User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 10

Two years ago ...
chasing vandals
	... you were recipient; no. 896 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smith & Wesson M&P15

I was referring to this statement of yours, which implied you had made a previous declaration, even quoting it, despite the fact that you'd said no such thing.[1] When I pointed this out you didn't reply.[2] Note that I dropped the matter. I didn't repeatedly attack you for having made an error. I asked once and moved on. Contrast that with Niteshift36's repeated demands for a response and personal remarks. As for your accusation that I tried to "sneak" text into the article, "hoping noone would notice," please see the talk page posting I made before I edited the article.[3] That's not sneaking - that's making an announcement. Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous, that's not a "statement" of any kind, unlike your false claim that four other editors supported you. It's a common way of emphasising that I had already expressed my opinion, and can't reasonably be expected to have to repeat the same thing over and over again, just because you refuse to accept it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did you express an opinion about notoriety being irrelevant? I still can't find any such remark. Since notoriety is part of the WP:GUNS criteria, its relevance is obvious. Also, when a writer puts something in quotation marks, that's usually intended to mean that it's a quotation. So it's misleading to do that if you're not actually quoting anything. Felsic2 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try again: it starts with "This has nothing to do with notoriety ..." (17:40UTC 11 January 2017), and includes my views on both that and what the discussion is really about. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. If you'd quoted that text instead of making up a quote I might have found it. Nonetheless, since the WP:GUNS criteria specifically references notoriety as a reason for including criminal use, its relevance is obvious. Felsic2 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC

You had already tried the notoriety angle, with no support for it, even if the first discussions were mostly focused on what WP:GUNS says about new legislation. So why start new discussions focused only on notoriety, as if your new discussions would override the clear no you had already got, twice even, when it failed to get any support the first time around? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am aware the "December discussion" thread concerned the legislative aspect. Niteshift36 and I couldn't even agree on what the criteria required, so it ended without resolution. There are several reasons why the material belongs n the article. Niteshift36 declined to state his objections, so I'm working through the reasons one by one. Felsic2 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I am guilty of "tendentious and disruptive editing" then you should prepare a case with diffs and present it to the admins. Until that time, please stop making the accusation. See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.

Asked to stop previously:

Thank you. Felsic2 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And all of it justified, since all you've ever done here is push anti-gun POV... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, you need a formal case to the admins to justify your accusations. Of course, your own behaviour will also be open to scrutiny. Until you're ready to take that step, you need to stop casting aspersions. Felsic2 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So let me see if I get this....you found the "aspersions" wikilink, gave 4 "warnings" in a short period of time 6 months ago and that covers you? Felsic, you were given the change to correct your "mistake" with the whole 4 editors thing. You could have simply owned up to it at any time. You were even reminded that was an option. Instead, you tried to be flippant. Similarly, you keep claiming things were never addressed when they were. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ever going to stop badgering me over one brief comment?

As for content discussions, let's keep those on the relevant article talk pages. Felsic2 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just a brief comment. It was a claim that would change the consensus and when you were made aware of the error, not only refused see the error, but actually try to defend your actions. Despite repeated requests, you end up giving sarcasm instead of honesty.... then have the <insert term here> to complain about someone else being sarcastic and continue trying to defend what has been shown to be a false claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent the situation. Old comments from no longer active editors don't count towards a current consensus. Please provide diffs of me trying to defend my actions. Felsic2 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old comments do count. That's part of your problem. You think that we have to rehash every single so-called point you raise every time you raise it again. While consensus can change, you've never changed it. It has been pretty much just you. When you dismissed the question with the sarcastic "Let's just say that I was including "me myself and I". Satisfied?" you were essentially defending yourself. You even asked who my editors were and I listed them for you, but you refused to do the same. [4] That's the only one I'm going to look up for you. Can I ask you, truthfully, why have you refused to simply own your mistake? Is it a pride thing? Do you think it will hurt your credibility? Why would you have not just said "I messed up"? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas's accusations predate that issue. He is not permitted to continue making accusations across multiple pages instead of presenting evidence in appropriate forums. This principle has been incorporated in numerous ArbCom decisions, many resulting in sanctions against editors. I have asked Thomas before to stop this behaviour, but he has continued. These continued personal attacks create a hostile atmosphere and are not conducive to collaborative editing. Felsic2 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm addressing what I have said. You made the claim, you've refused to admit it was false, despite several opportunities. Typical of your behavior, you ask for a diff, I provide it and you change the discussion. Talking to you is pointless if you won't operate in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is about Thomas' behaviour, which pre-dates your issue. As for your link, that's not really a defense - it's a joke. I haven't heard back from Thomas after my last reply to him, but I expect that he, and you, will comply with Wikipedia behavioural policies in the future. Felsic2 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not just about him anymore. You're correct, that diff isn't a defense because you have no defense. You made a false statement and have refused to retract it. Your intention dishonesty is much more of a behavioral issue than whatever perceived slight you may think you felt. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a complaint about me then either raise it in an appropriate forum or drop it. Felsic2 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a complaint. It's a statement of the situation. You made a false statement. You were given the opportunity to say it was an error and correct/retract. You've refused. It has become a de facto lie. I try not to litter the ANI with things like this. I wonder if you realize that it makes it very difficult to deal with you in good faith when you refuse to correct dishonestly.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of World's Largest Banks

I did include references. Look at #1 and #2 under references!!!!!! 75.187.180.89 (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the text in the article, the intro to the top list says it's based on 2016 statistics, and links to a source for 2016. If you're going to change it, do it right, don't just change the numbers while leaving the rest as it is... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What edit is not neutral?

Bharat Rikshaw was panned in the talk page as being unreliable furthermore its a dead link. The Coggins source is stupid and does not link to anything just a title. The neutral source says exactly the figures if you bothered to look. So tell me again what the problem is? the user Mblaze himself was banned for adding this stupidity not long ago with his socks he is back after spending months hiding and getting unblocked. R.Shukla.Mohan (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Read this discussion. R.Shukla.Mohan (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@R.Shukla.Mohan: The problems in the article need to be fixed, but not the way you did it: rewriting contentious sections in the article, with your changes sourced only to a user-generated website and a book title (or rather the name of three books, since it AFAIK is made up of volumes 1, 2 and 3), with no information about where in those books the information allegedly can be found, making it not verifiable. And referring to another editor as "you moron" in an edit summary is not acceptable... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wandering past, and I completely agree that such edit summaries are not acceptable. But I wondered, if R.Shukla.Mohan were to include page numbers -- or even chapter or section titles or numbers -- in the reference, would the re-write then be acceptable? If not, what else is needed? MPS1992 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

Perhaps similiar weapons found in graves in Europe might be the proof of these mercaneries? You most likely didn`t even check the source and still you revert. --Velivieras (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Velivieras: Yes, I did check what the source was about, and it wasn't about Finnish mercenaries in Central Europe. And your suggestion above about seeing the existence of similar weapons elsewhere as proof for their being Finnish mercenaries in Central Europe in the 5th-6th centuries is WP:OR. Early Finnish wars should deal only with wars involving the Finnish people, i.e. Finnic Finns, BTW, since there was no Finland back then, which since the archeological excavations in Southern Ostrobothnia judging by a number of sources have unearthed Germanic Scandinavian settlements there (dating to 200AD~800AD and identical to contemporary settlements in central and southern Sweden, including one directly across the Gulf of Bothnia), should exclude whatever was found there... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is about "conflicts involving Finnish tribes or Finland" and Satakunta which you refering to is in Finland. You are right that genetics and found items propose close ties with germanic people but saying that the settlements were germanic cannot be concluded. Anyway they where "Finnish" in the sense that they lived in Finland generations after generations. You should also read what the source says, not just the title. I apologise that it is in Finnish, but anyway.--Velivieras (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabis article

So if I added unnecessary, unrelated sources on an article just to push a controversial theory in the lead that isn't the basis of the subject, would you back me up too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.136.2.206 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted by multiple users, so discuss it on the talk page of the article, and get support from other editors, before making your edit again. See WP:CONSENSUS. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mars bar

I can't believe I'm actually taking the time for this. Perhaps you need to re-read the citations article, it states "consider finding references yourself." Or perhaps you have found it "appears to be false?"^[1] If so, please cite your source. You reverted two edits, one of which was a correction of a sentence that was already cited. I appreciate your going through and reverting obscenities in articles, etc. I think this, though, was unnecessary, quibbling, pedantry. The good news for you, though, is that I don't think I'll be contributing again. gunslingerfry (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_unsourced_material

Mail

Hello, Thomas.W. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Thomas.W,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 831 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on not linking common words

Could you please show the policy which supports not linking common terms. 1a16 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1a16: There's a link in the message I posted on your talk page... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have returned etymology since popular etymology is linked 1a16 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:

Everyday words understood by most readers in context

The links do help someone understand the article and there is no mention of >common words, in the link you have added as evidence. 1a16 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1a16: No, but there is a mention of everyday words and terms ("Everyday words understood by most readers in context"), which is what the message on your talk page says. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question 1a16 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle, is not an everyday word...1a16 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

military campaign...1a16 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

campaign is absolutely obviously not an everyday word. 1a16 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me otherwise, > campaign > military campaign. 1a16 (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just linked these two in any case at: Apollo ‎ > conflation, conjurations. 1a16 (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1a16: You can't be serious if you claim that words like battle, campaign and so on "can't be understood by most readers in context". This is the "full" English language Wikipedia, not the Simple English Wikipedia, written for readers with enough proficiency in English to be able to read, and understand, a newspaper or magazine in English, not for people who have just started to learn the laguage... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

campaign is one of the most relevant aspect of the life of Alexander:

...He spent most of his ruling years on an unprecedented military campaign ...

... he created one of the largest empires of the ancient world ...

...He was undefeated in battle and is widely considered one of history's most successful military commanders... 1a16 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population, not all would know the meaning of the word, some would be interested to know more, is an encyclopedia 1a16 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is not an Everyday word(s) 1a16 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1a16: Do you even read what I write here? The Simple English Wikipedia is aimed at readers with only a basic knowledge of English, such as most of the people in the list you linked to who speak English as an additional language, while this Wikipedia is aimed at people with a good knowledge of English, and with the majority of the readers being native English speakers or having a near-native knowledge of the language. Which is why we don't link to everyday words and terms. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you ... the links added are not everyday words 1a16 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't in disagreement...campaign is not an everyday word, neither is urban 1a16 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit, re-adding links to urban, is nothing short of disruptive. It may not be an everyday word to you, but it is an everyday word to all readers with a good knowledge of the English language, which is what we go by... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully is the reason to link something 1a16 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant connections ... is an encyclopedia. 1a16 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is not disruptive (to class) by the way (is not a schoolchild), is class 22:53, 6 February 2017‎ 1a16 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (128,047 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (added links to: conflation, conjurations) thanks 1a16 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

try lesson: conflation, conjurations 1a16 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

won't 1a16 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

being disruptive. 1a16 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you undone my change to the article?

I've made an improvement to the article about the history of Kyivan Rus, where I changed the mythical(probably invented) Battle on the Irpin River and put a real one instead - Battle of the Blue Waters. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kievan_Rus%27&action=history

I think you should undo your undoing. Wikipedia should be for real, not mythical facts.

p.s. I'm new to wikipedia, sorry if I'm doing something wrong here, interface is weird.

Aim4accuracy (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the real battle has no relevance to the subject of the article. The Kievan Rus had already fallen apart in 1321, the 1361 battle ended another struggle, the one against the Mongolians. The Banner talk 16:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Kiev Rus had already fallen apart in 1321, the 1361 battle ended another struggle" - [citations needed]. Also, it doesn't work chronologically. If Lithuania already conquered Kyiv in 1321, why it fought for it against Golden Horde again in 1362? Aim4accuracy (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the federation of tribes, not about Kiev. The Banner talk 17:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the sentence in question is about Kyiv, and it avoids mentioning the real battle for it and tells about the mythical one instead. Aim4accuracy (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not about Kiev (note the spelling: this is the English language Wikipedia, where we use the name that is in common use in English language media, i.e. Kiev, not Kyiv...). The article is about the Kievan Rus' not about Kiev (and has absolutely nothing to do with the modern day country of Ukraine, other than Ukraine being located in the south-western part of the geographical area that at one time or another was controlled by the Kievan Rus'...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what English language media you read, maybe Russia Today or Sputnik, but Harvard Institute writes Kyivan Rus http://www.huri.harvard.edu/news/news-from-huri/245-ties-of-kinship-genealogy-and-dynastic-marriage-in-kyivan-rus.html And yes, Kyivan Rus is a precursor to the modern day country of Ukraine, despite the Russian imperial historiography's(which includes both Soviet and emigre Russian historians) unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. You need to update your knowledge on this one. And I agree that the article is about Kyivan Rus, not about Kyiv, but that one sentence is about Kyiv, and it uses the mythical battle instead of the real one, which I think is wrong. Aim4accuracy (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed ad nauseam: see Talk:Kiev/naming. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Wow, that is even more pathetic and strange discussion than this is. Pro-Russian lobby is absurdly strong for some reason and continues to successfully impose Russian naming onto the Ukrainian capital, although all possible and impossible bodies have said that the "Kyiv" is the only legal and proper way to write it. Kinda amazing. And here I am trying to right thousand year old wrongs, while the nowadays is broken in even more profound ways. Aim4accuracy (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That has not much to do with a Pro-Russian lobby as you claim, but with translations and transliteration of names. In the Netherlands, the city is known for centuries as "Kiev"... The Banner talk 19:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because for centuries, with brief interruptions, Ukraine was part of the Russian empire. Also, ever heard about Danzig/Gdansk? Aim4accuracy (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian law applies only in Ukraine, not here on the English language Wikipedia (which from a legal standpoint is located in the US). And it has absolutely nothing to do with a "pro-Russian lobby" being active here, it's all about WP:Common name, and applies to cities, provinces, regions, countries and what-have-you all over the world. Which is why the article about Wien is named Vienna, the article about København is named Copenhagen, the article about Roma is named Rome, the article about Napoli is named Naples and so on. Without the people living there making a fuss about it, unlike some people in Ukraine... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has Ukrainian law forced State Dept to write it like Kyiv? https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/ Also, there is a huge difference between politically neutral modification for ease of pronunciation and deliberate use of transliteration of a former imperial power, despite permanent, never ending opposition of country inhabitants, and even despite the official position of your own country. And I've read the link with discussion you posted before. The main argument for "Kiev" against "Kyiv" is "but media!". Honestly, that's a Trump University level of encyclopedic science. Aim4accuracy (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in discussing it here since it has already been discussed, and decided, on Talk:Kiev/naming, and per WP:Common name it is media usage that decides which name we use, since that's the name the readers look for, and understand. As for the rest of what you wrote it's just silly, so go play somewhere else, not here on my talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will be discussed until it's fixed. And no, it is not the media usage that decides. I quote for you WP:Common name: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." All mentioned sources(int'l orgs, geo servers, quality encyclopedias) contradict media in this case, and nowhere it is said that media is more important than all of them. But even if it was so, WP:Common name also states, that "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Even the rules are on my side, so don't pretend you're just following them. And yeah, this is inappropriate place for this discussion. Farewell. Aim4accuracy (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It will be discussed until it has been fixed" shows that you have missed a whole drawer full of points. It has already been discussed and decided, whether you like the outcome or not, and there's nothing that needs to be fixed since the name we currently use is the name that is supported by a consensus among editors here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but after reading this page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Dnipropetrovsk#Requested_move_5_December_2016, I have little respect for your editors and your procedures. Basically a bunch of Russians, against all the rules, are openly and joyfully preventing renaming of the Ukrainian city. Why? Because the old name is about the perpetrator of a genocide against Ukrainians. That's the Russian way of joking. And nothing is being done. "No Pro-Russian lobby", LOL. Aim4accuracy (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for being so open to your own personal point of view. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is neutral and not a part of any Russian or Ukrainian pressure group. You have to do it with English names. The Banner talk 22:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Thomas.W,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 831 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caste demography of up and bihar

Dear sir. Believe me I give u truest data of caste demography of up and Bihar. I am giving u the ground reality Upper caste' s population in both the states are 23%. Govt. Of India never conducted caste census after Independence. So don't trust 1931 census as it was not property conducted due to the gap of technology and infrastructure and access to faraway villages.

Alpana darling (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Verifiability all material added must be supported by WP:Reliable sources, and it's up to you to provide those references when adding or changing content in articles. And this is doubly important in sensitive areas, such as caste demographics... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp

See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Whats App. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: POV Reverting

Your POV revert in article "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" is against the following sources which are mentioned in the article(!):

Lars Huldén: Finlandssvenska bebyggelsenamn. 2001

Elias Orrman. Where source criticism fails. Fennoscandia archaeologica X. 1993.

Anna Wickholm: Pörnullbacken – ett brandgravfält eller brandgropgravar? Muinaistutkija 4/2003

C. F. Meinander: Om svenskarnes inflyttningar till Finland. Historisk tidskrift för Finland 3/1983.

G.-E. Thors, Studier över finlandssvenska ortnamnstyper, 1953

Olav Ahlbäck, Den finlandssvenska bosättningens älder och ursprung, Finsk Tidskrift 1954

Georg Haggrén, Petri Halinen, Mika Lavento, Sami Raninen and Anna Wessman. Muinaisuutemme jäljet 2015, p.340.

Eero Kiviniemi: Nimistö Suomen esihistorian tutkimuksen aineistona 1980.

In that list are few very prestigious researchers and they don`t agree with your views, so could it be time for you to give in? Otherwise it is just plain POV.--Velivieras (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have some kind of Swedish relation, but please respect academic sources (and check them!) and stop doing POV edits.--Velivieras (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Equipment of the Pakistan Army

Hello. Please stop making unsourced and unconstructive edits on the article. There is no need to mention China in the 'al-khalid' tank because of its design. Many Chinese made military equipment is of a foreign design however only China is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.29.117 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Per Prithivi Narayan Shah

As you have tagged mine change as my personal analysis, I would like to prove it wrong. As to do it, let me introduce you to certain part of history that wasnt allowed to talk until Monarch was abolished.

There were countless terrorizing factor of Prithivi Narayan, he killed all adult male, also cut the nose of anyone older than those who don't need to take mothers milk after taking over Kathmandu. There were British missionary who have written in their diaries.

He and his general for sport and entertainment used to chop off any non-khas people's head, massacring a family sometime whole village, as is done by ISIS terrorist which at-least they arent doing for amusement.

The history that wikipedia is used by writer to hide all cruel things done by that family along with Rana and Pande family.

Even now today at Nepal, any practitioner of other language is witch hunted. The one who look like Indian are not given any civil rights, property are seized if the corrupted parliament wants. Government officials are involved in gold smuggling while blaming other ethnic people. Not only that one of parliament member at Malaysia was found guilty of issuing fake passport to ISIS member.

Believe it or not this website is being to obfuscate history further supporting propaganda of Shah, khas and their terrorism.

Sorry but its true, if you dont believe do ask people who suffered, look at diary of European missionary who recorded the events that happened at that time frame. And please if you are opening to people who can write any information they want conduct full research without involving khas people and government.

Hope until you do research in Prithivi Narayan Shah do not claim only initial writer was right. It would be great to conduct research history and until then if you are ready to decide please do shut this page.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real nepal (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Real nepal: We go by what verifiable reliable sources say, not by what people claim they know. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the history section on 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser

I've just spend 6 hours researching this. Why did you remove it?Digitallymade (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitallymade:

A) I posted a message on your talk page, telling you why your edits were reverted, more than 15 minutes before you posted here.

B) There was no need for you to spend six hours on researching it, since that information, and a lot more, can be found on Swedish Mauser, where it belongs.

- Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on it. More than half the references are bad, the pressures are wrong. I would NOT be looking at Swedish Mauser for cartridge information, since it doesn't belong there.Digitallymade (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitallymade: Information about cartridge pressure does not belong under "History" in the article, information about how many Swedish Mausers were made and by whom does not belong at all in an article about the 6.5x55mm cartridge, and the history of the cartridge itself is already covered in the lead section of the article, making your new history section not needed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civil_Services _Examination

Why is the list of civil services toppers deleted, considering the popularity and importance of the exam in India? It was merged from a separate article and notable in the Indian context.

Nagarajan08 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Nagarajan[reply]

@Nagarajan08: Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog, and being a "civil service topper" is no more notable than say having a doctor's degree (PhD or similar) from a reputable university, if even that. And we don't have lists of people with PhDs or similar either, because it simply isn't notable enough for an encyclopaedia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W:, it is way different from a PhD degree, which in even reputable universities are awarded to dozens or hundreds of people every year. In this case, it is one person per year out of say 500,000 candidates; they continue to be part of the permanent civil service.

Nagarajan08 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Nagarajan08[reply]

Agree that it's basically fancruft. There are several similar exams in the US - the ACT and SAT. Every year a handful of people get perfect scores. You don't see a list of the highest scores in those articles, nor the highest score for each year. Look also at MCAT, GMAT and GRE articles about major standardized tests. Ravensfire (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help

Hi, Thanks for your help with the disruptive IP 203.73.3.65 (talk · contribs). The IP is long term offender and hops IP's to avoid detection. We have a group of editors who are working on this. Please free to help out at this page User:Mfb/Taiwanese_articles. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AK-74 - assault rifle

I think you may have made an error. Please see Talk:AK-74#Assault rifle. If it's not an error, we need to re-write some articles. Felsic2 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore the edit. If you really believe that the AK-74 is not an assault rifle, and that "assault rifle" is a political term, please start a discussion so that other editors can give their input. Felsic2 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment regarding copyright

I saw your comment on Gun Lover (talk · contribs) regarding copyright and public domain and I felt I needed to leave a message here. If there is no copyright information on a webpage that does not mean it is in the public domain. Quite the opposite actually. No copyright information means All Rights Reserved. Copyright law states that protection attaches immediately upon creation of an item (unless that item is too simple to meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection). You must assume everything is copyrighted unless there is an explicit statement otherwise. --Majora (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bondi Beach

Hi Thomas

Thank you for your advice and comments.

As citizen of Australia, my comments are valid and historically factual.

To not acknowledge the traditional owners of the land, past and present in this article is racist and ignorant of factual history.

Please do not remove my contribution again.

Thank you

Tammy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanadsett (talk • contribs) 11:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tammy, I have reverted your changes as although a commendable sentiment, an Acknowledgement of Country really isn't appropriate here, being an encylopedia and all. If you want to add properly researched and appropriate cited information to the article regarding the local traditional owners relationship with the area, that would be very much welcomed, HOWEVER the edits which you have made are not. I would encourage you to peruse the welcome message I left on your talk page. I would also suggest you check out The Teahouse, which is a useful resource and source of help for new users. Cheers, Rusty Springs (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I have decided to take this to the Human Rights Commission, and make a formal complaint about Wikipedia and subtle coercive racism.

You are both removing edits to a History page, that is common and factual knowledge in Australian society. Also a practice at government level.

Tammy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanadsett (talk • contribs) 11:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brennanadsett: Wikipedia is an international English language encyclopaedia, registered in the United States, not an Australian website, and your repeatedly made edits, adding personal commentary and analysis, violate Wikipedia's rules about neutral point of view, as you have already been told multiple times by the multiple editors who have reverted you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:German Brazilians". The case is now closed: not enough discussion in recent past has taken place on talk page If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by volunteer: continue discussion on article talk page

- ???? That discussion ended many months ago, so why are you digging up old stuff? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears that Xuxo opened a new DRN without notifying any of the named parties, and that Robert McClenon closed it down virtually immediately. While I appreciate Yashovardhan Dhanania's enthusiasm for following protocol, everyone named has received the same message. Yashovardhan Dhanania: firstly, it is up to the filing party to notify all named parties of their being mentioned. If this does not happen, as a volunteer you can add a notification to their talk page. Given that participation in the DRN is not mandatory, plus that it was closed before anyone had responded (assuming that they were interested in responding), leaving such notifications on our talk pages is confusing and misleading, particularly given that you are using the DRN-close template which implies that each editor filed the case. The correct protocol in this instance is to notify the filing party that their request for dispute resolution has been declined. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aryan Harpy: Ok! I've had a case where an editor actually was really happy after coming to know that aDRN was filed and declined. I can guess that this could be misleading for some. Maybe I'll just inform the filer next time and leave a note on the article talk page. Thanks and sorry for the confusion! Yashovardhan (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Yashovardhan Dhanania. Like Thomas.W, I was confused as to why a DRN from last year was being 'officially' closed, and had no idea of the fact that the user who opened the first DRN had attempted to start yet another. You'll get a better feel for how and when to template as you gain experience. Incidentally, my user name is Iryna Harpy, not 'Aryan' Harpy. I wouldn't ever even have dreamed up such an offensive moniker. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy:Oops! I'll blame the Aryan on my autocorrect! And thanks a lot for the reply. I guess I'll leave a personal note next time to let them know, rather than the template. That would help! Yashovardhan (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I (plants flag) claim boiled peanuts in the name of Molvanîa!

There are a fair number of people claiming this or that food as originating in their country. Well, if I got too drunk, I would probably edit boiled peanuts to say they originated in Molvanîa and not the US. Yuck. I finally unwatched a number of them as my watchlist was too full. Thank for taking that on. I never seem to be able to spot a sock. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockmaster?

Any idea who the sockmaster for this IP farm is? And what's with the users odd country abbreviations like 🇫🇷France?? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: It's an IP-hopper in South-East Asia who never provides sources for anything and should be reverted on sight because of that, but it's not connected to an SPI or a known sockmaster (the "block evasion" in the edit summary referred to them being blocked as another IP when they made that edit, not to being a sock of a known sockmaster). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I've been reverting on sight for several days, but had it questioned at Talk:M1 Garand#Editing back-and forth re commie use in Vietnam -why?. - BilCat (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi

At least read your own Wikipedia articles on Lakshmi before reverting edits. My stand is correct. Quote: Lakshmi (Sanskrit: लक्ष्मी, lakṣmī, ˈləkʂmiː) is *the Hindu goddess* of wealth, fortune and prosperity. She is the wife and shakti (energy) of Vishnu, a major god in Hinduism.[2] Lakshmi is *also* an important deity in Jainism and found in Jain temples.[3] Lakshmi was *also* a goddess of abundance and fortune for Buddhists, and was represented on the oldest surviving stupas and cave temples of Buddhism.[4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.5.224.211 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles can't be used as references, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Provide reliable sources for your repeated attempts to claim Lakshmi for Hinduism alone, and your repeated attempts to downplay the existence of slavery in ancient India, or stop making those edits. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Calment - timezone 1940

Hi ThomasW. You have reverted my edit for Jeanne Calment, saying it is unreferenced and/or original research.

Wikipedia does allow verifiable statements to be unreferenced, e.g "Paris is the capital of France". I believe timezone statements fall into that "obvious" category: it is obvious that if you change French clocks in 1940 by one hour to Central European Time, then French people start their daily routines one hour earlier relative to solar time. It is just like introducing Daylght Savings Time. Can you therefore please accept my edit? Thanks. The deeper reason behind my edit is that sleeping habits and sleep-wake cycles have an impact on health/longevity, and thus some readers may find this information useful. 109.158.189.132 (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must provide a reliable source that supports your claims, period. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- All right. What precisely is, in your view, the "claim" that you would like me to source? (Presumably that GMT is one hour later than CET?). 109.158.189.132 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest you start by going to the talk page of the article and explaining to other editors why what you want to add to the article is of any relevance whatsoever to the article, providing a link to a reliable source that says that it is of relevance, and not just a bright idea you yourself came up with one day. Jeanne Calment was born in 1875, spent her first 16 years doing her daily routines according to local solar time, then spent the next 49 years of her life (that is until age 65) doing her daily routines according to GMT, and then the final 57 years doing her daily routines according to CET, and neither you nor anyone else has any idea about whether she was referring to 8AM in a relative sense, i.e about that time in the morning, or in an absolute "solar time sense" like in her own youth, i.e. "get out of bed when the sun is x degrees above the horizon". In my opinion what you want to add is just totally irrelevant trivia, so I don't intend to take part in a discussion on the article talk page, but I'm also not going to let you add your own original research and speculations to the article... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calm down please. So in a nutshell, your problem is that Jeanne Calment, when speaking to the doctors in the 1990s interviews, may have remembered to convert her childhood time (hence 7am local solar time/GMT, in your conversion scenario) into 1940 time (hence 8am CET in your conversion scenario). Since you have a strong view on the matter, I will not fight it out. Perhaps someone else will. So I will copy this discussion to the Talk page as per your advice. Good luck and good night.109.158.189.132 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Stockholm attack

Hi Thomas, sorry to see that you reverted my first added information on Wikipedia. "A pet dog, the lurcher Iggy, was also killed." Is there any chance that I can use a reference to back up the information regarding the name and the dog breed of the dog or do you view the information as irrelevant anyway? ^[1] ^[2] Please let me know why you considered the comment to be disruptive? Mshedback (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mshedback: There's absolutely no support among other editors here for adding the name of the dog to the article (with a number of experienced editors describing it as 'distasteful', 'disrespectful to the human casualties' and 'grotesque' in discussions here), so do not add it again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

OneCoin

Hi Thomas.W,

What do you mean by a major rewrite? Most importantly, in what way are the new revisions worse than the old ones such that it needs a talk page discussion? All I did was moving generic material to the lead section & moving/adding appropriate references to back up that generality. I can understand that the restructuring of references and its relocation can be confusing but If you looked carefully, the 1st few edits were also aimed at removing trivial fluff. You also removed an important pdf such as this legal document which pointed out the legality of that organization as of 2014 & that it was NOT until sometime in 2016 that the international community condemned them for their financial misconduct. Hope you have a good one. CubeSats 4U 09:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CubeSat4U: Going from this to this is a major rewrite, and an attempt to portray OneCoin as something it isn't. A "cryptocurrency" that can't be traded anywhere, and can't be converted into real money literally anywhere (since OneCoin apparently now have shut down their own exchange, xcoinx) isn't a currency of any kind, and since they still accept new investment in "cryptocurrency" even though it's useless as a currency and there's no way for investors to get any money back there's no doubt about it being a ponzi scheme (aka pyramid scheme), just like the multiple reliable sources (including official government documents from several countries) in the article say, information that you, without prior discussion, removed from the lead. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit in article "Fornjót"

Are you serious (again)? The edit I made was at best cosmetic and you really think that the source which is used in almost all articles concerning sagas is not reliable? Should we delete all content in Wikipedia that is using that reference? Should I start with your support? The Kvenland article in my sense covers the problems concerning the issue quite well and your speculation about "other" Kvenlands is just wierd. I am starting to get concerned that your reverts have more to do with POV than making the articles better. --Velivieras (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you're the one repeatedly making POV edits, with me only fixing it afterwards. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI if you disagree, but be prepared to have your own editing, and past history, examined there too. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are getting quite close to that. Contrary to you, I use sources which usually are academic quality and I am happy to get my editions examined. Your POV edit concerning Viking swords is a good example of this. The scientists involved came to the conlusion not because of the three swords analysed, but "This finding, along with similar examples of non-fighting swords from the Viking Age, described previously by scientists, indicate that swords became symbols of power and status that were only rarely used, the scientists said." Please read the good academic sources even once. --Velivieras (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the source, and what your edits said is not what the source says. As is all too common with your edits... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FN 509

There's a draft of an article on the new FN 509 at Draft:FN 509. I'm not experienced in writing firearms articles, so I'm not familiar with what sources are reliable enough to meet GNG. Most of what I found online in a quick G-search are the same types of sources already used in the article, mainly blogs. Any thoughts? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

I appreciate your second look at this and comment, as I failed to mention the nature of the username or the title of the article. Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicnote: I have reported the username at WP:UAA ("Usernames for administrator attention"), since that would be a better place for it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please can you stop what you are doing it is very annoying. There is no need to revert from baklava it clearly says in the origin in the article also it has the source.

You lost your editing provilege here a long time ago (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334) and should stay away. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being rude or I will report you "please" stop. There is clearly the reliable source in the info box section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.190.35 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T129

There are few source for T129 agreement. (http://www.haberturk.com/ekonomi/makro-ekonomi/haber/174922-atakin-gosteri-ucusu-28-eylulde TR, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/turkey-and-italian-firms-set-to-co-produce-t129-combat-helicopters-9243367 EN, http://www.kokpit.aero/t129-neden-ihrac-edilemiyor TR. Under the contract, Turkey will be a party to the intellectual property rights of the new configuration of helicopters. Turkey will also be the only resource for final assembly, flight procedures and entire airframe production. 21 T129 produced and all of them by TAI. Leonardo and Tai worked together at design stage and now Leonardo selling some parts. Themreboz (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Hello, I'm Darreg. I noticed that you recently removed content from Wole Ojo without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You can not remove a referenced notable award from the above article without any convincing reason. Darreg (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: This is clear abuse of warning templates. All edits I made had a clear policy-based explanation for why I removed the material. Utterly non-notable awards (magazine awards, viewer polls, local organization awards etc) do not belong in an article. Based on policy I could even have removed most of the rest of the article since it's totally unsourced, but settled for adding {{unsourced section}}-templates. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with articles about people, places and things with established, and verifiable, notability, not a place for creating notability, as you try to do... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an award being significant enough to establish notability of an actor on Wikipedia and the award being notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Think about that for some minutes. I will reply you later. Darreg (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the "awards" I removed aren't significant enough to include in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia isn't a fanblog, so stop adding unencyclopaedic fanblog-material! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wole Ojo. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Don't remove properly cited information from Wikipedia Darreg (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited isn't by itself reason enough to include anything. See WP:Verifiability. One more template from you and your contributions here, including both abusing warning templates and creating tonnes of articles about utterly non-notable subjects, will be discussed at WP:ANI... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed properly cited info relevant to an article for the second time, irrespective of you providing an edit summary, as long as it doesn't adequately justify your edit the first template was appropraite. Then after I undid your edit and gave you reasons why you were wrong, you did the same thing again and gave me replies that suggested you were not going to let go, that amounted to disruption, that was why I issued the disruptive template. All the templates are in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Darreg (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: No, the templates you posted here were not in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. You templated me already right after my first removal, even though I gave a reasonable explanation for why I removed it (see template text above, it says "I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why", which is totally false, since I did explain why; you may not like my reason for removing it, but that's a content dispute...), which means you can't claim it had anything to do with WP:BRD, and as I wrote above being sourced isn't by itself reason enough to include anything (see WP:V). And the rest of your excuse/explanation above, about disruption etc, is total rubbish, because I wasn't in any way being disruptive. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So going by your logic, if I should go to Barrack Obama's article and blank a section in the article or removed considerable cited content from it on multiple occasions with an edit summary every-time that feels sufficient from my angle but doesn't ADEQUATELY justify my edits by policy, then a warning template isn't needed because there was an edit summary that I believed was correct? See, there is a very thin line between being bold and disruption. Good night. Darreg (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: You templated me already after my first removal, in spite of me giving a reasonable/believable explanation in my edit summary, for no other reason than that you didn't like it. Which is not in accordance with the rules, period. And a final piece of advice: do not try to wikilawyer against someone who knows the rules here better than you do, because all you will do is dig yourself an ever deeper hole... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awards section of Actors

Once there is a reliable source saying an actor has won an award, it can be added to the actor's wiki article, it doesn't matter the notability of the award, what matters is the source that says the actor has won the award. Darreg (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: Don't worry, I know the difference between being notable and being noteworthy, I also know that praxis here is to not include utterly non-notable awards, awards that in most cases are primarily intended to promote whoever/whatever gives out the awards, and also not include pure viewer-polls. And the "awards" I removed are utterly non-notable and do not belong in an article about an alleged actor. But even if I was to be proven wrong, templating me the way you did is abuse of user-warnings, since those warnings are for people who give no explanation for why material is being removed, not for pasting on the talk pages of editors that give a reason that you disagree with! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge I have with you is that I don't like it when editors act like they are sure about what they know little about. Now let me educate you, all the awards listed there are extensively covered in reliable sources. AMVCA is the most popular and followed award ceremony in Africa. It has been referred to as "African Oscars" by multiple references from different African countries. Why don't you do a search before making comments on Nollywood and African cinema that you aren't familiar with?

@Darreg: Don't be silly, the "Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards" isn't even remotely similar to the "Oscars", it's a proprietary award given out by Africa Magic, based on votes by their subscribers (~8 million in total, with the majority of them in Nigeria and South Africa, and the rest scattered around the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa), and the only movies etc that are eligible for the award are those that have been aired on Africa Magic's own satellite TV channels (DSTV) during the previous year. Channels that are broadcast by way of a satellite that covers all of Sub-Saharan Africa, which in theory means that the show is broadcast live in some 50 countries, but only to the network's own subscribers, which as I noted above mostly live in either South Africa or Nigeria, and with all probability don't all watch the show, or vote in the poll. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to give me reasons to believe you might have a comprehension challenge. I said "MOST FOLLOWED" and "MOST POPULAR", if the meaning of both words are too complicated for you to understand, why don't you consult your dictionary or ask questions? Don't worry I'm willing to ignore your over-zealousness and enlighten you. You've been here for years, and should understand that everything is based on sources. When I speak of "African Oscars", what you should be asking is "how many reliable sources referred to it as African Oscars?", not your interpretation of what they claimed. AMAA is the significant African award, but the most followed and popular is AMVCA, this is based on reliable sources, not the original research that you continue to claim all over Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Darreg: What part of "a proprietary award with eligibility limited to movies etc aired on the network's own channels, and broadcast only to a, in international comparison, very limited number of viewers" was it that you didn't understand? It doesn't matter how many people call it "Africa's Oscars", it's still just a proprietary award that can only be won by movies etc that the owner of the award has shown on their own channels, and viewed only by a limited number of viewers, i.e. very far from the kind of award that can be claimed to make an actor notable. And on top of that Wole Ojo hasn't won the award, only been nominated for it, just as with the other awards you have repeatedly re-added to the article (and nominations count only if someone has been nominated multiple times for a truly major award), making you "awards table" nothing but fancruft. And stop trying to patronise me, it only makes you look bad, not me. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were getting me angry with your "don't be silly". The major categories of AMVCA's are jury-based. It was only during the first edition or so that all categories were voted by fans. And it is nolonger limited to films aired on Africa Magic for years now. The Wikipedia article has not been updated. And the Wikipedia guideline requires an actor to have multiple nominations to pass. So the fact that he hasn't won, doesn't matter. Darreg (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline requires an actor to have been nominated multiple times for a major award, requirements that Wole Ojo does not meet. And your claim about the rules for AMVCA having changed requires a reliable source. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are speaking like an experienced Wikipedia. This is the official release from MultiChoice. You will see the submission guidelines and the judging procedure. The name of the award can be misleading because of the "viewers", however, there are still some categories that are voted for. You might also find these links helpful 1, 2. Darreg (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Thomas.W reported by User:Darreg (Result: ). Thank you. Darreg (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC

Hi – Further to the discussion you initiated on my talk page, I do not seem to have received a reply to my last posting there. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - As I still do not seem to have received a reply I am posting a note here. I suspect you will now have spotted that that my only recent edits to the HSBC article in the last few years have been as follows:

An edit on 17 August 2017 to remove the stray words Italic text
An edit on 16 August 2017 to describe the company as British–Hong Kong with an appropriate citation
An edit on 9 August 2017 to delete some unsourced jargon about HSBC.net
An edit on 24 May 2017 to change private to public limited company”
A series of edits between 7 April 2017 and 14 April 2017 to improve the citations and other clean up tasks
An edit on 25 March 2016 to remove some out of date financial information
An edit on 15 March 2015 to update the financial results in the infobox
An edit on 9 March 2014 to fill out some citations
An edit on 17 March 2013 to update the financial results in the infobox

So it is incorrect for you to say "Your bold changes have now been reverted at least twice, so per WP:BRD you must take it to the talk page of the article and get support for your changes there, before doing it again". I had only made one change relevant to the discussion on the nationality of the business (the change of 16 August 2017 listed above) and it was you that made that one reversion. Do you not think you should check your facts before making wild accusations about multiple reversions?

You then compounded a difficult situation by asserting "It's not how many times it's done per day that matters (other than when reporting to WP:AN3), but how many times it's done in total. Which in this case is at least two, but could be more since I didn't bother to check more than a week back." It was not at least two: I had made just one relevant edit (the change of 16 August 2017 listed above). Why did you not "bother to check" before making even more wild accusations? By the way in this edit summary you used capital letters. Per WP:SHOUT "CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are very rarely appropriate." Don't you think that an apology may be in order in the circumstances? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I'm sure you probably get this a lot, but thank you for your anti-vandalism work. I really appreciate the work you do here. Cheers! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 13:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are pointless tom

According to you I vandalised pages by adding content which was unverified the thruth is your at fault because I provided a valid reason for my edit threatening to block me is a abuse of power StaedtlerTheOnLy (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StaedtlerTheOnLy: The source in the article very clearly says that Punjabis make up ~35% of the population of Delhi, i.e just over one-third of the population, not the totally false 65-75% (first 75% and then in the following edit 65%, showing that you just made up the numbers) that you, without any sources, changed it to on Punjabis, and on Ethnic groups in Delhi you made a totally unsourced claim about most people in Delhi being Punjabis. Edits that are "deliberate introduction of factual errors", and thus vandalism. And continuing to add fake data/fake claims will with all probability get you blocked - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually when I changed the number from 35 to75 instead of 65 it was a typo I acknowledged that and changed it to 65 it was a small error only and Mr tom you have no idea when I inserted the change it was based on a recent newspaper report/survey by India's largest Hindi newspaper Dainik jagran so it can't be wrong and plus it's owned by the government I have already stated that it was a reliable source and another thing stop threatening or warning me your talk page indicates I'm not the only one who you've chosen to pick a bone with you may be a veteran editor but it's gone to your head StaedtlerTheOnLy (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You more than doubled the number of Punjabis in Delhi, without providing any sources for your changes, and there's no way you can talk yourself out of that. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain

Unfortunately u have deleted the chapter which i have added. Its a famous phase of Indian language movement, where one Sudeshna Singha died and became the second women martyr in human history for mother tongue. (After Smt. Kamala Bhattacharya in Assam). may be the source is not reliable then I must produce reliable sources, documents. I think the chapter of movement should be included in the said language after due references as you required. Give some time to collect and provide these all rather deleting without warning. thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinakpani (talk • contribs)

You can't add material unless it's sourced to a source that is reliable by Wikipedia's standards, no matter how famous a phase of the Indian language movement you claim it is. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. there are so many information are there, in the same articles without references, I m requesting you to peruse all then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinakpani (talk • contribs)

You added controversial material claiming the Indian police fired into a crowd of innocent civilian protesters without notice, wounding hundreds of people and killing at least one, sourced only to a partisan blog, so don't compare your edits to edits by others adding totally un-controversial material on other articles. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then

Wikipedia articles not being reliable sources you say? Everyone can add whatever they want? If anyone could add whatever they want then why aren't they being regarded as vandalism???? And why aren't they editted back to normal? You yourself don't add reliable sources to what you edit back aka it shouldn't be kept. You're saying urself that Wikipedia is a s****y site then let it be. If you're not happy with the edits then why bother fixing them with misinformation that is false. I'll make a site of my one with information written by me, editable by me and full of false information and because it wont be a Wikipedia article it'll be regarded as reliable? Hah alright then. Aleksihaah (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleksihaah: See WP:CIRC: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.", and WP:USERGENERATED: "In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source.". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norweigan Colonies

See the talk page of the relevant template, Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands were colonies of the Kingdom of Norway until 1814, when they were ceded to Denmark.XavierGreen (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen: No, they were never seen as colonies of the Kingdom of Norway, and, as I wrote on your talk page, with link and all, there were no colonial empires before the end of the 15th century, which is what matters in this case, since its about inclusion in Template:Colonial empires. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian military equipment

See a note which I left for User:Evandro321. If the dispute resumes please let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KRISS Vector

Regarding the KRISS Vector's article. It's ok, Bones Jones and I already have an agreement regarding the issue. I will make sure that it wouldn't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Lover (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

me

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Temporarily_occupied_and_uncontrolled_territories_of_Ukraine_(2014-present) and see above many notifications since january, i was merely trying to make the article more neutral, can you please remove that note you gave me on my talkpage, i will do so my self later, thank you for your time 83.185.80.106 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i modified my edits, atleast whats wrong with the flag and the rest, if were going to have a infobox for a proposed country the flag would be same, russian was made all union official 1990, and official language of Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the second phase began in september after the august soviet 1991 coup which made ukraine and azerbaijan lose intrest in the project (i did not write this see the article) 83.185.80.106 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That IP-Hopper you are having trouble with.

Hey Tom, my name is Hornetzilla78. I have noticed that you're having trouble with a user who is going by multiple IP addresses they are using and is inserting false, unsourced, and unconstructive edits on pages such as North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. I have that particular page under my watchlist, and I can give you one lead to who the user is: a user by the name Adam Loop. If you look at the edits he/she has made on that article, the information he/she inserted exactly matches those of the IP-Hopper that is troubling you lately. I hope this helps you in case this IP-Hopper causes trouble in the future :) Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution

Hello Thomas, i trust everything is great for you. Plese what is you take on this AFDas i recall you usually are very well informed when it pertains to Nigerian related articles.Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hi, just letting you know, this user is still persistently removing references to Afghanistan or related terms (e.g. Afghan, Dari, Tajik, Bactrian, Pashto) on articles. He does so, either without giving adequate explanation and/or by replacing them with references to Pakistan. Even after you gave him a 6 month ban on editing articles relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, he has resumed editing in the same single-minded way. For example, from this month (June), soon after his ban ended:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bactrian_language&diff=prev&oldid=784957966

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pamir_languages&diff=prev&oldid=785158483

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Parni&diff=prev&oldid=785174933

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=History_of_Afghanistan&diff=prev&oldid=784977224

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Heraios&diff=prev&oldid=784968882

Talk:Norse cosmology IP

Hi Thomas.W, I blocked an IP given your report at AIV (172.78.220.21) and thought I'd give you a courtesy note that I've unblocked them per an IRC discussion with them in #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect. I believe it is reasonable that they might not be the same person, and thus weren't evading a block. Put bluntly, I've given them some rope and we'll see what they do -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: It is the same person (same ISP, same geolocation, and the same incoherent edits on the same article), and they have been doing this for at least six years now. To the extent that even the talk page has been protected for a full year now because of them, see page histories of Talk:Norse cosmology and Norse cosmology, and also see User talk:Bishonen#Norse cosmology. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not home grown. I referenced middle high german. I will add references with time. You don't seem to have heard of mutual intelligibility.

This is ethnic discrimination due to Nationalism, or personal history... I am American just so you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.207.216 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the same home-grown theories for at least six years now, without ever providing any reference for them, so your time ran out long ago, and just claiming that something derives from high German isn't "referencing". Mutual intelligibility also has nothing to do with what you're repeatedly ranting about, and your repeated claims about being discrimated against because of your "ethnicity" are just plain silly. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are an asshole go back to England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.207.216 (talk • contribs)

Thank you

I did not realise that I could not do that, as I am pretty new to Wikipedia. Is there any other way you could word it to make it seem informational instead of promotional? BungBillow (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Daniels

You deleted my edit but it was correct. NewComVIc (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your edit was unsourced, hence unverifiable and a violation of our policy concerning biographies of living persons. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for keeping an eye on so many articles. It is much appreciated. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 05:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your nomination for the deletion of the Salai Taret

Sir, am trying to keep a written record here on the clans of the Meitei People of Manipur, India. No one seems interested to give such information to the world so the page wasn't there before. There's a lot in real which isn't in internet, sir. Being a small minor community in such a big country, no big research is being made. Everyone is busy or delighted to focus just on the bigger ones. Am gathering more information regarding the page. Am a beginner here. I guess the blog page shouldn't be used as the references but as i have mentioned above, no one is interested in researching on the small fish, everyone's after the bigger one. Looking forward for your reply and suggestions. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punshiba18 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and requires all articles to be sourced to reliable sources, not just blogs and similar, as the article you created is. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Am a beginner here, sir. I got to know about its reliable source now. Will gather more information on it with the reliable sources. By the way, it's hurting to know that now in this digital world, a real thing can't be portray as real if it doesn't have an information in internet. Thanks for enlightening me. Sir, the article is much needed. Its not just a make up things.Punshiba18 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Sir, i have updated all the references. Kindly please check it. Thank you sir for making me improve the page with reliable resources. Let me know your suggestions or opinion about the new changes. Thank you.Punshiba18 ❯❯❯ Talk 21:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange ip

82.152.190.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The ip is making strange edits on multiple articles and sneakly changing the meanings of contents. I don't know how to handle with this, they are editing countless articles countess times!-probably to make it harder to spot. 50.30.43.228 (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chernobog95

I caught Chernobog95 editing unconstructively on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction after you gave him/her the final warning. --Hornetzilla78 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He/she has just admitted that he has purposely attacked me on [[Talk:User:Chernobog95|his her talk page, another user has just pointed out. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Hornetzilla78 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Sehgal

Hi, perhaps you would be interested in this case, which is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (2nd nomination). --Saqib (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobog95

Chernobog95 just admitted on his talk page that he intentionally attacked a user named Hornetzilla78 before accusing him of being "unprofessional" with his edits. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he has beaten me to the post. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hello, Tom! You were involved in the AfD of self-promotion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (2nd nomination). Similar to that there is a AfD going on in which your comments will be helpful Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination). Thank you for your contributions. Greenbörg (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my edit

hi, I had edits in renault capture,suzuki vitara and suzuki kizashi,it's correct,why you deleted it? Mohamad mrk (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because they were totally unsourced. See messages on your own talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective picking of countries for the WE list

Your edits [ [6]] on Western Europe have been reverted, as your edits were WP:Unsourced and possibly WP:POV. Please refrain from similar edits in the future. For more info on this, please check the talk page, where a discussion has been opened up about it, at: [7].

Have a good day. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: You're the one adding POV with no support from other editors (having been reverted multiple times by multiple editors). You also made a POV removal of the German language from Western Europe, replacing it with Greek, so you have been reverted again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, I am sorry but false accusations ain't going to help you. You said: You're the one adding POV with no support from other editors (having been reverted multiple times by multiple editors) Have you checked the history log at all? Haven't you realized that Greece was in the Commonly Referred WE Countries List for a LONG time, before you and Future Perfect ever take it out of that list? I am sorry but it was you and that other editor who stirred up the debate, not me. I didn't even make any edits to the commonly referred WE list and you can see that by checking the history log, so please correct your facts. You said: You also made a POV removal of the German language from Western Europe, replacing it with Greek, Really? Please see: [8]. What part of the "REMOVING BOTH" you didn't understand? Full of false accusations against me aren't going to help your defence on the ANI, so please self-revert your edits and seek for WP:CONSENSUS before passing them. Otherwise you will leave me no option but to report you to the ANI for false accusations, disruption and forcing changes into the page without seeking consensus. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: I don't know what you're on, but you're now not only claiming that Greece is part of Western Europe, by adding Greece to one list there in the edits I reverted, but also claiming that Germany isn't part of Western Europe, by removing the German language from another list there in those same edits. As for the rest I'm not as easily fooled/scared as you seem to think, so threatening to take me to ANI over this is just plain silly... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, don't you tell me you revert sourced edits WITHOUT checking the sources provided? Don't tell me you haven't read the sources which refer Greece as a WE country? If you did, then it is time for you to familiarize with WP:VERIFICATION which is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. Do yourself a favor and stop accusing others of POV when you do not even know what POV really is. To remove sourced material from Wikipedia just because it does not suit your POV, is frown, considered a form of disruption and can lead to blocks. I am not trying to scare you, I am pointing out to what happens to those who believe they can remove sourced content at will and without consequences. I am very sure you do not want to be one of them. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe your arguments are valid and you have sources to back them, then you are more than welcome to discuss them in the talk page where you can share with us yours sources that can support your view, that Greece is not related to Western Europe, either geopolitically or culturally, so we can check and validate them. But until then, please refrain from further disruption in the article. Such disruption like this one today, where you made edits that are contradicted by the given sources, won't stay, are a form of disruption and may lead to blocks. At least do not say that I didn't warn you. Have a good day. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: I will comment on the talk page, but not until I have made a thorough check on the 46.12.* IPs (geolocating to Thessaloniki) that keep popping up on that page, with a timing that sets off my sensors... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to check that IP. But be careful, as to ever assume that IP to be me. Because conspiracy theory accusations, directed against other editors, are a very serious violation of Wikipedia's "assume good faith" (AGF) guideline and "no personal attacks" (NPA) policy. I am sure you have good intentions on this and that you do not want to violate more rules than you have already done so I am just letting you know. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: I know the rules here at least as well as you do, and probably better than you, and I'm particularly familiar with everything that has to do with sockpuppetry, since dealing with that is what I do much of my time here, so there's no need for you to tell me what is or isn't a violation of this or that rule... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. And please inform me of your findings here on this talk. And, once you are done with that, I could appreciate if can you *finally* show up with some sources on the WE's talk page instead of wasting my time. Do something more productive for once. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I find anything it will be dealt with in whatever forum that is the right one for it, and if I don't find anything I see no reason to discuss it here or anywhere else, neither with you nor with anyone else... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You implied that I am sockpuppeting. This is serious even if you just are implying it. You can't just imply (or even worse, accuse) others of sockpuppetry every time you have a content dispute with them, I am sorry but this is frown and do not expect from them to pretend otherwise. So I very kindly am asking you, if you really are a honest editor, that you won't leave this implication hanging forever. Do your investigation and let me know if your "sensors" are proven right. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 20:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: No, I did not (please feel free to check my contributions...), the only one who has implied even the possibility of such a connection is you, yourself (in this edit). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my warnings, you keep being involved in edit wars. In your latest revision, you argued that there is no consensus for these edits [9] but I shall remind you that you do not have consensus for keeping specific countries out of the list either, as specific countries are removed without reaching a consensus on the talk first, starting with Future Perfect's edits. So please if you have to revert edits, revert them all, including Fut. Perf's edits, not selectively depending your POV. Otherwise I will be inclined to report you as being part of the problem, not its solution. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: I don't give the proverbial rat's arse for your warnings, since you're the one who is edit-warring, not me, and against several other editors to boot, and by all means feel free to report me at whatever forum your want. Your repeated utterly childish attempts to intimidate me, by threatening to report me at an unspecified board, repeatedly linking to and mentioning various policies, and casually mentioning WP:ANI, don't work, because a) I'm too old and experienced IRL for that, b) I have been an editor here on en-WP for far longer than you, and have made far more edits here than you have, and c) I know the rules and regulations here better than you do. And this whole "discussion" is just a big waste of time, so shooo, go find another talk page to play on, and another editor to try to intimidate... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming and Harassment

Please do not spam my Talk page or threaten me, again. Especially with my Master-Slave morality page. (most of Nietzsche's pages are unsourced; purposefully, because they are meant to be authored and interpreted literally. In other words, there are no sources used - Users are only meant to correct the summary.) I know and am aware of the rules of Wikipedia -- I just failed to provide a source for the Finnish. (response to your threat to ban me) Also, I noticed you are British -- Likewise, I am V.I.P. working for the British government but am stationed in the United States. I can easily look up all your information where you live, where you work, what you purchased, who you've dated and married (since post-1940) and find out who you are as well as your relatives in only 5-10 minutes; so you should take great caution with who you are talking to and are threatening. That's a personal warning, not a threat. I have no privileges here on Wikipedia but am in contact with several Admins. Look over Wikipedia rules and guidelines - I did not make any errors, on your part your spam/harassment is the error. I have done nothing wrong, sir. Thank you and have a nice day. --- MightisRight (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MightisRight: You have been reverted and warned in full accordance with Wikipedia's rules, for repeated unsourced/OR/SYNTH edits on multiple articles, since you haven't provided sources for a single one of the edits you have made here. As for the rest of your post, it's just childish rubbish... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens I also "am V.I.P." working for the British government but stationed in the United States, and can easily look up all MightisRight's information: where he lives, where he works, what he purchased, and who he's dated and married (since post-1940), plus of course who he is as well as his relatives in only 5-10 minutes. I just did it, and it turns out he's in the eighth grade at Oneida Middle School in Schenectady. He's never had a date. E Eng 18:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the Telugu language

Hey Tom, I would like to know why you had reversed my edits on the Telugu language. Your response is much appreciated. TheAwesome21 (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAwesome21: You were reverted on Telugu language for removing material with the edit summary "Removed irrelevant information". Wikipedia isn't written for "average readers" only, but also for "advanced readers", and even though the more specialised information you removed from the article may seem irrelevant to you, it's highly relevant to linguists. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I think you may have misunderstood me. I removed the information in the confidence that there was already an original article about the Telugu script anyway. I just felt that like in an essay, the info was randomly placed. But can I please redo all of my edits except for that once specific one piece of info if you're interested? TheAwesome21 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC) TheAwesome21 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my content

Sorry to bother you but i need to clarify that I was finding the references furthermore if you had gone to the Pundravardhana page you would have noticed that all of what I said wa accurate I had spent 20 minutes adding to that page and you sadly destroyed all that in one minute without doing some research yourself you could have added references yourself but dont worry i will add it myself Ahnaf.AR.2106 (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahnaf.AR.2106: Per Wikipedia's rules Wikipedia articles can not be used as references, so if you add the material back again, without providing reliable sources for it, in your edit, it will be removed again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added reliable refferences

Thank you for what you wrote do not worry i added reliable refferences YOU DO NOT need to remove thank you for helping me on my first edit.

Sonipat

your editing for sonipat is not proper sir. RV SONIPAT (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RV SONIPAT: It's your editing on Sonipat that isn't "proper". The unsourced material more fit for a blog or a travel-guide than an encyclopaedia that you repeatedly add to the article doesn't belong here, especially since it's also written in bad English and all in lower-case... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Your unexplained reverts to Amazon.com are unacceptable. My edit summary explained my rationale for removing the paragraph in question, whereas you've now reverted me twice without addressing my first edit summary. Per WP:UNDUE, not all events are worthy of inclusion in an article, even if they are sourced. A product receiving a small amount of backlash for a few days back in 2013 is not some major event that needs to forever archived on Wikipedia, particularly when the section and article are packed with more relevant content. Please review Wikipedia's policies on edit summaries and disputes to learn more about constructive ways to handle disagreement over an edit. 72.196.125.111 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD you must discuss it on the talk page of the article, and get support from other editors for removing it, if you are being reverted, as you have been on Amazon.com, even if you do provide an edit summary. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indic script concensus in infobox

Hi I found you have removed Indic scripts from infobox stating concensus, can you point me to RFC or other concensus which was done here. I only remeber there was concensus in not to use Indic scripts in the lead Shrikanthv (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no need found it Shrikanthv (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goods and Services Tax (India)

I noticed u removed the video from Goods and Services Tax (India). It is the video footage of the official event launch of the same and it is directly relevant to the topic and hence it's in English language can be used by International readers too.. If any problem regarding same do mention it. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 15:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiven2240: The launch event has nothing to do with the Goods and services tax as such, which is what the article is about, and the video of the president of India "launching" the tax is of interest to readers from India only, who since this is an international English-language encyclopaedia make up only a very small minority of our readers. If we had had an article about the launch event as such the video you added might have been relevant, but we don't have that kind of articles, since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newsoutlet. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ottoman–Safavid War (1623–39), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Appah Rao (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Appah Rao: Get real. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, requiring reliable sources for changes, not a fanblog, making your repeated unsourced changes on multiple articles very disruptive. And as for the Ottoman–Safavid War (1623–39) you have now, with no explanation or discussion, removed "decisive" three times from the infobox of an article about a victory that indeed was decisive, being reverted by two different editors, and still feel you're right, and everyone else is wrong... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman–Safavid War (1623–39)

Instead of edit-warring, might I suggest using the article talk page? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: That is what I have told the other editor to do, since they're the only one who wants to remove "decisive" (having been reverted by two different editors), I have also explained on their talk page why it was a decisive victory (it ended a very long period of almost continous war, and led to 150 years of peace...), but no response there either. It's also not the first article they've removed "decisive" from, only the latest one, and were even dragged to WP:ANI for it less than two weeks ago. Which, since their account is only three weeks old, with ~150 edits, clearly shows that they have problems collaborating with other editors... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

I already knew it.Nobody can show that italy never got its own nuclear weapons by its program.All is covered by statal secret as Italian President reports.Benniejets (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop it, I counted five reverts by you on the article, so if someone had bothered to post a 3RR-warning on your talk page before I did, you would have been blocked now... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying "Indian" wiki pages as semi-protected.

Hello Sir - Thank you so much for detecting and fixing the vandalism on this page : https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Indian_people&type=revision&diff=795225825&oldid=795224280

I had a request, owing to the frequent vandalism on this stage would it be possible to classify the page as "semi-protected"?

Best, Ishan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.149.208.231 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected for a few days now (through WP:RFPP). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

response

I responded on my talk page and I ask you to reconsider. The two articles where there was no source, that is openly unsourced and there is no good reason to put the religion in the infobox other than to push a POV that the conflict was sectarian which it wasn't. I was removing POV there and not pushing it. The other infobox where there was a source I have explained on my talk page. read the source article and it is talking about one single person and not the state or its people.Ilham Ilham Ilham (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no purpose to write a sect or religion in the infobox when the conflict wasn't sectarian other than to push a POV that it was and there was no source for those two other articles where I removed that POV. If you don't mind I'm going to remove it again from the two articles which didn't have citations and I will leave the cited one alone until you respond otherwiseIlham Ilham Ilham (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you still give a yes or no answer on the validity of the citation? I still don't think that citation is valid because of the reasons I explained. It talks about one individual and his religion and is not a good source for that parameter of the religion of an entire state. I think it should be removed and if someone else has a better source they will edit it.Ilham Ilham Ilham (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aiding HSBC discussion

Hi, regarding HSBC article. I know the normal rule is to keep the existing version until we have consensus, but if you look at the talk page discussion, there are now comments that don't make sense unless you can see the 'Hong Kong' version. I was hoping to get a quick discussion and a WP:SNOW for the previous 'British' version, but I'm happy to go through the full process as that's what you prefer. Matt's talk 11:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@M.R.Forrester: I have posted a strong oppose to the changes for being totally illogical, since the lead should reflect the current status of the company, and there is no such thing as a current "British-Hong Kong" company, for the simple reason that Hong Kong ceased being British twenty years ago. Hong Kong (and Shanghai for that matter) belong in the history section of the article, and only there... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you wanted a fuller discussion, I've now written a lengthy post over on the talk page. I agree that the company is British, and the "British-Hong Kong" wording in accurate. But the HK connection is much more than history. If Barclays or Lloyds announced they were moving their HQs to Brasilia or Seattle, we'd think it was something from The Onion, but HSBC seriously considered moving the holding company and global HQ last year, and no one expected it to anywhere other than HK. Why is that? Why does HSBC issue banknotes in Hong Kong, not in Scotland? It's a unique case and our article should reflect that (though I think the current introduction probably overdoes things). Matt's talk 12:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@M.R.Forrester: You have to differentiate between HSBC, which is a holding company registered (as HSBC Holdings PLC) and headquartered in the UK, and The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which is a bank registered and headquartered in Hong Kong. The HK bank notes are issued by the bank in Hong Kong (that is HSBC's subsidiary), not by HSBC, the holding company. The bank is undisputably a Hong Kong company, but the holding company isn't, which those wanting to present HSBC, the holding company, as a "British Hong Kong" company probably don't realise... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize all that, but the article is also about the group that is consolidated into the holding company's accounts. Look at the second para: "HSBC has around 4,000 offices in 70 countries and territories across Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe, North America and South America, and around 37 million customers". Do you think this sentence should be deleted?! HSBC Holdings plc doesn't have any customers and only has two or three offices in two territories. Should we delete the whole controversies section? It's all about banking, and HSBC Holdings plc doesn't do any banking, it just holds shares! But we rightly attribute the assets and liabilities, the acts and omissions of the subsidiaries to the group. I agree with you on the legal technicalities, but we're an encyclopedia, not a corporate directory, so we can see that there's more going on. Matt's talk 12:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@M.R.Forrester: Take the detailed discussion to the talk page of the article, where everyone there can weigh in, since it's not just you and me deciding this... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very very sorry!

Off-by-one in blocking the latest Najaf sock you identified. If I ever meet you in person, I'll buy you a beer, coffee, cookies, etc. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV

You keep reverting my edits without any merit. You put back edits of VA Smith after being informed by multiple users, that using a colonial era civil servant is not accurate. Now, you are bullying me because I am a IP user? That is unacceptable! (70.209.144.255 (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not bullying you because you're an IP-user (or more precisely an IP-hopper trying to evade scrutiny by constantly switching IPs), I'm reverting you because your edits are unacceptable, since you among other things repeatedly replace "academic" history with pure mythology, such as in this repeatedly made edit on Gandhara, where you replace "real history" with myths from the Puranas. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and we go by what reliable academic sources say, we do not present what is said in the Bible, in the Quran, in the Puranas or in other religious texts as facts, unless it is supported by archaeological evidence or contemporary documents etc. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any edits to the Gandhara article. This was an established article for years. I just reverse to the last clean version. Also, I have no control over IP changing, wiki policy does not penalize me for this. If otherwise, please provide me the wiki policy. (2600:1017:B01A:1240:E149:8F69:C2C:CABB (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

You are, per Wikipedia policy, responsible for all material you add or change, regardless of how you add or change it. Meaning that reverting to an older version is not a valid excuse for adding/restoring unsourced or improperly sourced material. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SafeSquid

Hello Thomas. I am still learning this. Please be patient. The the draft (Draft:SafeSquid) is still under construction. Hope to complete it soon. I edited some pages to include SafeSquid because no other editor bothered to research enough and include it. Could you be kind enough to guide and help me avoid any mistakes? Simplyme777843 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Simplyme777843: Finish the draft first (see WP:Notability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability) to see it if will be accepted, and then add links to it on other pages. Purely promotional material, like the material you added on SafeSearch and YouTube, is never OK, though, even if there is an article... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W: Ok, Tom, I see your point there. I will work on the SafeSquid article to get it published, before I set its inclusion on other pages. btw. I noticed link to kidzsearch, and was wondering what criteria it meets. Simplyme777843 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying, but...

Per User talk:207.102.255.248, see wp:BLANKING. One can add {{ow}} once or twice though! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138: I know, but there's an open report at WP:AIV and they're removing links to a previous IP in order to evade scrutiny... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The admin will/should look at the talk page history to check for refactoring. Too many reverts could be an issue. I have gotten 3RR warned for reverting talk page blanking. Now I just do so if the editor is obviously uncivil once, maybe twice then just go to ANI if really bad. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please monitor and protect the Mangalore article from Vandalism

I request you to give protection to the Mangalore article and monitor it, regarding vandalism.
No Administrator is protecting this article and it could be delisted (removed) from the list of Featured Articles.
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Mangalore 223.186.38.187 (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, i've noticed you reverted my Edits on Mongolian spot, but, you've done that Unfairly, because I've added sources to that Edit WhiteGuy1850 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhiteGuy1850: Wikipedia articles, such as the one on the Russian WP you added as "source", can NOT be used as references here, which is why you're being repeatedly reverted by multiple editors (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi

The revert was right but the reasons were wrong. The census inflated Hindi speakers because a lot of people reported Hindi as their native language even if they spoke another regional Hindi belt language. It was misleading, but not propaganda. Also, technically the number is correct for a broad definition of Hindi as all Hindi-belt languages, but it's wrong for the article Hindi because it only discusses Modern Standard Hindi. Aryaman^A ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traian Vuia

I've just undone your removal of the claim that he came up with the first tractor monoplane; there is a source for this, Charles Gibbs-Smith. A cite needed tag would have been better. I don't have the appropriate book to hand, but can add a cite soonish, alth Gibbs smith is already cited & the cite would probanly be a duplicate.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: It was reverted since it was added to the lead totally out of the blue by an IP, since there's no mention of Vuia having being the first in the article (and the lead is supposed to reflect what the article says...). Nor is he mentioned as having been the first in Tractor configuration, which I of course also checked, he's in fact not mentioned at all there... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tractor configuration is a pretty sketchy article... for instance it does not mention the [[]] generally credited as the first tractor biplane. I really can't think of anything predating Vuia, certainly nothing that achieved the limited success of his machines.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteGuy1850

For your knowledge that user WhiteGuy1850 started his disruptive edits at Finns again. Somekind bann would be in place. It seems that he is not going to give up. --Velivieras (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immaturity

Have you ever been to Finland for know which languages are spoken in there and which aren't ? If you take a Little bit of your time to see the Wiki Page about Finland in Wikipedia, you'll see that Swedish Shares the same Status of Official language of Finland as well as Finnish does, also, even in the Article about Finnish Americans, in the section about languages, Swedish it's Included, why don't Swedish can be added as One of the languages spoken by the Finnish people in the Article: Finns ? WhiteGuy1850 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhiteGuy1850: Yes, I have been to Finland, and yes, I know which languages are spoken there. But this has absolutely nothing to do with which languages are spoken in Finland or which languages are official there! The article is about the ethnic group Finns, not about everyone who lives in Finland or all Finnish citizens, and the ethnic group Finns speak Finnish, not Swedish. And if you can't understand the difference between an ethnic group and a nationality (i.e. citizenship) even after having had it explained to you multiple times you shouldn't edit Wikipedia, or at least not edit articles about ethnic groups. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking to you...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteGuy1850 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhiteGuy1850: It doesn't matter who you were talking too, what matters is that you seem unable to understand even simple explanations of why what you're doing is wrong, and very disruptive. You have already been blocked twice for it, first for 24h and then for two weeks, but started making the exact same edits again as soon as the blocks had expired, which means that the next block you get with all probability will be considerably longer than the two weeks you got last time. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning received by you

Dear Thomas, I have no explanation why you are accusing me of adding spam on Wikipedia. The site https://www.solunbg.org is a scientific project. Here are the aims of the project:

The aim of the project is to broaden, preserve and disseminate the remembrance of the historical, cultural and economic presence of the Bulgarians in Thessaloniki.

The objectives we embrace for the achievement of our general goal are:

To create new knowledge about the Bulgarian presence in Thessaloniki during the 19th and 20th centuries through discovering and analysis of unknown documents and data on the issue. The personification of the historical narration by including personal, family and kin stories of Bulgarians which are related to Thessaloniki into the grand narrative of the history of Bulgaria and the Bulgarians during the 19th and 20th centuries. To explore the current Bulgarian community in Thessaloniki and to establish links between it and the Bulgarian initiatives in the city. To elaborate an appropriate model for a continuing registration and classification of the vast and scattered amount of evidence on the Bulgarian historical presence in Thessaloniki and the application of the model for the research of other Bulgarian communities outside the borders of Bulgaria. To ensure free access to the collected, digitalized and classified documents and data envisaged in this project by including them in the national e-infrastructure CLaDA-BG. The projected site will allow a feed-back from the antecessors of the Bulgarians from Thessaloniki as well as from institutions, companies and people who develop economic and cultural activities in the city.

People and scientists can find interesting and useful information on that site. Please explain me why you have decided that the site is referred as a spam? Best regards Stilian KarastoikovStilianwiki (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stilianwiki: See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming. Being a scientific project does not exclude you from the normal rules here, rules that are very restrictive. Adding a link on Thessaloniki might be acceptable, since your project is about Thessaloniki and Bulgarians there, but not adding links to a whole bunch of other articles that have nothing to do with Thessaloniki, as you have done. Especially since you have done nothing here other than adding links to your external website. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accident sorry

Hi I accidentally pasted a Spanish text. Sorry about that. I cleaned up what I was trying to say PrinceofFrancia (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other seemingly random edits I have explained them PrinceofFrancia (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the edit summary in the edit you made a couple of minutes after I reverted the edit where you added a whole bunch of text in Spanish, and at about the same time as I posted my comment on your talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

asking some feedback about one of my first work

hello I will be grateful to you if you review one of my first work on wikipedia, I am new here and I am still learning thank you for your remark on my edit on the list of language , and I hope you could review this draft https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Joseph_Zyss

Please stop edit warring!

Your recent editing history at List of countries with overseas military bases shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szerbey (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a load of BS, the one who's edit warring, and pushing Russian POV, is you, both as User:Szerbey and as Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F1E0:97F0:71A3:2693:59EF:ED9D. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current edit war on List of countries with overseas military bases

The changes that I have reverted to are the status quo of the page pending discussion on the talk page. I would encourage you to go there, but common policy is to keep changes in place pending dispute resolution. There are cited sources as well. Garuda28 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: See my message on your talk page. The material you're repeatedly adding back has been removed multiple times for being dubious, to say the least, including by me a year or two ago, so do NOT add it back again unless there's a definite consensus in favour of doing so on the talk page of the article. And no, there's no "common policy" that says that material that simply isn't true should be kept in the article until a discussion has ended. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the citations given then? Generally cited material is kept. Garuda28 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: Several of the sources are dubious, to say the least (such as sourcing the claim about there being an Indian air base in Tajikistan to a "Study Package for the Common Law Admission Test", which in addition to having nothing to do with the claim also isn't verifiable), and sources for there being a military training team somewhere only support that there is a military training team somewhere, it does NOT support the claim made in the article that there's a full-fledged Indian military base there (because a military training team is not a military base). Sources must be scrutinized, and verified, just having a citation in place isn't enough, since there, unfortunately, are lots of people who add fake material with fake sources here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Again, I was just trying to keep it from getting out of hand. Can you make a note on the talk page, for the record marking which sources and sections are suspect. I’ll back you up. Garuda28 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to take a look at it: look at the section about the alleged air base in Tajikistan that I just added on Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Defection of an an AFD by disusing edss motivations and actions is not going to help matters.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to respond to E-190 please do so on this (or their) talk page, not in the AFD it just confuses matters.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume bad faith

Pls do not make Wikipedia:Assume bad faith generalization, I will raise this issue on admin. incident report page, for personal attacks. First-off, other editors were reverting content by added by user François Robere long before I got involved. Also, on several talk pages you made the same comment about me "This nomination was made in bad faith by an editor who for the past month or more has been trying to whitewash the section about Poland in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, shifting all blame away from ethnic Poles, and over to the Polish Jews themselves" This is nothing more then a misrepresentation. Pls, show me specific examples of it. --E-960 (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pick a fight with someone who has been around much longer than you, and knows Wikipedia better than you do. So bugger off, and go find another page to play on. And FYI, any report you file on WP:ANI will also automatically result in your own behaviour, and your own edits, being scrutinized... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this up with Admins, becuse you go around making false accustions against editors, you have no proof of what you said. --E-960 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please do, it's always fun to see someone shoot themself in the foot. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not contributed to the article's content in any meaningful way, all you did was just to get into arguments such as this one on the talk page, misrepresenting other editors by making bad faith comments, btw looking above other editors noticed your questionable approach as well. --E-960 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I report this incident, I'll also raise the fact that you are the only one making such claims against me, and highlight the fact that you've been going around writing in that same statement on several pages. --E-960 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x3 What has my not taking part in the free-for-all edit-war on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II got to do with anything? Or are you trying to suggest that people who have chosen to just watch from the sidelines aren't allowed to comment on what they see? And since you obviously haven't noticed yet, threats about reporting me to the dreaded admins don't scare me, so do yourself a favour, and stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I suspect that your behavior is just part of your trolling routine, given your userboxes, it just looks like you have no interest or knowledge about the actual topic, just pick fights on talk pages. Just something to pass the time I suppose. --E-960 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "bugger off" was it that you didn't understand? Stop wasting my time, and go play somewhere else, you're not welcome here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive warning

Greetings, Tom. (Certainly there must be a better way to talk than adding a new subtitle, my apologies. I couldn't see a proper way.) Editing Wikipedia, I'm a newbie. In life, I'm a fellow Old Fart. I got your "disruptive" warning to me. Surprised, I immediately read the entire linked page about "disruptive". Could not see where my edits constituted disruption. Was there a complaint? Thanks for your time.JohnnyJohnnyG (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnnyJohnnyG: Being reverted means your edits are disputed, and must be taken to the talk page and discussed there, instead of being repeated over and over again, as you have been doing. You can not make those edits again until there's a clear support for your changes among other editors on the talk page of the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Tom. Your quick reply caught me offguard, ha. I understand your reply. However, to be clear, I reverted only once (regarding 2 sections), and this was not warring or playing around. With due diligence, it seemed I had been inappropriately Rolled back, and I explained this in the Talk section--though it turns out, the Talk section was not the place for my comment, but rather, WP:AIN. (I've reported the issue there now, as well as informing the person who executed the Rollback.) But "Rollback" is supposed to occur only in cases of vandalism, and the fellow who rolled me back actually had this point underlined to him, at the time of receiving the privilege-- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni. Perhaps, I don't know how to read Wikipedia yet, but it did seem his was a pure Rollback (SEE right-hand column here:) [10] without explanation. Checking his profile, interests, and his having only recently obtained this new authority, I felt justified to both revert and discuss his actions. Yours, on the other hand, is an actual Reversion, with your reason stated. So I see, it goes to court. Thanks again.JohnnyJohnnyG (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost faith

Thomas, I began editing Wikipedia in mid-2006. From 2007-2011, I was wiki-stalked by a gang of vicious vandals, and "permanently retired" in 2011. I began editing again in 2012, and have remained ever since, with occasional breaks due to life stress issues. I won't say I have the same joy now in editing WP as in the beginning, but I have learned to better pick my fights.

Many of the editors who (unofficially) mentored me in my first few years on WP are no longer with us, and the project is poorer for it. Part of the cause in the early years was because some admins chose to protect new users who were engaging in bad behavior, and went to far in not biting the newbies, and instead "ate the oldies". Thankfully, most of the admins around today are more balanced in their approach.

Take whatever length of break you need, and when you do return, I'll be happy to welcome you back. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HughD sock

I think User:73.208.149.126 is another HughD sock. I have notified User talk:Springee since he has been dealing with this problem for a while now and is most familiar with the pattern.--RAF910 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Based on their edits it's obvious they're a sock of someone... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: he has been blocked, but only for 31 hours so he'll be back.--RAF910 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep an eye on them. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversal of my edit on Alexander the Great

You wrote in the reversal of my edit : "Hello. I have reverted your overzealous edit on the article, replacing "manpower" with "strength" because of you feeling it is a sexist term. But it's not a sexist term, but meant to be taken literally in the phrase "Alexander's constant demands for troops and the migration of Macedonians throughout his empire depleted Macedon's manpower, greatly weakening it", i.e. the constant demand for troops (because of many soldiers being killed in wars) etc reduced the number of men in Macedon. So please don't make changes like that. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)"

My counterargument to your reversal : The Wikipedia article states, as you have quoted above : "Alexander's constant demands for troops and the migration of Macedonians throughout his empire depleted Macedon's manpower, greatly weakening it" The article clearly states that it was "the migration of Macedonians", this here refers to males and females, as males often moved with their wives or other female family, the key term here is 'migration' this implies correctly that it was not solely for military purposes, and there exists historical evidence which shows, and there is information on other Wikipedia pages proving this point, that it was not solely for military purposes, the migrations here referred to also refers to migration for purposes of governance, and these too included females, therefore your critique of my edit is unfounded.

My edit stating that the term 'manpower' was sexist did not go far enough, not only was it sexist, it is factually incorrect, as females were included in this too, which absolutely did drain the domestic strength of the Macedonian Kingdom.

The source of the statement that Macedon's 'manpower' was depleted due to migration (Roisman & Worthington 2010, p.186) actually states that "the East in turn received a large dose of Greek civilization", this clearly does not mention that the migrations were solely for military purposes, or that they solely consisted of males, because they did not.

The source of this statement as shown in the citation (Roisman & Worthington 2010, p.186) states that "the East in turn received a large dose of Greek civilization", the editor(you, Tom) wildly interpreted this to mean that this depleted "Macedon's manpower", and solely its manpower, when in reality the source makes no mention that these migrations were solely for military purposes, or consisted solely of males, and other sources referring to the same, such as Arrian's account of this, and modern historians analysing it, show that this migration included a sizeable amount of females, which also reduced the strength of the Kingdom of Macedon in the years after Alexander III (The Great). These facts justify my removal of the word 'manpower' and its replacement with the word 'strength'. Saehyu (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary was not really part of Austrian Empire

It was regnum independens, with own legal system, own parliament , own separated government, own public administration, own public administration and own constitution. No imperial institutions were involved in Kingdom of Hungary.--Filederchest (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Filederchest: What you list above has nothing to do with whether Hungary were part of the Austrian Empire or not, all the German kingdoms etc, such as Bavaria, Saxony and all the others, had own kings etc, own constitutions, own laws, own armies and own everything else, but were still part of the German Empire. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to read this article and the cited books. Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 --Filederchest (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and I suggest you read the title of the article you linked to (... Compromise of 1867), since it has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're discussing, i.e. 1804-1867. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you can read that article: Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, because it perfectly incorporate the legal background what we are discussing now.--Filederchest (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Filederchest: Nope, it's just your own personal interpretation of it (after your own edits to the article), the lead of the article clearly states that "The Compromise partially re-established the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hungary, separate from, and no longer subject to the Austrian Empire", which very clearly establishes that until the compromise of 1867 was ratified Hungary was a subject of, and part of, the Austrian Enpire. Just as I have said... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what you claim is only true about the narrow 1849-1867 post revolution era. Your Habsburg Empire myth remain a myth. (Between 1849 and 1867 Hungary was forced to be subject of Austrian Empire by military dictatorship) and we are talking about a much larger time frame: 1526-1918. Your misapprehension lies in that.--Filederchest (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a waste of time since you don't want to listen. Since your edit has been disputed, more than once even, you must, per WP:BRD, take it to the talk page of the article, and get support from other editors for it there, before making those changes again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its a waste of time,because you don't want to read the articles ,and the pages of the cited books. In my side there are books, on your side there are only empty personal doubts. Personal doubts are not arguments, but fallacy.--Filederchest (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: take the discussion to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. But remember, you can't rewrite history, so learn to live with it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who want to rewrite history, because you don't deal the books of real experts (law historians) You just simply reprat your empty personal doubts. --Filederchest (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasick Steve

Hi Thomas.

I wanted to thank you for warning and reverting IP editor 80.195.100.70 disruptive edits on the Seasick Steve page. I hadn't been on the page in over a year and was a little shocked to see the the multiple unsourced edits. It is my opinion that this is just a self advertising effort for the unauthorised bio. It certainly just makes the article confusing and messy. As a fan of Seasick Steve I bought the book when it came out unfortunately. It was probably the worst piece of journalism I have ever read. Just full of conjecture and speculation and maybes, with the only historical source before the 2000's, being a conversation with the alleged (in the writters own words) estranged son of Seasick Steve'. The writter had no track record and I can find no info on the publisher. It certainly does not qualify as a (Quality Source). I can't understand how this effort got its own section in the article. It just ends up being a platform for this type of IP editors disruptive edits. I do not edit any longer on Wikipedia but just had to jump in there. I see that you have said that you are not being so active at this time but I think that this article could use you expertise to at least keep it within the Wikipedia guidlines. I have also reported this problem to an Administrator Thanks very much again and I hope you hang in there. Aircastle (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Why every time you have to tell me no like this i know my facts in know what im doing on articles im still learning Albanians dont care about every piece 99% percent of articles written by Albanians and seen by them dont care about every piece now dont be so strict im not going to put stupid info and stop ruing everything i do and what others do and dont be so strict im not stupid. Please dont ruin what i always wanted to do. Thank you ALBA LUSHNJE (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ALBA LUSHNJE: It's not easy to understand what you're trying to say, but adding totally unsourced material, which is all you've been doing here, is not allowed (see WP:Verifiability, WP:Citing sources and WP:Reliable sources), and the 50,000 you have added as active personnel strength for Albania is a totally fake number, "sourced" only to an utterly unreliable fansite. So stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you but just to let you know ive done some edits and some research on things like how to check cite sources and ive done a couple of articles please if you dont mind please let me know if i did it good also i dont know a lot about how to use Wikipedia and im sorry for what ive done i hope you could let me know if im doing good im new here and learning from my mistakes before i was trying to say that people from Albania dont know what refrencing even is but anyways that from the heads up sorry and thank you. ALBA LUSHNJE (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_unsourced_material

[2] ttp://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-charity-says-one-of-its-dogs-died-in-stockholm-attack-1.3046550

[3] ttp://www.celticlurchers.com/aboutlurchers.htm

[1]

[1]

[2]