User talk:Thomas Paine1776

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
Appreciate the Barnstar!Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO
You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have made at least 25 edits to Chicago. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta, Georgia
Thanks a bunch!!!Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Detroit sources
Thank you for sourcing the article :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the barnstar!Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thomas Paine1776's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

First edit of 2011
Random comment: I am a member of the central time zone, where 2011 has just begun about an hour ago. I was curious, so I looked at Wikipedia's recent changes to see the first edit of the year, and it turns out this edit by you is the first one! It appears from your editing interests that you are also a member of the central time zone, so congratulations on bringing the award home. Happy new year! Hope it's a great one!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, nice homepage. That was eastern time though. Happy New Year. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Photograph requests
Hi! Are you willing to take photographs of Metro Detroit for Wikipedia? There are some photo requests if you are interested WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A reminder
Doug Weller talk 11:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

input on Draft:Richard Walter Thomas
There seems to be some questions that perhaps a few people could chime in on. I'm approaching senior members of various projects related to the subject as I can find to see if they might be interested in reviewing the draft and comments on the talk page. Smkolins (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The reminder
w umbolo  ^^^  19:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Following me to an article you've never edited and deleting sourced text claiming it was unsourced
You clearly read the post on my talk page by an editor with a poor grasp of English who doesn't understand that leads don't need sources (you must know that with all your editing experience. In fact if you read the article history you would have seen my edit summary which clearly stated that it was sourced. Nevertheless you deleted the text/reverted my reinstatement with an edit summary saying "unsourced".

The editor's reasoning was that there was no "conflation" because "on the country, he can be strongly associate to some historical figures individualy". Did you read that? Because if he means what he wrote, multiple figures, that's what's meant by conflation.

It's reasonable to follow an editor's contributions if there's evidence that there are problems with that editor, it's not acceptable to follow someone because you are having a problem with them and it's not acceptable to remove sourced information from the lead calling it unsourced. I hope this won't happen again. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

article as the editor appears to assert.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor listed a good source and seemed concerned about neutrality of the paragraph on the Nimrod article, that was the point there. I was aware of the article, and aware that David Livingstone has equated Nimrod with Gilgamesh. This should be prominent in the Nimrod aritcle. It was not about your edits, the topic caught my interest. The paragraph makes an unsourced opinion that is overly conclusory so that taints the paragraphs nuetrality, my use of unsourced there. It uses terms like "failed", "more likely," "fictional" and it seems reasonable for editors to challenge it until it becomes nuetral. In this way, I agree with the editor that the paragraph in question should be removed unless it becomes neutral. The lead make should not unnecessary judgements on the body of the article, for that reason the paragraph taints the neutrality of the

Blocked
Hi, Thomas Paine. I have blocked you for a month, because I'm extremely concerned about your editing since my September warning. You don't seem to have taken it seriously at all; you simply said "thanks for your concern" and went on as before, with hardly ever an edit summary, and never (that I have been able to discover — maybe there are a few examples to the contrary) adding a source for your changes. Instead, you often leave the source that was there already, while changing the text to contradict what the source says. That practice, without an edit summary, is downright deceptive. I'll give a few examples — six of them, out of many many more.


 * Here are a couple of typical edits from October:






 * Here a couple from November:






 * And here from December:

Unexplained removal of sourced content.

Unexplained controversial change.

I've picked these pretty much at random, as so many of your edits are like that. Just above, DougWeller mentions this edit of yours in January, where you claim a sourced paragraph is unsourced and delete it, apparently for no other purpose than to stalk and disoblige DougW. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. I would advise you to try to convince the reviewing admin that you will from now on:
 * 1) Always use explanatory, meaningful edit summaries.
 * 2) Never again make changes that contradict the source appended to the text.
 * 3) Always add a reliable source of your own for any change you make that is controversial, or that in a serious way changes the meaning of the article text.

It would probably be helpful if you were also able to explain to the reviewing admin why you have ignored so many warnings, and why you have never, as far as I can see, discussed anything on an article talkpage. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC).


 * You should probably recuse yourself. My edits are reasonable edits, you seem to be unnecessarily harsh. Updating an outdated sentence or making it more general but true statement is not deceptive. Making a business article  more about the present business is quite reasonable. Using the word Hebrew in a dead sea scroll article is reasonable and scholarly and more pricise, as the particulars of the Qumran sect are not fully known. Removing an inflammatory media opinion, ad hominem or hyperbole from an a article  about an EPA official is reasonable. Capitalization of BC is a standard format, so it makes no sense to have a sentence on not capitalizing the b, again a reasonable edit.  Its not appropriate for Wikipedia administers to assert themselves into content disputes or make up rules. I endeavor to abide by Wikipedia guidelines.  Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've said my say, TP, and have given you a detailed block rationale. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text . If you do that, it will bring an uninvolved admin to this page to review the block. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC).

Unused buildings in Kentucky listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unused buildings in Kentucky. Since you had some involvement with the Unused buildings in Kentucky redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DetroitCensusPop
Template:DetroitCensusPop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:AtlantaCensusPop
Template:AtlantaCensusPop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DetroitMetroCensusPop
Template:DetroitMetroCensusPop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Religious landmarks in metropolitan Detroit
I notice Template:Religious landmarks in metropolitan Detroit has gotten kind of dense. Perhaps breaking it up into different templates would help? (both of these can be done at once!) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Making a separate template for Protestant and Orthodox Christianity (as the Catholic Church has its own template) and having Jewish and Muslim sites at Template:Religion in Metro Detroit
 * Having one template for religious sites in the Detroit, Hamtramck, and Highland Park city limits, and another for sites in other parts of Metro Detroit

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Cheddar Man
Hello, you may be interested in a discussion taking place on Talk: Cheddar Man, regarding Talk:Cheddar_Man and. All the best, Vaurnheart (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Atheneum Suite Hotel Detroit for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atheneum Suite Hotel Detroit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Atheneum Suite Hotel Detroit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  // Timothy ::  talk  00:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Elon Musk
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL  333  16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries, controversial changes
Thomas Paine1776, I came to give you a templated notice about using edit summaries, especially when you are making changes that are likely to be controversial. I see now that you were blocked in 2019 by for making unsourced, unexplained, controversial changes. That pattern appears to be continuing at pages like Peter A. McCullough and Luc Montagnier. If you are unsure what edit summaries should include or about how to write them, I would be happy to help. Firefangledfeathers 16:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since my one-month block (almost three years), but at the time, I did lay out the problems with your editing in considerable detail, hoping that it would be helpful to you in improving it. In short, I told you it was disruptive to hardly ever provide an edit summary, or a source for your changes, instead often leaving the source that was there already, while changing the text to contradict what the source says. I see it hasn't helped much; you still hardly use edit summaries, and your edits to Peter A. McCullough, which Firefangledfeathers mentions above, unfortunately conform to your old pattern of changing content to no longer accord with the sources. This re a topic that you have received a discretionary sanctions alert for: Covid 19. If you do something like that again, you risk being topic banned from Covid 19, broadly construed. And please start using edit summaries and sourcing your edits altogether, instead of misleadingly changing content to no longer accord with the sources, or you will eventually run into a siteban. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC).
 * Courtesy ping. This editor has not heeded your advice and continued with their disruptive edits... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Peter A. McCullough, you may be blocked from editing. . RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:45, 16 December 2021 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

 * This is an unambiguous violation of the above. If you persist, you're likely to be reported by myself or somebody else. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for topic ban violation
Did you not understand what "topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning COVID-19, broadly construed" means? I did urge you to read WP:TBAN for information. It doesn't look like you did. You have been blocked for a week for violating your topic ban per RandomCanadian's post above. Further violations will lead to longer blocks. I note also that you again ignored my request for edit summaries, or indeed for explanations in any form. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC).

Trump
Howdy. Will you please read the message at the top of the editing page of Donald Trump. You HAVE TO get a consensus for such changes or additions to the lead. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

PS: It's been over 2 years, since you last responded to anyone on your talkpage. Suggest you end the silent treatment. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits at Donald Trump
Hi Thomas Paine1776. I came here to let you know that Donald Trump is under a 24-hour-BRD restriction and that your second batch of edits today violated that restriction. It's already been reverted, but please be cautious next time. While here, I noticed your TBAN was applied due to "tendentious, opinionated changes of content so that it no longer accords with the sources, while providing no edit summaries". This neatly describes your recent work at the Trump article. As you know, recent American politics articles are also covered by discretionary sanctions, so please exercise care moving forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It has gone a bit beyond that. This user is under a covid-19 topic ban, and their latest edit made changes to Trump's (mis)handling of the covid-19 response. They also have not responded to any user talk page discussion in over 3 years, according to contribution logs., I am about halfway through a AE filing, should I do that or is the above enough to just take action now? Zaathras (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zaathras, I'll take care of it shortly. Watch this space. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC).

Blocked
Thomas Paine1776, you have been blocked indefinitely for again violating your Covid-19 topic ban, here, and for again making tendentious unsourced changes without an edit summary. The lead summarizes the body; you made opinionated changes directly in the lead, so that it no longer corresponded to the sourced content in the body. This time I have blocked you indefinitely. You can request unblock by placing  on this page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Publicly traded companies in Illinois
Template:Publicly traded companies in Illinois has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Detroit top city employers
Template:Detroit top city employers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Publicly traded companies in the Detroit metropolitan area
Template:Publicly traded companies in the Detroit metropolitan area has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Urban development has been nominated for merging
Category:Urban development has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)