User talk:Thomasjones44

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Flood geology, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Doc Tropics 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Undying Mercenaries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Undying Mercenaries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undying Mercenaries until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. V. Larson article also up for deletion

They've also nominated the B. V. Larson bio deletion, I found some sources and noted them in the AfD discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. V. Larson from the book discussion, seems like you are the interested editor that might be able to save the article. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of DRADIS

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on DRADIS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to fix a broken link that, in retrospect, I think was created by the previous deletion. Would it be acceptable to add a reference to an external web page to fix the broken link?Thomasjones44 (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Balsamic vinegar. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasjones44 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Your words are just gibberish to me. The information I added was accurate and provided a reliable source. Maybe you can do your own research and provide an acceptable reference. The fact that a lot of balsamic vinegars that are sold are of the imitation variety is a well-known secret; you should have no problem finding hundreds of references.[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Balsamic vinegar, you may be blocked from editing. Don't edit war, WP:WAR. Your source is not a peer-reviewed reference in a reliable source. It is WP:SPAM. Your content is your personal experience - that is WP:OR. Zefr (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balsamic vinegar

Hello - on my talk page, you said: Can we talk about the changes you've been making to the "Balsamic Vineger" web page? You claim I'm doing disruptive editing. I'm not, or at least not intentionally. I didn't see you removal of the new information, I just saw my page glitch and the information disappeared. I thought I was just fixing a system glitch. Why are you repeatedly removing accurate information? Do you think the information is false? Are the references not up to your standards?

First, new talk page comments go to the bottom of the page, WP:TALK. Second, you did not provide a reliable source defined by WP:RS; SeriousEats is not a peer-reviewed rigorous source. A publication in a reputable journal would qualify as a reliable source. Third, the article history will show that you did not provide edit summaries and overwrote my edits 3 times (which did explain why I was reverting) - this is disruptive edit-warring, WP:WAR. Fourth, you added without a source content that reads as if it is your experience or personal observation - this is called original research, WP:OR, and is discouraged for encyclopedic material. If you disagree with an editor, the place to sort it out is on the article's talk page where other editors can provide input and help settle on what should be stated, combined with a WP:RS source. This is the process of establishing consensus, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]