 (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Scania AB: Swedish truck/bus builder, strategic partnership with Hino Motors.
 * Nike Inc.: American apparel maker, strategic partnership with Toyota Group including Hino Motors. Nike supplies clothes for Toyota Group including Hino, andHino supplies trucks for Nike.


 * That's not being affiliates in the business sense of the word. The deal with Nike is just some kind of mutual marketing deal that doesn't belong in the articles. A strategic partnership, as with Scania, might belong in the articles though, provided you find a reliable source for it, and adds it under a separate heading, not under "Affiliates/subsidiaries". Thomas.W  talk to me  10:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Swedish keyboard
Hehe. I see what happened there, since I too have a Swedish keyboard, but let's try to convince those ignorant anglophone monoglots that unheöåful edit is Swedish for "awful edit"! :-)  darwin bish  BITE   ☠  20:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Hello Darwinbish! It's easier to write in English on a Swedish keyboard than to write in Swedish on an English keyboard, particularly if you need a few ÅåÅåÅåÅå every now and then. Tip of the day BTW: if you need to write in Danish, using ØÆÅøæå, choose Norwegian keyboard in the settings on your computer and not Danish, because on a Norwegian keyboard Ø and Æ are located in the exact same spots as Ö and Ä on a Swedish keyboard, while they have switched places on a Danish keyboard. Which can be a bit confusing at times. Thomas.W  talk to me  21:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good tip. [Nonchalantly.] Bischånen and I write in Danish and Norwegian and stuff all the time.  darwin bish  BITE   ☠  21:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC).
 * She's lying. I like to read our sister Scandinavian languages, though. Currently enjoying Knausgård's My Struggle, I recommend it. (Removing the link to "My Struggle" after checking, guess where it went to, and no wonder, I suppose.) Bishonen &#124; talk 21:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC).


 * (ec) Me neither. I used to, though, but not any more. An interesting example of using the letter Åå would be "Råååål" (or Råå-å-ål), that is eel from the Råå River (sv:Rååån) in Scania. Thomas.W  talk to me  21:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump in, but by switching to Mac I no longer have to use the Swedish keyboard. Phew. It's much quicker than using the ASCII code. Sure, a new computer is $2-3K more but it's almost worth it...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Almost". I used to be a Mac-user, but the religious fanaticism of many Mac-users combined with the feeling of being locked in, forced to use Apple's own software (for example iTunes) and hardware, made me switch sides. Thomas.W   talk to me  17:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The oh-so-religious locked-in-and-loving-it *Mac* fans got nothing on the holier-than-thou-religiously refuse-to-be-locked-in *Linux* fans. Thomas, allow me to bend your ear, have you ever wondered about your personal and spiritual relationship with the command line of your operating system, controller of the wikiverse?  Does license proliferation, and abuses of obscure corners of the patent/copyright/trademark system, deeply worry you?  Would you enjoy spending hours in nerdly bliss?  Did you know that you can reprogram your system to switch amongst any keymap you please?  Linus is *from* the high royalty of scandinavia, you know.  :-)    74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been a Linux user too, using several different distributions, even teaching classes in managing Linux server systems and networks (which is where Linux works best). But I'm not fond of Linux as a desktop OS, for multiple reasons. Thomas.W   talk to me  16:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm trying hard to make it work myself, but I'm atypical. There are still a ton of barriers, and most of them are inherent to the way Linux works as a social system:  Wayland vs Mir, is driving me nuts.  Sigh.  Linux has a firm hold on the stock-webserver-market, and a total deathgrip on the supercomputer world, but desktops are a different beast entirely.  Vista and Win8 fiascos are missed opportunities of epic scale, and XP is about to go EOL, but dtop-Linux is flat-out not ready to pick up the slack.  Arrgh.  Anyways, as far as wikipedia-related stuff goes, I think the more interesting question is whether editing from tablets and smartfons can ever take off.  Using the virtual-keyboard to enter wiki markup is *not* something I would call easy-and-enjoyable.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/PsiEpsilon
You may want to comment there about the IP 123.63.97.30. Regards, M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Polite notice
The image I uploaded comes from Land Rover Middle East and North Africa's publicity department who have released the image under a Creative Commons licence. Please seehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/landrovermena/9552309383/in/photostream/. You know where my talk page, I'll await a deep and grovelling apology. Nick (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of apologizing to you until you apologize for the deeply offensive edit summaries both here and on Commons, which were far worse than me reverting your addition of the image. Especially coming from an administrator. So, you first. Thomas.W  talk to me  21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're due any sort of apology at this point in time. You've got a bit of explaining to do before I consider any sort of apology. So, let's get started...
 * Why didn't you check the source URL of the image to confirm the copyright status. That would have stopped you from making the fatal error initially, as you would have been able to confirm the source is an official account and that the image is available under a free licence (CC-BY-2.0). It's the sort of drive-by tagging that drives good users away from the project, thankfully I can ignore it and shout at you instead, a new user is likely to say "fuck this" and bugger off for good, with a bad taste left firmly in their mouth.
 * Not that it's enormously relevant because you made such a fundamental error by not reviewing the source URL of the image, but you might also have noticed I've uploaded material from the same Flickr account previously (which is used on my last Good Article), that I've uploaded hundreds of my own images or that I was previously a Commons administrator and that I have a good grasp of copyright legislation - for more experienced users, the best course of action is always to ask - sometimes an image that looks to be a copyright violation taken from another website can be public domain material through various complex loopholes, clauses and sections of US copyright law, and the uploader can explain why the image is OK for Commons. Ideally you'll build up that knowledge and experience in the fullness of time and be able to spot more easily what's a copyvio, what's a legitimate upload and what's caught in between that needs a bit of experience to review before nominating for deletion.
 * You now know (if you didn't before, I have no idea) that I've been around Wikipedia for a great many years, so I'm similarly struggling to understand why you would think someone who has a decent history here at Wikipedia, who has written a reasonable amount of content (including Good Articles - which are checked for image copyright compliance) would be uploading a copyright violation, it's a staggering assumption of bad faith. Did you not stop to think for a moment "hang on, this chap has been around for a few years, I'm sure he must know what he's doing. I'll ask him and double check" ? And to add insult to injury, you added a boilerplate warning that starts "Hello Nick, and welcome to Wikipedia". I had one of those, it was in 2005. I don't need another one.
 * The emphasis is now on you to demonstrate in your response that you're neither a cretinous lump or an idiot. I'd also like you to explain how you think such behaviour affects new users - do you think it's friendly and helpful or rude, impertinent and unhelpful ?
 * Kind regards, Nick (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. There's no excuse for edit summaries telling someone to "Fuck off, idiot!" or referring to someone as a "cretinous lump" for making an honest mistake. And I don't give the proverbial rat's hindquarters about who you are, how many edits you've made etc, and it doesn't impress me. All I see is someone with bad manners, who on top of calling me all kinds of things expects me to be impressed by what he has previously done. So apologize or stay away from my talk page. Thomas.W   talk to me  22:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . I don't agree, Thomas. Saying "Welcome to Wikipedia" and "we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia" etc etc to an established user (and if you didn't know Nick was no newbie, you should have found out) is very rude. His answering edit summary was indeed less than good-humoured, but I can't blame him for being irritated. You get enough irritating templates posted on your page by … hmmm… I think I won't say by what category of users… but anyway, you get enough of them to know what I'm talking about, right? Beware of templates. Use Twinkle sparingly. Please.
 * Nick: as for your edit summary on Commons, I think it's quite inexcusable. I advise you both to pull in your horns and ignore each other for a while. In any case, please stop telling each other to apologise. It's ridiculous. See CGTW, item 16. Bishonen&#124; talk 23:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC).
 * I'm happy to apologise to Thomas (sorry for calling you a cretinous lump and idiot, Thomas). All I ask is that he try to avoid making edits which might provoke the same response in future from other editors. Nick (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please redo listings back
I added these links to the Green Welling LLP that represented one of the parties of the following litigations: RCI Litigation: A class action lawsuit against RCI was pursued by Green Welling LLP on behalf of RCI Weeks Program members in New Jersey of 2006. The Plaintiff alleged that RCI actually rents out the most desirable and highly demanded vacation weeks from the spacebank, thus depleting the most desirable options available to Weeks Program members who seek exchanges. The lawsuit was settled in favor of the plaintiff. Benefits for RCI members would have begun on January 11, 2010 but one or more appeals of the entry of the final judgment were filed. Thus the Effective Date began July 28, 2010 when all appeals were resolved.[6] Audi TT: On 22 May 2008, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, entered an order preliminarily approving a nationwide settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by Green Welling LLP, on behalf of all current and prior owners and lessees of 2000–2004, and 2005 model year Audi TTs. The lawsuit and settlement relate to allegedly defective instrument clusters, and Audi TT owners are entitled to submit claims for repairs, replacement and/or cash reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, and all TT owners covered by the suit will receive a two-year extension of their existing four-year warranty (limited to the instrument cluster).[13] There have been widespread reports of similar problems with instrument clusters on the second generation (8P/8PA) A3 model although Audi have yet to publicly acknowledge the defect. I would greatly appreciate it if you can redo the links back. Thanks a lot. Ilona — Preceding unsigned comment added byIlonaJSO (talk • contribs) 21:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No I'm not going to add the links back. The external links that you have repeatedly tried to add are advertising/promotion, nothing else, and do not add anything to the articles. Because the articles are not about Green Welling LLC, or whatever the name is now, but about the Audi TT and RCI, so mentioning Green Welling more prominently than is already the case in at least one of the articles would give undue prominence to the company that you apparently represent. Thomas.W   talk to me  21:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Valor Christian clarification

Valor Christian High School
Thomas - Hi I did add the 21st Century reference at the bottom of the page for people to read. Also, one of my sites was from the denverpost.com article that was already included. Can you please add back my edits. Thanks. Dina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.106.29 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it, but not this late in the evening (I'm in Europe, around eight hours ahead of you...), so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Thomas.W   talk to me  20:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
I deleted text as article contradicts itself, it is said that the s-300 delivered to Syria at the end of the article, but just above it is said that the s-300 in Syria, there is no correct option one. at present The s-300 in Syria is, according to the President of Russia and President of Syria. it's in the article, so I deleted the old statement that s-300 no. (this is written through translator)
 * please provide the article for which you see in the procedure, and give proper justification edits, I find it difficult to write correctly through translation--Rqasd (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rqasd. I'm sorry to say that automatic translation tools such as Google Translate often don't output English that a native speaker can understand very well. For instance, I'm quite unsure what your text above means. I appreciate that you're editing in good faith, but are you sure this is the Wikipedia for you? Bishonen &#124; talk 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC).

s-400
)I've corrected the article in accordance with authoritative sources, and put links to the sources, but some of them, although the link is working on the Internet does not work in wiki markup. please help fix. (that-http://translate.yandex.ru/)

Your edits on Jolina Magdangal

 * Fyi, I removed the endorsements sections, thank you very much. And the filmography section is pretty much accurate especially when you check the articles of those shows and if you want to be sure if they legit and not just "fancraft", you can go ahead to YouTube.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Social Enterprise Certification
Dear Thomas,

You have deleted my post under Social Enterprise - Certification and I believe it's not right, as it was not a promotional text. It was referencing to http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/ - highly acclaimed UK third sector media. The content is needed, because Fairbusiness is only one of two certification organisations in the UK - so informing about one only is biased.

Many thanks Carl W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.110.67 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also removed the other one from the article, because the sections mentioning Social Enterprise Mark were just as promotional as the text you added, and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. The article is about social enterprise as a concept, not about companies that try to profit from it. Thomas.W   talk to me  17:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)




 * 1. Neither Social Enterprise Mark nor FAIRBUSINESS 'profit' from their certification activities. As far as I know, they are social enterprises themselves.
 * 2. Certification is a crucial part of the social enterprise 'concept' - in the UK and overseas. By removing certification as such, you are removing an important and relevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.110.67 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 October 2013
 * Then take it to the talk page of the article, and discuss it there. If there's a consensus for having it, then no problem. Provided the text added complies with Wikipedia's rules and mentions certification in a neutral way, instead of being promotional, as the text that has been removed was. And that goes for both Social Enterprise Mark and Fairbusiness. And please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). Thomas.W   talk to me  18:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue
Seriously considering making up a patiently dealing with physics crackpots barnstar just so I can award it to you. Though I may be laughing on the other side of my face when he's awarded the Nobel Prize in a few years.

Keep up the good work. --GraemeL (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've met a few theoretical physics crackpots over the years, so I've learned to be patient with them. Even though my patience is wearing thin right now with this one. Thomas.W   talk to me  21:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not do any editing to Leopard 2, Marder (IFV)
I received some warnings when viewing Wikipedia of what I did not do. Since I got the last warning,I decided to make an account to notify that I did not do any editing I was accused of. Thank you.Tikapw (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then just tell whoever did it not to do it again. Thomas.W   talk to me  13:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your AN3 request
I've blocked the editor concerned for 72 hours. I also left a comment on the request that I feel might be useful for you to read. Please don't take it as heavy criticism, but as some advice to make your time editing less stressful. --GraemeL (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nissan Primera
Might be trivial but it is not unsourced. The Greek police do drive Primeras. Janjušević (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it was totally unsourced since you didn't provide any form of reference with your edit. Please read Wikipedia's rules regarding verifiability and reliable sources before trying to add it again. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin revert
Hi! Was this revert a mistake or did you mean to revert my change too? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither the revert nor the suggestion to take it to the talk page of the article first was a mistake. And the same goes for the other reverts I've made lately on Bitcoin. There have been far too many mysterious edits on the Bitcoin article lately, so everything should be discussed on the talk page first. Thomas.W   talk to me  16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just changed the timeline history format into a paragraphed one... Samwalton9 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? What did you hope to gain by it? It only made it less easy to read. Thomas.W   talk to me  16:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think paragraphs look less untidy and fit better with the style of this and other articles. I'll bring it up on the talk page. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There already is a discussion on the talk page about the timeline. Thomas.W   talk to me  16:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd chime in here: I agreed with Samwalton9 edits and put them back. We have a discussion on the talk page if you would like. I did disagree with the edits from Smite-Meister so I put it back in the article, but I referenced it a little later on under the Transaction/Mining section.WhereAmI (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the reverts you keep doing on Bitcoin before removing them. Otherwise we will revert your reverts.--WhereAmI (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing 6K bytes of content, including almost all of the technical info, with an edit summary that says "clarifying", as Fleetham did, is not acceptable, especially not when it's made by an editor who has a long history of strange edits and misleading edit summaries. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Bitcoin article currently violates Wikipedia size limits (just guidelines) about page size. Objecting to the removal of technical content merely because it was a large edit is not good justification. The Bitcoin article was over 100KB and I shrunk it with the history section. There is also the article Bitcoin protocol where this information should be put into, and currently is. Please put information there if you feel its missing. --WhereAmI (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not object to the removal because it was a large edit, I objected to it because it was made with a misleading edit summary, an edit summary that didn't in any way describe why the content was removed. Edit summaries should accurately describe what is being done, and why (see WP:Content removal, quote: "When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained content removal when the reason for the removal is not obvious is open to being promptly reverted."), which is why there is a whole range of warning templates/messages for not explaining why content is being removed. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disagree then, removal of overly technical talk is clarifying but I will agree he could have been more clear.--WhereAmI (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Talkpage stalker swoops in .... Suggest in the future "simplifying by removing dupe content" which is not a misleading edit-summary, and says that the deleted content *is* elsewhere in wikipedia. Agree with Thomas that 'clarifying' is misleading, when in fact what was happening in condensing/abridging/similar.  Reader's Digest does not *clarify* the original, they simplify it.  Anyhoo, sounds like it all worked out for the best in the end.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles IX, "King of ???"
Thomas, you must be able to provide working links to your claim about Charles IX in the article about King of Kvenland before you can keep the article as it is. So do you have a source verifying your claim? I'm waiting to see it.Finnedi (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See Yngvadottirs reply on your own talk page. She beat me to it. Thomas.W   talk to me  20:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did the check the new source, but there's no mention of Charles IX calling himself "the King of Kvens".Finnedi (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Read Kvenland and King of Kvenland a bit more carefully and you'll get the answers you need. Thomas.W   talk to me  12:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC) (This is getting silly...)
 * This is not just getting silly, but plain idiotic. First of all Charles IX was never a King of Kvenland (Kvenland didn't exist in his time), nor did he ever call himself "King of the Kvens". Surely you cannot rewrite the history according to your own aspirations. Finnedi (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And you can't rewrite the article based on your personal view on history. The text you repeatedly remove does not claim that he referred to himself as "King of Kvenland", but as "King of the Kvens". Which can be clearly seen from the text you remove. And yes he did call himself "King of the Kvens", under the name they were known as back then. Which can also be clearly seen from the text you repeatedly remove. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr... talkpage busybody swoops in... it sounds like the source says that Charles IX of Sweden called himself King Of The $quux, where the varname is whatever-name-he-used, and that the wikipedia article is using the (undisputed presumably) fact that $quux is nowadays considered to be the same thing as Kvens. Ummm, by "several historians" which seems a bit weasel-wordy?  Is $quux=="Caijaners" an ethnic term, or a nationalistic term?  Charles called himself king-of-the-caijaners-(of-kainnu), which Some Historians Say ought to be translated as king-of-the-kvens, but do they also say king-of-the-kvens is identical to king-of-kvens-of-kvenland?  Logic tells me that some kvens might have lived in a region distinct from of kvenland-as-a-whole, in a diaspora-type scenario. In particular, was the name caijaners possibly *specific* to the inhabitants of the region immediately surrounding Kaajini Castle?  Because King-of-the-San-Diegoans does not equate to King-Of-California-Land, let alone King-Of-The-United-States, let alone King-Of-The-Americans, metaphorically speaking.  Rather than just a barelink see-also to the Kings Of Kvenland, which implies to the reader that Charles IX *was* indisputably one such king, I suggest this:  See Also, Kings of Kvenland &mdash; although his successor dropped the title, Charles claimed to be King of the Caijaners from 1607 to 1611.  Hope this helps.74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the many endless "wars" that rage on en-WP is about the history of Finland and the various Finnic peoples. Finland was part of Sweden for about 700 years (from the 12th century to 1809) and the Kvens/Caijaner were/are a Finnic people, which is why Charles IX of Sweden added them to his title, claiming that he was their king (which he also was since he ruled everyone who lived within the then considerably larger territory of Sweden), but a small number of nationalistically biased Finnish WP editors make repeated attempts to rewrite history, glorifying the various Finnic peoples and Finland at the expense of the Swedish people and Sweden. Some even going as far as claiming that the people of Sweden in older times (Suiones -> Svear -> Swedes) weren't even what we today describe as a Scandinavian people, i.e. a Germanic people, but Finns (which is a very fringe theory since all archaeological evidence and all contemporary reports, etc, clearly prove that they were a Germanic people), and then use that as a base for claiming that Rurik, the Varangians and the Rus' people, who gave their name to Russia, were Finns and not Scandinavians. Just so you know what this is all about. Thomas.W   talk to me  14:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I know there is a huge horrid tussel nowadays over the Nations Formerly Known As Yugoslavia, and to a lesser extent concerning Taiwan Which Some People Call The Province Of Taiwan, but I guess I'm not too surprised that there are battles over the ancient lineage of the scandinavians.  Long live Rurik, the best viking of all time, and his direct lineal great-grand-kid Linus Torvalds... actually, sounds like a pretty good videogame... hmmmm.  Anyways, I put my attempt to clarify into the article, but I don't have a watchlist, so if you like my larger-context-could-help-here-fragment, feel free to defend the honor of the Caijane King on the article-talkpage.  :-)    p.s.  Feel free to call me 74; easier to type.  Think of it as my jersey-number.74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually have a very good reason for both doing what I do and for doing it the way I do it, so I suggest you trust my judgement. Thomas.W   talk to me  16:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly. Never meant to suggest your judgment was faulty, I'm just trying to learn more about such things myself, by watching what people do, and discussing the whys.  Anyways, I'll let your talkpage alone, so you can get back to your usuals.  Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 74, it's been a long work week for me and in any case I am not an expert on this particular material. However, it's worth noting that it took a long time to firm up national boundaries in Europe and hence in the early Middle Ages and for quite a while after then in many cases, the terminology for "X country" (or "X county" and so forth) was "land of the X people" or simply (for example in Anglo-Saxon, which I do know pretty well) "X people". So while, yes, there were people migrating, viking, trading, invading, in exile or plain old exploring/gadding about, the distinction between the people and the government unit wasn't hard and fast until ... passports, in some cases. Now I will butt out again. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Anon comment on my talk page
Hi. For some god-unknown reason this popped up in MY talk page. Guess it was meant for you, since it appeared following a comment you made in my talk.

"Thomas, I am sorry for the confusion. Can you please give me back my edits on here so I can properly source them. On one I used an article that you had used, so I don't understand why I cannot use that one. Please advise me.  Also, I will source better the 21st Century that I used.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.106.29 (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)"

Cheers! --uKER (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks. I have no idea why it was posted on your talk page, though. The IP has made repeated attempts to whitewash Valor Christian High School, attempts that I have reverted, as you can see from the page history of that article. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Robocop/Beretta
Hi. It seems my change and your message crossed. I modified the entry accordingly. I could give a link to a Google search as an evidence of wide belief, but that would look like argumentum ad googlum, don't you thinhk?-- David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 17:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong in the article at all since the article is about the real weapon, not movie-props. You have tried twice, and failed twice, being reverted by two different users, so find something else to do. Thomas.W   talk to me 18:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin edits
Hi Thomas, I'm posting because you recently reverted an edit to Bitcoin. I think that my edit is clarifying. As another editor pointed out, that information is already in the Protocol of Bitcoin page. In addition, much of it was unsourced.

If you do feel that my edit was in error, please point out the important aspects that were removed, and we can go about putting them back into the article. Thanks, Fleetham (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the section named "Bitcoin revert", a few sections up on this page, you'll see why I reverted your removal of the content. And please read WP:Edit summary. Thomas.W  talk to me  19:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I apologize for a misleading edit summary. I really don't put much effort into edit summaries, but if you and others rely on them perhaps I should. In any case, I guess a proper edit summary would have run along the lines of: "replaced uncited technical jargon for uncited but easily understood prose, as the article fails to provide a 'birds-eye view' of bitcoin operations and details how the mechanisms that allow Bitcoin to operate work instead of summarizing how Bitcoin works." Fleetham (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a 250 character limit so it would be too long, but something along those lines. Thomas.W   talk to me  19:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to read my edits before accusing me
Hi Thomas, I'm posting because you recently reverted an edit to S-300. The sections was clearly created using Online Translators from Russian, with words like "авиаучений" and "During tests of THE s-300ПМУ2 in China" instead of "During tests of the S-300PMU2". You reverted this edit, because "You disliking it is no reason for removing it, so don't do it again! " - Thomas W You also reverted my deletion of the repetitive paragraph in the same section. The first mention of that piece of information is in the first paragraph of the section "In April 2005, NATO had a combat exercise in France and Germany called Trial Hammer 05 to practice Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses missions.[70] Participating countries were pleased that the Slovak Air Force brought a S-300PMU along, providing a unique opportunity for NATO to become familiar with the system. It's worth noting that many parts of the system have undergone significant upgrades since 2005." Several paragraphs later, the information repeats itself "In April 2005 NATO conducted in France and Germany under the title "Trial Hammer 05", aimed at working out methods of suppression of enemy air defense.[76][77] Participating countries were satisfied with the fact that Slovakia air force provided the s-300PMU, because it gave NATO a unique opportunity to get acquainted with the system." It is the same information, just paraphrased a bit. Overall the whole section needs serious work, especially in grammar, because it is clearly copy-pasted from the online translator.

I just hope the next time you actually take time to read the edits before taking actions. I am sorry if I did something wrong, I joined this community a week ago. However, in this case, I believe I did everything right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viknguyen7895 (talk •contribs) 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reworking machine translated text and correcting grammar is one thing, wholesale removal of sourced content is something else. What you have twice tried to remove is information about the NATO view on the S-300, while keeping the "Eastern" view on it. Both views should be kept. And the warning I gave you stands. Thomas.W   talk to me  19:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So "Participating countries were pleased that the Slovak Air Force brought a S-300PMU along, providing a unique opportunity for NATO to become familiar with the system." and "Participating countries were satisfied with the fact that Slovakia air force provided the s-300PMU, because it gave NATO a unique opportunity to get acquainted with the system." are two separate pieces of information that should both be kept in the same section? Viknguyen7895 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Viknguyen7895
 * If text is duplicated it should be reworked, with all references kept. What you did was not only removing a piece of text but also proper references(as can be seen here). If you look at it you'll find that there's one reference in the first sentence and two in the second, references which are not duplicates of the reference in the first sentence but were still removed when you removed the second sentence. Thomas.W   talk to me  20:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will move the references now. Thank you for pointing that out. However, next time be more patient to read edits before reverting them. Cheers! Viknguyen7895 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Viknguyen7895
 * I did read enough of it to see that you removed proper references without even an attempt at explaining why, which is reason enough to revert you. Thomas.W   talk to me  20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

But you agree it is the repetitive information, right? Then can you add that reference, because I don't know how to. Also, accusing me of the edit war and threatening to block me is really the bully behaviour, man. Also, can you tell me at least one reason you reverted my grammar fixes and Russian words fixes? Viknguyen7895 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Viknguyen7895
 * It's not bully behaviour, it's trying to be one step ahead of you in case you would continue removing it, in addition to the three reverts you had already made (since sanctions for edit-warring require that warning). I'll rework the text, with all references kept. (Your minor corrections to the text were removed by the automated script that made the reversion when it reverted your major edit and restored the previous version of the article. Collateral damage, so to speak.) Thomas.W   talk to me  20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarifying that. As I said before, I am not very familiar with how the system works, just joined a week or so ago. I think I did the right thing in an incorrect way. Do you know when my warnings will expire? Viknguyen7895 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll remove them from your talk page. Thomas.W   talk to me  20:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Automotive industry in India
Hello, thank you for the correction! I had made a typographical error, meaning to type Millions and accidentally typed Billions. Very glad you caught it! I'll work on adding the corrected version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb3141 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

University of Portsmouth Oman Military College
Hi there, Thank you and apologies,I have no idea how to use Wikipedia or Computers for that matter.I sincerely apologise as I have no Idea what I could have done to make you so cross.All I was trying to do was add this link -http://universities.caat.org.uk/portsmouth-university-to-oversee-courses-at-the-omani-military-technical-college/ to the references and highlight the fact that Shawn is also our elected CAAT University Representative and together with Amnesty Society was the one who spearheaded and criticised the tie with our University.We were hoping this would put our rep and our small organisation more accessible to any volunteers who'd like to help out. - Rossana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.95.9 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, but the name you try to add is non-notable (being a local CAAT student representative at University of Portsmouth doesn't make someone notable by Wikipedia standards) and we don't add names that are totally non-notable to the articles. The objection to the deal expressed by CAAT and the local Amnesty International representative is already mentioned in the article, and making that mention more prominent than it is would give undue weight to the matter, which is the primary reason why I reverted your attempt to replace the official University of Portsmouth reference for the deal with Oman with a link to what seems like a CAAT press release. Wipedia's rules require neutrality, and the present text regarding the Oman deal is IMHO neutral, giving equal space and equal weight to the deal and to the opposition to it, while it with the changes you tried to make would be decidedly non-neutral, and thus not acceptable. Thomas.W   talk to me  17:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Talkpage stalker swoops in... to say that WP:NOTEWORTHY is really the question here. If reliable sources make passing mention of Shawn, or especially *interview* Shawn, then they prolly should be named in the relevant article, even if they aren't yet personally "Notable" enough (by wiki standards) to have their own dedicated article.  So, I guess my slight correction is, wikipedia does quite often have names dropped within the text of articles, even if those named persons may not yet have their own  biography here.  As for the WP:UNDUE stuff, Thomas is almost certainly correct -- we should not use wikipedia to give prominence to anything out there, which is not reflected by that thing's prominence/depth/breadth of coverage in reliable sources.  Hope this helps.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They have a student representative at virtually every university in the UK, and the same goes for virtually every other organisation, and we can't list them all. In addition to that it wasn't third party coverage and Shawn wasn't interviewed, just mentioned in passing on Campaign Against Arms Trade's own web site. Which is no reason for having the name included in an article about the University of Portsmouth. I also objected to CAAT's attempts to replace a reference pointing to a press release from the University of Portsmouth, announcing the deal, with a link to a page on Campaign Against Arms Trade's web site viewing opposition to the deal. And as Rossana from CAAT wrote above, the edits were made in an attempt to make CAAT more visible and get more volunteers, i.e. as pure promotion. Which means that reverting the edits was the proper thing to do, for more reasons than one. Thomas.W   talk to me  16:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, sounds like you made the right decision. Didn't think you made a mistake in your revert, but I did mainly just want to clarify that in your explanation of why Shawn got the axe, you were using "non-notable" in a colloquial fashion, as opposed to the non-Notable (as in meaning specifically WP:N).  Avoiding overly-promotional links, and keeping from giving undue weight, and all that, is why Shawn doesn't satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY at present for the U.Portsmouth article; Rossana needs to understand that wikipedia is not the correct venue for helping CAATS get more volunteers, any more than wikipedia is the correct venue for helping IKEA sell more coffee-tables.  But the standards for Shawn getting passing mentioned in a sentence fragment is the Noteworthy standard (some non-trivial coverage in Reliable Sources), which is a *much* lower bar than the Notability standard (coverage with some depth in multiple Reliable Sources) that would be enough to get Shawn his very own BLP article, right?
 * For instance, if there was some independent newspaper or television coverage, of whatever thing it is that Shawn spearheaded -- which Rossana please note *cannot* be blogs or the CAATS website or some news-publication of CAATS but must be independent uninvolved journalists -- then the spearhead-thing *might* belong in the U.Portsmouth article. This is (hypothetically speaking) the reverse situation of the Valor HS article, where Dina keeps trying to *remove* some Noteworthy controversy -- which she should not be doing, since that controversy *did* generate independent coverage in reliable sources, and notability is not temporary, even though the controversy is old news now.
 * p.s. We actually could list all student reps of CAATS, per WP:NOTPAPER, but we do not list them all per WP:V and WP:NOTDIR.  I was surprised to learn, a month ago or something, that wikipedia lists *every* episode of certain teevee talkshows... because pretty much every night, Jon Stewart has some Notable person on the show.  In that case, being a member of the ListOf Talkshow Guests Of Jon Stewart in fact *does* require the person on the list have their own BLP article.  As for Shawn, he does not belong in the U.Portsmouth article, though he might (perWP:ABOUTSELF) be Noteworthy enough to deserve a mention in the article about CAATS, if he's featured prominently enough in their WP:ABOUTSELF publications.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Peridon (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Trivial Matters
Although it's sad that you took off my edit on "Mauser CS6" Thomas, I understand your reasoning. It belongs on a different Wiki, so that's where I'll put it. - Jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.217.198 (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

polite notice #2
Hello Thomas, you can call me 74, you were on patrol with Twinkle and noticed a particularly-silly posting of mine:

(cur | prev) 12:55, 8 November 2013‎ Thomas.W (talk | contribs)‎. . (182,456 bytes) (+1,324)‎. . (Selfrevert. I'm sure Bish can handle her talk page herself.) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:47, 8 November 2013‎ Thomas.W (talk | contribs)‎. . (181,132 bytes) (-1,324)‎. . (Reverted 1 edit by 74.192.84.101 (talk): Rv what to me seems like vandalism. (TW)) (undo)

While I appreciate the seems-to-me (cf Bish's WADR however), and even more the self-revert, it kinda sours that instead of asking me on my talkpage about it -- preferably with a note rather than a template of course -- you instead got me blocked for a week ((correction sorry about the mischaracterization: ...failed to leave a false-alarm note, which could have saved me from getting false-positive blocked for 24 hours (through no fault of your own! did not mean to imply that apologies) by some other admin, since as they *also* did not leave a diff or a template or some other sort of talkpage message, I was left with WP:NOCLUE, which meant instead of a five-minute-fix it was a bit more painful.))  Anyways, the false-positive block was undone after 24 hours (sans timezone issues would have been only a couple hours), and I have a thick enough skin, so no problemo, in this case.

However, there *are* cases where this leads to a WP:RETENTION failure, and my point of posting here is to joggle your elbow a bit. I do greatly appreciate you doing vandal-patrols, because it is a damn thankless job, yet essential to protect wikipedia. So consider yourself thanked. But do try and keep your trigger-finger a little closer to the talkpage button, rather than the oh-so-temptingly-quick-and-convenient buttons that say revert-n-block-n-ban.

As for myself, I specifically do not come here for your apology. You did everything just right, completely by the book. But my message for the day, if you would ponder it awhile please, is whetherWP:PG is the correct book, or if pillar four trumps. :-)

p.s. Sorry about that rudeness from 24 up there. I'll go see if I can talk some sense into them. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101(talk) 13:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI I did not get you blocked since all I did was revert and then quickly selfrevert. With no reporting of any kind to anyone (as you can see from my contributions). If you were blocked it must have been because someone else also saw the post, not because of me. Since there are lots of people who have Bishonen's talk page on their watchlist (including a large number of her fellow administrators), I have no idea why you were blocked, so take your grievances to the talk page of the admin who blocked you, not me. Thomas.W   talk to me  14:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I should not have phrased it the way I did; corrected inline, above. (One of the downsides of personal notes rather than templates is that accidental connotations can be transmitted unintentionally!  Which I'll have to think about more deeply later.)
 * Anyways, yes, I'm not trying to accuse you of ratting me out. :-)     In fact I sorta guessed that AGK was independently acting, and for the record I totally did not bother to cull your edit-history and IRC logs to find out whether *you* were my Secret Adversary, cause I don't really believe in secret adversaries... I just phrased my real thinking poorly, above.  But somebody on arbcom (AGK) noticed your twinkle-revert, or maybe, noticed the original Bishonen posting, and then blocked me for 168 hours, with the generic "disruptive WP:NOTHERE" message, and since I had no clue what they thought *was* disruptive, I could not appeal immediately... you have to give an unblock-reasons that shows you understand why you were blocked, and I had no idea why I was blocked.  :-/    Eventually AGK and myself got it worked out, but it took longer than necessary because they sleep at nighttime in Scotland, and I was clueless about what the problem was.
 * Anyhoo, to repeat my main message from above, *you* did everything right. Reverting nonsense is your job, especially if it looks like trolling.  I thank you for that, and want you to keep it up.  But since you didn't leave a note -- template or otherwise -- on my talkpage about your revert, nor about your change of heart... when Somebody Else came along, and insta-ban-hammered me without delving into the details (generic reason with no diff and no explanatory message), I was clueless about what just happened.  The note from you would have been sufficient for me to be able to immediately unblock, through any random uninvolved admin (avoiding timezones etc) with the reason of "false poz that was satire not trolling".  Make sense?  Tis all I'm saying.
 * That's why I'm asking that you consider keeping your trigger-finger nearer to the talkpage-button. It takes longer, I know, but it can make false positives less painful, which I think will help WP:RETENTION.  Does twinkle not have some kind of auto-notify-talkpage-feature?  p.s.  Hope I phrased it better this time around... if not, and I was unclear again, please accept fresh new apologies in advance.  :-)     74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there!
SO...what is your problem? You like to patrol Wiki looking for meaningless words to edit out to make yourself feel important? You have NOTHING to do with Coleman HS, yet you feel the need to partol their page and remove owrlds like "academic excellence" just because there is no citation? Even though those words have been in place since day one? How about all the other stuff, the sports achievements? The tuition? Why not question all that? Oh, because that is all public record. PR12477 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And why remove the theater info??? That had nothing to do with it, and it had citations! Why not just remove the whole page since most of it is not verified??? PR12477 (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, I'll consider it. In the meantime I strongly suggest that you follow the links I gave you on your talk page and read Wikipedia's rules about verifiability, reliable sources and burden of proof. Thomas.W   talk to me 13:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Then 90% of Wiki should be removed since according to your draconian rule every word written requires a citation. What's funny is looking back on all this talk I see this is your MO anyway. You have a lot of haters due to your invasive editing practices. I think Wiki needs to be made aware of such actions. PR12477 (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My first impression was that you were a member of the school staff, but the more comments you add the more it looks like it's one of the younger students at the school doing the reverting. Everything I do on Wikipedia is in full compliance with the rules here, so there's no need for you to worry about that. Unfortunately there are a lot of users, including schools, who see Wikipedia as free advertising space and add tons of unsourced material to make their company/school or whatever look better, and/or remove properly sourced controversies and other negative material, which means that there's a need for people like me here, people who patrol Wikipedia and deal with editors who break the rules, starting with friendly advice and information, like the advice and information I gave on your talk page, and then, if needed, gradually turning up the heat. Thomas.W   talk to me  13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I am a parent of former and current students. Even though you think you are in full compliance from what I see many of your actions are quite invasive and unjustified. I can see that this is because you think you are on some mission to save Wiki from the evil schools of the world. Also, we have a very nice website think you. We don't need your "free advertising".

I'll ask again, why are you concerned with the theater info that has citations? And why not remove other things with no citation? You are selectively editing page under your own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PR12477 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who removed the theatre information, it was removed by another editor for being both unsourced and overly detailed. But it doesn't matter who removed it, because if your addition is being challenged, as your edit is being by me, you can not add unsourced material to the article unless you provide a proper reference for it, and that goes for both new material and material that has been removed for being unsourced. Which you would know if you had read the rules about verifiability that I pointed you to. Thomas.W   talk to me  15:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * PR12477, your opening sentence here contains a clear personal attack. You're edit warring. You're inserting unverified and promotional material. You falsely accuse me of vandalism. You treat the article as if you own it. Go down this path and you will be blocked indefinitely.Drmies (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack??? For real? Wow! Thin skinned much? So, let me ask one more time. What constitutes "unsourced"??? 90% of what I see is not "sourced". Why is almost EVERY FREAKIN PAGE on Wiki not removed then??? Much of this page in question is "unsourced" same as most others on this site. Is sourcing required for every word? sounds impossible and unrealistic. Also sounds like a bunch of people think they are the Wiki police with a false sense of authority. Also, "overly detailed"???? Seriously??? I think you people rely on the fact that most people are sheep and will not question what goes on here. Listen, warn me all you want. You know you can't stop people coming back if they want. I am not that type of person, but anything's possible. — Precedingunsigned comment added by PR12477 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Promo fluff"???? Listen little man, it's facts, not fluff. The numbers don't lie. If a school does better academically than most academic excellence is an applicable term. I fully expect to get banned over this, so don't feel so superior when it happens. You'll see me again. Toodles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PR12477 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tsk. Wrong response. You described yourself as an adult (with high school kids), so how about behaving like one? Thomas.W   talk to me  16:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong response? Sorry, but I am a grown man who stands up for what he believes in. I'll respond how I feel is applicable. What about the term "accomplished athletics teams." Why was that not removed? It's the same exact thing! — Preceding unsigned comment added byPR12477 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed it is a sad thing to be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias. It is just something people agreed on this encyclopedia, not to use owerly ornated words, please read this Words to watch-stuff. ->Manual of Style/Words to watch It is something that people need to consider, to avoid to much best of all is this land, and so on, and concentrate on facts. It is the way it is.Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Even though I don't really agree with this, thank you Hafspajen for the common sense explanation without the pomposity. PR12477 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was there too... once upon a time. And,( don't tell anyone) I don't really agree with this either. But that's life. Also it is very important to be polite, you know, see hereCivility. Hafspajen (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

response
Thomas.W, I'm not the user Mj358. you are wrong. You are putting wrong information about Jessie Rogers. You write in a derogatory manner and not allowing other users to update the information. You must stop to change the article because it is you who is wrong. I warn you will be blocked because you annoy the other users and because you are providing wrong information and tries to modify article for personal intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsElGato (talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blogs etc are not reliable sources, which is why you have now been blocked for your repeated addition of improperly sourced material to the article. As you were warned you would be if you continued adding such material. Thomas.W   talk to me  13:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of this dispute, another admin invoked WP:TNT and had the article speedy deleted, on belief that ItsElGato is Rogers, because of a legal threat that caused him to be indefi blocked (and of course we're now dealing with a sockpuppet problem, so I semi-protected the article indef as well.) I restored the clean version article and put it up for at Deletion review/Log/2013 November 16. You may want to contribute to the conversation. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 09:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Administration Noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved by virtue of inspecting or otherwise looking at the edits of the reported user. Thank you. Fiddle  Faddle  14:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No, I wouldn't want that to happen, it's weird enough as it is...  ;)  Thomas.W   talk to me  16:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Haha, yes it is, isn't it? Hafspajen (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol Rosin
Thanks for correcting any mistakes in my recent AfD entry, as long as it's clear the 3rd nomination is from me. I tried to follow the guide closely but felt unsure whether to keep the  or not in page names. Also, the guide seems to need an update; at least it seems step III was done for me in the log. Henrik Erlandsson 22:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC) — Precedingunsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs)
 * All I did was revert your nomination since the article had been nominated for deletion by only 30 minutes before you did the same thing, meaning that it already was at AfD, as Articles for deletion/Carol Rosin (2nd nomination). So I suggest you add your !vote there.  Thomas.W   talk to me  22:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. The guide WP:AFDHOWTO does mention "3rd nomination" and gives instructions how to add a nomination, so naturally I assumed adding a nomination was how I "voted". Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk •contribs) 22:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Vet du Något om detta+ i så fall ingrip!
 Anders Zorn ? Add some text? Some references? (Don't mess with the pictures, please please please...) Hafspajen (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to my "to do" list. Don't know when I'll actually get to doing it, though. Thomas.W   talk to me  16:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin revert
If we never delete sections, the article will grow without bound. How about maintaining a special section at the top "Consensus summaries" or something like that ? Chris Arnesen 18:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what talk page archives are for. Also see my comments on your talk page. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'm a newbie editor. I'll fix it. Chris Arnesen 18:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, why is it that the talk pages have to be archived semi-manually like that? It seem to me that it'd be easier if it just kept the complete version history like it does for a regular article.Chris Arnesen 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's much easier and quicker to read an archived talk page discussion than trying to patch the discussion together from the page history. Besides, when people start to remove material from talk pages it is often seen as an attempt to hide something, and can cast doubts over the claimed consensus. So don't do it. Thomas.W  talk to me  19:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case it IS an attempt to hide something: clutter :) Why should automatic archiving preclude concurrent manual archiving? Check the article history; it's been done many times. If you think I've archived an article that merits further discussion, please re-post it with your comments. From Talk_page_guidelines "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." We're at 33. Please stop undoing my archiving! Chris Arnesen 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bitcoin article has a slightly troubled history, with lots of tendentious editing both ways, attempts at wholesale removal of large parts of the article and discussions regarding concerted efforts to change the article, orchestrated off-Wiki, on WP:ANI (Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents), so it's most definitely not an average article. Which means that a close eye on everything that happens there is needed. So learn to live with the scrutiny. Thomas.W   talk to me  21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude we've been through this already. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_9&action=history again. Read Talk_page_guidelines Contribute constructively, and take that silly warning off my talk page.Chris Arnesen 09:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're balancing on the edge, dude. Your edits and your behaviour on the talk page becomes more suspicious day by day, and the talk page guidelines you're constantly referring to are guidelines and recommendations only, not mandatory policy. So if your archiving is objected to, you stop, because archiving discussion threads that are only a few days old is notnormal procedure. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have only the best interests of the article in mind. Honestly, I think it's better to get those stale threads out of the way so that we can focus on making progress on open issues. Can you cite an example of a thread that you feel was archived prematurely? Also, if you're really so concerned about it, please just bring it up on the Talk:Bitcoin page. Wikipedia is what we make it. Please focus your energy on constructive contributions. Add your two cents to a few of those talk page discussions that you want so much to let linger. Chris Arnesen 10:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
(3RR-warning removed)

Bollocks. If reverting nationalistically motivated edits, systematically changing Hong-Kong to China on multiple articles, is seen as edit-warring, then I'll stop fighting vandalism and just watch Wikipedia go down the drain. Thomas.W  talk to me  22:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is edit warring, and I have also warned the other party. TigerShark (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that more reverting occurred today, but that you only reverted the first time. I have protected the page so that IP and new user changes must be reviewed (because the other user seems to be changing IP). I hope that will solve the problem, but please don't revert it again today. I assume that somebody else will do so, soon enough. TigerShark (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'd prefer to try Pending Changes first, because that is a less restrictive protection for unconfirmed users (and hopefully manageable on that article, which is not heavily edited). I would hope that when the individual realises that their edits won't be seen, they will stop trying, but that other unconfirmed users will still be able to edit. That's the theory anyway. I'm happy to review this if it isn't working, and get involved further if necessary, so please feel free to contact me again. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but I have little doubt that the IP edits were made from a particular POV, and that the IP hopping came in very handily to avoid scrutiny. I'm glad you blocked that most recent one. I don't know what the efficacy of PC is in the first place; semi-protection is of course also an option. But you said you'd keep an eye on it so I'll leave it in your hands. Thomas.W, thank you for your assistance in keeping the house clean. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

German IP-hopper
Hi. What's the deal with this German IP hopper? I've blocked the two IP you logged at AIV, have you seen other ones? TigerShark (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * He is a puppet of Invitto/Hamburg73/Flow92/etc etc - I originally encountered him in the Commons where he edited with lots of energy but with very little notion of facts, and totally without the ability to communicate. He got blocked there for sockpuppetry and vandalism, followed by a block in German Wikipedia. He just lost an arbcom case there and is avenging himself on me by reverting all of my edits. This has led to more indiscriminate vandalism across the board. Thanks for your help.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just reported at AIV.  Thomas.W   talk to me  13:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , just out of curiosity, why did you choose PC, rather than semi-protection? Oh! Thomas, he lost his case? Nice. Now someone can hop on that train to Gemunden and tell him so. Thank you,Drmies (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Drmies Because it has less impact on other non-confirmed users, and also in the (perhaps vain) hope that it would prevent it spreading to alternative articles. TigerShark(talk) 15:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with PC in cases like this is that it doesn't reduce the workload for the people who do the clean-up since the vandal can continue to edit the articles even when PC-protected, with every single one of the edits needing to then be rejected by someone with reviewer rights. A user right that not all users who revert vandalism have. So in cases like this semi-protection is better. Another friendly advice is to block IPs used by vandals like this German guy for only 24-31h, not a week, since guys like him often drive around town looking for new IPs from mobile/cell networks, IPs that someone else might get a few minutes later. So shorter blocks reduce collateral damage. Thomas.W   talk to me  15:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You assume that the vandal will just continue to edit, even when their edits are not made visible. They could do, or they could just give up when they realise that they are not having the impact they desired. You're right about shorter blocks, but the edit history of those IPs tell me that they are not used for heavy anonymous editing, and it is hard to tell just how random the IP assignment to the person will be. I think a week is about right. On the subject of collateral damage, semi-protection prevents all new user and IPs from editing, which is far from ideal (whereas PC allows them to still edit). They are not heavily edited articles, so the review backlog should not be heavy, and all that is needed is for someone to approve good edits. The best way, I believe, is to start will the least restrictive method and then increase the protection if needed. I note that there are also fairly large range blocks in place now. TigerShark (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The vandal did continue to edit until blocked, in spite of PC-protection, which I know since I had to revert a number of such edits . And those are just the ones that I reverted, there could well have been many more. Thomas.W   talk to me  19:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Land Rover
Hi, thanks for the message. However, you are mistaken. The UK-based car design and manufacturing business of the Land Rover unlimited company was transferred to Jaguar Cars Limited, and that company was renamed to Jaguar Land Rover Limited at the very end of 2012. At the same time, Jaguar Land Rover PLC (the holding company) was renamed to Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC. Then, in October 2013, the old Land Rover unlimited company was renamed to Jaguar Land Rover Holdings Limited to use for other purposes. You can see the evidence for this on the Companies House website at: wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk. I'll leave it to you to fix the articles to reflect these facts. TwoWayStreet (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The matter was discussed thoroughly here on WP at the end of last January, including checks of all companies in the Jaguar Land Rover Group at Companies House, and Land Rover was still very much an existing separate company even after the changes that were made at the end of 2012, including the renaming and reshuffling of the companies. So if you want any changes made you will have to provide reliable sources for it, sources that include the companies numbers at Companies House (which is what defines the legal entities). Thomas.W  talk to me  20:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a quick check at Companies House, and you seem to have misunderstood at least some of the information. The company that was previously known as Land Rover is now named Jaguar Land Rover Holding Ltd (Company No. 04019301), but Jaguar Cars is still a separate entity, Jaguar Cars Ltd (Company No. 01672067), meaning that they may well intend to combine the two marques but haven't done so yet. So Land Rover is still a separate company. Thomas.W   talk to me  21:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference advice
Hi Thomas. Picanto Club Indonesia recently had a field trip to the Donghee factory in South Korea. The pictures show that Donghee also manufactures the Kia Ray. Unfortunately, aside from the blog link, no reputable website has proof of this information. Not even the Donghee website mentions the Ray.

What's your take on this? Add Donghee as the assembly plant of the Kia Ray and slap a citation needed tag, or just leave the article alone? - Areaseven (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Come on over
A thread on Joe has been started has been started at ANI....William00:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Thomas, I've hatted your and William's comments at ANI regarding TigerShark. If you want to address TS's conduct generally, then do it somewhere else, but not in a topic that is focused on reviewing Joe's block. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI Thomas, I unhatted it. Bbb23's reaction is very typical for ANI. Accusations with evidence against an administrator have to be buried....William 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)