User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 9

Deleting Talk page discussion

Please don't delete Talk Page discussions as you did at University. It doesn't help anyone to censor discussion. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:E0E2:B78F:F573:E377 (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a talk page discussion I have deleted, as you very well know, but your repeated addition of an undiscussed "Use American English" tag. There's no established version of English used in the article, it's about a universal topic, and both UK English and American English have been used since the first real "non-stub" version of the article, with about equal share in the article for both varieties. Which means you can't decide that American English should be used throught the article without a prior discussion, and an established consensus for it. Thomas.W ^talk 08:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Wow, i was very confused about your post, and i now saw it, i was complete unaware of that revert, maybe it was by accident, sometime android press something instead of me! :/ Thank anyway Thomas! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Kavakdere

Hello Thomas. I just stumbled across this user. Seems you have had some encounters with him before. He won't last for long here if he ignores our warnings and continues with making such edits, but we should keep an eye on him. Not only is he trying to push Turkey into Europe, he's even fond of throwing it into Western Europe (LMAO), combined with often ridiculous edit summaries. Of course, all his edits regarding this idiotic and ungrounded agenda by him are all unsourced as a matter of fact, and simply a ridiculous agenda issue. Anyway, just wanted to tell you this quickly. Though his last edit of such sort has been of some "time" ago, I'm just leaving this here for the record. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dana Ewell

Re; 'Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dana Ewell, 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. Thomas.W talk 20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Dana Ewell. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for repeated addition of unsourced material, with deliberately misleading edit summary. Thomas.W talk 21:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)'

I have NO CLUE - WHO this person is, WHAT you're referring to ('unsourced material'? What are you talking about?) Before you even reply; NO ONE uses/has access to my computer, passwords. NO ONE - I say 'before', as a polite way of saying since I've no clue (nor interest, quite honestly, in either 'Dana Ewell', nor having you - a stranger - (try to) 'chastise' me - someone you know NOTHING of, and, since I do know there's no such thing as perfection, nor infallibility, pleaseItalic text - again, I'm politely saying, please; I've said all I have to, about this ...thing, and since I've read what you have to say, and I've said my (sole) reply, attempting to say anymore would only (1) be 'beating a dead horse', and (2) won't get read, nor replied to.

User:207.38.148.94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOwenNYC (talk • contribs)

• @UNOwenNYC: Maybe you're the same person as the IP, IDK, but the IP was warned since they added a bunch of unsourced material on a controversial article with edit summaries saying "Fixed grammar" and "Fixed typo" (#1, #2, #3), i.e. exactly what they were warned for... Thomas.W ^talk 08:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Darjeeling

Hello Thomas,

I edited the page on Darjeeling to show that Nepali was the predominant language in the town, not Bengali. I appreciate that you would care to call out someone for tinkering with the page but I know that my information is true, because I am a resident of Darjeeling myself.

Putting in Bengali before Nepali, or English, or Hindi would be very misleading and these other three languages are spoken by a far greater population in Darjeeling than Bengali. The one, and only, language that can truly be said to be of Darjeeling is Nepali. It is spoken by every person of every community with the District, for all formal and informal discourses. English, too, is spoken by almost everyone, with varying degrees of fluency depending on one's educational credentials. Most people also acquire a reasonable command over Hindi through their continual exposure to Hindi television, media, and cinema. Other than this, we have a large community of ethnic Tibetans who use Standard Tibetan to communicate among the people of their own community. On the contrary, Bengali happens to be spoken only by the people who frequent the nearby Bengali-speaking town of Siliguri on a regular basis, and this mostly includes just the taxi-drivers employed in the Darjeeling-Siliguri taxi syndicates.

Again, I know this for a fact only because I was born and raised there myself. I hope this rules out any probability of my actions being possible cases of vandalism in your view. As for the citations, I don't really have any sources to obtain them from only because I haven't bothered to look, but my conscience is at ease knowing that my 2 decades of living in my own ancestral hometown endows me with a fair sense of the linguistic situation there.

Nonetheless, thank you for your concern.

Regards, Ranzyor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabzyor (talk • contribs) 11:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

what is revdel?

Hey. Hi Thomas. Thanks for ur informed advices on editing wiki pages. Being new to this,i didnt exactly know the stringent copyright violation policy Wikipedia has complied to. As for the my verbatim copying in edits done by me in the page "economy of india" which u have reverted already,i didnt intend to infringe any copyrights in place per se,did not notice either if it was copyrighted material or not. Moreover i was not aware of the policy taken by wikipedia. I just thought the infomation apt as update and hence resorted to copy-pasting-wiki being nonprofit organisation,i wasnt really wary of this.will try to edit the same in my own words ofcourse,next time. I have only one query- u mentioned a particular word "revdel" to somebody while talking about my issue-what does that word mean? Also how does the wiki editors' hierarchy work? I have no idea,hence i'm asking u. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheadiya (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• ~@Rheadiya: "Revdel" means "revision delete" and makes those parts of an article's page history that have been revdeled visible only to administrators. Your edits were hidden since they were one massive copyright violation, and Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You can not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia, period, neither in whole nor in part, but must write in your own words. And repeated copyright violations will result in a block, just like the warning on your talk page says. As for hierarchy there is none, only different sets of tools, meaning that all editors are equal when editing (except for articles that have been protected, where a certain level of time and experience here is required before editing), but that certain things not directly related to editing articles can only be done by editors who have been trusted with the tools for it. Thomas.W ^talk

Ok

Aye, but the massacre was one part of the genocide, there have been more massacres. What do you think, Thomas? Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEleanor1 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheEleanor1: Discuss it on the talk page of the article, instead of repeatedly trying to sneak it into the text. If it's not recognised as genocide in multiple reliable sources it can't be added to the article, because starting to add massacres that don't fit the UN definition of "genocide", of which there are many throughout recent history, not just against Kurds, will devalue the word "genocide". It should be reserved for cases that clearly are (and also are commonly recognised as being) "true" genocides. Thomas.W ^talk 09:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

RE: Daniel of Galicia

I am sorry I annoyed you, I wasn't trying to push modern Ukrainian spellings onto the page. Rather, I was trying to put in the proper transliteration of Daniel's name from Old East Slavic. Sorry for the misunderstanding :)

I additionally apologize for getting back to you so late, I am also only on from time to time. Oh and thank you for showing me to the Common Name directory. I wasn't aware of it before.

Once again, I apologize for any misunderstanding :) I didn't mean to be disruptive, I was only intending to help.

-Danukski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danukski (talk • contribs) 02:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

ArabMuslim

Hello Thomas W , the page Naghar Pushtun Tribe I am removing is because it is not supported by references and 2nd thing its hand made, the page Naghar Pushtun Tribe has no refrences and is totally baseless , Naghars are Indian based Rajputs living in Rajistan Area, This Author is manipulating the facts and is distorting the history, I request you to remove the page and put a check on this user, I shall be keeping an eye on the page too, which should be removed as quick as possible, to make Wikipedia Reliable source to the world. I have little knowledge about removing the page so I request you to remove it , Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuslimArab (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@MuslimArab: it would be better for you to explain the existence of other articles better covering the topic (including links to them) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naghar (Pashtun tribe) where the article is being considered for deletion. MPS1992 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

AR-15

There's a question for you at talk:AR-15#Should section "Controversy due to use in mass shootings" be removed?. Please reply when you have a chance. Felsic2 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh?

Regarding "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Seasick Steve, you may be blocked from editing. Thomas.W talk 08:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)" what are you on about? Adding some well referenced information is no-one of the activities you are accusing me of. I am reverting to my edit and ignoring your accusations. The critic is mentioned, but the title of the book is not. If you think this is advertising then any reference to any paid for publication should be removed from all of wikipedia. As requested, TALK and do not simply revert. The biography is real, it is referenced, it just seems that a few people do not like to break the Omertà on Steve Leach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.33.106 (talk)

• You were warned because of your repeated attempts to plug a brand new non-notable biography by an equally non-notable author on Seasick Steve (see page history), just like HoboLow, who I believe is also you, was given a warning for the exact same thing by GiantSnowman after a complaint at WP:BLPN backfired yesterday. Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong, I am not the editor you refer to.

How is it possible that I am plugging a book that I do not mention? Please give me your answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.33.106 (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your very first edit very prominently mentioned both the book and the author, and was a direct continuation of HoboLow's edits, reverting an edit that removed content that HoboLow had added, your following edits have added material from the book linking to HoboLow's brand new article about the non-notable author (Matthew Wright (critic), which is now at AfD), and Special:Contributions/109.155.33.91, an IP in the same IP-subnet as your current IP, also tag-teamed with HoboLow, adding material about the author on Seasick Steve, a couple of days ago. So both the promotion and the connection between you and HoboLow is obvious. Thomas.W ^talk 10:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you being paid by Steve Leach? Everything you say is contrived and is a bit like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material Your connections are just made up. I could very easily say you are tag-team reverting with McGeddon and GiantSnowman and it seems that you are all paid by Steve Leach to revert anything that is against the hobo omertà. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.33.106 (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You're free to say and think whatever you want, but silly posts like the ones you've made here aren't going to change anything. I don't give the proverbial rat's hindquarters about Seasick Steve's "omerta", as you put it, but I very much dislike people who try to use Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, especially when it's done in a way that shows that they think they're smarter than everyone else, and that people on en-WP are easily fooled. Well, we're not, which is why you have been given a formal (level-3) warning for trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, both as your current IP (by me) and as HoboLow (by GiantSnowman), and have also been given an edit-warring warning, for edit-warring to get promotional material into Seasick Steve, as your current IP (by McGeddon). Three warnings by three different users, who all saw your edits for what they are, i.e. blatant promotion for a non-notable book by a non-notable author. So stop, or you will most likely find yourself blocked. Thomas.W ^talk 15:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

assault rifle/stg-44

The StG-44 may have been the first rifle called "sturmgewehr", but it was just a minor refinement of the haenel mk42. Not to mention that walther iirc was developing rifles along the same line years earlier and the vollmer m35 dates to the mid 1930s. And it wasn't just in germany. There was the winchester 1907, and "The research led to an article published in the NRA Journal for the American Arms Collector, Man at Arms, (Vol. 13, No. 1, January/February 1991), titled The Burton Balloon Buster by William B. Edwards. Mr. Edwards emphatically asserted that this was indeed the first true assault rifle; developed in 1917. The father of this remarkable weapon was none other than Frank B. Burton, the noted engineer who worked with John Browning on the first BAR." How can you argue that the StG-44 was the first assault rifle, or that there is a consensus in the firearm community that the StG-44 was the first assault rifle?TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't discuss it here, discuss it on the talk page of the article, and get support for your changes there, before making controversial changes. Instead of, as you're doing now, making controversial changes (on multiple articles, judging by your contributions...) that are repeatedly being reverted by other editors. Thomas.W ^talk 10:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Car classification

Nissan Maxima wasn't engineered to be a full size sedan, instead it was intended to be an upscale alternative to Altima. It doesn't represent a larger sedan in the US. Toyota Avalon was more engineered to be a larger sedan slightly smaller than the traditional full size sedan ( Chevrolet Impala as example ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.177.139 (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Lincoln Town Car is presenting another form of grand saloon and it was under presented. And it's still dominating the usage for the full size luxury sedan in the US/Canada, and if you live in the Europe it may be hard to understand. Lexus LS is over presented on the other hand, as only the first generation of LS was truly popular.

Also, presenting an older vehicle in the examples is still proper, as in the case of MG Magnette ( or Rover 75 ) when no successor is manufactured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.177.139 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, unregistered editor. Thomas.W is very busy so may not be able to reply to these points for a while. Maybe you should make these points on the talk pages of the articles concerned, and argue your concern there? MPS1992 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Maharana Pratap

Dear user, This is regarding the changes to the article Maharana Pratap. I have noticed that under the section of Battle of Haldighati, the last two lines are completely incorrect. I am new to this and so I don't know how to edit it while citing the sources. I have been trying to make the changes everytime but have been unsuccessful. Please guide me that how should I cite the sources as it is intolerable to me when I see wrong things written about Maharana Pratap. Please guide me with the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhartha.Dwivedi (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Gilgit-Baltistan

Hi i have issues with this part as i belong to this region and although the only right violation is that we are not allowed to vote in national assembly in pakistan but these lines are written by indian people that suits their objectives. We are not tribal people, its regarding fata region of pakistan. Please let me remove this part which gives a wrong depiction of my area. We are not living in indian kashmir, we ourself fought for our independance and then joined pakistan. I am not sure an indian editor edited all this and wrote everything to his own choice. Thankyou Saladin1987 21:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""From then until 1990s, Gilgit-Baltistan was governed through the colonial-era Frontier Crimes Regulations, which treated tribal people as "barbaric and uncivilised," levying collective fines and punishments. People had no right to legal representation or a right to appeal. Members of tribes had to obtain prior permission from the police to travel to any location and had to keep the police informed about their movements.""

You can have a look at the article , i have made sure that i have added references to what i have written. This is just the other information makes a person think that we gilgit baltistanis are living in hell. We are not thats why i just added more information to the article. Thankyou

Also can you please have a look at the reference for this quote.

Alam replied [to the locals],: `you are a crowd of fools led astray by a madman. I shall not tolerate this nonsense for one instance... And when the Indian Army starts invading you there will be no use screaming to Pakistan for help, because you won't get it.'... The provisional government faded away after this encounter with Alam Khan...

I cant seem to find any reference for this and non referenced quotes should be removed i believe. I would appreciate your help in this regardsSaladin1987 21:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Saladin1987 has just been topic banned for six months for a long history of nationalistic POV... Thomas.W ^talk 11:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a pity. I thought he raised valid concerns. But, instead of discussing properly, he bulldozed himself to a ban. The quotation above is from William Brown's memoires, which was quoted in Bangash's journal article. I will try adding some more material from Bangash to soften its impact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi.!

I am that user whose edits you reverted on Ritz (Splash) I have added reference too you may check it. Regards Sir. Kottayam.Fr (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Thomas.W. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs)

• See Talk:Assault rifle#POV discussion. Thomas.W ^talk 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Assault rifle". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 July 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• A request that was quickly rejected by the Mediation Committee... Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hindi language speakers

This isn't the proper place for content disputes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We don't have language speakers' numbers of 2011 Census. So, 2001 Census have latest figures. Although Hindi language group has more than 422 million speakers comprising all its 50 dialects including Standard Hindi, only standard Hindi speakers are 257,919,635. ( mentioned in 18 number Hindi dialect (Hindi itself) in the beginning of right two columns of table in the following source: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.aspx I don't understand what is the problem with these official figures. Vibhss (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Discuss it on the talk page of the article, not here, and get support for your edit there, before making the changes again. Thomas.W talk 19:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Why discuss it on talk page of article ? Why don't you explain reason of reverting my edits ? If we have 2001 census figures for Hindi and its dialects' speakers, why use the 1991 figures which are not even accessible through their source ? Aren't these outdated. Surely 2001 figures would have greater number of speakers than 1991. You people bully editors like us even when we justify our edits with good source. Once again I am explainig: The source mentions two tables. The first table of four columns mentions 22 scheduled languages. Hindi group is mentioned at sixth number with its 50 dialects. Dialects are alphabetically arranged starting with Awadhi in left two columns which end with 12th dialect Churaha. The 13th dialect Dhudhari and subsequent ones are mentioned from top of right two columns of first table. Hindi is mentioned at 18th after Haryanavi. Please see it sir and explain where I am wrong. I can't discuss this issue on talk page of Hindi because I don't hope I will get answer or consensus of other users there. Please explain, what is wrong in the source. I will not disturb the article but please explain. Besides, what do you mean by "liberal" Hindi of Census. The Census has mentioned every dialect of Hindi and main Hindi with their speakers and GROUPED them all under Hindi group. Please tell me what is wrong in my edits ? Vibhss (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) This topic must be discussed here I have already posted my views on the talk page of Hindi. I know there will be no answers to my genuine question. But please explain why you reverted my edits. I have given official Census figures. Why do I need a permission for posting them again ? Please assist. You reverted my edit. So, I am asking you the reason. Instead of giving reason, you are directing me to the talk page of article. If I am giving genuine sources, what is the problem you have with them ? Are they contradicting anything or are they violating any Wikipedia policy ? Even if you are an administrator, you are not supposed to harass other editors (not their edits unless they are destructive). I have always made worthy contributions to Wikipedia. I just want to know the reason of reversion of my edits. You reverted me, so, you must give reason. What problems do my source present ? Source:http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.aspx (Hindi mentioned as 18 number dialect of Hindi Language in right two columns after Haryanavi) Please help me. Vibhss (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vibhss: The proper place for discussing article content is the talk page of the article in question, where other readers can see it, and join the discussion, not my user talk page. Period. You made a bold edit, but were reverted, so now discuss it on the talk page of the article, and get support from other editors there (see WP:BRD). Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Request

Please just explain the cause for which you reverted my edit. What is wrong with Census figures. I have given all details to you and instead of guiding me, you are avoiding my questions. Today one thing is clear to me: even if your edit is good and adequately sourced, still it is liable to be reverted for no cause. I mentioned it earlier also, I will not get any response on the talk page of article Hindi. Why don't you yourself place your stand of disagreeing with Census figures on that talk page. Why don't you explain the reason ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibhss (talk • contribs)

@Vibhss: This is a link to an archived previous discussion, and this discussion is also related to the changes you have repeatedly tried to make. In short you were reverted because the article is about Modern Standard Hindi only, not about anything and everything that is loosely referred to as Hindi, while the census figures lump a whole family of languages together, and call it Hindi. You and many others may regard them as just dialects of a single language, but linguists regard them as separate languages, and so do we. Thomas.W ^talk 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A correction

The Hindi family of languages has a member called "Standard Hindi" referred to as simply Hindi by census at number 18 dialect in right two columns (starting with Dhundhari at 13).

I was not referring to Hindi languages group for I know that there are 422 million speakers of Hindi group (2001 census). But as I showed in my source that this 422 million group is divided into 50 dialects speakers. Of these 50, Modern Standard Hindi is lingua franca or most widely spoken dialect with 257 million speakers. Sir please see the column names of first table in my source. It is referred to as "Languages and mother tongues under them". Of the 257 million figure, all speak Hindi as their mother tongue. Don't take me wrong. Is it that you are confused in 422 million overall figures and 257 "only Hindi" figures. Did you check right two columns starting with 13 number Dhundhari dialect and heading to 18 number Hindi. You can see it has largest speakers among all Hindi dialects.

Besides, "Modern Standard Hindi" is simply referred as Hindi. (also indicated by name of wiki article of Hindi) It excludes all other dialects. It is not referring to anything loosely called as Hindi. In fact, 18 number Hindi row refers to only "Modern Standard Hindi". All other dialects of Hindi group with strength more than 100,000 are mentioned separately and those which have strength less than 100,000 are collectively included in " Others" dialect at number 50 which have 14,777,266 speakers. So, Hindi row speakers (257,919,635) refer to "Standard Hindi Speakers" and does not include any other dialect speakers. Only that was what I wanted to stress. Check it yourself. Yes, Census of India places the speakers of all 50 dialects (including Standard Hindi) under one group of Hindi languages which make population of over 422 million. Among these 422 million, 257 million are clearly Standard Hindi speakers. Also the discussion you lead me to is not stating anything in relation to speakers but all in relation to names. Please do reply. Vibhss (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Please notify me after reading this message. I think I have cleared up your misunderstanding. Please let me know this. Respond to my message for I have cleared everything before you. Vibhss (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Felsic2 (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The only one who is making it difficult for other editors is you, because of your tendentious editing, and refusing to accept that you have no support from other editors for your edits... Thomas.W ^talk 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W deleting inputs without checking the information

You have deleted my inputs in couple articles without checking the information I provided and without any valid arguments. In last case with the article concerning Olaf II of Norway I had three different sources validating the information and you deleted it. You have to check the sources first and start a conversation about them, if you feel that they are not sufficient. You DON`T delete the information without any grounds and without checking the sources. Thank you.--Velivieras (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I will, even though it will be difficult to get hold of the book, as always when you're involved... Thomas.W ^talk 18:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of casual readers I would like to point out that what Velivieras says above isn't true. The edits I reverted were POV and sourced to dubious non-RS sources and/or sources that are very difficult to check. The articles targeted, the edits, the edit summaries, the sources and the general behaviour of Velivieras also give a very strong indication that it's not a new user, but the user I tagged Velivieras as being suspected of being a sock of, just to see what the reaction would be. But there was no reaction, they just accepted it. They're getting bolder now, though, as can be seen here, just to see how far they can push it. Thomas.W ^talk 12:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted unsourced material and you demand sources to do that. Well, the sources can be found on the Talk-page of the article. What is a POV? You keep posting that all over wikipedia.--Velivieras (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a comment on Talk:Sweden about the systematic use of hard-to-verify sources, and that the changes in that article shouldn't be made until other editors have had a chance to get hold of, and examine/verify, the sources used. As for "POV" I'm sure you're very familiar with what that acronym stands for. Thomas.W ^talk 12:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I only use academic studies as a source. Not shady websites etc. Eventough academic studies seems hard for you to verify, it cannot be a reason to continuosly delete my add-ons which are only based on the best information availible. And I really don`t know what POV means. Honestly, this is getting quite wierd. --Velivieras (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen far too many cases of academic studies being misused on Wikipedia, through both misquoting, selective quoting and straight out falsification of what they say, including lots of such cases on articles relating to Fennoscandia, which since your claims seem to be contrary to current (mainstream) historical research is why I want a chance to check the sources. And per WP:BRD being reverted means that you should discuss, and get support for, the edits that are reverted, before making them again, not repeatedly making them in spite of being reverted, as you do. You have made a claim and I have commented on the talk page of the article, so now it's up to other editors to also comment, and either support the edits or not. Thomas.W ^talk 16:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Check the sources first and comment or delete the inputs then if you have a case. So far you have not had any. You have just deleted additions arbitary. You have to proof that there is unrealible information in my additions, not the other way around. Other editors can comment here, if they have noticed Thomas.W to act similary also in other cases. --Velivieras (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No, it is actually the other way around. The burden of proof lies on the editor who wishes to add or change information, and if an edit is reverted with a valid reason (i.e., not by some random act of vandalism), there has to be a discussion and consensus on the article's talk page before it is restored. Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy and should always be followed on Wikipedia. Discuss the sources and your proposed changes on the article's talk page, where other editors can get involved in the discussion; taking a content discussion to a user talk page is not always a good idea because it means fewer people will see it. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

1) Good quality academic sources were provided 2) No valid reason was presented, only incapability to access them. It doesn`t sound rational for Wikipedia that ones incapability to access open sources, which are hopefully availible in nearest libary, is a valid reason to delete inputs. I have now provided more sources for my inputs and I hope this is enough for you both. I respect Thomas.W`s efforts to get to the sources I provided and I hope they clarify his views also. --Velivieras (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD makes no difference between what you claim are "good quality sources" and other sources, nor does it say anything about "valid reasosn", all it says is that bold edits that are challenged and reverted should be discussed on the talk page, and be supported by others, before being made again. Thomas.W ^talk 08:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions is a form of personal attack. Here is one of the ArbCom's formulations:

• An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

You have made repeated accusations of bad behavior on my part, in pages that are supposed to be devoted to content discussions.[1][2][3][4][5][6] If you believe I'm violating behavioral policies then please use an appropriate dispute resolation forum instead of just spreading the accusations across many pages.

Regarding one of your accusations: You say that I'm engaged in "endless forum shopping". Regarding the SIG MCX article, I've only taken it to two forums: DRN and Mediation. I'm following the steps outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. Let me know if there's a better way for me to work with you to discuss this and achieve consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mediation

I've requested mediation for SIG MCX. The behavior issues were addressed at WP:AE, summarized here: [7]. Perhaps now we can deal with the content dispute. The formal request should come after it's assigned to a volunteer. I hope you'll participate, or at least agree to abide by the outcome. Felsic2 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SIG MCX". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 August 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning SIG MCX, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

TeeTylerToe

RE: Assault rifle page edits. I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll. His talk page edits follow the profile. He asks questions for which the answers are obvious. He asks multiple often repetitive question. He refuses to listen to the answers. He demands to know who decides which answers are correct, then repeats the questions. He provides nonsense examples and long draw-out often rambling comments, including 10 or more questions. He has done this not only on the Assault rifle talk page but every talk page that he edits. Now, I have added a "Do Not Feed the Trolls" gif to the Assault rifle talk page. Is there anything else we can do?--RAF910 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The following is TeeTylerToe block log and it should be noted that he was indefinitely blocked and that block was lifted when User:Hasteur agreed to mentor him. Said user has recently retired and is therefore no longer mentoring him. This may explain his refusal to listen to other editors and his insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps it would be best to reinstate the block and be done with it.

Please See this acceptance of conditions Mentorship Proposal section at the bottom, which I believe he is currently violating.

08:33, 10 January 2013 Bjelleklang (talk | contribs) unblocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) (User has agreed to be mentored by User:Hasteur. See this acceptance of conditions and debate [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#TeeTylerToe...)

21:54, 19 September 2012 Foxj (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Allowing talkpage access for another unblock appeal given UTRS is a bit iffy and user seems apologetic on IRC)

10:09, 30 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Edit warring continuing to abuse other editors while blocked)

09:48, 30 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Edit warring abusing editors while blocked\)

08:31, 28 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) blocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

18:05, 24 July 2012 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) blocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: Sikorsky S-76)

--RAF910 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• @RAF910: You could take it to WP:ANI if you wish, since it was made in connection to a discussion there. Make sure you link to the previous discussion. Thomas.W ^talk 15:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have asked User:Materialscientist to look into TTT. If you would like to commment, please do so--RAF910 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Judging by TTT most recent talk page comments and the fact that he had his TPA blocked as well. I can guarantee that his first edit coming off the block will be to file an ANI against us and for meat-puppetry. I left a note on Skyring talk page as well. As Pete is still hopeful that "people change in their habits and behaviour".--RAF910 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@RAF910: I don't think TTT will change, and would welcome an ANI-complaint since it's sure to backfire, most likely resulting in a quick WP:BOOMERANG. So don't worry about it, but keep an eye on new user accounts and IPs that show up out of the blue on TTT's favourite articles, and give me a ping if you see any newcomers with the same editing style as TTT... Thomas.W ^talk 21:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do...Thank You.--RAF910 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

-- Frivolous DS-notice removed --

- Thomas.w I assume you're well aware of this, since you posted it on my user talk page. But perhaps you haven't read it fully. Felsic2 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2: Unlike you I haven't edited articles under discretionary sanctions, i. e. "pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues", only articles about guns, which are not under discretionary sanctions. Thomas.W ^talk 07:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Casting aspersions is a form of personal attack, no matter the topic under discussion. Now that I've brought this to your attention and asked you to stop I expect it won't happen again.

I can't claim to know exactly what "broadly construed" means in practice, but I do see that ealier this year the discretionary sanctions were applied to an editor because of his work on AR-15. Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2: "Broadly construed" means among other things that discretionary sanctions can be applied also for discussing gun control and related people and organisations on all other pages here, including both the user pages of other editors and an editor's own user pages, including sandbox and drafts. As for your repeated claim about "casting aspersions" I suggest you take a look at WP:Casting aspersions, where it says "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause". Which means that commenting on another editor's editing isn't a sanctionable personal attack if an editor's contributions clearly show that all they do here is making POV edits promoting a certain view. And your editing, moving from gun article to gun article to try to get negative material into them by posting walls of text to wear down all resistance, and a total refusal to accept that other editors don't share your views, coupled with at least some of your edits on articles that clearly fall under gun control discretionary sanctions is a perfectly valid reason for questioning your motives for being here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

We can question each other's motives all we like, but only in the proper forums please. Talk pages of articles aren't the proper forums. There's common phrase: "comment on the content, not the contributor".

I see you think I'm wrong about you casting aspersions, about that being a personal attack, and about the application of discretionary sanctions to the talk pages where we've interacted. If it comes up again I will refer the matter to WP:Arbitration enforcement and let the admins over there decide. But I'd much rather that you either drop the allegations or at least stop making them on article talk pages. Felsic2 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And I suggest you start doing what we're supposed to be doing here, i.e. edit from a neutral point of view and respect the opinions of other editors. I also suggest you stop trying to intimidate other editors by threatening to take them to Arbcom, or whatever... Thomas.W ^talk

I am not trying to intimidate you. I'm just trying to get you to stop casting aspersions against me on article talk pages.

I do respect the opinions of other editors. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them or ignore deficient articles. No editor is neutral - we all have biases. Let's work together to get consensus that results in NPOV articles. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir/Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir

What I did was not (at all) vandalism, the area which is listed as Azad Kashmir on Wikipedia is actually known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). A quick Google search might help. Also move the article back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.vivek0305 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Making an undiscussed move of Azad Kashmir, an article with a long history of POV vandalism, to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, the name that multiple editors, primarily IPs, repeatedly try to change every mention of Azad Kashmir in the article to, is POV vandalism. Thomas.W ^talk 07:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.vivek0305: This edit, made after posting the message above, does not send good signals. Please read up WP:NPOV and also acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's arbitrary sanctions on India-Pakistan topics. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mar4d: It's a disputed territory, if you can't call it PoK than you can't name it Azad Kashmir either. I see this user (User:Mar4d) who has heavily vandalised the article but it's a shame for Wikipedia that it couldn't recognize this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.vivek0305 (talk • contribs)

@Mr.vivek0305: The territorial dispute is mentioned in the lead paragraph at Azad Kashmir in accordance with WP:NPOV, the same way it is on Jammu and Kashmir too. Jammu and Kashmir is also known as Indian-occupied Kashmir. However, we use the official names per WP:NPOV which are Azad Kashmir and Jammu Kashmir, not PoK or IoK. Mar4d (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mr.vivek0305 is well aware of the discretionary sanctions that apply to all pages related to India-Pakistan since they were given a discretionary sanctions alert by Kautilya3 almost a year ago. Thomas.W ^talk 08:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mar4d: @Thomas.W: My sincere apologies for my remarks, I thank both of you for explaining me the reason behind why that article shouldn't be named as 'PoK', I agree with Mar4d 's point and I comprehend it. Will take care of it in the future, sorry again. Mr.vivek0305 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2016 (IST)

@Mr.vivek0305: No worries. Glad to hear that makes sense. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.vivek0305: Apology accepted. Editing in contentious areas here is a balancing act along the narrow line right in the middle of no-mans-land that says "Neutral point-of-view", one small step away from that narrow line, in either direction, and all hell breaks loose. Thomas.W ^talk 17:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

High-speed rail in India

Excuse me sir, I onky updated year from 2015 to 2016. The train is introduced. I changed from future tense to present tense. Also users have provided sufficient links. The information in the already mentioned links has been updated. I relayed them here. That's it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shine47 (talk • contribs)

• It took me a couple of minutes to figure out what you were talking about, but it's apparently the edits of yours on High-speed rail in India that I reverted a month and a half ago, edits that did more than what you say above since you also increased the average speed of the train and claimed that it reached a top speed of 160 kmh, and that I would revert again if you make them again since neither the average speed nor the claim about having reached 160 kmh is supported by the sources in the article. So if you want to make the edits again you must provide new references/sources that support your changes... Thomas.W ^talk 17:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Saudi economy

Saudi economy growth is growing every half year 50% Derek Deso (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Derek Deso: The edits I reverted have nothing to do with that, it's an IP-hopping vandal in Austria that I'm reverting (making edits such as just switching the names of two countries in a list, and changing data to random numbers...). Thomas.W ^talk 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal Analysis

Fair enough, just bear in mind that tha article in itself citing Macedonia as a country not internationally sanctioned to be called like so, is tantamount to siding with one party in the dispute. Maybe that ought be raised for all F.Y.R.o.M articles.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.12.111 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Preserve rather than revert

WP:BRD:

• Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. Reversion should be a last choice in editing: the first choice in editing should always be to improve an article by refinement, not to revert changes by other editors. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).

WP:PRESERVE

• Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it).

Thomas.W, you have been reverting my contributions a lot. And you've threatened to revert more. You've intimated that I need to get your consent to add content to articles. This all makes for a very inhospitable editing atmosphere. I'm requestig that you refrain from instantly reverting every edit you disagree with. Unless the edit does harm to the project, please leave it. Or improve it. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2: I have reverted very few of your edits, and never without a good reason for it, and the reasons for reverting the edits of yours that I have reverted on SIG MCX are: the first two were reverted because your edits weren't in any way supported by the sources, but badly distorted what the sources said, as can be seen in the discussion that followed on the talk page, and the latest edit I reverted doesn't belong in the article, and most of all not in the lead, since it's trivia, and written in your typical tendentious style, emphasising that marketing videos on You-tube had "a battlefield style" etc. So what? U S Armed Forces active duty soldiers can, or at least could a year or two ago when I last checked, buy rifles etc themselves and then use them in the field, so of course part of the marketing will be aimed at them. And that goes for all U S manufacturers of "AR-style" rifles, not just the MCX that you have decided to target because of its use in Orlando. Thomas.W ^talk 20:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek wrote a whole article on the MCX. I distilled what seemed to be the main points. You haven't disputed that it's a correct summary. You simply say it "doesn't belong". That's the same as saying "I don't like it". That's not a valid reason for reverting/deleting. If you don't like the location of the material then move it to a better location. Felsic2 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, Newsweek did not "write a whole article on the MCX", even that claim of yours is false, they wrote an article that is 95% about SIG Sauer and the gun industry in general and 5% about Omar Mateen, with the MCX playing only a very minor role in it. As I pointed out to you on the talk page of the article after reverting your edit claiming that "the MCX saved SIG Sauer from bankruptcy", a claim that is patently false (as can be seen in the discussion on the talk page). Thomas.W ^talk 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's a reliable source for the material I added. You seem to call anythig you don't like "trivia".[8] Why is this material so offensive to you that is has to be removed immediately? The article isn't overly long - just the opposite. The material isn't libellous or off-topic. I wish you'd be more tolerant of material you don't like. Felsic2 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black. You're the one who's doing the tendentious editing, not me. And "be that as it may" isn't a good enough answer when being called out for making false claims. Thomas.W ^talk 20:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any policy-based reason for deleting the sourced material? If so, please quote it on the talk page. "Trivia" doesn't count. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have had a long time the same issue with Thomas.W in many articles. He doesn`t bother to check your sources or the issue at hand at all. He only reverts. I don`t know if he is creating any content to Wikipedia or just harassing writers.--Velivieras (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a load of BS, and you know it. I revert you because you're a POV-pusher, just like Felsic2, only in a totally different subject area. Thomas.W ^talk 10:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop reverting articles, as you did to Tavastians, Baltic Finns, Bjarmaland etc. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on Revert only when necessary. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Velivieras (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Velivieras: No it doesn't, it's your persistent addition of unsourced and/or insufficiently sourced content that contravenes Wikipedia policy. WP:Verifiablity is a Wikipedia policy, and WP:Reliable sources is a content guideline, with status very close to being policy, whereas Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary is an essay, i.e. the personal opinion of one or more editors, and just a suggestion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I really can`t tell are you serious or not, because like you well remember when sources have been provided it hasn`t keep you from reverting articles. I have also noticed that you are constantly reverting articles in very different fields and arguing with other writers all the time because of your disruptive behaviour which in many cases can been seen as vandalism.--Velivieras (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Velivieras: I revert POV-pushers all over the place, in many different subject areas, a "job" that unfortunately is needed here, and most definitely isn't "disruptive", but necessary if we want to preserve the credibility of the encyclopaedia. And keeping POV-pushers at bay requires a lot of fact checking, i.e. checking sources provided (if any, some editors, like you, don't add any sources at all, but just claim that it's "common knowledge" and/or there's an article about it on another Wikipedia...) to see if the sources say what the other editor claims they say, which they very often don't. I haven't yet had a chance to check the sources for the edits you made a while back, BTW, I have both of the books now but it's 750 pages to go through, a job made more difficult by your refusal to provide page numbers with your citations... Thomas.W ^talk 12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have checked your contributions and I do respect your work for the quality of Wikipedia. I`ll come back to the Tavastians article with sources later on. Good to hear that you have the books. P.S. the page numbers can be found probably in all my citations concerning the "Viking age in Finland".--Velivieras (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Mediation request question

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On your reject vote on Felsic2's request for mediation regarding the SIG MCX discussion, you accused them of "endless forumshopping." But in the guide to requests for mediation, under the "Rejected requests" section, it clearly says that if the request gets rejected, "you will have to use another method of dispute resolution." Isn't that plainly ordering people to forumshop? RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC) @RunnyAmiga: I wasn't talking about what happens after this, I was talking about what happened before this. And the forum shopping referred to is starting the exact same discussion about edits of the exact same type on multiple articles, see Talk:AR-15, Talk:SIG MCX and Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 (in spite of being told both that there already are guidelines regarding criminal use sections on WP:WikiProject Firearms, and that it's the proper place to start discussions about changes that would affect many articles), posting endless walls of text everywhere in an attempt to wear down all resistance, going to DRN [9] to try to push their edits through, going to RSN [10] and asking about the reliability of a source and then claiming that RSN had approved the edit they made, i.e. the wording of it (see edit summary, also see the discussion that followed, which showed that his edit wasn't in any way supported by the source), when the discussion at RSN was only about whether the website that was used as source (Newsweek) is seen as reliable or not. And that's this particular discussion only, but Felsic is doing the same also on other articles, and is gearing up for more, because he's now hitting just about every article there is about AR-15-type rifles, plus many more. So several other editors, including me, feel that taking part in his silly games on article talk pages and noticeboards all over the place is just a waste of time, because Felsic2 never takes no for an answer, never respects the opinions of others and brings up the exact same questions over and over again if the answers he gets aren't to his liking (see WP:IDHT). Thomas.W talk 16:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Let me establish that I agree that Felsic2's behavior is wrong. Where, exactly, you might have gotten the impression that I'm not aware of it I'm not sure; maybe I should be pushing back against it more than I have. That said, I've been constantly harping on the fact that bright-line policy violations have been the norm all along. Are you aware that no matter what, it is against policy to do what you just did right here where you called Felsic2's behavior "silly games" and "a waste of time"? You are frustrated. You are worried about the damage you believe these sorts of edits will do to content. You want Felsic2 to drop the stick. You could even argue that Felsic2 is also violating it by apparently not reacting to what you've been saying. None of these facts mitigate anything. You have violated an ironclad policy repeatedly, possibly more than everybody else in this discussion combined. Whether you're talking to Jimmy Wales, a Nazi vandal, or anybody in between, it is against policy to make remarks like this, full stop. That was the primary reason I initially accepted the request: because there's no restraint on any participants, most high-input editors on this have seen fit to flat-out ignore policy and/or guidelines and/or each other, preferring to just fling bombs. A resolution via mediation would have provided such a restraint and no matter what Felsic2 believes, they would not have been allowed to continue the behavior you find problematic if the mediation were resolved in your favor, which I'm pretty sure it would have been. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) @RunnyAmiga: Calling things silly games and a waste of time is not "policy violations", nor is saying that someone is engaging in tendentious editing or is pushing POV a personal attack if evidence can be produced to support the claim (see WP:NPA: a personal attack is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" (my emphasis)). And in this case it would be easy to provide diffs for both tendentious editing and WP:IDHT. Thomas.W talk 17:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC) If you have evidence backing up your accusation of "silly games," I haven't seen it and believe me, I've slogged through the mire on Talk:SIG MCX. You'd need proof that Felsic2 is acting in bad faith. But if they're acting in what they believe is the best interests of the encyclopedia, it's literally not possible for the diffs you have to constitute proof of a bad-faith actor. A bad editor? Now, that's a point I'd be willing to argue since again, you're right: Felsic2 needs to be restrained somehow from picking unwinnable fights. A deliberately bad editor? Give me the diffs that prove they're here because they want to do damage. And on its face, calling all of this "a waste of time" is false. Consensus has been permanently lodged in your favor for weeks now. You're doing this back-and-forth entirely voluntarily. Not one letter of text on the actual articles would be different if you hadn't engaged at all outside of periodic efforts to remind everybody that consensus is in favor of keeping criminal use off of firearms' articles. If it's a waste of time, you're doing it to yourself and you can stop interacting on a dead-end fight whenever you want. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC) @RunnyAmiga: I'm not doing any back-and-forth here, it's been more than a month since I edited Talk:AR-15 last, and the edits I've made on SIG MCX lately were reverts of unconstructive edits (including edits that weren't supported by the sources provided) made by Felsic2 on the article, and posts on the talk page explaining why the edits were reverted, and what the sources really said compared to what Felsic2's edits said. It's also about far more than just criminal use of firearms, even though that's what started it, so I suggest you read up a bit, starting with Talk:SIG MCX, before trying to lecture anyone... Thomas.W talk 19:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Of course you're not interested in a "back-and-forth" because unlike the fight on that talk page, you're flat-out wrong and would rather disengage than admit to blatantly violating policy dozens of times and/or admit you've spent weeks beating a dead horse. That would be a resolution and not one person involved in this has worked towards a resolution except me. Also: please re-read my comment, specifically the part where I said "I've slogged through the mire on Talk:SIG MCX." The core issue is, was, and always will be whether or not to mention firearms' criminal use on their articles, and your suggestion that I "read up a bit, starting with Talk:SIG MCX" made no sense in light of the fact that, as you knew, I've already read that page. So please strike everything between "It's also about far more" and your sig because every word of it was wrong and, to be honest, kind of strange. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Was there anything else you wanted, other than making wrong accusations about policy violations and generally trying to talk down to me? If not, I suggest you find another page to post on, because I have more important things to do than this. Thomas.W talk 20:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The very first Vikings

Do you really concider the first ever Vikings were born by the end of the 8th century ? Or i.o.w. when the first raid on Great Britain (the island) began. And Scandinavian history (often done and written by modern British or Americand when it comes to the Vikings) must not be told ? And besides Denmark and Norway existed before Sweden. The Svear had a king, and there were other Kings in Götaland, first in Scandinavian Middle Ages does Sweden appear. Boeing720 (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Boeing720: The attack on Lindisfarne in 793CE is commonly regarded as the start of the Viking Age, so whatever happened before that has nothing to do with "Vikings". There are lots of articles about pre-Viking Age Scandinavian history and pre-Viking Age Scandinavian peoples, so why don't you look around, read those articles and see what's in them, before repeatedly trying to add irrelevant stuff to articles about a time period that by definition is limited to ~800-1050/1150CE?

Request to Undo the Deleted link

Dear Thomas.W, I just added a very well explained article external link which I found on google, but unfortunately, it got deleted by you and marked as spam. I think the article I added was well explained and it must be on that Indian_Railway_Catering_and_Tourism_Corporation Page.

It will be helpful for the Indians to know about the steps to book the very first ticket from Railway website by themselves.

Please reply back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.149.228.200 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's a link to a non-official website that is being regularly spammed on multiple pages here, and will not be restored. Continued spamming will most probably also result in the website being blacklisted, and through that penalised by search engines. Thomas.W ^talk 11:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not know about other pages but the given information is really helpful. I have seen that many of the Nonofficial websites are also included in the external link because they are having very good info about the same topics wiki has written.

Giving the correct information should not be treated as SPAM. You just visit by yourself that URL I added and reply me back if it is not helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.149.228.200 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you and/or others see it as helpful or not, it's a non-official website that is trying to get a better ranking in search engines, i.e. get closer to the top in searches, by having throw-away IPs regularly add links to it on multiple articles on Wikipedia, just like thousands of other websites do, including a couple of other sites in India that have the exact same type of material as your site does. Behaviour that by our definition is spamming. Thomas.W ^talk 12:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

All the links are No-Follow as i know. and i am not the Site Owner i just found it from google and added in the wiki that's it! Requesting you to add it back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.149.228.200 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your request is no, and if I see it being added again I will report it to the blacklist. Thomas.W ^talk 12:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

problems

I posted a tiny number of one editor's problematic edits at the talk page of an administrator who had specifically warned that editor very recently. If you know of another person to contact, please do so, but I am about fed up with that particular editor's rants and accusations that I have Alzheimers etc. or that you are specifically anti-gay. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: I know who you mean, and I'm fed up with that editor's behaviour too, so I'll see what I can do. Thomas.W ^talk 14:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Assault rifle Comment

Hello Thomas.W I entered the discussion in the article. You wrote comments in my talk page. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced material

I don't understand why you restore unsourced material.[11]Please use the article talk page, Talk:AR-15#Cartridge_Section, to explain. Felsic2 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Those cartridges exist, the articles just haven't been written yet. As you would have known if you had known anything about the subjects you've chosen to meddle with. Thomas.W ^talk 19:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Billions of things exist. However on Wikipedia, we need to have sources. Also, we don't usually include lists of non-notable entries. Please add sources for the material or I'll delete it again, consistent with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:V: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Felsic2 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:Verifiability and your advice, which would no doubt be of benefit for a new user, but I have had this account since 2006, have made ~38,000 edits, check sources every day and know the rules better than most. I also know what the established practice here is, unlike you obviously, so I need neither your advice nor your links. Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so please use the article talk page, in the existing thread, to say why you're restoring unsourced material. Felsic2 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:GUNCRIME

On User talk:CuriousMind01 you seemed to express a wish to edit the WP:GUNCRIME page I wrote. Have you read it? It is mostly a list of arguments made to oppose the inclusion of notable crimes in firearms articles, and rebuttals to them. Are there any arguments I've left out, or rebuttals which are inadequate? If so, let me know so we can improve it. You're help would be appreciated. Felsic2 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no desire to edit it, but others might want to if they knew that it exists. Which is why I dislike having potentially controversial essays hidden away on user pages, especially when their owners bring them up, and post links to them, in discussions, as you have done more than once, without telling others that it's just the owner's own personal opinions. As for the essay itself, it's 5% about why crimes committed with a certain weapon should be included in the article about that weapon and 95% "POV-pushers' how-to guide" ("if they say this you point to that"), which IMHO isn't a serious essay. Thomas.W ^talk 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that it is a response to POV-pushers, though I think that's a stupid and prejudicial term It's not hidden. I'll go add it to the WP:GUNS page so it will be less obscure. Felsic2 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Single-purpose account

Please read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. I think you'll find it interesting.--RAF910 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I know about that page, but I never tag anyone with SPA (other than at AfD) since I feel it's a misguided essay. Most editors have a narrow focus here, editing only within one or two subject areas. Thomas.W ^talk 18:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Jaguar

(talk page stalker) Since I had a run-in with this editor soon after he started editing here (as can be seen here and on his talk page), and warned him that continuing with what he was doing would get him into trouble, I felt I had to post a comment here. Nikolas, this is the international English language Wikipedia, and we don't care what articles on the Greek Wikipedia say, or what the Greek government says, we go only by what international reliable sources say. Nothing in your attitude has changed even one iota since August of last year, so even attempting to discuss with you is just a big waste of time and energy, because you don't want to listen, and you're not here to build an encyclopaedia, only to push Greek POV and "right great wrongs". Thomas.W talk 18:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Jaguar what does ?--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the word for word translation of "The Jaguar does what" into Greek has a meaning to people who speak Greek, but to English-speakers it's just gibberish, so if you want a meaningful answer to whatever question you have, you'll have write your question in real English. 18:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant, the Jaguars what it means?--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you doing machine translations from Greek to English? "The Jaguars what it means" has no meaning at all in English, it's just gibberish. If you don't know enough English to communicate with other editors here you shouldn't edit the English language Wikipedia... Thomas.W ^talk 14:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Jaguar what does it mean?--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You are busy (If I get it right)?--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Jaguars watch things in a specific manner, and in English that's called 'stalking'. People who watch other people's talk pages here are called 'talk page stalkers'. The picture is just a picture. That's all it is. If you can't understand what I've just written, please stop editing the English Wikipedia. Katie^talk 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

edit revert

My edits on brown hair got reverted. I get embarrassed when my edits get reverted. For what reasons was the edit on brown hair reverted? Angela Maureen (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@September 1988: For the reason given in my edit summary: the name of the article is Brown hair, and brown hair can by definition not be black (there's a separate article for that: Black hair), only almost black as the article said before your edit, and says again after my revert. And the fact that some people said to be "brunettes" actually have black hair doesn't change that. Thomas.W ^talk 16:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Manga EL spammer

A while ago you reported a user attempting to spam Wikipedia with links to cartoons, some of a pornographic nature. I created a filter, Special:AbuseFilter/779, but it's only started to be hit this month. All but one of the relevant edits are at Unit 999. I'm wondering if you think it's worth setting to disallow, or whether it's low enough disruption not to be (in which case I could set it to tag?). I'd appreciate your thoughts. BethNaught (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC) (please ping when replying)

@BethNaught: I would recommend setting it to disallow, considering the number of IPs involved and the number of articles they tried to add it to. Provided there weren't any false positives, that is. Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There weren't any false positives, so I'll set it to disallow. BethNaught (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced message from Shine47

Take this link: m.etrain.info/in-SCH?TRAIN=12050 But I still don't understand why I need a link to prove that HSR in India is not "as of 2016" in place of "as of 2015". Regarding the avg speed, take the link. Now kindly re-revert my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shine47 (talk • contribs)

etrain.info is a private website, and not a reliable source per Wikipedia's rules, all that is said on the page you linked to is also that the Gatiman Express, according to etrain.info, is supposed to do 188 km in 100 minutes, not that it actually does it, there's also no mention of the 160 kmh top speed you tried to add to the article. So no, I'm not going to "re-revert" anything. And as a side note I can add that 160 kmh does not qualify as high-speed rail in an international context (even local trains routinely do 160 kmh between stations where I live, and all regional trains do 200 kmh...). Thomas.W ^talk 14:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Civility and politeness to other editors

Thomas.W, I would like to remind you of the five pillars of Wikipedia and to keep in mind #4 "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility." Your comments towards other editors in the past 6 days alone have gone far beyond what could be called respectful or civil (e.g. "Are you doing machine translations from Greek to English? "The Jaguars what it means" has no meaning at all in English, it's just gibberish. If you don't know enough English to communicate with other editors here you shouldn't edit the English language Wikipedia... " , "Thanks for the link to WP:Verifiability and your advice, which would no doubt be of benefit for a new user, but I have had this account since 2006, have made ~38,000 edits, check sources every day and know the rules better than most. I also know what the established practice here is, unlike you obviously, so I need neither your advice nor your links." OR "Those cartridges exist, the articles just haven't been written yet. As you would have known if you had known anything about the subjects you've chosen to meddle with.") Please find a way to communicate respectfully to the other editors who make Wikipedia what it is.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: How about you stopping your "politeness" campaign against me? I posted on your talk page to ask you to stop adding totally irrelevant material on Germans, but you still continued adding it, obviously not understanding one iota of my repeated attempts to make you understand why data about the religious affiliation of people living in Germany, regardless of ethnicity and nationality (including millions of Turks), has absolutely nothing to do in an article about the ethnic group called Germans, which is what Germans is about, as clearly stated in the first sentence of the lead section. Your complaints about me not having been polite enough when trying to make you understand a simple thing like that are now beginning to look like harassment, so either take your complaints to the Administrator's Noticeboard, and let people there look at both my comments on your talk page and your behaviour before, during and after the discussion there, or keep quiet and stay away from my talkpage, because I have far more important things to do here than continuing this meaningless discussion with you.

As for the cherry-picked quotes you complain about above, the first editor has since been globally locked (that is blocked from all language versions of Wikipedia) for cross-wiki abuse, including everything from POV-pushing to harassing and stalking multiple editors on multiple Wikipedias, and the second editor is on a crusade against guns on multiple articles here, a campaign that requires far more time than is reasonable from other editors to keep at bay, considering that we're all unpaid volunteers. Which is typical for what I do here, but a side of Wikipedia that you most likely have never seen, and a type of editor that I bet you haven't ever encountered here. People who play by the rules here are treated very well by me, but people who don't, such as you when edit-warring to get totally irrelevant material into an article, even continuing to do so after I had posted a polite comment on your talk page asking you to stop, and explaining why you should stop, get whatever treatment is needed to make the message come through. Because preserving the quality of the encyclopaedia is more important than treating everyone, even people who based on their own actions don't deserve it, with civility in all situations. Capisce? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I posted it to the Administrators' noticeboardMonopoly31121993 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Just giving my opinion, Monopoly31121993, but I previously read the first two examples you give above of talk page replies, and I saw no problem with them at all except that "unlike you obviously" would have been better omitted. The third example I have not reviewed in detail, it might be unduly brusque or it might not, depending on the context. MPS1992 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary

• Help:Edit summary - It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. (emphasis added)

Please use an edit summary, especially when deleting material. Felsic2 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• • ?????? @Felsic2: You're posting on the wrong talk page because the revert without an edit summary was not made by me (check the page history, which will also show that there was a perfectly valid explanation in the revert that I made...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Jutes / Jats

hello sir. i just want to say that the changes i have made are genuine and have 7 refrences (which i think is more than sufficent) so please consider before reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishannt (talk • contribs) 11:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• The claim that Jutes and Jats derive from one another one way or the other is pure fiction, not supported by any reliable academic sources. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Simple English Wikipedia, BTW, it has been removed from the article there too now. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Seriously!

Dude sorry i gotta revert that nonsense edit and even a ref is added so there is no fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.143.84 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Is there a connection between User:Felsic2 and User:TeeTylerToe? They seem to be of like mind, editing many of the same pages, like a wresting tag team and Felsic2 stopped editing at the same time that TeeTylerToe was block.--RAF910 (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Based on editing behaviour and everything else a connection between the two is IMHO highly unlikely. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by Florinbaiduc on Romanian aviation history. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Tried to fix post, it won't let me post

Hey I tried to fix the Dan Schneider thing by rolling back the change you did and then fixing it. Think I hit a thing that only lets non-logged in people edit so often. So it's left in a state of incompleteness, sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.31.20.227 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Added a reference not external link

Hey Thomas, i just added below url as reference of ewallet scheme launched by Indian Railway

Added below reference: http://pnrstatusirctc.in/irctc-ewallet-registration-2016/

On wiki page: on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Railway_Catering_and_Tourism_Corporation

Why it is not valid one i want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.150.217.47 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Because it's a spamlink, violating Wikipedia's rules about reference spam since it's being repeatedly added by IPs on a number of articles. Being added as a "reference" instead of an external link doesn't make it more acceptable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I added every source and link, then why you are doing like that???

Brother, it is the last stages of war between Indo-Pakistan. Then which thing is annoying you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Usama302: (talk page stalker) Because you are using the cited sources to support a conjecture (that India and Pakistan will be at war in 2016) that none of them make. That is called original research and is not permitted here. General Ization ^Talk 15:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)} (I'm apparently not fast enough...) @Usama302: Read the message I posted on your talk page, especially the part about Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia and not a place for "breaking news" and wild speculations about what might happen one day. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ajit Aniruddha Nazre

is back, and a couple of socks too. —SpacemanSpiff 10:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff: I have made a linksearch on all Nazre-sites previosuly used here and found nothing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bologna Age Distinction Resolution

I put something into the Talk:University of Bologna talk suggesting text to clarify the Bologna entry w/r/t its position as the first university. Since you've been active in the edits on that page, I figured I would highlight my suggestion to you in hopes we can agree and my edit won't get reversed. (I know you're not the only one who might reverse it.) I read your talk page's header, and am in no rush. Triplingual (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have commented on article talk - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry

Regarding your recent ANI thread: it happens to the best of us here. Myself included. It's perfectly safe to ignore it. Have a good day! Patient Zero^talk 13:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I'm sorry about the image I didn't know that you can't edit people's image files. My bad. I used Power Point by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asggerr (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with editing other people's images, but basing it on totally unsourced, and very dubious, numbers that you yourself have added to Germans. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Miss Malaysia

Dear Mr.Thomas, can you please not delete the content of the ethnicty in this page for the Miss World Malaysia section. Jourdan Ann (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Jourdan Ann: All of the material you add is totally unsourced, and thus violates Wikipedia's rules about verifiability and reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog, so stop editing the article as if it was your own blog. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Bank War

On the matter of edit reverts, no rule has been broken, regarding the 3 per 24-hour rule.

Have you contacted all parties involved in this edit war on the matter of reverts? --36hourblock (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• @36hourblock: Last time I looked the other party seemed to be far more interested in discussing it than you, and provided sources supporting their view on the talk page. The slow-mo edit war has been going on for almost a week, and, as the warning says, even edit-warring where people make less than four reverts per 24h is blockable, if editors show that they have no intention of stopping. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Thomas: Perhaps you can locate an accommodating administrator to block me from the article. Otherwise, your comments are one-sided and create a hostile editing environment. Kindly desist. --36hourblock (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who is creating a hostile environment there by just blindly reverting. It was the other party who started the current discussion, not you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Thomas: What you've posted is a flagrant falsehood, based on the talk record. The first "blind" revert was made by 99, to wit: "36hourblock, I removed content in this article here because I found it to be very biased against the pro-Bank forces." No source was provided. A non-consensual revert. Period. But you're doing a lovely job as an attack dog. Again, please contact an administrator of your choice if you believe I've violated Wiki Rules. --36hourblock (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for proving what I wrote about creating a hostile environment. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to contact an administrator. --36hourblock (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Why my link is considered inapropriate ?

Hi and sorry for the inconvenience ,i added an external link to Arabic keyboard and Arabic but is considered inappropriate.Both topics are about Arabic language and Arabic keyboards and the link(i added) hosts a virtual Arabic keyboard that shows a possible layout of an Arabic keyboard with the ability to interact with the keyboard either by mouse or using latin keyboard(transliteration).Also the website is not for making money and is ads free so why is not considered a good reference ? I usually stumble upon links like that on Wikipedia that explains topics interactively via a java applet or something else.This is the case with my link, no !!?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnerd360 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Because your link adds absolutely nothing to the article, is pushed in on the wrong place (there is a section for external links at the bottom of the article) and is plain advertising. The Banner talk 14:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Felsic2

FYI...I just filed an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents against User:Felsic2 for his latest POV pushing.--RAF910 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• @RAF910: Felsic2 has done the exact same thing before, i.e. add a proposal on a talk page after everyone had tired of them and then making their preferred changes a short while later claiming that the silence on the talk page meant that everyone supported them. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Fabricated figure

Oh please, you want me to prove that Brazilian censuses do not have question about ancestry? How can I prove something that does not even exist? This is illogical. You can Google it and check it by youself. I am Brazilian and the National census DO NOT ask about ancestry. The sources you postes are not telling the truth.

If you want sources, go to the Portuguese-language Wikipedia article about German immigration. There are many sources that put the figure between 5 and 7 million people. 12 million is a gross exaggeration. Xuxo (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Then why don't you post those sources on the talk page of the article so that we can see if they're reliable or not? Instead of just blindly reverting here, quoting a source that gives a number without telling anything about what it's based on, unlike the content you remove, which is sourced to multiple sources all saying that their number is based on the Brazilian census of 2000. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why have we been assigned this volunteer? In fact, how is this new user even equipped to do more than lurk when they have barely tucked 400 edits under their belt? I don't have any objections to someone being trained in dispute resolution, but this is a little over the top when it's evident that the user can't have enough experience to know their way around policies and guidelines. This is all exhausting enough without being used as a test case for someone without a track record. For the first time in years, I truly feel like quitting editing. There's enough serious conflict over subject matter without having to go through lengthy reiterations. I've had it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: See my post at DRN. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Bangladesh

@Thomas , please read LGBT rights in Bangladesh, the article is full of rubbish writings and wrong information.আইশ্টে হায়লেশ (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I know absolutely nothing about LGBT rights in Bangladesh, or anywhere else for that matter, so I'm not the right person to ask for help. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert on List of oldest universities in continuous operation

Hi there, I note your revert of my edit on the above article where you removed six minor amends.

I would argue that the information on the University of al-Qarawiyyin could simply have been amended to 'oldest teaching establishment' or similar to make it correct - you decided to just revert and make a snarky comment which isn't really 'assuming good faith'. You additionally reverted my edits on the section on Fourah Bay College, the article now incorrectly claims that it was one of the earliest universities Africa (bolded to show oldest in the continent), it was not a university until 1967. You also reinstated the bolding of the University of Cape Town, which was a boys school when founded and granted university status at the same time as Stellenbosch in 1918.

Basically, you have reverted one edit correctly (though incredibly strictly), and reverted a further two incorrectly which I amended earlier today for the very reason you made your main revert, they are claiming status from institutes not formed as a university (schools).

Will you please let me have a go at tidying this up? I'm not here for an argument, just trying to tidy a very messy article.

Mountain^cirque 17:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: I don't care about the other edits, so go ahead and do them again, but your claim that al-Qarawiyyin is the oldest university in the world just because Guinness Book of Records say so goes very much against what reliable academic sources, and a long-standing consensus here, say about what a university was and is (especially what a mediaeval university was, see University#Definition). And my edit summary was in no way snarky, I just pointed out that al-Qarawiyyin was founded as a madrasa, not a university, and that madrasas weren't, aren't and never have been universities (and the list you added it to is exclusively about universities, not teaching establishments in general, a list where al-Qarawiyyin would be very far from the top). I might have been slightly irritated. though, but if you check the page history, and protection log of the page, you might understand why.... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

My update on Delhi tourism

Hello Thomas.W, I am sorry sir for adding copyrighted material. In my defence, I copied that material from List of tourist attractions in Delhi article and not copied that material from any http://www.rediscoverindia.co.in/Delhi.html. I just presumed that it did not violate copyright policy and didn't check for copyright material. I would try avoid this mistake in future. Please, decrease warning.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratyk321 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Pratyk321: I'll remove the warning template, but please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, because you cannot copy text from one article to another here either, without telling where it's copied from. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot @Thomas.W Sir, I didn't know we cannot copy text from one wiki article to another. I will read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I apologize again for my actions and I would avoid this mistake in future. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratyk321 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Thomas.W. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Accusations

I am accused of being a sockpuppet if you follow my trail. But as the investigation will disclose, no I am not. See for yourself, several articles created and all legit and no accusations of you in any other except the one for deletion. Man Wednesday (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if you're not a sockpuppet, you have a lot of explaining to do. [12] [13] ???? Sro23 (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't been following you around, since I have a life, but after taking a look at your contributions I would say that obvious sock is obvious. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Poles

This was not single women with diego antigens, but this gene found almost 0,50 % while this gene found only in 0,01 % of white population. please read http://www.omim.org/entry/110500 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2273/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.57.71 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I dont want what is your problem with me 91.17.57.71 (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Netherlands Marines

Hi Thomas, the modifications I made to the page related to the Royal Netherlands Navy are based on formal publications by both the Dutch as the German Navy and adding this to the Wikipedia pages is what I consider the philosophy of Wikipedia. Reverting this is rather strange or asking for detailed sources, in this way the motivation to continue to contribute ……. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.209.188 (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You can not make changes without providing references for your edits. See Wikipedia's rules regarding verifiability and reliable sources. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981

Thank you for your reasoned attempt to intervene with this user. As you can now see, he will instantly resort to tactics that seem intended to inflame matters. Please keep your cool. WCM_email 10:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

i am going to add sources for articles Punjabi language

sir i am going to add sources for articles Punjabi language.thanx in advance Shemaroo (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Christ University Article

Hey! Thanks for informing me about the citation requirements. Please give me some time so that I can keep adding citations and please don't delete them for a while. For sure, I will add citations. Entewikipedia (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Entewikipedia: It's not just about not providing references for your edits, it's also about making changes that break tables and about making major changes that require a discussion on the talk page of the article, and explicit support from other editors, before being made. Because, as I wrote in my message on your talk page, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

stop

stop screaming and stop biting // read this // old discussion allows for anthony's expertise {better than the sources replaced} // goodbye Silver Manowar (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Silver Manowar: There's absolutely no consensus for your changes in that discussion, and the only one supporting it was Theban Halberd, blocked as a sock of Deucalionite. Would that be you (a legitimate question since you're obviously not a new user...)? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

no to your question {fast learner} // can we compromise? Silver Manowar (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Silver Manowar: Noone learns that fast, and no, I'm not interested in a compromise (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wanted to make the list of my country's inventions correct, it got undone.

Well, I added some pages to the category "Hungarian inventions", and i got the message "Caution for disruptive edits on multiple articles, adding category "Hungarian invention" to articles that are clearly not Hungarian inventions." Could you please name a thing that I added and was NOT invented by a Hungarian? Like, for example: Who do you think invented the telephone exchange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectorHUN (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't revert you on telephone, but I did revert you on Match and Ford Model T, and another user reverted you on another article that clearly wasn't a Hungarian invention either... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you are right at some point, but these are at least partly hungarian inventions: Hydrogen bomb - Edward Teller, born in Austria-Hungary Ford Model T - Andrew Joseph Galambos , also born in Hungary Silent Match - János Irinyi , Hungarian.

I don't know if these can be considered hungarian inventions, here in hungary we considere them as ours. I don't know if there's an option to mark the fact that is is partial, but I think these can be considered as both nations' inventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectorHUN (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Relays page

Tom, I was not trying to promote other books by any means. I'm new to Wiki and was just trying to link one of those books to an existing Wiki page. Can you help me do it please? --Vasiliy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvkrivtsov (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Vvkrivtsov: "References" is only for publications etc used as references in the articles, and "Further reading" is for internal links to other related articles on Wikipedia, not for long lists about other books about the subject. So unless Gurevich's books are used as references in articles you can't add them anywhere here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

So, if I add another paragraph on special kinds of relays, invented by Gurevich, and provide a reference to his book, I hope, it will then be valid? --Vasiliy Vvkrivtsov (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Vvkrivtsov: Only if it's directly related to the article, written in an encyclopaedic tone, not added to the article only to promote Gurevich and his books and not done on a large number of articles (see reference spamming). Because doing nothing but promoting a certain person and his/her books, as you, judging by your contributions, seem to have been doing, is seen as using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, and against policy... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Tom, and I see your point. Once I prepare a draft of my paragraph (outside of Wiki), would it be too much to ask you to please review it before I publish it? --Vasiliy 107.5.76.148 (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Feel free to contact me again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Article Talk pages

Article talk pages are for discussing article content. Notice boards and user talk pages are for discussing editor behavior. I removed your comment here.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Polyunsaturated fat. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Censorship in discussions is even more damaging, Jytdog. The Banner talk 22:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• It seems like Jytdog has totally lost it today. "Personal attack"?. Sheesh... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

pasted here below, from comment left at my talk page in this diff, to keep discussion in one place. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on this, and explain where the supposed personal attack is supposed to have been made? And explain what, in your opinion, makes it a personal attack that violates WP:NPA. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Your comment in that diff was expressing your anger at Zefr's behavior and had nothing to do with the article content. That is another diff that could be used if you continue pursuing your upsetness at Zefr in inappropriate ways. If you want to discuss the actual content added by the IP your comments in that section are more than welcome; that is what article talk pages are indeed for. (and Thomas, btw, the Banner has a long-standing grudge against me stemming from content disputes at Organic food; they regularly jump in to threads where I am involved and write nonsense as they did above that nobody with WP:CLUE pays mind to) Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I see you have now re-inserted your policy-violating remark. As you will; i doubt the discussion in that thread will develop much since nobody is disputing the problems with the content added by the IP. I reckon we are done here for now. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jytdog: My post was a comment directly related to what you wrote in your first post in that thread, where you tried to excuse Zefr's behaviour by pointing to things that showed up well after that behaviour, and couldn't in any way have influenced it. It was not in any way a case of not "articulating" things (to quote from your post: "Zefr's reverts were correct, although they didn't articulate all these things."), but a case of acting in a certain way, and violating WP:3RR in apointy way, in spite of not even suspecting that it was a copyvio. Which makes your comment an attempt to shift all blame away from Zefr, and move it over my way, which I do not appreciate. And how about removing the blatantly frivolous NPA-template you pasted on my talk page? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you don't understand the difference between discussing article content and discussing editor behavior. That will cause problems for you long term. best regards Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, with this kind of behaviour there's more reason for you to worry about yourself... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

just wanted to respond to Which makes your comment an attempt to shift all blame away from Zefr, and move it over my way - Zefr is too heavy handed sometimes and that has been called to their attention many times. In this particular case Zefr didn't actually violate 3RR as they included the content in their 4th diff. The thing I am trying to make you aware of, is that in your anger at Zefr you -- you -- edited badly and harmed WP by adding COPYVIO content, and additionally that your 3RR filing was bogus. That is entirely separate. People lose their heads sometimes here. It happens. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it obviously happened to you. I'm not angry at Zefr or anyone else, I'm just shaking my head at your behaviour... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey..! Come on, please remember that you're both good guys. Now kiss and make up. I'm waiting. ...No..? ...No? Allright, kiss me, then. My lovelife has been expanding rapidly lately anyway.[14] You're both welcome in Drmies's hot tub![15] Bishonen | talk 23:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

Thank you Bish. no hard feelings tom? Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

On Traian Vuia

Hi, Please use the talk page on the Traian Vuia english article before reverting changesFlorinbaiduc (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• I already have commented on Talk:Traian Vuia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

T-72

The quote in the source: "The more I learned about the tank" Chieftain", the more I agree with them." He further said that the most dangerous weapons in Iraq were T-72 tanks, "the Iraqis were partially equipped with the new T-72 tanks. They had good speed and firepower, and their armor protects against RPGs our infantry. T-72 was a very dangerous threat to us." The source "globalsecurity.org" is not blacklisted, as i managed to cite it. "Removed unsourced"? Are you doing this deliberately?

The machine translation of the russian source: "Even if it somehow could withstand the T-54 and T-55, during clashes with the T-62 and T-72 suffered losses. A large number of M-47 was captured in Iraq as trophies." You need to do better than this thomas. Also, remember - i am not the one who wrote that passage. I am just trying to prevent its deletion by narcissistic persons. - Avatar⁹ⁿ 15:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Avatar9n: Your edit says that "According to both Iranians and Iraqis,the T-72 was the most feared tank in the war.", but neither of the sources you added says anything even remotely similar to that, making your edit unsourced OR/SYNTH. And it doesn't matter if the text was originally written/added by you or not, anyone adding text is responsible for the text added, even if it's a revert. And in this case you have restored the text multiple times, so yes, you have added unsourced material, not only once but multiple times. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you even read the last edit? I have removed the "Iraq" part. Do not tell me what to do or what not to do. You are the one who is provoking an edit war, YOU ARE UNDOING A SOURCED EDIT. I will report you if you do that again. Avatar⁹ⁿ 16:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the sources says anything about the T-72 being one of the "most feared tanks", all tanks are dangerous, especially to infantry, and reverting the addition of unsourced/OR/SYNTH is not "vandalism" as you claimed in your edit summary... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Vuia's page

I have presented logical arguments and references demonstrating why the original text was wrong. I will mark further edits that result in deletion of those references and in the text modification as vandalism. I do care if you insist on keeping such obvious mistakes visible, and will reverse it as much as it's neccesary to keep it accurate. You should have accepted the mediation, if you wanted to further discuss this subject, not demonstrate hostility... Best regards Florinbaiduc (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Florinbaiduc: You have presented what you see as evidence, but have been opposed on the article talk page by the multiple other editors that are active on the article. Which means you can not keep making the edit. Period. And continuing to edit-war over it, as you wrote above that you intend to do ("... and will reverse it as much as it's neccesary ..."), is only going to get you blocked. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Thomas.W: Why did you erased the reference to the article referring to the flight as flight? Why did you reversed the text to a logical fallacy? I have reported you as vandal.Florinbaiduc (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Thomas.W:Discussing the issue on the vandals page is not how it's done, BTW ;) . You have no arguments yourself for the page reverts, including for the deletion of valid references. Are you trying to hide the truth somehow?. At least I do have valid arguments for my claim and I do act constructive, not destructive. Florinbaiduc (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• A) You filed a totally bogus report against me at WP:AIV, so of course I would comment there; B) There's an ongoing discussion on Talk:Traian Vuia where the majority of other users oppose your edit. Meaning you can't make it. And the proper place for discussing the edit is the article talk page, not here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thomas

Hi Thomas

I must disagree with your assertion that my edit concerned non-notable material, and would be interested to know on what grounds you hold yourself as judge to what counts as notable. First off, if it was not notable, please explain why it was reported on in national broadsheets, such as The Guardian source that was quoted? Second, you may not have found it notable, but no doubt many readers, including myself, found it relevant to understanding the character of a political leader. My statement was grounded in facts, your deletion was based on an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irving2000 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Irving2000: We don't include everything that is reported in "national broadsheets", only material that is of general interest, and encyclopaedic, and Theresa May reportedly wearing a pair of very expensive trousers is neither. And since three other editors have now all seen the material you're repeatedly adding as non-notable trivia, you have to start a discussion on the talk page of the article, Talk:Theresa May, and get support from other editors for it, before adding it again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Irving2000 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Hi Thomas,

Thanks for the advice: I will go to the article's talk space. I note, however, that you failed to address my point regarding the difference between my post, which is grounded in fact, and your deletion which is based in your opinion that it was not notable. Likewise your assertion, again not grounded in fact but your own particular view, that the post was not of general interest does not stand up to scrutiny. It may well not be of interest to you but there is a fundamental error in mistaking one’s feelings and emotions (in your case that May's £995 trousers and £295 trainers are not of general interest or notable) for a shared social characteristic. In other words, no matter how strongly you may feel about something, it does not mean it is shared by others or possesses universal validity. Also you might want to read Aristotle's analysis of politics and rhetoric before you venture that the dress that politicians' wear is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irving2000 (talk • contribs)

• @Irving2000: Being a fact, and sourced, isn't by and of itself reason enough to include anything here, it also has to comply with Wikipedia policy (see WP:What Wikipedia is not), which three editors, independent of each other, have felt the material you added does not do. Or to quote the policy I linked to: "... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia ...", and "... Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion ...". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Irving2000 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Hi Thomas

I have opened up a section on Theresa May's talk space as to the material's relevance.. If there is a significant consensus that May's pants are not notable then I will not re-insert the edit. However if this is not the case then please ensure not to delete because it does not happen to accord with your own opinion.

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Thomas.W,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Thank you for the advices

...but I don't think I need them. What you try to impose as letter of law is only a guideline, regardless if you like what others do or not. With kind regards. PS: For personal reasons, I'm contributing for much longer than what the account you can currently see shows, and than you presumably presume.... Florinbaiduc (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, you definitely need the advice I gave you... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh

Sir, I was about to give full link and reference with all the necessary information but I thought to save it first but as soon as I was going to fill up all other details the name of sarwan singh was removed by you. He is a genuine and authorised person. It is not a spam page. AmolSinghonly1 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• @AmolSinghonly1: You were reverted for adding the name of a person who doesn't have an article under "Notable people", a list that should only include people who have an article here, on the English Wikipedia, and have been deemed as being notable, per Wikipedia's rules (see WP:Notability). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Encino, Los Angeles

Thanks for helping correct my addition to the "Encino, Los Angeles" entry. JTF17A (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding reserve troops

That's fine but this was before the global index reference Pakistan has more than 0 reserve troops Please see click link here the IISS source mentions that there are reserve troops I think 513000 or something 500000 plus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel&diff=752963562&oldid=751062541 (Wiki id2(talk) 15:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC))

RE: Forced disappearance

By definition of Forced Disappearance, rumors is all you would have to go on if someone had been disappeared. My twitter citations were to back up my claims about the twitter account's activity, which is exactly when a twitter citation should be used. Jimethn (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Jimethn: In addition to not being a gossip rag Wikipedia isn't a news site either. Your conspiracy theory about Julian Assange perhaps having been abducted from the Ecuadorian embassy in London during an "Internet blackout" might belong in the article if and when mainstream media report it, but not now. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, my friend. May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)

Hi Thomas

Thank you for your message. I've always heard that the Paratarajas were Indo-Scythians. This is at least what coin sites generally state CNG Coins. But looking again, I found this site which claims they are Indo-Parthians [16]. I hope I can oneday find better sources on this. Merry Christmas! Tahar Jelun (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion request for the Paratarajas map on Commons. Well, the Wikipedia article en:Paratarajas says that the Paratarajas were located in Baluchistan. This source New Light on the Pāratarājas by PANKAJ TANDON explains that their coins are found over the area of Baluchistan. Pankaj Tandon is a Professor of Economics and Numismat at Boston University [17], so it is not a bad source. I just tried to illustrate visually what the area of Baluchistan corresponds to, in order to clarify where the Paratarajas resided, in an otherwise pretty obscure article which needs help. I think the map is useful and ask for it to be kept. If you have a better source regarding the Paratarajas territory, just tell me, I'll be glad to illustrate it. Tahar Jelun (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tahar Jelun: Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources all material added must be provided with reliable sources. Period. And where coins were found says absolutely nothing about the extent of a historic kingdom, Greco-Bactrian coins have been found in Great Britain and thousands of 9th-11th Century coins minted in South-West Asia have been found in Scandinavia, but no-one would ever claim that Great Britain was part of a Greco-Bactrian realm or Scandinavia part of the Arab world... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not just the coins at all. Pankaj Tandon in p.37 of his article explains clearly that they resided in Baluchistan (not just that their coins were found there). And if you read the full article, you will see that ancient sources too are quite coherent with this region being their dwelling place, and this is overall subscribed to by Pankaj Tandon.Tahar Jelun (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tahar Jelun: "They resided in Baluchistan" is not the same as "they ruled all of Baluchistan", as the map you uploaded to Commons, and added to the article here, claims. And to make things worse a quick check of the paper you linked to as source for your map shows that the source doesn't even say "they resided in Baluchistan", but describes the Paratarajas as residing "in the interior of Baluchistan", i.e. only a fairly small part of present day Baluchistan. Which fits in well with their coins being found only in Baluchistan, since the places where coins were found shows trade routes, and which other peoples those who minted the coins traded with. So if the Paratarajas had ruled all of present day Baluchistan, their coins would have been found in a much wider area than just present day Baluchistan. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Paratarajas location.jpg

In this case, it seems we are never going to agree to a map that even attempts to show an actual territory. And sources on this are not many (at least I don't known any for a map of the Paratarajas at this point). How about a map that doesn't show territory, but only general location like this one? At least it should help clarify an otherwise obscure article... Tahar Jelun (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As you wish, I was just trying to help. You could have answered to my proposed map here instead, which has remained without any answer from you for four days. That's not very kind. Tahar Jelun (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't spent much time on Wikipedia for a few days (it's Christmas-time), and chose to spend that time on articles/edits that I felt had higher piority than your map... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Shopclues founding date & founder information

Sir,

ShopClues page says it was founded in July 2011, but actually it was founded in June, 2011 [18]. Amitbhatia83 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Amitbhatia83: The page you linked to does not say that Shop Clues was founded in June, 2011, it says that a registration for Clues Network, Inc was filed in Delaware on June 24, 2011. It's also only the very first page of that registration, leaving out all the important information, such as who the founders were. Sandeep Aggarwal himself is the only source for his claim that he founded Shop Clues alone, all independent reliable sources say he was one of three co-founders, along with Radhika Aggarwal and Sanjay Sethi, so that's what we'll go by. Multiple independent sources also say Sandeep Aggarwal was forced to leave ShopClues after being charged with insider-trading in the US, being replaced as CEO by Sanjay Sethi, making the repeated attempts by you and various IPs to rewrite the history of ShopClues a possible part of a power struggle, and making his repeated claims about being the only founder of the company even less credible. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Dear Thomas, please stop undoing my edits of my article as well as blaming me in "making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia", such as "Caution for unsourced, unexplained and undiscussed major changes, including masive removal of content" regarding my article.

Here is the list of my edits to that exact article. All include edit reason. (cur | prev) 11:53, 26 December 2016‎ Жовтневе багаття (talk | contribs)‎ . . (52,116 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (fixing categories) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:52, 26 December 2016‎ Жовтневе багаття (talk | contribs)‎ . . (52,160 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Trying to fix some category because links dont work) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:50, 26 December 2016‎ Жовтневе багаття (talk | contribs)‎ . . (52,154 bytes) (+268)‎ . . (Adding categories) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:37, 26 December 2016‎ Жовтневе багаття (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,886 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (removed link which did not work for some reason in many combinations (did not redirect to Ukrainian Wikipedia)) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:35, 26 December 2016‎ Жовтневе багаття (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,894 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 11:25, 26 December 2016‎ Жовтневе багаття (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,896 bytes) (-49,067)‎ . . (Significant update of the table with list of occupied settlements, fixing some display errors, changing positions of table 1 with table 2.) (undo)

Please note that all of them have editing reason. Why so many? because some minor changes like hyperlinks to other WIKI articles did not work and I was trying to fix them. Why content removal? because one of tables (called 'landmarks bordering with ATO zone') that I have added to this article originally is not related to this article and I moved this table (which means deleted here) to another article called ATO zone which is also mentioned.

Next time before blaming editors in unreasonable changes, please go through them first (you can compare versions before content removal and after) and do not just check content removed by number of characters but also by meaning. Thank you. What is more is I do not see how to contest the nomination of article you proposed for speedy deletion. Can you please help me to find it? Please note that there is similar article called Occupied_territories_of_Georgia and it exists without deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) 05:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: Also what is the point to write 4 times the same things as separate entries on my talk page within 10 mins period? One time is enough to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Changing all names in an article to the modern Ukrainian language forms, while pointing in your edit summary to a Ukrainian law that only applies within the Ukraine, is not editing constructively, nor is recreating an article that was deleted at AfD, and that is nothing but a POV content fork with material from other articles, editing constructively. Just to give two examples. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Kalash people genetics

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I'll add a reference for the segment that I add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sith Order of Darth Krayt (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You will have to add a reliable source for both the first bit of the text, about a genetic study having found that the Kalash people descend from Alexander the Great's Greek soldiers, and for the last bit of it, about serious academic sources having said that the study you provided a source for isn't reliable... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

you are reverting edit deliberately without considering citation. Patr indian (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Patr indian: The edits I reverted changed caste data, with no sources and no explanation, so reverting them is most definitely not vandalism... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Albanians

Kosovans are not Albanians ! Velleglava (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Im From Kosovo and you must know that Kosovo is a country from 2008 and there lived Kosovans Not Albanians because Albanians lived in Albania not in Kosovo whe are like Belgium with netherlands they speak one language but they have there countries ! Velleglava (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Velleglava: Yes they are, ethnic Albanians, that is. The English language uses the same word for both Albanian nationality and Albanian ethnicity. and the article named "Albanians" is about ethnic Albanians, regardless of which country they live in, as clearly stated in the first sentence of the lead. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I respekt your mind but you are wrong buddy ;) Velleglava (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Velleglava: No, I'm not wrong. If you don't understand enough English to be able to understand what the lead of an article says (where the scope of the article is stated), you shouldn't edit the English language Wikipedia. And please post of all of your messages in this section, instead of placing them all over this page, leaving to me to sort it out... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Added Website name as its relevant in the context

Hi Thomas,

As i understand that you have considered mentioning of particular website as SPAM when my intention was to add relevancy to the article. In this context DistancesBetween is indeed a multi modal journey planner like anyone else has mentioned and in fact to provide relevancy I have stated one article link. In addition to that Cleartrip Way to Go is no more a multi modal and they have stopped providing it but link is still there.

With due respect to all accuracy and relevancy guidelines I have taken liberty to add DistancesBetween name to list of Multi Modal journey planners. And I am not here to get any external link like you have mentioned. I am open to discuss any query that you may have regarding accuracy and relevancy. And not spam the reputed institution.

Thanks Bharat Malik (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Bharat Malik: Wikipedia isn't a link repository or a collection of links to various websites (see WP:ELNO). The only links to other websites that, with very few exceptions, belong here are official websites of the subjects of the articles. One of the links you added is also to a website that has been actively spammed here, by multiple IPs/users, for a long time, and most definitly does not belong here, for that reason alone. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok now i Got it. But I sincerely request you to review this website again as It provides relevant content and actually fits in the article. Just for reference, here is a brief about - An Artificial Intelligence & Big Data based "MultiModal Door-to-Door Journey Planner". Technology works on heuristic search & routing algorithm and also has User Generated Content enabled, which will help travellers find the best way to travel from point A to point B. Currently its providing various options to its users and redirecting it to desired service providers. Now, we are integrating end to end booking APIs so that its a seamless experience to book all legs at once. We have an organic traffic of around 18M per annum, primarily capturing the intent of customers at discovery stage of their travel and exploring various options. We would look at tapping this Tier 2 & Tier 3 customer base thru our organic reach strength.

As the owner of the portal that wants to build the brand, can't say who on our behalf spam this reputed source. I again put in a request for review and let me know if need to provide any other detail.

Thanks Bharat Malik (talk)

• @Bharat Malik: There are many websites like that (including at least two other sites in India that are also being spammed here, though to a lesser degree than your site), so your site isn't in any way unique, but it wouldn't belong here even if it were unique, since Wikipedia isn't a travel guide but an encyclopaedia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not debating about Wikipedia, my point was if its a comparison of various intermodal journey planner in the category then certainly its worth a mention. on top its giving the competing solution with visitor database of 18 Million per annum and currently addressing only Indian market and has the capability once it reaches out to global audience. I am not sure what other two websites were, and with us gaining momentum with our reach we are competing against the likes of Rome2Rio and other played in the offing.

I am not sure if I can change your mind if you have decided already any how. But if there is still a room for chance then I am ready to put my point across to prove that I am a credible source and not a spammer as it turned out wrongly in front of you by some one not known to us.

Bharat Malik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not about my opinion, what my personal opinion is, is irrelevant, it's about the repeated spamming of links to your site violating Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide, a site that provides free advertising or a site for increasing the visibility and the search engine rating for your website. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't change what has been done without our knowledge but what I can present and assure this prestigious medium that I am the owner of this Brand and website and not a spammer to get the link. No intention what so ever. When I came across an article where our possible competition names were appearing with links, there I presented my case for consideration and certainly it should for the facts stated earlier. Let me know how can we change this stance of yours and move forward. Thanks Bharat Malik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Hi. Could you point to where it says that a person has to have an own article to be mentioned in a wikipedia article? It sounds like an odd requirement.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Asilah1981: You added a name with no sources whatsoever, only saying "passes a notability test after a Google search" in your edit summary, so of course it was reverted. If he had had an own article here there would be no need to add sources in the section you added the name to, hence my comment, but since he doesn't you can't just add him, and seriously expect the addition to be allowed to remain. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thomas, i didn´t add it. It was there before and someone removed it. Have a look at the page history.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: That's no excuse. If it's removed for being unsourced you can't add it back again without providing sources for it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Modern equipment of the Turkish Land Forces

If you have a problem with the sources or you have further issues, please go to WP:ANI. 0 zero O naught (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, E. So you found a way around the range block? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to read WP:WWIN. 0 zero O naught (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Another appearance

If you'd like to drop back in here [19].......

I have made a comment there now. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits to the page Scandinavia

My bad, thanks for correcting my (in)correction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreaming brain (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Where did this come from?

Where are you getting the idea from that Chitrolekha International Magazine On Art And Design is spam? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Sminthopsis84: Doing nothing but adding links to chitrolekha.com on a large number of articles, in most cases as multiple external links on each article, as this editor has done qualifies as spam. See WP:SPAMLINK (quote: Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed). Most of the existing links I found were also spam, either aded as inappropriate external links or refspam, that is external links added as "references" where they weren't needed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Firstly, topics such as Jor-bangla needs to have access to the materials that exist about it. Secondly, if someone wants to research just one topic they will be branded as a spammer? No wonder we are failing to attract new editors who stick around. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: If there are no other references available chitrolekha might qualify, but "design magazines" are very rarely experts on historical architecture or similar topics, making other references preferable. And the multiple links on multiple articles, covering a wide range of topics, added by the editor I linked to are blatant spam. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread January 2016 as January 2017. Please don't zap without consideration, one rotten apple doesn't mean that all the apples are bad. You need to consider each actual article that is being cited. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism only editor

Please check edits of 188.22.104.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). S/he is continuing his/her disruptive edits on Oman and all other articles he/she edited. I didn't warn him because it seems that the ip does not care warnings.68.168.221.146 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why is it disruptive to remove Swahili from the infobox? It's not an official language in Oman, and is already mentioned, along with a whole bunch of other languages that are also spoken in Oman, in the Demographics section of the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)