User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 5

Please see
User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WoW
Thomas, inte tänker du väl överge oss? Brukar du göra DYKs? Om ja, var snäll och titta igenom detta. Det är för många Svenska referenser i det, så det verkar som ingen vågar. (Fixat redan.)


 * Thomas, Thomas, inte tänker du väl överge oss? Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what Hafspajen said. Take it easy Thomas. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Popping up
I'm glad to see you popping up a little, at least. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Something called "real life" took over... Thomas.W   talk to me  13:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

King of Kvenland
Only a Swede would try to insert Charles IX in an article about the Kings of Kvenland. I'll forgive you your nationalistic aspirations, but you must realize that Charles IX had nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient Kvenland. Do you realize that? Finnedi (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Charles IX is actually the only historically accurate/verified king of Kvenland there has been, so he definitely belongs in the article. The rest of the article is just a bunch of myths and speculations... Thomas.W   talk to me  21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Charles was not and could not have been a King of Kvenland, because he lived centuries later and Kvenland was never a Sveas' land to begin with. Kvenland was a Finnish area that existed long before the Swedish crusades in the 13th century. Sweden has never been linked with Kvenland in any way in the Swedish history books either. You just have to accept this historical fact.Finnedi (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources? To write anything in Wikipedia, you need sources. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Charles IX was a King of Sweden (never a King of Kvenland), who lived in 1550-1611 . Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. Therefore Charles IX does not belong to the article about Kvenland or the one about the King of Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Kvenland you're POV/fringe-pushing about is just a myth since there's no historial evidence that such an entity ever existed (blogs don't count...). The name Kvenland, with a few different variations in spelling, has however been used in various contexts, one of them being the royal title used by Charles IX. So he was undoubtedly "King of Kvenland". Thomas.W   talk to me  15:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas, take a deep breath before you continue. Kvenland is mentioned in several norse sagas and history books later. Charles IX was never a King of Kvenland nor did he himself or any historian ever claim that he was. You are the first person who does that. Even linking Charles IX with Kvenland is absurd because he lived in the 16th century and Kvenland had disappeared from written accounts by the 14th century. The thing that Charles IX may have used the title "King of Caijaners etc.", never made and still does not make him a King of Kvenland, nor was he ever associated in any way with the area that was known Kvenland. If you want to connect Charles IX to Caijaners, why don't you add the info in the article about Charles IX himself?Finnedi (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The Norse sagas are sagas and what's written in them can not be taken at face value, unless it's supported by historical documents or archaeological evidence. And AFAIK no historical documents or archaeological evidence support the existence of a political entity named Kvenland, let alone the existence of kings of such an entity. The existence of a political entity named Kvenland is just a myth. 2) I'm not the one who added Charles IX, but since the claim that he used the title "King of Kvenland" seems to be properly sourced you can not remove it unless you discuss it on the talk page of the article and get consensus for such removal. Period. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas, I'm not interested in arguing with you about Kvenland, the area. The problem is that you want to include Charles IX in two articles where he does not belong. Charles never ever used the title KING OF KVENLAND of himself. Nor did any historian ever do that. I already explained you why it wouldn't have been possible in the first place. Such unhistorical absurd interpretations are not needed in these articles.Finnedi (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

, I have started sections on the talk page of both articles repeating what you have been told all along, that the section is referenced and describes something scholars have raised in this connection, and that no one is claiming it was still called Kvenland in the 16th/17th century. Despite your edit summaries, you have not acquired consensus for removing this referenced material; you have simply said repeatedly that you disagree with it, and I see you here impute nationalistic motives to Thomas.W for disagreeing with its removal. Please make your case where it belongs, on the article talk pages. But so far you - and an IP that was probably you? are the only person/people arguing for its removal, and since it's referenced, your argument is not persuasive, to me at least (and is not improved by the assumption of bad faith. Take it to the article talk pages please. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference to Charles IX does not belong in the articles about Kvenland or the King of Kvenland, because Charles IX has never been connected with Kvenland in any way by any known historian. If you dispute this fact, you must present source material that says the opposite and can be verified by myself and others. Can you present such source material?Finnedi (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

category reverts
Hi - I just wanted to let you know that I've re-reverted some of your recent reversions of User:59.101.85.1. I believe they were constructive, even though they appeared suspicious. Please see my comment on that IP's talk page for details, and please let me know if you think I'm in error. Thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Finnedi has opened a section at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but s/he had misspelled your user name so here is a manual notification: Dispute resolution noticeboard. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting my user page. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Finnedi
If you post a polite request on Finnedi's talk page asking him to stop posting to your talk page, he is required to stop. If he doesn't, he will get a couple of warnings and then a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Finnedi is free to post on my talk page as long as his posts are reasonably constructive and related to an ongoing discussion. What I don't like is his new-found hobby of repeatedly copy-pasting totally unwarranted/frivolous user warnings here... Thomas.W   talk to me  18:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper at United States Secret Service and FN P90
Thanks for your frequent maintenance/anti-vandalism edits on WP:Guns articles. You may have noticed already, but there's an IP editor on the United States Secret Service article removing sourced info and adding lots of his own WP:OR. I challenged the WP:OR and warned him on his talk page, then he switched IPs (both New Jersey) and started citing the same exact source that I was citing (Jane's Infantry Weapons). He hasn't made any communication with me so far on either of his talk pages.

It seems like we see this a lot on the firearm articles, where editors just cite random sources for their additions, thinking that no one will notice. Of course, I have access to the source being cited, and it doesn't say anything about the stuff he's citing it for. It may be necessary to alert an admin, but Nick-D is gone on a holiday, and he seems to be the usual admin for these kinds of issues in the WP:GUNS project. ROG5728 (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Finnedi again?
Just FYI: I've opened an SPI on. It's not obvious like the other one was, but you might let me know if you see further suggestive edits. If it becomes obvious, I'll block without waiting for CU. (I understand they're backlogged.) Bishonen &#124; talk 06:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

Padlock?
If you'd like your talk page temporarily semi-protected, just say the word. Favonian (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, 'cos this is getting boringThomas.W talk 20:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 12 hours of local peace. Favonian (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thomas.W talk 20:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Doctor SK
I think we have a problem with Doctor SK, who might or might not be related to another pro-UFO editor calling himself Dr Fil (who seems to have gone dormant). FWIW, the Jerry Cohen site he keeps trying to push is not factual research but simply opinion, and much of it based on his own misunderstandings. But of course we can't say this in WP. Anyway, thanks to you and Bobrayner for slugging it out with him. (PS: And, yes, I am Ian Ridpath) Skeptic2 (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He seems to have created an account just to attack skeptical explanations of Rendlesham and the Exeter Incident, so his POV is fairly obvious. Skeptic2 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that it's a single-purpose account. Thomas.W talk 18:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Vikings vs Norsemen
Hello. I've noticed that the discussion on the talk page has degenerated to a debate over the meaning of the term. To avoid any continuation of this argument, I've proposed that we merge those two articles under the name "Vikings" and address the debate over the proper meaning by creating a new page about the raiders/traders/explorers under a name such as "Viking (activity)" or "Viking (pirate)". If this is acceptable to you (or if you have concerns over this being implemented), please weigh in on the issue, as it is difficult to establish a consensus with only two people involved. Thank you, MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

SAR-21/TAR-21 vs AUG
File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Becoming A Soldier of the Caracal Battalion (59).jpg vs File:Operation Tiger Balm 09 SAR-21 MMS.jpg vs File:Steyr AUG A3.jpg
 * FWIW, I'm on your side because we all agree on the same thing on IMI Tavor TAR-21 but there are always some nationalistic dicks who keeps insisting on this and that weapon is a copy of his country's, what do we do? Removing it might just trigger that blooming idiot coming back to start a fresh round with us. Thanks but no thanks, I would rather defeat him at his own game with well researched facts than to be drawn into some idiot's game of illogical reasoning. Best and out. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Regards of Range Rover Evoque marketing material
Your assertion over my post for WP:PROMOTION accusation is not correct, and was not supported by facts. First of all, the rule 1 exempts objective reports of advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment from the Point of view, which for the record, were abstracts for the said item, so your deletion had no merit. The postings were not opinion pieces, not were they gossips, self-promotion. All the posting over the marketing section over Range Rover Evoque were backed-up by links from the identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. In other words, you were wrong to claim my addition was purely promotional material. Those were, in fact, reports of the existence of promotional materials, which made a significant difference. If you can't differentiate that, you should have deleted the whole GEICO article. -- 142.150.48.219 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what it's like in other articles, this is solely about Range Rover Evoque. The material that I removed is totally unencyclopaedic, being purely promotional material sourced directly to Jaguar Land Rover. Reading like excerpts from a sales leaflet. Much of it isn't even directly related to the car as such, but deals with marketing activities surrounding the car (such as details about an iPhone app, an art installation, a bicycle, and so on...). So it is definitely promotional. Thomas.W talk 13:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the comparison with Geico is a valid one, because the Geico campaign wiki article also refers to entries not directly related to insurance service either, such as GEICO Cavemen, which became a spin-off television series. Just because a marketer doesn't directly promote a product/service doesn't mean the promotion isn't about the referenced materials. All that aside, you still don't get the difference between promoting or reporting the existence of promotional materials. As WP:PROMOTION clearly stated: An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. If anything, the GEICO entry is worse because many of the campaign entries were unsourced (such as Radio ads), while every one of my addition over it include corresponding source. Your judgement over Range Rover Evoque commercials are unencyclopaedic yet GEICO ads somehow are encyclopaedic shows clear inconsistency. -- 142.150.48.219 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been troubled by your (the ip's) edits for a long long time. Never ending lists of dinner ingredients at Mercedes W222, never ending lists of promotions and appearances at shows or in TV series. Most of your copy reads like it is lifted directly from the PR departments, except for your halting grasp of English. Please read WP:STYLE and ask yourself if your edits are of an encyclopaedic nature.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

T-80 and Equipment of the Syrian Army
IDF== Hello, look I 'm new in editing ,I' trying to learn ,I mentioned a source, you have more experience than me ,you could have helped me, the information I put about the T 80 was with another editor who is writing about this subject, actually he did put the information in the conditional, you could have talked to me ,I opened a discussion page on the talk page of the equipment of the Syrian army ,no one responded specially al-khazar.At least I gave reasons for the reversing of Edicts ,he didn't; he also reversed more than three edicts yet I'm the person warned, it is okay I 'm leaving this subject, no problem but I think this is the kind of behavior that is making many editors to stop contributing to Wikipedia.User talk:aubmnAubmn (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Al-Khazar has also been warned, but unlike you he hasn't broken the three-revert rule (three reverts within 24 hours). Thomas.W talk 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello about IDF,I want to say that my contribution and rectification was positive and done with a good intention ,I did not add up one sentence to my old contribution, first I thanked the editor who revert my edit and than I rewrite it keeping only one sentence out of four, I specially removed everything partisan and kept a technical information linked to source 8 and 9 of the article, it is a fact that the Israeli army is perhaps the strongest in the Middle East like when you say the U.S.A is the greatest economic and military power in the world ,this are common facts, anyway it is okay no problem but please cool down a little, I don t have bad intentions ,I'm learning; the other editor who revert me seem content with my reply, so all I say there is no bad intention here, we are all working to the same goal. Thank you.User talk: AubmnAubmn (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Aubmn
Sorry about that. But please keep in mind that I already warned him/her about this dispute and refused to reply here. Khazar (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
hay i have already read all water mark policy there is nothing wrong in my picture as per watermark policy and its seems you have share many wrong information above Dinesh Lal Yadav i request you to please stop sharing wrong information as i am brother of him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bk250101 (talk • contribs)


 * If you're his brother you ought to be able to get a picture of him without a big ugly watermark across his face. Your picture violates WP:WATERMARK, period. Thomas.W talk 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And do NOT remove content from the user talk pages of other users! Thomas.W talk 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to give you a quick thanks for changing my PROD to a CSD at Porsche 911 GT1 Straßenversion (Road Going Version). Now I know about WP:A10 for the future. Bahooka (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your kind remarks - I am delighted to have been of service. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That IP
Thanks, blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Delhi
Delhi, delete - keep smiling! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Sleep and User:Lisaanng8289's edits
You and I seem to be having a minor (so far) "edit war" with Lisaanng8289 about her (Lisa is probably a she) edits at Sleep. What happens when she keeps it up and doesn't read (or heed) messages on article talk and user talk? Is there any way to contact her (if she keeps on restoring her content to Sleep)? --Hordaland (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If she doesn't read the messages and start a discussion, just continuing to edit-war, she will no doubt end up being blocked. But we're not there yet, so let's wait and see. Thomas.W talk 18:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. She looks like a student who's had no help at all.  No one helped me, either, when I started here, but I did it voluntarily.  Makes all the difference.  --Hordaland (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Songs and albums
Is this notable? Or stuff like this? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not, so feel free to nominate for deletion. Thomas.W talk 16:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE
Please familiarize yourself with our manual of style, in particular the section on Format of the first sentence. Parts of titles, as in the pages I edited, are generally not formatted in bold text. I reverted your policy-violating revert accordingly. Thank you. --85.197.52.156 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And I suggest you read it yourself, because this is what it says about bolding in the first sentence: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. Which is why association football and football stadia had been bolded. What was wrong in the articles wasn't that text had been bolded, but that too little text had been bolded; something I intend to correct. Removing the bolding altogether, as you did, is a greater violation of MOS:BOLDTITLE, BTW, than having too little bolding. Thomas.W talk 17:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may give it up right now, because you are not going to have your way on this. I know more about the Manual of Style than you, and I'm applying it correctly. You have now been applying it incorrectly twice. Let me educate you:
 * The titles of the pages in question are List of stadiums by capacity and List of association football stadiums by capacity, respectively, which had the words "sports stadia" and "football stadiums" bolded, respectively. That's the clearly non-MOS-compliant version that was initially in place and which you reverted to, in apparent ignorance of the Manual of Style.
 * What's worse, since it is a separate violation of the manual of style: parts of those bolded phrases were wikilinked, as are the phrases in your ludicrous recent edits.
 * I recommend you cease editing those pages now, since you evidently don't have a firm grasp on our Manual of Style. I'm reverting, and suggest you ask more experienced editors than yourself at the Manual of Style talk page. Thank you. --85.197.52.156 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And I suggest you stop your silly reverts, because your last reverts, the third within just a couple of hours on each of the two articles (which is what earned you the 3RR-warnings, warnings that I am sure your familiar with...), were clear violations of MOS:BOLDTITLE, unlike my edits. Thomas.W talk 18:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at Featured lists, you'll see that featured list articles typically do not have anything bolded in the first sentence; I randomly looked at 20 of the sports-related lists shown on that page, and 18 had no bolding, and 2 did. My first guess was that the two with bolding might not have had it when they were first featured, but that isn't the case either. So I think the best takeaway from this is: If Featured List reviewers don't care whether it's bolded or not, why do you two? Is there any other reason beyond "being right"? And assuming that this doesn't convince anyone to stop arguing, I'd say an unbolded first sentence appears more likely to follow the MOS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's a slow day and we have nothing better to do. Well, well, I'll go get me a cup of Lapsang Souchong and see if it cheers me up. Thomas.W talk 19:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ScottXW and his "deletion heros". Thank you. Yunshui 雲 水 08:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of linguistic situation
The undisputed fact that two different, distinct, and grammatically known Germanic languages were spoken in the area should not be obscured as it is most certainly relevant to the question of the Geats. The linguistic information needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article in some form and not obscured or brushed under the carpet. Demanding a source for what is common knowledge and common sense is not a valid pretext to wipe all information or mention that there were indeed two different languages from the article. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is an "undisputed fact" that two different languages were spoken in the area then provide a proper reliable source for it. Once you have such a source you're free to add it back again. But you are not going to get it back into the article without a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia's rules regarding verifiability; quote: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Thomas.W talk 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is time to educate yourself a little before looking like an ass demanding "proof" that there was such a Germanic language as the Gothic language in the Baltic. We even have a wikipedia in that language and you demand "proof" it existed? lol very funny! Seriously, the burden is not on me to prove common knowledge. Why dont you try and see if you can find anyone challenging that there was a Gothic langauge, or see if you can find one even scholar claiming that the Gothic speakers were really Norse speakers. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with the article about the Geats? The sentence that you keep adding can be reverted both because it's unsourced and because it isn't relevant to the article, especially not to the section it appears in. Thomas.W talk 15:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really trying to follow your logic here, but I am afraid I cannot. You challenge that two different languages were spoken in the area even though no scholar denies this, and you fail to see the relevance of the linguistic situation in the area to the question of the Geats' identity? Perhaps you could elaborate further for me. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I challenge that two separate languages were spoken in the land of the Geats, yes. You claim that it is an "undisputed fact", yet I've never seen anyone claim that the people there spoke other than Proto Norse and then Old Norse. So it's up to you to prove that two different languages were spoken there, with reliable sources that support it. Just as WP:Verifiability says. So go find those sources...


 * Oh, and while you're at it read Wikipedia's rules regarding personal attacks, because this edit summary wasn't kosher. Thomas.W talk 15:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Đ


 * In case you didn't get farther down in the article, yes, a number of scholars have indeed suggested a possible connection between the Geats and Goths. The fact that two related languages were spoken by two groups is entirely relevant, even if you "dontlikeit". And in fact that was not a "personal" attack, a "personal" attack would be if I had said "Thomas W. is a completely ignorant idiot" or some such, but I never said that. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If we take the last thing first, you implied it, since I was the only one who reverted you. As for the rest you seem to be quite a bit confused. Proto Norse/Old Norse being slightly different from the language of the Goths a few centuries later can be explained by their languages having split from the same root, evolving in different directions. It does not in any way support a claim that "two different languages were spoken in the land of the Geats". I don't deny that Old Norse and the language(s) of the Goths in Southern Europe differed from each other, but I very much doubt that it was because of a language split that had ocurred in Scandinavia, before some of the people there set off for warmer latitudes. Which is why I challenge your claim further up in this discussion, and, in full accordance with Wikipedia's rules, request that you provide reliable sources that support your claim. Thomas.W talk 15:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you will notice the preceding claims in the article are uncited and have been tagged as such for around a year. You didn't remove those claims that should have been removed since the tag has been up long enough, you left the tagged part and removed the only factual sentence there. Next time please just add a cn tag if you feel it is necessary and wait a while before removing the tagged material. Thanks 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There are different levels of "unbelievability". Claims that seem slightly dubious will be allowed to stay for the time being, just getting a tag, while claims that are totally off the charts will be removed at sight if unsourced. That's how it works. And since you obviously can't find any reliable sources for your claims I suggest you self-revert, and remove the sentence again... Thomas.W talk 16:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the evidence that the Goths spoke a different language from Norse is directly touching on the Geats and removing this evidence seems like suppression of evidence. No one disputes that these are different languages, no one disputes that the Goths themselves claimed to have been on the move back and forth between Moesia and Scandinavia for a number of centuries in their wider range, no one disputes that modern archaeology also points in this direction, and I doubt many think as you do that the Scandinavian Geats described as foes of the Norse in Norse sagas eg. Battle of Brávellir, must themselves have been Norse speakers, although it's possible a few may argue that the Geats were also Norse speakers. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, you seem to be quite a bit confused. The Geats were a Norse tribe, just like the Swedes/Suiones, the Danes and the Norwegians, and spoke Proto Norse/Old Norse just like the other Norse tribes, and the Battle of Brávellir was not between the Geats and "the Norse", but between the Eastern Geats (i.e. the Geats in what is today the Swedish province of Östergötland/Eastern Geatland) and Danes on one side, and the Swedes/Suiones and the Western Geats (i.e. from the area of the Swedish province of Västergötland/Western Geatland) on the other side. As is clearly stated in the article about the battle. At least try to get your facts right... Thomas.W talk 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing: The Battle of Brávellir took place some 600 years after the people who became the Goths left Scandinavia and moved south (based on archaeological evidence both in Geatland and on the southern shores of the Baltic), and so has nothing whatsoever to do with the Goth language(s) and the split of Proto Norse. Thomas.W talk 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't said anything unfactual yet. Sure there were Geats and Norse on both sides of that battle, that really isn't relevant to the question of the Geats' language, I only picked that article as one example of several wikipedia articles involving Geatish-Norse conflicts. But okay, you assert that the Geats must only have spoken Norse also. However you may learn from Old Gutnish that the idea Goths had been in Gothland is not a startling new theory, and actually it is an suggestion that has been around for at least 1500 years, why try to suppress it now?! 71.127.133.169 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Old Gutnish was a Norse dialect, not a separate language, one of several Norse dialects, and it differed from other Norse dialects for the simple reason that it was spoken only on a fairly small island out in the middle of the Baltic Sea, with a small population, separated from other areas where Proto Norse/Old Norse was spoken. So sofar all of your claims have been wrong/unfactual. The Battle of Brávellir actually took place 700 years after the ancestors of the Goths left Scandinavia, BTW, mid 8th century vs 1st century. Thomas.W talk 17:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't said anything unfactual yet. The article on Old Gutnish should hopefully elucidate you that some scholars think Old Gutnish is most closely related to Gothic, or are you pretending you didn't see that?   As far as the question of what languages the Geats may have spoken, details about when the Battle of Bravellir was fought or what sides they were fighting on are irrelevant to that question.  What both the Gothic accounts and Swedish accounts actually describe is more like a process over several centuries of multiple departures and emigrations, in these sources there were always some "stay at home Goths" and the "away" Goths so a battle supposedly being fought in Scandinavia by Geats in 700 AD tells us just that and nothing more or less.  But you want a source for a statement in the article that is simply a helpful reminder that Norse and Gothic were two separate languages, which fact I'd have thought no one could argue with, without even getting into any claims about which of these the Geats possibly spoke.  What kind of source should I find that would satisfy you that yes, Gothic and Old Norse are not the same languages, but were rather two related languages spoken by two different Germanic groups? 71.127.133.169 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Noone has disputed that Gothic and Old Norse were two different but related languages, spoken by two related Germanic groups. But, a), the sentence I removed doesn't belong in Geats, particularly not in the section where it was, and b), your claim that two different languages (Proto Norse/Old Norse and Gothic) were spoken side-by-side in the land of the Geats, i.e. in Scandinavia, as presented in this discussion, is a totally new, very fringe, and very laughable idea. Not supported by any reliable sources. In spite of your claims about it being an "undisputable fact". Thomas.W talk 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Up until now you have been arguing as though you dispute everything about the removed content, and now you concede that you do not dispute the factual statement at all and recognize it is true, you just want to shift to a different excuse now for doing away with one of the only factual and undisputed statements in that article. Shifting excuses from one to the next usually suggests there is some other real reason you don't want Gothic language linked or accessible from Geats and even to the point of insisting nobody before me has ever before suggested any relevant connection between the Goths and Scandinavia.  Wow. 71.127.133.169 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is shifting, you are. The unsourced sentence I removed, and you repeatedly added back again, has nothing whatsoever to do with that article, and particularly not the section it's in, as I have stated here several times. The other things we have discussed here, such as the ridiculous claim that Old Norse and the Gothic language were spoken side-by-side in Scandinavia, were brought up you, not me. All I have done is to show you how wrong you are. Sheeesh... Thomas.W talk 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If I were the first person in the world ever to suggest that Gothic language was spoken in Scandinavia, you might have a leg to stand on with your cries of "original research". The fact is I am clearly not the first person to suggest this, it is not original research, the fact that you might personally disagree with the published scholars who have discussed this possibility is irrelevant to the fact that scholars consider Goths relevant to this topic -- especially considering the factual statement you object to doesn't even state who the "Geats" were, but merely states a common knowledge fact that you even agree to be true -that these known languages were obviously spoken by different groups of people.   You are not being in the least reasonable. 71.127.133.169 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Why should I be reasonable? This is Wikipedia, here everyone is expected to be able to provide a reliable source for everything that is challenged, except for the most basic things, such as the sky being blue. I've asked for sources for your claim, but you can't provide any, for the simple reason that there are none. I win, you lose, learn to live with it. Thomas.W talk 20:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC) (PS. Only the editor who added that sentence would spend so much energy defending it...)


 * I have blocked the IPs posting above for block evasion. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC).


 * < Ungentlemanly comment redacted >. 71.127.135.80 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, TE, that's not a nice way to talk to a lady. Thomas.W talk 20:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've semi'd your page for a week, Thomas. Please let me know if you don't like it. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
 * It's OK with a week's semi. There have been quite a few IPs and new users posting crap here lately, so it's been protected on and off for quite a while now. I guess that's an unavoidable side effect of my spending most of my time on WP chasing vandals and socks... Thomas.W talk 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless you'd like me to start referring to you as hen?
It may be all we need to know, but we'd like to know that you're a proud grandfather! Bishonen &#124; talk 19:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC).
 * I might add the "proud grandfather" userbox back again one day, men ett steg i taget... Thomas.W talk 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Hi I just got as far as "So, since you're clearly a more experienced editor than I am..." and stopped reading to edit here. So we are working in the same area and you speak Swedish! Thats a major plus for editing about Northern Sweden. Don't worry about the edit conflicts or your inexperience (sic). What you could particularly help with is checking the Baggbole article as its about to feature at DYK on the main page. If we can find a reference for every paragraph of your? mansion article then that too can go to the main page. I can add some of the stuff but I cannot find a ref for the stuff that has just been translated from the Swedish wiki. It is 99% probably right but we should find a ref and I would not recognise one in Swedish. Hope you take up the offer of working together.... Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at Baggböle tomorrow, check it paragraph by paragraph, and see what new sources I can find (for both Baggböle and Baggböle manor, because most sources could probably be used in both articles). Thomas.W talk 19:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer - your new article made me realise that I had mixed up James R Dickson with James Jameson Dickson - a matter which I hope I have fixed. Victuallers (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the correction. The Swedish article said James R:son Dickson, which is, or rather was, a common way of abbreviating patronymic middle names. Right now I'm looking for references for Baggböle manor, and have found a very reliable source that contradicts a small part of what the Swedish WP article said. Which I will of course correct, with reference and all. Thomas.W talk 19:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

PT-76
Why PT-76 section that i added deleted? i was copied russian wikipedia. the russian wikipedia is reilable. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%A2-76, see this. the Object 740 (PT-76) is K-90 prototype tank upgraded version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrqa (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedias in other languages can not be used as sources on the English language Wikipedia. See WP:Reliable sources for what can be used and not used. Thomas.W talk 14:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen

 * Regarding my Jaguar XF photo, I understand your opinion. I will not return the picture again, and I will tell you why.  You were polite, unlike the other disrespectful users.  Perhaps if they had explained their opinion in a nice and polite manner, an edit/revert war would not have happened at all.  I truly appreciate your respect.  Go with God.   Lord Laitinen (talk)  16:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Albanian land forces
Hello there, just writing to inform you that i did undo , one of your edits in the albanian land forces thread. In fact the edits that the user had done were absolutely right. Albania is a NATO member, operating in missions in Afghanistan , previously also Iraq etc.etc. and those APCs and vehicles are an integral part of the albanian armed forces. For more visit the albanian armed forces website or see some videos and photos. Sources will be added by me. Regards , Gjirokastra15 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See message on user's own talk page. Thomas.W talk 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Vikings article intro
Re: (Undid revision 613128173 by Pjamescowie (talk) That wasn't "streamlining", but an edit that introduced factual errors: Vikings weren't "knows as" Norsemen, they WERE Norse people)

Evening, Thomas.W: I don't dispute that Vikings WERE / ARE Norse people, nor did my edit today assert otherwise. Contrary to your opinion, therefore, I don't believe that I introduced a factual error into the overly-long introduction for the Viking article. The fact is that in the English-speaking world at least, for good or for bad, 'Vikings' is by far and away the more common designation for Norse seafarers of the 'Viking Age'. My balanced edit simply pointed out that Vikings are also commonly (and alternatively) known as "Norsemen", which - in the English speaking world - is absolutely true. As a result, I don't see what problem you could have had with it. As regards "streamlining", that was my over-riding intent: to prune the extended discussion of Viking / Norse sea-faring technologies within the intro of the Vikings article - this level of detail more properly belongs in the longship article, to which my edit carefully pointed. Paul James Cowie (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. Before making any more attempts to "streamline" the article please read the discussions on the talk page, including the suggestions there about what ought to be in Vikings and what ought to be in Norsemen. As for the common misconception that Vikings and Norsemen are synonymous, we can't let the misconceptions of "people in general" take over. "Vikings" were only a small subset of the Norse people. Thomas.W talk 21:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Peugeot
Re: Peugeot. I changed the right hand column info. to be consistent with the body of the article. All the changes come from info. in the first 10 paragraphs. Why do you sabotage somebody's work without doing your homework first? Do you need to be reported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.206.51 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied on IP's talk page. Thomas.W talk 18:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Link on Ferrari Page
Thomas, first thank you for taking the time to review edits and changes to wiki articles. But I would like to ask why my link, regarding maintenance costs for Ferrari vehicles, was removed from the "Ferrari" page? Up to date maintenance costs for a variety of Ferrari models are included in the article, which serves no commercial purpose, other than to inform interested parties in the actual costs of owning and running one of these vehicles. It is a factually written piece with references from am actual Ferrari dealer for legitimate, real world pricing. It helps clear the air of all of the rumors surrounding ownership of these cars. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. 64.69.210.188 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Mike R.

what to do with copyright infringing articles
Hi Thomas. I noticed your comments on A.Minkowiski's page. I dealt with the issue informally, mostly because I'm unsure about the proper procedure. For future references, could you advice on what should be done? Thank you, Kirin13 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you look at WP:Copyright violations you'll find information about Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright violations, and also information about what to do when you spot a copyright violation. There's also an "instruction manual" or "how-to" at WP:Text Copyright Violations 101, that will take you through the process step by step. Just make s ure that it really is a copyright violation, just like you did with A.Minkowiski's copy-pasted article today, before accusing anyone of copyright violation. Hope that helps, if not, feel free to ask again. Thomas.W talk 19:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thomas. Kirin13 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I'm not sure what actions are needed. The new article Synchronization of TV Transmitter and Receiver seems to at least be partially derived from course notes which themselves seem to be derived from book (I found scanned pages of book online - not sure if it's appropriate to link here - but wasn't able to figure out title/author of book). Sentence 2, 4, 6, 7 (out of seven sentences) seem to be from these notes, with sections of sentences re-ordered. To me, re-ordering sentence from 1-2-3 to 2-3-1 is still copyright violation but some may try to argue that it's paraphrasing. Once again, user has ref's but doesn't include ref's he's copy&pasted from. User has also started another new page: Routing in cellular networks. Though I haven't looked into it - and some editing is being done by a few other contributors already - I'm concerned that if it is copy&paste that derivative work being done is "tainted". Could you please look into these two pages? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

BMD-4
This is a recent article that was created. I thought that maybe you wanted to rate its class. Khazar (talkedit ) 22:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Famous Shops
Hi Thomas. W. You removed my edit for famous shop. The entry i made was not promotional. District Computer Point is really a famous shop here in hanumangarh. How can i assure you to keep this entry on that Page Hanumangarh Somansh Arora (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't. We don't list shops or other companies unless they're notable enough by our standards to get an own article here, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not the Yellow Pages or a business directory. And getting an article here requires, generally speaking, being world famous, being famous in Hanumangahr, or any other town or city for that matter, isn't enough. Thomas.W talk 12:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

David Hedlund
Thomas, Your recent comments to David are a bit over the top. Please assume good faith and back off a bit. Things will get worked out. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they're not a bit over the top. He obviously still doesn't understand that he has caused a lot of work for other people here, and also needs to be reminded that this is a collaborative project. Thomas.W talk 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll agree to disagree. Even if we grant everything you say is true (which may be), I think we can get better results with a bit of encouragement now that he's been blocked. Happy editing, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

/* July 2014 */ - User Thomas. W deleting sourced content on Article *** Jai Prakash Menon ***
Dear [User:Thomas. W]

A page has been created on Wikipedia BLP: notice board to discuss the recent deletion of sourced content from you on article [Jai Prakash Menon]
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jai_Prakash_Menon

[User:theamigosinc] 5 June, 2014 10:03 (IST) — Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Thomas.W talk 10:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Modern equipment and uniform of the Pakistan Army
Please join the discussion to move the article to Equipment of Pakistan Army - Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

BTR-4 edit
Hi, thank you for your welcome message. As you can see i have cited source about rejected Iraqi batch, i may add more if needed, since it's a "clamorous" case. Recognizing them by camo paintings doesn't require any source, since everyone can see for himself, at least, it just needs a comparative picture between Iraqi BTR-4 and Ukrainian ones, that in reality it is well known that they are the same (but i still have to learn how to upload images on wiki). I think that you incorrectly removed all my edit, when instead only the last part, the one about RPG hits, could have been removed. RiccardoTheBeAst (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Chill Out!
Chill out, man. . .i'm just trying to passionately transfer my anger to jews, okey? the jew after all was that fucked up. . .not that i know about that. 36.82.4.100 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon
Thomas.W what i am doing is no different to what McGeddon "the troll" is doing to me!!!! Any changes i make he undoes, so i'm showing him how it feels!!!! Thandi moyo (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is harassment. You can not revert an edit unless there's a good reason for it; you should also provide a good explanation in the edit summary for every revert you make. But sofar today you reverted more than 20 edits by McGeddon, without explaining why for a single one of them. So stop. Thomas.W talk 13:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, McGeddon's editing is vindictive and heavy handed. If you look at his talk page many would also agree with me, even though he removes the bad comments about himself!!! He is an unproductive troll vindictively ruining peoples hard work. I edit under another name now because of him!!! He harassed me while i was editing the profile of Conor Mccreedy, now it's on his watch list so if anyone makes any changes he vindictively undoes the changes and adds loads of citations!!! Poor Conor Mccreedy is getting his page mucked up and he doesn't even know what's going on!!! I feel responsible because troll McGeddon thinks i have a connection to Conor Mccreedy. Thandi moyo (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my edits?
Why? You've reverted all my edits. You can't be an expert in all the things I edit. How do you know they are wrong? Grbccdhbubdhuscdshjcn (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Part intuition and experience, part being able to read. The Mars bar was invented in 1932, not 1923 as you changed it to, and since that edit was clearly wrong (a type of vandalism we call date change vandalism...), I checked other things too. So stop. Thomas.W talk 16:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * check your facts the mats bar was invented in 1923, but wasn't released until 1932Grbccdhbubdhuscdshjcn (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Prove it, or you can't make the edit. So read Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources and verifiability before editing again. Thomas.W talk 16:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was there, is that enough proof.Grbccdhbubdhuscdshjcn (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's original research, which is also against the rules. You can't beat the system, so you might as well stop trying. Thomas.W talk 16:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Gr~is right. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No he's not, that's a different chocolate bar, not the one featured in the article. As the article you linked to says: "there are two different Mars bars"... Thomas.W talk 16:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC) (P.S. Gr~has just been blocked as a sock and VOA by Bbb223)
 * It looks like a complicated history... Reminds me of the Beatles and Stones discographies, with different issues in the UK and the USA.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for butting in but this source says the Mars bar was invented in 1932. So does this source. Forbes magazines suggests it happened in the 1930s. Another source says In 1932, tradition says, Frank Mars gave Forrest $50,000, the foreign rights to Milky Way and other Marl) bars,.... --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On my side of the Pond there's only one Mars bar, the original British one from 1932. Which was the one and only Mars bar not only in the UK but all over the world, except for the US... Thomas.W talk 20:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC) (Rule, Britannia, Britannia rule the waves...)
 * Okay, convinced! The waves, or the Mars bars?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   22:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Cristiandouce/Medizeen
Hello Thomas.W, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Cristiandouce/Medizeen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''already up for MFD. Appears as attempted draft.''' You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. the panda ₯’ 11:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for CSD since it's a blatantly promotional previously deleted article that was moved to user space a while ago, and then just left there, with no attempt to make it "encyclopaedic" or add sources to it (and chose U5 since the username isn't promotional, and it therefore didn't qualify for G11...). Thomas.W talk 11:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a) already nominated for MFD before you CSD'd it, and b) was obviously an attempted draft of an article (G13). Since the MFD was already underway, that process made more sense ... it'll end up in the same place anyway  the panda ₯’  11:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Chhattisgarh edit : Andhra Pradesh Removal
Thanks for your edit. But, I have re-reverted you revert because the Kammam Mandals in andhra region don`t share border with Chattisgarh you can check it on last amendment to Constitution of India and on Chhattisgarh portal. And if you have any proof please include in reference. Prymshbmg (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I have re-reverted your re-revert since I'm right, and have also added references even though it's unusual for a thing like that. Next time I suggest you check the articles about neighbouring states before removing material about which other states a state borders on, because the article about Andhra Pradesh clearly states that it borders on Chhattisgarh. Thomas.W talk 18:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit and reference included I appreciate your attention on this matter. Kindly feel free to correct me on my other edits. Prymshbmg (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Audi A1
Hi, i saw your message , if you don't believe me let see those pictures : http://www.netcarshow.com/audi/2011-a1/21.htm and look at the name of designer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriss306 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source. How do you know that "Leffler" was the actual designer of the car, and not just some subordinate person in the design department who was good at making sketches? Designing a car involves a lot more than just making a few sketches, so unless you have a reliable source that supports it, such as a page on Audi's web site clearly stating that Jürgen Leffler designed the Audi A1, you can't add it. Thomas.W talk 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Frog cakes
Have some frog cakes! Bishonen &#124; talk 21:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

List of universities in Albania
Hi, sorry for not explaining my changes in the article. I am not a very experienced user at wiki. The universities that I removed were private universities that were put in the list of public ones, while being at the list of private ones also. As I understood the article was divided in public and then private universities, so my changes were correct following this logic. even the wiki pages of the universities that I removed state that they are private universities. To double check you can have a look at the Albanian public accreditation agency for higher education for private universities and public ones. It is also a good source for updating the article.

Sock user
There's something going on please have a look at this page by the sock user.--Vin09 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since he's adding a tag that says that he wants a page that he created himself speedily deleted, addding the tag is OK. Adding it more than once is overdoing it a bit, though. Thomas.W talk 14:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Philoumenos (Hasapis) of Jacob's Well
Dear Thomas,

The reasons for my reverts to Philoumenos (Hasapis) of Jacob's Well, which had been left in peace for many months, are given in its edits history.

They are as follows:

1. At least one of the sources is a third-party WP:RS, see below.

2. Another Wikipedian misquotes these sources and keeps using "allegedly", inter alia, which is a weasel word, see its wiki def and talk page.

3. The other Wikipedian keeps introducing sloppy mistakes: "Greej Orthodox Church"

4. From what I noticed, this other Wikipedian had been warned by other Wikipedians about his/her POV edit wars, which concentrate on Israeli topics.

Ad 1. The third-party reference, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, says verbatim: "was murdered by Zionist extremists determined to remove Christians entirely from this sacred Jewish site", which is quoted in the Wikipedia ref itself for good measure: [...] {{cite book|last=Ken Parry, David J. Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H. Griffith and John F. Healey|title=The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity|year=2001|isbn=9780631232032|url=http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/book?id=g9780631232032_9780631232032|quote="was murdered by Zionist extremists determined to remove Christians entirely from this sacred Jewish site" [...]

Here is the direct URL with this quote: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631232032_chunk_g978063123203220_ss1-39 and here is its archive: http://www.archive.today/ai3gy{{dead link }}

That is why I kindly request that you revert to its previous state, which had been agreed to on the article's talk page.

Zezen (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * {{ping|Zezen}} If the source (which I, for the time being at least, will assume is neutral, even though it's a site dedicated exclusively to Eastern Christianity, and not a neutral news source) says {{tq|"was murdered by Zionist extremists determined to remove Christians entirely from this sacred Jewish site"}}, then why do you write {{tq|"After his guard left home, Philoumenos was hacked to death with axes by Jewish Zionists"}}? That's either "original research" or "synthesis of published sources", neither of which is allowed here on WP. As I wrote on your talk page you can only write what the sources say, not add gory details or anything else to it. It's already past nine PM where I live, and I don't feel like spending the rest of the evening on that article, but I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Including looking at the edits made by your "opponents" (who don't seem to be neutral either, BTW, so I'm not putting all blame on you...). Thomas.W {{sup| talk }} 19:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your objectivity and your efforts. It's almost 11 pm. in my time zone, too. The edits may wait. The bit about his guard leaving the temple, the tools (axes) are taken from the other quoted and archived sources: see the referenced English article, for example.

FYI, I am not Orthodox, or Christian for that matter, nor do I represent any of the ethnic sides in the conflict, so I do not have a religious etc. ax to grind. By pure chance, I visited the site of the murder in person some years ago as a tourist, and I talked to the current priest. When back home, incredulous and astounded, I researched third-party sources about this event, and then decided to reedit this often censored article in Wikipedia (see its history).

Good night. Zezen (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas,

Have you analyzed by now? Will you revert your own edit by now, or should I do it?

Good night again.

178.182.130.55 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Thomas, I will not add again, but I want to say that it is not my family picture

best wishes

Aftab Banoori (Talk) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talk page stalking
Mr. Thomas, Thanks for your input on James B. Watson's talk page. It seems you found the smoking gun with your translation. Thanks for the help. 208.54.35.169 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not impose your views
Regarding your abrupt revert on the Vikings page, please do not impose your views on other contributors in such a way. Please contribute to the talk page and wait for other contributions before we finalise this. Wikifiveoh (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Abrupt revert"? I reverted your edit changing the geographical name "the British isles" to "Britain", a political entity that didn't exist at that time, on Vikings, since it was plain wrong. But let's keep the discussion on Talk:Vikings, where I have replied, and where the discussion should be, so that others can join to. Thomas.W talk 09:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Dear Thomas W.

The Constitution is the basic initial and most important act of a state.

When we are talking about a country and he needs to stand the constitution because of the constitution depends on many things, many constitutionally guaranteed rights and duties of the state towards the citizens, and the citizens of the state.

Link to a constitutional one, I put it in the English language, as last amended in 2009 years it was our last Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As for the link to the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is a unique place where you can find the most important laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the English language, which is of paramount importance for all foreigners who want to have accurate knowledge of some very important laws in B&H, there are laws which are of great help, especially to keep in mind that they are all 100% in English (currently valid).

By law in the English language, it is almost impossible to reach, and access to such laws is to be paid, and here you have everything for free.

Receive sincere greetings from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Best regards, Numanovic Semso, --109.175.101.41 (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because you added links to a law firm in Bosnia. Adding a link to an official government site with the text of the constitution would be fine, but adding multiple links to a law firm, advertising their services, is not OK. Thomas.W talk 11:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas W.

Okay, you can put a link to the constitution, but nowhere on the internet you will not find a constitution with amendments from 2009

Then you can just put a link to the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because this is the only place on the Internet where there are all the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina in English (over 100 laws in force).

I really was not aimed at anyone advertise, but there is no better place to laws, all links are correct and all current laws, World Bank for Reconstruction and Development uses their laws, you can see: http://wbl.worldbank.org/data/exploreeconomies/bosnia-and-herzegovina/2013?topic=using-property#protecting-women-from-violence

http://wbl.worldbank.org/data/exploreeconomies/bosnia-and-herzegovina/2013?topic=using-property#using-property

Can I just put a link to the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there is then immediately and the Constitution as the first?

Not exist any one government body in Bosnia and Herzegovina which has more than 3-4 laws in English, you can check.

Best regards, Numanovic Semso, --Numanovicsemso (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Vandalism" charge
On the Mehdi Abeid page, I replaced some specific dates with alternate phrasing like "a few days" because it was clunky to repeatedly state "September __, 2011" in the same paragraph. Let's take another look at this paragraph, which you have "saved" from my "vandalism":

In September 2011, Abeid said that he was considering an offer to switch allegiances and represent Algeria at under-23 level.[1] On September 30, 2011, sports daily Le Buteur announced that Abeid had spoken to Algeria's under-23 coach Azzedine Aït Djoudi and confirmed that he would be joining the team for a training camp in October.[10] On October 8, 2011, he made unofficial debut for the team as a starter in a friendly against USM Alger.[11] On November 13, 2011, he made his official debut as a starter in a 2-0 win against South Africa.[12] On November 16, 2011, he was selected as part of Algeria's squad for the 2011 CAF U-23 Championship in Morocco.[13]

There are no less than six mentions of the year 2011, which is absurdly repetitive. In addition, no less than four sentences commence with the bland "On [date]" formulation. A well-written encyclopedia does not do this. Finally, in an encyclopedia article focused on Mr. Abeid's entire life, we do not need to add every little bit of innuendo, like confirmations "that he would be joining the team for a training camp in October." That is the work of an overzealous fan adding too much detail.

The quality of writing in Wikipedia is frequently shaky, and I try where possible to refine it. It's disappointing that you interpret that as "vandalism". Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the above paragraph is well-written, containing nothing but relevant information? 108.254.160.23 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your IP, whether it's just you using the IP or multiple editors, has a history of unexplained and dubious/strange edits, such as this edit changing announced to proposed, totally changing the meaning of the sentence, and this unsourced and unexplained edit on Bosnia and Herzegovina changing the percentage of muslims, catholics and protestants in the country, which isn't "improving the quality of writing in Wikipedia". So you shouldn't be surprised if an edit changing a number of exact dates to "some days later" and similar fuzzy expressions is interpreted as vandalism. If you start explaining what you're doing/trying to achieve, and start providing sources for your edits, especially potentially contentious edits (such as edits regarding religions in the Balkans, which is a very contentious issue...), I'm sure you will be treated with the respect you feel you deserve. Thomas.W talk 09:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Vikings
Hi, Thomas. You seem to be getting hot under the collar about minor matters on Talk:Vikings. That'll never do, especially if some things are done expressly to irritate you, as you suggest they might be. Rise above, please. I would recommend disengaging on that talkpage. On a related matter, I'm a bit surprised that nobody has offered the edit warring new user a 3RR template on their page. As long as they haven't had that, it's perhaps not surprising that they keep reverting. I've just posted one now, with some further advice. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Since I took a dive into the discussion, I also suggest you just don't reply to baseless accusations and the likes. If continues or gets worse, take it to Wikifiveoh's talkpage.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Elektroluks etc
FYI. The IP geolocates to Bitola.

We do sometimes get cases where what looks like a blatant hoax turns out to be someone trying to make an article about a genuine person/company etc by starting with a copy of an existing article as a template and changing names; I thought this might be one of those, but I agree, it's not as simple/innocent as that. JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits on live role-playing games
Hello, I received a message from you stating that I added a spam link to the Live role-playing games article. I definitely do not recall posting any such link, and would like to know what exactly the link was for (as I fear I have been somehow phished). Thank you for letting me know of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.109.134 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't worry. If you check the date of the message on your talk page you'll find that it was posted on 5 July 2013, i.e. more than a year ago. So it's history. Thomas.W talk 19:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Miss Multiverse
Greetings, would you kindly take a look and see why is it that Miss Multiverse is once again put for delete, i have read the wikipedia policies and the article meets the policies and it also states that once an article is approved by an administrator it cannot put for delete again. Jose Cuello (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is seen as an attempt to promote a beauty pageant, one of many, that isn't really notable yet, even though it might become notable. The current version of the article has been toned down quite a bit, and is far less promotional than when it was first created (thanks to other editors here on WP, not you), but having been deleted multiple times before as pure promotion isn't helping. So don't count on me helping you to keep the article on WP, because even though I haven't !voted in the AfD, and have no plans to do so, a !vote from me would not be "keep". Thomas.W talk 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings Thomas

I am not clear with this, i mean i took the text literally from other pageants wikipedia page to make sure it does not seem promotional, it has not been deleted multiple times, it was deleted once and the second deletion was due to that there was a duplicate article since i created the first one with a capital letter and the second with small and did not know how to remove the second one. Jose Cuello (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

regarding notisable there are many pageants that are less notable on wikipedia and i have read the general guidelines of what this means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Events

I am thinking of just deleting the article since it is just so difficult and controversial, this is all mostly based on opinions from people that dont follow pageants or know pageantry, what do you advice should i just go ahead and delete this? Jose Cuello (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not helping your case by posting walls of text all over the place, including on the AfD... Thomas.W talk 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings Thomas i don´t want to help the case, i want it removed, it has been a HUGE mistake to post this article and its just becoming harmful a waste of time and a source for stress... I WANT IT DELETED Jose Cuello (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll have to wait until the AfD is over. Thomas.W talk 09:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey i did not blank it, i removed the text i included my self, this is EDITING not blanking, and also you don`t answer my questions, you just emerge with your warnings I WANT MY TEXT AND CONTRIBUTION DELETEDJose Cuello (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing whole sections or the whole article, as you have repeatedly been doing, isn't editing, it's blanking. And it's not YOUR text, for multiple reasons. When you press SAVE efter creating an article whatever text you have added is no longer yours, and can not be controlled by you. Most of the text in the current version of the article has also been added by other editors, not you, so why would it be YOUR article? Thomas.W talk 09:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

University of Delhi
Hello Thomas !This is Dell335, Thank you for sharing your opinion. I actually intend to update the Rankings section, you see all the information provided belongs to a previous year.Moreover i also found that the Asian QS Ranking shown(27) is actually a mistake.The entire world rankings shown in the table are incorrect, except for the India Today Ranking.While the paragraph does provide the accurate information,it is not relevant for the current year.I am going to add the current year information and update that section.I will add the required references to the changes. Dell335 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then update the ranking table when you have new figures, and sources that support your new figures, but do not remove it. Thomas.W talk 09:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Adel the king
Hello Thomas! Thanks for the Message, and sorry! my bad i really did not pay attention. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adel the king (talk • contribs) 13:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your edits on Andhra Pradesh
Dear Thomas, thanks for posting at my talk page. But have seen what I have done and on basis of what? Let me explain I had added pie chart which is based on data already present in the article. If you think my edit was POV then the data already present is POV too and you have not taken any step to eliminate the source data but focussed on derived pie and accused me of POV-pushing. Also, the article is full of statistics based on pre-division Andhra Pradesh, how do you plan to get rid of this POV. IMHO, by your given logic and action of removal of the language-pie we sould remove all statistics/data/derived-graphs/etc which is based on pre-division Andhra Pradesh stats. I'll suggest you restore back the language-pie or clear the article of all pre-division Andhra Pradesh stats. Thanks & happy editing.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 16:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The data in the article seems to be wrong too, yes, and should be corrected as soon as new data is available (data that someone ought to be able to compile from the latest census figures, since the census data most likely includes language distribution per district...). But a large graphic language pie is far more obvious than text, and far more likely to start a larger edit war than there already is, which is why I reverted your edit. Thomas.W talk 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, got your point. Then to start with I'll remove obselete language stats.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 16:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can believe whatever you want, I rarely engage in edit-wars, at least I remember none in last few months. Also, you being European doesn't make you of any different status, Europeans too have POV and they may be inclined to one or other side due to any reason. FYI, the category was rather restored by me and not added. I'm just trying to restore the content which had been removed from article in frenzy of partition sentiments. I see these removals as ethnic/linguistic/communal POV-pushing. If something is uncertain than status-quo i.e. provious status should be maintained rather cleaning article by whims and fancies of few editors trying to delink post-partion AP from legacy of pre-partion AP.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 18:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Need your comment
On the above users page, removal of my reply.--Vin09 (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See this diff. He does have the right to remove material from his talk page, though. Thomas.W talk 19:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Erasing my edits

 * Yes, I will undo your edits if you continue. This is the English language Wikipedia, and the only languages that are relevant are English and whatever language is official in the city, state or country that is the subject of each article. Chinese is not an official language in San Fransisco, Dutch, Swedish and Italian are not official languages in New Jersey, and so on. Which is why not only I but also several other editors have undone your edits. So stop. Thomas.W talk 20:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on removing my edits, fine. But at least please try to be courteous about it.Thompsonshep (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Since I cannot resolve our conflict, I have opened up a conflict resolution board.Thompsonshep (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Grow up,kid. That's got to be one of the silliest "dispute resolution" cases I've ever seen... Thomas.W talk 13:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 68.145.238.122
Hi Thomas, IP 68.145.238.122 is back with it's edits on Languages with official status in India. I saw your notice on User talk:68.145.238.122, after that too the IP continued and then I too posted a warning but it seems all these notices/warnings are falling on deaf ear.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 08:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've filed a report at WP:AIV. Thomas.W talk 08:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a dynamic IP, but it seems to have been doing similar vandalism since March, so it's not that dynamic. I've blocked for two weeks. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Thanks, Bish. Thomas.W talk 08:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thomas, I went look at your AIV report, to process it, but I don't fucking understand the admin response instructions. (There are templates galore for declining a report, yes. :- Maybe you might as well remove it yourself. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC).
 * The reports are removed automatically by a bot once a user has been blocked, so there's nothing more to do there. Thomas.W talk 09:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

DR/N section
Hello. A DR/N section user talk:Thomas.W, which lists you as an involved user, has been opened for discussion. I am the DR/N volunteer, and I will be moderating the discussion. Please be involved in the discussion to reach a consensus. Thank you.  KJ  Discuss? 11:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already made a statement there, which is all you will hear from me in that case. Because, as I wrote in my statement, it's not a content dispute, just a simple case of me reverting disruptive edits violating a long-standing consensus here on WP, about not having names in foreign languages unrelated to the subject (i.e. not English or a language that is official in the city, state or country that is the subject of the article) in the lede and infobox. Especially not incorrect machine translations. So to be honest I expected the case to be dismissed/not accepted, especially since it lists my talk page as the article the "dispute" is about, instead of the multitude of articles where the disruption took place. Thomas.W talk 11:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your stance as well as your concern, but I've chosen to ignore the technicality and open the case for debate. Please think about commenting on the case, as consensus is important to build Wikipedia, and failure to convince all parties involve usually lead to edit wars and a usually worse outcome.  KJ  Discuss? 11:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know very well what dispute resolution is for, I also know that this is not a case that belongs on DR/N. If you and the disruptive editor want to play, then fine, enjoy yourselves, but I'm not going to waste any more time on it. Thomas.W talk 11:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am Thompsonshep, the other involved editor. I cannot see how my edits are "disruptive" because they make no factual changes to the pages and the languages of the translations which I added were not random, rather I selected languages which I believed to have minority or historical significance. If this is contrary to official Wikipedia policy, I apologize and I will stop. However, I believe that these edits reflect the culture or history of the subject(s) of their respective articles and I see no reason for them to be removed. Also, and I do not know if this has a place in DR/N, I feel that the other editor, Thomas.W, is targeting my edits specifically, and his responses come off as arrogant. Thank you for helping resolve this dispute.Thompsonshep (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Useful template
Aha! I spent an unfruitful 20 minutes looking for a template-abuse template, before I simply told them off on Drmies' page instead. Thank you, very useful. (Drmies has removed yours, but me, I like the irony of using a template to template a template-lover. :-)) I've added it to my warnings page, for any future occasions. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC).
 * It's one of the least known templates in the catalogue, but it's quite handy when you want someone to know what it's like to be on the receiving end of it. Thomas.W talk 19:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas, I hope you don't mind that I et cetera. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No I don't mind, so no problem. --Thomas.W.mobile talk 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Gandapur
I sincerely appologize for the edit without any source but basically the information that i edited was more in relation to Pakistan as Pashtuns in Pakistan are called Pashtuns/Pakhtuns but in Afghanistan they are known as Afghans based on nationality. So thats why i changed the information as its related to a pakistani Pashtun tribe but unfortunately whoever has added the information has also provided no source to the article's confusing information such as Afghan tribes and Afghanpur. thankyou Saladin1987 14:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Inappropriate external links
Wikipedia can't be used for promotion of anything as far as it is concerned, no repeated content was given and thus there is no spam.

As for your remark, if you show me an irrelevant source to the article, I will explain it's relevancy in great detail and with great pleasure.

All of the sources that are used, are used either where additional sources were needed and marked as such, where there was information lacking (like the existence of a specific string gauge among the list of all existing string gauges) and where it was relevant. There really isn't much I could add. It will be my pleasure to show you that none of it was intended or aimed for promotion or gain of which none can be found or imagined.

Thank you for keeping it clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyryllK (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edits were mass addition of external links to your own web site to multiple articles, in most cases only lightly disguised as references. In at least one case you even added multiple links to your web site to the same article. Which since Wikipedia's rules regarding advertising and conflict of interest among other things say that "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked", and Wikipedia's rules about linkspamming among other things say "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed", led to all of them being reverted. Thomas.W talk 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can add that mass addition of links to the same external web site is almost always treated as linkspam/refspam, and reverted, even if there's no obvious connection between the user adding the links and the web site. Thomas.W talk 15:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I have expertise on this subject and there is much to be added on many pages for this subject, I am contributing to the things I am knowledgeable in. You would not want someone knowing about paint, writing about mechanical engineering. I will yield to a notion of more than one link for one source. It may be unnecessary even if is helpful. Every other accusation, I find unreasonable and on the surface. If there is a wiki page that needs improvements and I just happen to have an article about that topic, I will add it ("you should avoid" is not "do not add") because Wiki is for the knowledge pool of the people which you seem to have forgotten. Once again, all my contributions are relevant and adding to the topic. When I will get a nuclear chemist diploma in addition to the ones I currently hold, I will move on to a different topic. Until then, please let's continue keeping our eyes open for real spammers and not those who try to make a genuine difference with means at their disposal. Enjoy your day.


 * I can understand Wikipedia must be cleaned of spammy links o links to promote websites, for example. In that case I can believe the The Verge wants to promote its web because you can find 3 external links to their posts. I can understand you have deleted all my edition but I have added information about the slow motion feature that it wasn't before. Please leave this info about slo-mo and one link about the internal storage is ok for the external links at Wikipedia documents.

Bologna, "Holy Roman Empire".
Hey, look!



As (even) you may see, Bologna was actually part of the Papal States when its University, the oldest in the World, was founded!

Your claims are null and void, and shall therefore be amended!

--82.49.38.74 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. According to that map it was part of Pentapolis, first under the Byzantines, then under the Lombards and from the end of the 10th century under the Holy Roman Empire, not becoming part of the Papal States until 1278AD. Which doesn't matter much, though, since the Papal States were also part of the Holy Roman Empire, and didn't become independent until around 1300AD. Which makes your claims null and void. Thomas.W talk 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the Papal States de facto were born as an indipendent State, with the Donation of Sutri, which pretty much predates 1278... You know, not only I've been told so in university, but that was I've always known. Perhaps you've attended a better university, or read better books? The Wikipedia article on the Papal States consider themselves to be incepted at that time.


 * Please, finish this. You're proving yourself (and your knowledge) of utter and total irrelevance.--82.49.38.74 (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you refer to the Treaty of Venice in 1177, which is when the Papal States became independent on paper. Being independent on paper and being independent in real life are two different things, though. And the Papal States didn't become independent in real life until around 1300AD. Which still doesn't matter in this case since A), the University of Bologna was founded in 1088, 89 years before the Treaty of Venice, and B) the area around Bologna wasn't part of the Papal States even in 1177. Your rude/unpolished style and attitude is becoming a bit boring BTW, making me doubt that you have any education past primary school. Thomas.W talk 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, isn't that exactly what your registered-users mafia brands as personal attacks if coming from an IP, yet ranks as fari play for them? :) Very mature, sir. Very mature indeed.
 * And do not doubt it, I'm at university, taking a PhD in Classical Humanities, and the average of my marks is 29,75 (out of 30). --82.49.38.74 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sir, kindly play nice please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Very impressive. Not. How about sticking to the subject? Or is it becoming too embarrassing? Before the Treaty of Venice in 1177 the Papal States was a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire, with the Pope exercising temporal powers in the Papal States only as a vassal of the Emperor (don't they teach you that in school in Italy?), meaning that there is no doubt whatsoever about Bologna being part of the Holy Roman Empire in 1088, which is what this discussion is about. Period. Thomas.W talk 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas, you too. Don't fight fire with fire. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't expect anyone to stay more calm than I've been in this discussion after having been called a "hate mongering jingoistic biased prick" by the IP. Thomas.W talk 09:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. If I had seen that I would have said something else altogether; I'm looking into it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

AK-47 problem sentence
Please see AK-47 talk page "Remove problem sentence" section, to comment on an issue that you have repeatedly dealt with.--RAF910 (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Isis (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should: ''See WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:DABREDIR WP:DABACRO Re. The comment and talk page cover this. Instead of editing away a valid redirect, please discuss on the talk page per consensus building.'' Widefox ; talk 18:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Be familiar with the guidelines and style
 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
 * Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
 * Only add a " red link " if used in an article, and include the "blue link" to that article
 * Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links or references
 * I am familiar with it, thank you. You are now at three reverts within 24 hours on that page, and I could have replied to your template by slapping a 3RR-warning on your talk page. I don't usually template regulars, though, but you can consider this comment a 3RR-warning. From what I can see you are the only one who is edit-warring on the page, fighting to keep your preferred version, even though everyone else seems to be against you. So I suggest you self-revert, before I or someone else template you for edit-warring. Thomas.W talk 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, you are familiar, then did you see WP:DABREDIR is satisfied? as detailed in the comment and talk page by me and others. Excuse the template - meant to inform, not template a regular. You are probably right about 3RR, I haven't counted. If you feel you must template me then you must do what you feel.
 * Redirects are OK and satisfied here - two dab project editors disagree with you, along with at least one other editor. Both me and the other dab project have been undone. LOCALCONSENSUS maybe. Anyhow, care to reason on my open talk page consensus building request? Widefox ; talk 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I already have commented on the talk page of the DAB-page. Thomas.W talk 19:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo
Why did you revert my edit? I didn't remove or touch the 2014 estimates, I kept them to match the 2014 GDP estimates. All I did was simply remove the 1991 census and replace it with the 2011 census. I think you ought to read my edit summary and view the changes I made. IJA (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You also removed the footnote in the infobox that explained why there's a 2014 population estimate, and not figures from the (apparently not complete) 2011 census. The 2014 IMF GDP estimate was added yesterday by an editor who then used old population figures to compute GDP per capita, giving a GDP per capita that was considerably higher than it should be. Which is why I'm a bit sensitive about it (see my comment on that editor's talk page). Perhaps too sensitive. Cheers. Thomas.W talk 15:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK but you must be a bit confused as you can clearly see from my edit that I didn't remove the footnote "a. 2014 estimate. A new estimate has been added in order to give a more correct GDP per capita." I removed "b. This census is a reconstruction, as it was mostly boycotted by the ethnic Albanian majority" footnote from the infobox. Regards IJA (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I must have looked at the wrong line, sorry about that. I obviously need coffee... Thomas.W talk 15:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, we all make mistakes and thanks for updating the GDP stats. Have a good day. Regards IJA (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SpaceX and user Unbiased Victory
Just to let you know that I toned down your warning on this user's talk page. I already gave him a level 3 for his most recent infringement so it's not appropriate to scale it up to level 4 for the same infringement. However I retained your comments to give him something to think about. Cheers. andy (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me, but repeatedly and knowingly entering false information with a reference that contradicts the information added, i.e. a fake reference, deserves a very stern warning, especially when it is being done over and over again over a very long period of time. So IMO you guys have been to soft on him. Thomas.W talk 16:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

reliable source
Ref mentioned in bigg boss 8 for nisha yadav cast was wrong. it was just correct by the right one and Telly TRP is not a spam, it is registered publication which qualifies for reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjayrealman (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That was only part of what you did, you also replaced a reference pointing to a large general news site with a reference to the site that you're spamming all over the place. Thomas.W talk 09:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Second was removed by mistake Sanjayrealman (talk
 * Since all you seem to do is adding links/references to that particular website, you can't afford to make mistakes like that... Thomas.W talk 10:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Request
Sir, this is to request you for deletion about Urdu language on Andhra pradesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India#States page. I've seen your debate with faizhaider on AP talk page. Same the reference which you said that 13 yrs back book ref doesn't suit the present situation is kept here too.

Same the discussion happened between me to faizhaider about urdu as a official language. But he didn't accepted it. It happened 1 month earlier. Because a user: @visakaha veera also raised the same objection. But after a 3 days long discussion we both disgusted with faizhaider views, left that discussion. And also he warned us as a administrator that he will block us from WP for edits. As I'm a new editor I can't get quarrel with that person. so please take action against that person if you can.Svpnikhil (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 8
I removed the section stating the appropriate reason Thomas. The section is mere speculation. None of the citations provided are reliable and such information before the launch of a reality show can be perceived as a potential 'spoiler'. Furthermore it is absolutely unnecessary. Please review the section again. I hope you'll understand where I am coming from. Thanks. --TizSweg (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Overdtop (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop
Hey it's me. I'll leave the Kristin Sutton page alone. It's not like it matters to me. . Satouyoukun talk 15:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sock
Re your message: Thanks for the heads up. I blocked the sock account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Tower
Just thought you should know that it has been corrected to 250 stories instead of 189 stories, and that its a $3 billion project not $2 billion as stated in the wiki article... I'm new to this, so do what you can if need be and make necessary changes... I'll leave it alone for now


 * Most fancy skyscraper projects never get off the ground, so until actual construction has started it's just a dream, or something. Which is why actual construction must have started before a project is added to the list. Thomas.W talk 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Around again
Glad to see you around again. Regards.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Same,, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

reliable source
i have the reliable source.this link http://chaoprayanews.com/blog/yotin/2014/07/29/imi-galil-%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%94-5-56-mm-%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A5%E0%B9%87%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A3/ and you should go to RoyalThaiArmy Smallarms and then use u brain to think what is my point and i cannot speak english as well but that gun use in กรมราชทัณฑ์ของไทย ผู้คุมขังใช้ปืนนี้เป็นปืนคู่กาย หากคุณอยากได้แหล่งอ้างอิงมากกว่านี้คุณลองไปติดคุกที่เรือนจำบางขวางดูนะเพื่อจะได้เห็น imi galil
 * And my Thai is even worse than your English, but I checked the reference you added the last time you made the edit. Which is why I haven't reverted you. Thomas.W talk 12:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Hej!
Oh, hey, you're returned to us! Excellent! Hej! Bishonen &#124; talk 19:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Well, I'm only back part time, and at reduced speed. Thomas.W talk 19:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 19:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * +1. Even part-time and at reduced speed, it's great to have you back. I've already appreciated your wisdom on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ogilvy & Mather
Hi Thomas, Thank you for your contribution. I believe that the links may not have been checked correctly when the text was originally written hence the reason for my contribution. The points in section in question include much detail that may not necessarily be true (or have sound references in existence). -JG (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Advertising?
You gotta kidding me. What next? You're going to give a spam warning to anyone who added a link to IMBD on a film site? No wonder people don't join wikipedia.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So you believe it somehow "promotes" the website instead of educating readers on the subject? It does not hold up--94.204.144.31 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IMDB is used as a reference, while your links to Omniglott add nothing to the articles (articles about languages already include plenty of information about pronounciation and writing systems), and are there only to promote Omniglott. Which makes them spam. Also see message on your own talk page regarding repeatedly adding external links on multiple articles. Thomas.W talk 15:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop threatening people with silly groundless warnings and policies. WP:EL allows external links as long as it discusses the articles subject without promoting anything. Cut the vandalism. IMBD is NOT added in the reflist and is in the external links section of just about any film article. Stop being dishonest.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, you asked for it. The reason Omniglott, that you repeatedly link to, should NOT be added is that a) it does not add anything substantial to the articles (WP:ELNO disallowed links: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article"), and b) it's a personal website/hobby project run by a guy with A-levels in French and German and a BA in Chinese/Japanese, i.e. definitely not an authority in any of the languages where you've added links (WP:ELNO disallowed links: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority", it also says that recognised authorities are people who would qualify for an article here on en-WP, which the guy who runs Omniglott does not have...). Which makes your repeated addition of the links spamming. Thomas.W talk 17:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no spamming. Private sites can be used provided they are informative and reliable. And since you argued that they add nothing "unique" (as if you could even define that), omgniglot provides audio samples and specific pronunciation of alphabets and in-dept discussion about them, so yes it does count as a reliable link. Also I want to add, you removed a whole bunch of external links already there before my edit without explanation, which I did not add, but deserve to stay unless you can give a good valid reason for them not being there.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone who re-adds links that have been removed (or anything else that has been removed) assumes full responsibility for what they add back. Thomas.W talk 18:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your argument about Omniglot does not add up, especially when Omgniglot uses citations; wheras IMBD is crowd sourced.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IMDB isn't fully user edited, all edits made by users are also checked before going live, making your comparison flawed. Omniglot is a personal website, edited by a single hobbyist (who is not a recognized expert in the field; see http://www.omniglot.com/about.htm), in spite of your almost desperate attempts to portray it as a serious encyclopaedia, so linking to it violates WP:ELNO. Thomas.W talk 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Omniglot uses biblopgraphy. So now after claiming IMBD is used as a reference instead of an external link, you now have a new excuse that it's not entirely crowd sourced. I'll see what I can do about it.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, whatever. Take the advice gave you about getting your web site cleared at WP:ELN before adding it again. Even though the chance is very slim that it will pass that test. WP:ANI is thataway, BTW, in case you intend to report someone, but don't forget to keep your head down, or you might get hit by a boomerang. Thomas.W talk 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, taking this over here because it doesn't seem right to discuss 94.204 on their own page. From what I can see they were annoyed by having their edits called spam, and that's what prompted the "persistence and obnoxious[ness]"; everything from there on seems like genuine misunderstanding rather than pushing a hidden agenda. You could be right but I can't see why someone would be promoting a site like Omniglot -- it's not commercial or anything. Separately, I didn't get your ping; I think you have to make the ping at the same time as signing your post (not a big deal because I usually check talk pages to see if anyone's replied to me, just thought you'd like to know). ekips39 &#x2766; talk 06:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Thomas.W edit warring. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 10:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

FHFA
I sourced the FHFA, a government agency directly. Just as half the FHFA page is sourced from the US treasury press release. How do you justify the Press releases from other government agencies and not from the FHFA directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.93.25 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Amalthea IIT Gandhinagar
I was asked to merge an article to IIT Gandhinagar page. I did the same, but you deleted it few minutes later. Can I ask you why? Jaldhir Trivedi (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop RevolvingPeronallityConduct
Hello Thomas, RevolvingPeronallityConduct is back and he is vandalizing 093 page again. Please undo his vandalism and protect the page.

Thank you.

Jon

--199.116.175.51 (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

093 SSN
Hello Thomas. W. Thank you for your edit on 093 SSN article. Please protect the page from RevolvingPeronalConduct. He always vandalize the page. I will also be more careful when I edit.

Jon

--199.116.175.83 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits
Hi Thomas sir, I had observed Nehadhupia's twitter page citing that she was born in Kochi Kerala. Please check references section for the link Then please make necessary changes thank you Metre per second (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sir, other site IMDB also states that Ms Nehadhupia was born at Kochi Metre per second (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to find a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards (see WP:V and WP:RS) before you can add it to the article. Thomas.W talk 17:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

why is it that when I post a government body as a source you delete the post?, even though the entire FHFA wiki is filled with dead links and government body sources and those are still up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.93.25 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Lebanese Air Force
I requested some WP:page protection, so hopefully that'll put an to the harassment - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back
I am a little late but I have just noticed that you are editing again under "semi-retired" status. I am very glad you have returned to the project and hope you will feel comfortable and welcome. You are one of the best at what you do. Whatever the extent of your participation, it is most valuable and I hope you will continue. Donner60 (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm only back "part-time", and currently have no plans to return to the level of activity of last year and the years before that. Thomas.W talk 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Shulgin and the Bohemian Club
Totally fine with me. I was just trying to get rid of some of the (frankly weird) POV pushing. Pepper Beast   (talk)  21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of the POV-pushing was done by a sock of an indefinitely blocked user who seems to be obsessed with both psychedelic drugs and Shulgin. That's how I came across the article, before that I had never even heard of Shulgin. Thomas.W talk 22:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Snap :-)  Pepper Beast    (talk)  04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI
I mentioned your interaction with the user in an ANI thread I started on User:Eshwar.om. Link. Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Gilgit-Baltistan
Protected, I see. So, I noticed a couple of related IPs, 117.194.225.167 and 117.194.253.2. That's a small range (117.194.224.0/19), so please let me know if you should see them around elsewhere, or siblings of theirs. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Ok. If I see IPs in that range doing something similar I'll give you a call, but I don't expect them to do the same thing again. What I would like to know, though, is the name of their regular user account, because it was clearly not a new user. Even if they could see the code for denying page protection requests at the bottom of that page, where there is/was a denied request, they would still need to know what to look for... Thomas.W talk 21:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Range blocked
Oh, look, there's another one right there (you just removed it). I've blocked the range. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC).
 * already in place by DeltaQuad for the preceding range - 117.194.192.0/19. - NQ (talk)  13:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who removed it, but another user. But thanks for the block. They didn't return to the same articles (Gilgit/Northwestern Pakistan) but to articles relating to Balochistan (Southwestern Pakistan), which shows that they're just trolling, trying to stir up some sh*te. In the removed text they asked if I'm Indian, so if they read this (as I'm sure they will) I can assure them that I'm not. Nor am I Pakistani or of any other nationality/ethnicity that is in any way related to that part of the world. Thomas.W talk 13:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

mammootty
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog???? then what is this article????..full of promotional... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.73.49 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and puffery, some of it added by you. We don't need more puffery in the article, especially not puffery that isn't supported by the reference. A single reference using the term "megastar" does not support your claim that he is "often referred to as Mega Star" (with that capitalisation). Even though your claims have been toned down a bit, considering that you started by claiming that he is "considered as the megastar of Indian cinema". Thomas.W talk 14:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Tehran Metropolitan Area Population
Hi. According to the link that cited in page of metroplitan areas, 8 million population is just population of Tehran city Itself and You can see that in here. Also you can see metropolitan population of tehran which is referred in page of Tehran itself. I think since you can't verify persian source that cited in the link this misunderstanding happen. Thanks for your consideration.Shaater (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the changes made in the House of Hiranandani page
Hello Thomas,

The content before was promotional no doubt but the data added today was totally non promotional and only added value to page with regards with the information on project, if you still find it promotional then please suggest what changes are you expecting, we can work it out. Please share your concerns soon.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.126.2 (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A totally unsourced list of run of the mill housing projects can best be described as promotional trivia, and is of no encyclopaedic value. Thomas.W talk 10:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Tanzania
Added the source which clearly shows Islam as major religion. so It is not my ORIGINAL RESEARCH. as per your second wish Other traditional believes are also included with christianity Dareislam (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does not in any way support the claim that you, in your various incarnations, repeatedly try to add to the article. Thomas.W talk 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey!

I saw you commented here about this issue some time ago. Well, I was 100% sure it was some nonsense as I couldn't believe mrs.Malek-Yonan would come all the way to Wiki to fight off this ridiculous thing, namely that those categories need to be removed from her page. Well my concerns were right; I opened an SPI and it turned out that User:RMY, User:3BluePenguins, and User:Zayya (they all participated in that discussion as well, are sockpuppets. A what we can describe as a sneaky sockpuppet scenario where the same person tried to make us believe some nonsense by using two socks.

Anyway, that was it, they're all blocked now, just wanted to let you know! :)

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The socks had no influence on the outcome of that discussion, we would have come to the same conclusion, the only logical conclusion, even without them. Thomas.W talk 17:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (tps), and if you check Category:Requests for unblock you'll see they are still playing coy.


 * Of course they did. A person using two socks (while the other participants in the discussion don't know that) to push off a stance definetely doesn't influence the outcome. The power of the masses is a powerful tool. Saying something like this afterwards doesn't hold much ground. Perhaps we still would have had the same outcome, but that's something you can never fully know. Anyway I just wanted to give you a heads up about the result of the SPI, that's all. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course they didn't. I made up my mind without being in any way influenced by the socks, and if you read the discussion again you'll find that the other participants paid more attention to what I said than to what anyone else said. So just drop it. Thomas.W talk 18:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I told you, I only wanted to give you a heads up about the SPI. I don't know why you're so keen to prove that he/she/it didn't influence your words. I didn't even mention you precisely. Pff. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to take things personal, discussions here aren't about winning or losing, it's about getting things right. Such as what nationality people are claimed to be in BLPs here. And I feel we got it right when it comes to RMY, with or without socks. Thomas.W talk 18:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, Maues, Hephthalite Empire, Kushan Empire
Approximate maximum extent of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom circa 180 BC, including the regions of Tapuria and Traxiane to the West, Sogdiana and Ferghana to the north, Bactria and Arachosia to the south. Arachosia is the region of todays Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachosia

Maues was king based in Punjab of todays Pakistan, then how can you put buddism in Afghanistan as category.

Hephthalite Empire was based in Pakistan too so adding History of Pakistan as category is justified but u have reverted it.

Kushan Empire look at the map and then prove me wrong that it doesnt include present day Pakistan region of Peshawar

Source your reverts or well i have to undo your reverts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)
 * See user's talk page. Thomas.W talk 07:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have explained my position and i have explained that i didnt remove anything. I added Pakistan because Pakistan was included in the empires and in some empires two of their capitals were located in todays Pakistan but instead Afghanistan is mentioned. I didnt add anything from my own mind. Maps reveal everything. And please dont threat me for getting me blocked. You yourself did not reference your reverts. Most of these articles are without references, so should we remove all of the articles. ThankyouSaladin1987 07:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

4427
STOP TELLING ME WHAT I SHOULD DO OK!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.96.165 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then stop acting like a twelve-year old, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for pre-teens to make childish vandalism. Thomas.W talk 12:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC) (block evasion )
 * Same applies to you as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squgaltutti4427 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you and the *.16.77 IP are one and the same. That would explain why you haven't edited until today, when the IP's block expired... Thomas.W talk 15:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Chitral District
Hi, thanks for your contribution. Chitral article consist of many vandalism I correct these and you undo??? Why Please not undo my edits!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqraat (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you do not "correct vandalism", you make edits that are unsourced, unexplained and very dubious, and do them over and over again even though you're being repeatedly reverted by several different editors by now, and have had multiple messages posted on your talk page. So stop. Thomas.W talk 16:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Native Languages
Thomas, I have stopped changing the information on Lucknow due to the opposition I have been receiving. As a native of India and as a frequent visitor of the city of Lucknow, I have known for a fact that Urdu is the official language. On Lucknow.nic.in (the official Lucknow government page), they do not state their official language. However, the website's welcome page features a welcome message in English and Urdu. The name of the city is also written in English and Urdu. Due to this reason, I have been changing the native name in not only Lucknow but several other articles containing false or incomplete information. It surprises me that users are editing articles on topics on which they have very minimal knowledge. Wikipedia is a website with many people with wide variety of understandings, thus the content changes constantly proving the unreliability of the information posted on the website.

In terms of me using two I.P. addresses, it is due to the fact that I have two devices from which I access the Internet. Upon visiting the article for Delhi, I was surprised that the native name was only written in Hindi. I noticed this mistake on several other articles, and thus have been correcting them without a source. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings and puts an end to any further drama, though it will not correct the misinformation posted on the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sher-e-hindostan (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Claiming to "know" that something is true is not good enough here, all changes must be sourced to reliable sources and be verifiable. Thomas.W talk 22:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas I totally do agree that only knowing is not enough. But it is very important to have solid citations to support the information presented. In terms of Lucknow, the native language is in fact Urdu. Other languages include Hindi and English. http://lucknow.nic.in/craft_culture/craft_culture.htm http://lucknow.nic.in. These are both links of the government website. On the second link, upon clicking "at a glance", it provides the languages of Lucknow. I have not changed anything as of yet only to get your response regarding the situation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sher-e-hindostan (talk • contribs)
 * The only official language of Uttar Pradesh is Hindi, although the state government has made Urdu an "additional official language", one step below Hindi, so that Urdu can be used whe communicating with government agencies and agents. And since Hindi is the only official language in Uttar Pradesh we use the Devanagari script for the native name in the infobox. As for the "native language" of Lucknow it's colloquial Hindustani, since that is what the vast majority of the population speak, because even though Hindus call it Hindi (and use the Devanagari script) and Muslims call it Urdu (and use the Nastaliq script) it's the same language. Thomas.W talk 08:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Turkic "runes"
That page is not about Scandinavian Runes alone, but "Runes" in general. Please let me remind you that new findings show that Turkish Runes may be oldest source of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defineka (talk • contribs) (moved from User:Thomas.W)
 * The article (Runes) is about Germanic runes and nothing else, since they're the only ones called "runes", the old Turkic alphabet is not generally called runes since they have nothing in common with Germanic runes other than having shapes that are easy to carve in wood and chisel into stone. A similarity they also share with many other early scripts. So the material you try to add to the article doesn't belong there. As for your claim that the "Turkish Runes" are the oldest of them you're wrong, Germanic runic inscriptions predate the oldest known inscriptions in the old Turkic alphabet by several centuries. Thomas.W talk 16:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, "Runes" is a generic name for old alphabets which are not hieroglyphs nor pictographs. Scientific term of "Runes" has nothing to do with magical rituals nor neo-paganist philosophy and includes all related old writings. If you remember, Thomsen first called them Turkish Runes, you can check out Britannica. If we can talk about German or Scandinavian Runes, we must talk about Turkish Runes as well, and add to this faboulous free dictionary. People searching Wikipedia, under the title "Runes, have right to find all informations about these alphabets, not only Germanic or North European. I don't like editing in Wikipedia, my time is precious, I am going to add my information as soon as possible and ask you not to interfere with it. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defineka (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be a generic name in Turkish, but not in English, which is what matters here, since this is the English language Wikipedia. As for finding other early scripts there's a disambiguation page, and notes at the top of the article. "Turkish runes",as you call them, are not runes in English, and claims that Germanic runes derive from a Turkic (note Turkic, not Turkish, there's a big difference between the two...) script that first appeared in the eastern half of Asia (they were first found in Mongolia...) several centuries after the earliest still preserved inscriptions in Germanic runes were made is a very fringe theory, and should be treated as such. Thomas.W talk 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"..Runic alphabet, also called futhark, writing system of uncertain origin used by Germanic peoples of northern Europe, Britain, Scandinavia, and Iceland from about the 3rd century to the 16th or 17th century ad. Runic writing appeared rather late in the history of writing and is clearly derived from one of the alphabets of the eastern alphabets. Because of its angular letter forms, however, and because early runic inscriptions were written from right to left like the earliest alphabets, runic writing seems to belong to a more ancient system..." Britannica. My advise to you is not to take Wikipedia too serious, and keep reading various sources to learn more. I see that you have time and talent, but don't spend them to threap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defineka (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ???? "Eastern origin" does not mean Mongolia but the eastern part of the Mediterranean, and what other scripts runes derive from is not unknown (Phoenician -> Euboean -> Old Italic -> Runes; read Runes if you want to know more). Runes have nothing to do with the old Turkic alphabet, an alphabet that in turn has nothing to do with Turkey, so stop calling them "Turkish runes". Thomas.W talk 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)