User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 4

Apology: the wrong Thomas

I was intending to block Thomas Ivan just now, by clicking a "Block" link listed with the edit history of Islam in Estonia. Unfortunately, you were the next editor on the list, and I clicked the wrong Thomas. I realised immediately, and corrected my mistake, but unfortunately the result is that you were blocked for one minute. I apologise for the mistake.JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Is there a way to remove it from the block log? I've been proud of managing to have an empty block log for almost seven years... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think there is, but you do still have an empty block log, Thomas. A misclick followed by an immediate correction doesn't count. I admit that if I'd been JamesBWatson, I'd have been slightly more fulsome in my unblock comment — as in, putting an apology in the log as well as here — that would have made the error even clearer. But really, you have an empty log. (I've always been rather proud of my own more colourful block log, but YMMV.) Bishonen | talk 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Yes, but having been blocked by Jimbo Wales for three hours is more to brag about than having been blocked by JamesBWatson for one minute... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've only recently discovered that that block and its aftermath made its way into the page Role of Jimmy Wales (just search for my name). Fame! [/me preens] :-) But you may have noticed I also have a one-minute block/unblock sequence just like yours; they are very common, and falleth on the just and the unjust alike. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen: "I don't think there is" - yes there is, and it's called oversight. Ginsuloft (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken, that's not what oversight is. As far as I know, if you've got a developer in your pocket it's possible — though even then very difficult — to get a block log expunged. They don't like to be asked, to put it mildly. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Is there a way to change the edit summary? To something a bit clearer than "Wrong account blocked"? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to change it, no. What James could do is to give you a one-second block for the purpose of putting in another comment. The practice is describedhere. If that's what you want, you'd better ask him for it on his page. First, though, you should consider if that's really what you want, Tom. Then you'd have three entries in your log. ;-) Sleep on it, perhaps. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

I've slept on it. We'll leave it as it is, I'll just save a difflink to JamesBWatson's apology here, just in case. Thomas.W^{talk to me} 08:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Oh, sorry. I just thought I saw User:Beeblebrox block <username redacted>, and the block log entry mysteriously disappeared. Since he was hiding other stuff by the same user at the same time, I just assumed the oversight was what caused the block log entry disappear as well. Since I just pinged him, perhaps he can explain what exactly happened. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen: And since I'm wrong, could you please clarify this statement on wp:oversight: It is used within strict limits to remove defamatory material, to protect privacy, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations, from any page or log entry (including, if required, the list of users)? Ginsuloft (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ginsuloft: Which means oversight can't be used here since the block log entry is neither defamatory, containing material that has anything to do with privacy or a copyright violation.Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what kinds of logs that refers to, Ginsuloft. Perhaps you should ask Beeblebrox about the incident you mention. Both ArbCom and Jimbo have been known to request block log removals, and been refused, in my experience. Of course block log entries are rarely defamatory or privacy-violating etc. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

• (reply to @Ginsuloft) Redaction of old blocks is possible but in practice is almost never actually done. Correction within the log is usually the way it is handled, as it was in your case.

What you saw was something different and I am not at liberty to discuss it, if you have questions about such matters you will need to direct them to WP:AUSC (and please do not reproduce anything you know to have been suppressed on-wiki, even a username) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry for re-introducing the username; didn't realize matters were this serious. Ginsuloft (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rumskulla oak

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013 | reply

Hi want to clarify something, i didn't even edited the content of Enrique Gil Page. I just made some changes to the format copied the format of "Filmography" and apply it to "Discography". is that a problem? kindly reply :) Thanks :) Double melody :)

It wasn't me who reverted your latest edit, so I suggest you ask the user who did. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

how will i know who is the user? kinda new w/ this one. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Double Melody(talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Double Melody: Look at the latest warning you got. It was signed by User:Skarebo, so ask on his/her talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I plan to add link/sources for the page today. but you removed all of it.. may i know why? Double Melody (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You had plenty of time to add sources, but nothing happened, so the unsourced material was removed. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Đakovica

Hi ThomasW. Thanks for the good faith contributions on Đakovica. If you look closely at the two revisions [1], you'll find there is no original research. The main difference in main space is the addition of the historical name (how it was in Turkish) and that is sourced. It is relevant for the English language and for the article. It was removed not for being original research but because the user to do so was reverting an alleged "sockpuppet". The very same contribution favoured there contains poorer English and removes the city name (article title) from the infobox along with its Serbian Cyrillic spelling. Since Bobrayner stands firmly by hat premise over common sense, he will likely revert on that principle. If any part of the current revision is erroneous, can I suggest you edit the page rather than pick one over the other, keep the good bits, take out the bad parts, add what you think is right. I don't think my contribution will be widely appreciated sadly. Thanks. --The Next Timelord (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source on the additional comment[2]. The Next Timelord (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

संपादन बनाम व्याकरण शुद्धि

विकिपीडिया संपादित करने के लिए सूत्रों तथा सौजन्य की बाध्यता है, व्याकरण शुद्धि के लिए नहीं । — Preceding unsigned comment added by उत्तरादित्य (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know enough English to be able to write a message on my talk page in it you shouldn't be editing the English language Wikipedia. You can NOT change percentage figures for religion, or the population density, in the article about Uttarakhand, or arbitrarily remove languages from the list of languages spoken there, without reliable sources. Period. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

मैंने बस तथ्यों को सही किया है, इसमें कुछ भी गलत नहीं है। — Preceding unsigned comment added by उत्तरादित्य (talk •contribs) 22:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Having the facts right isn't enough, they must be verifiable too. Read Wikipedia's rules about verifiability before making another edit. And write in English the next time.Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Are you online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by उत्तरादित्य (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Are you going to talk? उत्तरादित्य (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

KazekageTR

Thank you for re-reverting the edits by KazekageTR. You should be aware that I had already undone their edits and they just reverted them right back, so there is a chance they might do that again. Just a heads up. Happy Holidays. --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I've had a conversation with him on his talk page, so I don't think he'll change them again. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 23:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Much appreciated. --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thomas.W. You have new messages at Bobrayner's talk page.
Message added 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The latest Christian2941 sockpuppet

You have evidently put a lot of work into this, including a huge number of reverts. Good work. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a humble request

• Ok, before any user checks me i admit that i am rajputbhatti. but please let me explain why i have been making so much socks? my first sock was gujar. I was foolish enough to create it because i was blocked for tow days? I have now realized that i had waited for 2 days then nothing like this would have happened. with my these socks i became so notorious on wiki. my last sock was blolay. after its block, i almost had given up because it was just waste of time for wiki and me. i have not made any socks for more 1month. but at last i made another sock because i can't resist editing wiki. plz check contribs of ora. they are all sourced and neutral except hinduism(i watched on a tvchannel that hindu worship cows)but now i am sorry. the only request from is that plz give me one last chance so that i can prove that i am a true lover of wiki.
• for God's sake.plz just 1 chance. if i make any bad edits then block me at once.Ora7 (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• i know that rules are rules but i have been breaking them for a long time. plz stop me doing this and give me one last chance.Ora7 (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Address your concerns to JamesBWatson, who blocked you, not me. You can probably still edit your talk page, so discuss it there. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!

Happy Saint Lucy's Day!Hafspajen (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Tack! Och glad Lucia själv! Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

hi Thomas

I responded to your concerns here [3]. I really hope 'we can work it out' Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

When an edit

When an edit happens anonymously, and especially in a language you don't recognize, just say to go to the talk page, cause you risk offending. Speling12345 (talk) 8:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Speling12345: A) If you had posted a link, a diff or at least more info about whatever you're talking about it would have been easier to reply to it; B) edits in foreign languages (and I recognize/understand quite a few of them) don't belong on the English language Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I really suggest that you read the post before you reply. Make a note of it. Speling12345 (talk) 8:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Speling12345: What post? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:Just the one right here, the bad one. Speling12345 (talk) 9:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Speling12345: This is getting sillier and sillier. The only recent edit in a foreign language made by an anonymous editor that I have reverted replaced a large part of the article about the Finnish language with a comment in Finnish that translated into English means "Wikipedia's founders are homeless fagots who live in a mud hut without food and drink", an edit that is simple vandalism, and was treated/responded to as such. But I suggest you be a bit more specific next time if you want to be taken seriously. Thomas.W ^{talk to me}09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:You do not need to make such a long reply for me to read the written etch words. Speling12345 (talk) 9:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, Tomas. This editor has been indefinitly blocked because of the editor’s disruptive edits. Or, Tjäna Thomas. Din plågeande har blivit blockerad. Bra, va? Hafspajen (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Det förvånar mig inte det minsta. Han/hon/hen (välj själv vilket du vill ha...) verkade ha lite svårt för det... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Det där var nog en hen... en höna det vill säga. Hafspajen (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Spamlinks

User:malikjozane I dont understand why you removed my link but for your kind information the url contains the latest details of tatkal scheme. The URL was http://myirctcloginpage.blogspot.com/p/irctc-tatkal-scheme.html

And I know it doesnt increase my ranking in search. Just wanted to help :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikjozane(talk • contribs) 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Malikjozane: We only add official links, and the link to a page on Blogspot is not an official link. As for just wanting to help, your previous contributions, and the repeated warnings that your previous additions of spamlinks have earned you, tell a totally different story. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin article

Hi Thomas,

I suspect I'd the one close to the boundaries on "edit warring" on the bitcoin article - I suppose because I've been quite active on the Bitcoin article in the past 24 hours.

Most of the reversions I've done have been with the addition of citations, for example

• One user removed the reference to bitcoin being "open source" because it wasn't referenced. Bitcoin is commonly known to be open source and instead of asking for a citation that user removed open sourceall together. This is a very very important aspect of bitcoin so I re-added the reference with a citation.

• The same user in the same edit removed the definition distinction between Bitcoin and bitcoin, again because it had no citation. Again this is an important distinction and the removed lines were re-added with a citation.

• Another user reverted my change, which was to remove factually incorrect information. I believe this was done twice. I removed the incorrect fact and provided an alternative and cited variation on the theme. In this case the article said bitcoin was effectively banned in china, the alternative clarifies this isn't the case and explains actual events.

Apologies if it is me, although I hope you can see the intention isn't edit warring (I suppose everyone says that) - If it is me, I'd love some feedback on better ways to deal with these sorts of problems on contentious articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinceSamios (talk •contribs) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) VinceSamios (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@VinceSamios: You have more problems than just the edit-warring, as you could see from the conflict-of-interest notice someone else gave you (which was then promptly removed by you). So please read both WP:EW and WP:COI before continuing to edit the Bitcoin article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I thought I was doing you a favour by removing this following having read your reply, but if you have a specific wish to keep it thats also fine by me. I wasn't clear on the definition of edit warring so you've enlightened me, and my comment on the removal was "thank you" - I'm being quite civil here, I sense a little hostility but I'm moving on. edit: I keep forgetting sign stuff.VinceSamios (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@VinceSamios: I assumed good faith, so don't worry, but never remove stuff from other people's talk pages unless it's obvious vandalism. Most experienced editors do what I do, i.e. archive talk page content now and then, keeping everything in case I ever need to "revisit" something. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Got to Believe edits

Can you please explain the massive reverts that you have done on the Got to Believe page? — Preceding unsigned comment added byPolmags (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Polmags: See message on your own talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W':Thank you for your recent revert of the blanking and vandalism on this page. I will be adding more reliable sources/references to it. Polmags (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)polmags

Merry Christmas

Hafspajen (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• @Hafspajen: Tack, och God Jul själv! Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, skinka... korv... köttbullar... .........................................................................................................:)Hafspajen (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Tack Bish*, och God Jul. Nu skall vi strax iväg och fira svensk jul, ett firande som roterar mellan oss och barnen, så att vi turas om att ordna det... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
PS. I hope you have a "real" Christmas, Bish, with plenty of snow. Because the Christmas that we have, with grey skies, 10C/50F temperatures and a drizzle of rain, which is typical for this time of year around here, doesn't give a real Christmas feeling... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Midvinternattens köld är hård, stjärnorna gnistra och glimma. Alla sova i enslig gård djupt under midnattstimma. Månen vandrar sin tysta ban, snön lyser vit på fur och gran, snön lyser vit på taken. Endast tomten är vaken.

Midvinternattens cold is hard, the stars sparkle and gleam. All sleep in lonely farm deep under the midnight hour. The Moon wanders his silent ban, the snow shines white pine and fir, the snow is white on the ceilings. Only the plot is awake. Akta dig Thomas, för snö på innertaken, medan endast intrigen är vaken. Underbart obegripligt och absurt Viktor Rydberg, Google-translation.Hafspajen (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

External lunks removal

You removed external links to a Facebook (official) and Twitter (official) source for Katia Elizarova (page) that are akin to external links on all pages for people of note active online with fan pages and on various social media platforms. They a're wholly relevant supplements to bio material on Wiki and useful to those reading articles. Why would you want to remove these? I have put them back. Also, at the same time you also removed images too and didn't note it in your edit, which is not cool either. — Preceding unsigned comment added byCarpefemme (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Carpefemme: AFAIK the links have not been confirmed as genuine, so stop your edit-warring. You're now at five reverts in less than 24h, so how about finding something else to do for a while? Such as trying to find out what Wikipedia is and isn't. Hint: It's an encyclopaedia, not a social web site as you seem to believe. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know editing is not cool. Why not bother to investigate and find out that they are official. They are noted as such and in your poor editing you are also deleting images. Please take better care of your edits and indeed there is destructive editing of the page which you are recognised as complicit with, that I have to keep reverting. It is tiresome. So leave official links and edits alone and enjoy your Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk •contribs) 18:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your help with User:Carpefemme. Lady Lotus • talk 19:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

More problems

Carpefemme (talk · contribs) is still arguing on their talk page (in their unblock request) that that they were right. This is despite their breaking the 3RR rule on the other page with six reverts, and the evidence to the contrary. I can't look through this editor's contribs right now, but are you able to help? Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have posted on their talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The external link/official site for Elizarova redirects to a facebook page that isnt verified. Lady Lotus • talk 21:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus: Link removed. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly :) Lady Lotus • talk 01:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No such article

-well there is now a redirect, as it is clear from google books searches that Rouzhi is a very respectable, perhaps more correct, transliteration of Yuezhi. Sometimes it's better to dig a little, rather than just revert. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Philoumenos of Jacob's Well - perpetrators

Dear Thomas,

As I described in more detail to the other Wikipedian, EpicGenius*, who had reverted the previous edit, I am happy to provide more materials for the claim about the Jewish perpetrators.

Will this be enough? http://www.acrod.org/assets/files/PDFS/Messenger/CM%20-%201-08_Web.pdf

After all he was not made an instant saint (not only a victim) for nothing.

• FYI, for the ease of reference, let me selfquote my recent Talk to EpicGenius:

---

"Philoumenos of Jacob's Well

Quoting your FAQ: "Most edits should be properly cited, sourced and referenced."

The original page, before your deletion, of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philoumenos_of_Jacob%27s_Well that is the mention of the Zionist perpetrators, was true. The claim is sourced, as provided in the article.

Why I feel strongly about it? Myself I was on the very spot there, and I talked to the current archimandrite. (I had not known about this murder at all before entering the church by chance). I could not believe it, as it was so shocking, so I did secondary research about this crime in Israel. It did indeed happen as described."

---

I know it is very controversial, so please guide me in properly quoting it and maybe providing insight into the other editors "POV" logic, to avoid further reverts.

PS. Here's another link, to an objective article,Archive of article, available only on Archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 22:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Zezen: I reverted your edit because your claim that the priest "was murdered by extremist Jewish Zionists" isn't supported by any sources. Even the latest link you posted here, to Reuters, says"when a group of people, believed to be fanatical Zionists" etc. Do you see the difference? Your text presents it as an absolute fact, while the sources report it as being something that some peoplebelieve, but that has never been proven. Potentially controversial claims, such as the one you made, must be directly supported, that is explicitly stated, by proper reliable sources. If they're not, you can't add them. And no synthesis of sources is allowed. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I think I get it. I can see three solutions: 1. I add additional sources: A. "Synodic decision, classifying him to the hagiologion as a martyr at its 50th Session /11-9-2009 by the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem", partial source: http://www.jp-newsgate.net/en/2009/11/29/656 B. The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, Edited by: Ken Parry, David J. Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H. Griffith and John F. Healey eISBN: 9780631232032 Print publication date: 2001, saying "Philoumenos was murdered by Zionist extremists determined to remove Christians entirely from this sacred Jewish site. He is commemorated on 16 or 29 November." http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631232032_chunk_g978063123203220_ss1-39

-> Good enough?

2. I only mention that he was threatened by local Zionist settlers a week before his martyrdom, as per e.g. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Jacob%27s_Well, quote "In November 1979, a week after a Zionist group came to the monastery claiming it as a Jewish holy place and demanding that all religious iconography be removed, the custodian of the well, Archimandrite Philoumenos, was found hatcheted to death inside the crypt housing the well. Though the two events are thought to be related, no one was ever arrested for the murder.[6][10]"

3. I just give up, as it is going to be quickly censored (vandalized) anyway, as per the sorry editing history of the relatedJacob's Well?

These are not rhetorical questions. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk •contribs) 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why I am described as a vandal here? Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What your problem ?

This is a real information . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.181.223.13 (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not, since you have now been blocked for two weeks... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Philoumenos of Jacob's Well - perpetrators: references, wall painting

Dear Thomas,

As per our discussion above, I provided many more sources. Plus the photo. Is it good enough? I am afraid it will be vandalized (NPOVed etc.) soon. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dana Ewell

Bethana24 is continuing to do strange edits to the Ewell article. I have seen this so many times before a new editor who just pops out of nowhere and does not want to discuss only get their own way without discussion. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The user has now started outright vandalizing the article. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: It's not vandalism. I suggest you too step back for a while, as you ought to have done instead of making your own major rewrite just after I had reverted Bethana24. I'll keep an eye on the article for the next day or two. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not checked out the article for a long time but realised that someone had made several strange edits even before Bethana24 that looked weird. And that is why I reverted it back to an even older version with more correct information. So I did not do a huge rewrite I simply reverted it back to a version which can atleast be considered useful. So I will not take any criticism of rewrites etc to heart as I only did what was right. Anyhow, it is good that you will keep an eye on it. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Italian Empire map

Hi, yes I know, in 1941-42 East Africa were not more part of the Italian empire, but that image is an anachronistic one, which not show Italian possessions in an year, but all the territories which were part of the Italian colonial empire, many of these for example Tunisia or East Egypt were part of it just for few months during the WW2. Anyway, if the anachronistic map is not good, no problem to use another one.-- Nick.mon (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you revert my uploaded image? I just changed the color! You are accusing me of things that I never did! Yes the other one was wrong, but I don't understand why you have changed my upload image. I just use a better red. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the image of 1939 that I have uploaded that you have changed, 1 there were other territories? -- Nick.mon(talk) 14:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: You did not just change the color, you also "painted" San Marino and the Vatican State red, including them in Italy, which both was and is factually incorrect. Don't underestimate me or other Wikipedians, we're not quite as easily fooled as you seem to think... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes you are right. Excuse me. I am not underestimate you, I thought that they was so little states to represent. Anyway excuse me again. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I changed the red in the photo with the red that I think it is better? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for that, so leave the image as it is. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I just thought that the color was better... -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Self Appointed Police

Thomas W or Tom or whatever, you keep bullying around without having sufficient expertise on the matter. You keep blocking people and removing edits based in your preconceived ideas and notions. Why don't you instead spend time researching edits before bulldozing your way and deleting it.? Its sad that people like you have taken the onus of Policing on Wikipedia, someone who has ZERO ability to research and even lesser access to information.

I challenge you to prove my edits wrong. If you can prove me wrong, I will willingly delete those passages myself and if they are right you keep yourself from Wikipedia. In short you will have to practice a self imposed ban for been uninformed and arbitrary. Is that acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthglobal(talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Parthglobal: The edits you made were a direct continuation of the "work" of Ulka1211, who received multiple warnings for both adding irrelevant trivia to articles and spamming directly promotional material (repeating the same non-notable company name over and over) on multiple articles. And since reverting me on Jaya Bachchan as your very first edit, combined with the fact that your account was created not long after Ulka1211 received a final warning for spamming promotional material, does look suspicious to someone who's been around for a while, the caution I gave you can be seen as both a notice to you to stop adding irrelevant material to biographies of living people, and a message to you that you've got eyes on you, in case you should decide to also continue the spamming that Ulka1211 was warned for. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I jumped into the fray only on instance of ulka1211 who informed me that his/her edits were constantly deleted by you and you threatened to block ulka1211's profile. Ulka1211 is neither a publicist nor a PR spokesperson. Ulka1211 is an entertainment industry expert while I am a journalist with experience that probably pre dates even your birth. It will do you World of good, to refer to, La Mode magazine issue dated May 1995. That magazine was sold to a leading Eurooean Publishing house before its revival online. Other option for you would be to verify with jaya Bachchans office about that interview.

I think Jaya's involvement with indeginous Khādī movement is more worthy information then her grand daughter and son in laws information. Your lack of research and access to verifiable information cannot be blamed on someone who is stating facts here. I currently am not in possession of the magazine from that period but, I can surely ask ulka1211 to email you scanned copy of that interview as I am not sure if the web has page indexed from that year (1995).

I think rather then smell rat at every possible edit, you should do some research before going and deleting information that are worthy and factual. And let me sound you a word of caution, if you carry on with your unhindered policing I will ensure that the only page you will be busy with is this one. I will rain thousands of my readers to flood that page and all the pages that you irreverently block or delete leaving with no time or option to do anything constructive.

If you can resort to arbitrary destructive attitude then so can I. Unlike, ulka1211, I am not a rookie in this domain. This is a warning you don't want to take lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.103 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Unhindered Self Promotion goes unnoticed

I wonder how this FAKE article has gone unnoticed for so long, by the self proclaimed moral police on Wikipedia. While these uninformed morons are busy blocking or deleting genuine edits to an article, here is the case of unbridled self promotion being not only allowed to stay alive for this long (Since 2011) but, also flourish here on Wikipedia. Thomas W what will you do about this gaffé.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Vaali.

This article has survived without a single verifiable link or news link. Is it a joke or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added byParthglobal (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

112.210.88.105

This is an FYI. User 112.210.88.105 has carried on making multiple edits after your level 4 warning yesterday. I've erred on the side of caution and given them another level 4, as over 24 hours have lapsed. Also, I don't know enough about the pages this IP is editing to be confident about reverting them myself. So, it's up to you whether you want to pursue this yourself. Cheers, Nick Levine (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nick Levine: I noticed the warning you gave the IP, and promptly filed a report at WP:AIV. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, fine. This leaves the task of unwinding the damage (sigh)... Nick Levine (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ford Mustang SVT Cobra edit by 95.208.248.102

I'm not a registered user and only contribute by occasionally reverting what looks like vandalism, such as the December 11 edit of Ford Mustang SVT Cobra that partially removed a two year old segment from the introduction. In fact, I considered this as kind of a duty as reader. I was unaware that to do this, it's necessary to actually know the topic and be able to cite sources to improve upon the previous state of the article -- it just looked like a pretty safe and useful activity. My apologies.

In case you weren't aware of the source of the content I added or the broken state the page was (and again is) in, this is FYI that I simply reverted an earlier edit manually. Just in case you want to remove the broken sentence fragment you left, or restore it to its former, complete (but uncited) state.

Because I know nothing about how and when Wikipedia notifies someone about something I'm posting this here. From the talk page guidelines, it seems to be permissible. Feel free to delete this.95.208.248.102 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

M16 Bosnia and Herzegovina

warned away me regarding the feeding of our site M16 rifle, I do not put references here and you checked the source of the Ministry of Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina to use the M16 rifle in the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina

http://mod.gov.ba/OS_BIH/struktura/Operativna_komanda/6Pjesadijskabrigada/?id=15836 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mućkalo(talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Mućkalo: That link does not support your claim that the BiH Armed Forces use the M16 as a service rifle. All it says is that some people from the BiH Armed Forces have taken part in a shooting competition using the M16, which isn't particularly remarkable since the armed forces of most countries train their personnel in using common foreign weapons (which also seems to be supported by the article you linked to, since it clearly says that the shooting competition was part of BiH preparations for competitions against other countries...). What you need is a reference/source that says that the M16 isissued as a service weapon to members/units of the BiH Armed Forces. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Gott nytt år!! Hope you are having a lovely time!!!! All the best for you! Some nice cake for you!Gingergread like this is tasty! Hafspajen (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced edits on BLPs

Sir , Check That Ravi Taja and Gopi Chand Details , Its True and Prabhas profile is incomplete so , i upload his true story in wikipedia, You have to again check it Niksniszofficial(talk) 18:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Niksniszofficial

@Niksniszofficial: It's not up to others to search for references for edits you make on various biographies of living persons, it's up to you to provide references for everything you add, adding the references at the same time as you make the edits. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Mazda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why you think what I edited is irrelevant? See [4] ----Now wiki (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Now wiki: Because the edit I reverted was irrelevant. A person who reads the article about Mazda doesn't care which company group a briefly mentioned bank belongs/belonged to. Your next try, with more info (including info about later owning a part of Mazda) and a reference, is relevant though. Which is why it wasn't reverted... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize that the information you removed is part of the whole picture I am trying to paint? Secondly, the info I added is sourced from another Wiki page. Should I add a link for your reference?---Now wiki (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

My day is done now. But as you remain silent, I would revert back my edit.---Now wiki (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I remained silent only because my day was done before yours... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Now your day has apparently started. I'm still awaiting your response.---Now wiki (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: See Wiki:Keiretsu.---Now wiki (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Now wiki: I know what a keiretsu is, but the article is about Mazda, a car manufacturer, not whatever keiretsu the company might belong to. And before you continue the discussion take a good look at the edit history of Mazda. I reverted your first edit before you added the rest, so I did not selectively remove part of the text you added. As for the second revert of it, take that discussion with Mr.Choppers on his talkpage, not mine. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How can you argue that which keiretsu a Japanese company belongs to is irrelevant in its article???---Now wiki (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, meaning that ~99% of the readers don't know what a keiretsu is, don't care what a keiretsu is, and have no need for knowing what a keiretsu is...Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised at your confidence that " ~99% of the readers don't know what a keiretsu is" in English Wiki. Can you cite your source? Isn't there an article about keiretsu in English Wiki? May be that's why it exists - for the "~99%" reader you said who don't know it. I am sorry but this is getting off topic, you still have not explain yourself why keiretsu is irrelevant in the article.---Now wiki (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.---Now wiki (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A report that was closed as frivolous/trivial/out of place almost before you left the page... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed notability of awards

I haven't added any promotional material to wikipedia. The awards I added are all properly and independently sourced by notable magazines including AVN which is a leader in the porn industry. This caution is baseless as I'm unaffiliated to any company and gain nothing by sponsoring them. What is the criteria that should be followed in order to identify something as "non-notable purely promotional"?Hanswar32 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hanswar32: Yes you have, the "awards" that you are edit-warring to get into multiple biographies about pornographic performers are utterly non-notable and solely intended to draw the attention to the companies who sponsor them (see WP:Notability and WP:Notability (awards); also see WP:Indiscriminate for one of the things Wikipedia is not). Warnings have previously been issued to other editors, at least one IP-editor has been blocked, and several articles have been protected to keep the material out (as I'm sure you know...). So stop what you're doing. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As I’ve previously stated, I have no affiliation to any company let alone porn companies so accusing me of having the sole intention of drawing attention or sponsoring them is an utter lie. With regards to notability, these awards are independent from the performer receiving them and are also covered by independent, non-trivial sources (AVN Magazine) which meet guidelines you’ve provided. With regards to indiscriminate collection of information policy, the encyclopedia value of such awards is subjective and its suitability for inclusion is the real issue being discussed (i.e., notability). I will repeat again that I haven’t added any promotional material to Wikipedia and just because you disagree with me over the value of inclusion/notability of such awards doesn’t make your accusation true. It’s one thing to discuss whether such awards meet guidelines of inclusion and another thing to have to defend myself from being a promotional company sponsor. So stop what you’re doing and assume good faith.Hanswar32 (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hanswar32: It doesn't matter whether the user adding it is affiliated to the company or not, if the awards by their nature and names are purely promotional, and non-notable, repeatedly adding them to multiple articles is promotional spamming. And being covered in AVN-magazine, a magazine by and for the porn business, doesn't automatically make an award notable (see WP:Notability (awards)). So the warning stands. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I care more about the articles being edited (and the information being unfairly removed) then I do about a baseless warning from an editor who disagrees with me. The issue all boils down to our differing views of what is “purely promotional and non-notable” from which your “warning” originates from. I’ve had a look through WP:Notability (awards) and presented my argument above (which is not limited to it only being sourced by AVN-magazine) for why I believe such awards are notable enough for inclusion. Hanswar32 (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How's things?

How're you doing, Tom? Please be polite to MONGO, who is an eminent and respected content writer. Even if a little wild and hairy on occasion. If you're feeling stressed by the confrontational SPAs, I don't blame you, but lass dich nicht verhärten in dieser harten Zeit. How about relaxing for a while in Bishzilla's pocket, that you've helped decorate? Bishonen | talk 16:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

MONGO pinged! All cool with MONGO, though I am hairy....and have fat hands and hit "cut" on personal device which did lots of cutting. Considering my scope of interest maybe Wilderness is an article I should devote time to getting to FA....Thomas.W did fine reminding MONGO to be careful.--MONGO 16:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't fool me, Bigfoot, you obviously used your fat feet on that touchscreen. But yes, it sounds like a perfect FA for you to work on. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

Hello Bish. I'm fine, except for it being one of those days when there are too many people around who can only focus on one small part of things, and can't see the whole picture. MONGO doesn't seem to be a mongo though, I'll keep that in mind the next time...  ;) Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sssshhhh...dats apposed dah be a seacrit...I am a full fledged MONGO!!

Ok, I'll play along... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that

i carelessly erased my request because ir was rejected so sorryy about that wont happen again

as for the others wont happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7en21o (talk • contribs)

@Se7en21o: It better not happen again, because you're now at level three out of four... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Pram

Hi, Thomas, thank you for the elegant pram. Speaking of the display of images, are you acquainted with this little fellow?

{{-}}

Just a hyphen with wings round it, to keep bits of a page from scrunching up together. My wikilife became much simpler after RexxS drew my attention to it. (Check it outhere.) Bishonen | talk 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

Nifty little thing, thanks... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Armed Forces

Azerbaijan army active personal is 131.200 in 2014.Ministry of Defence says Azerbaijani army personal is 131.200.But you say 66.940.Please stop changing!!!!! — Precedingunsigned comment added by Badukuba (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Badukuba: You can not change it unless you have a reliable source that supports it. Continuing to post higher numbers, with fake references to boot, is only going to get you blocked. Thomas.W ^{talk to me}17:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by [name of actor] AfDs

Hello. I noticed you nominated for deletion three articles on awards and nominations received by certain actors. In the future, it would probably be a good idea to just have one AfD for multiple articles, as they pretty much have the same deletion rationales and people !voting would probably give the same reason anyway. Thank you and happy editing! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

cameronhclark: Do not block me!

I removed the webshop html txt from the page. It was a test. Sorry User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 4 Cameronhclark (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Nike Total 90 Tracer

I've nominated Nike Total 90 Tracer for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 23#Nike Total 90 Tracer. Since you participated in the AfD for this page, you may be interested in commenting there. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not revert

Hello sir. Good day. Just want to inform you that I have restructured the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 article. The previous figures shown in the article were fake or were product of fancraft. I have updated and corrected the gross sales too with proper citations added.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Renzoy16: Don't worry, I have noted the quality of your contributions and don't revert your edits... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality Control

If there is an error on a webpage, e.g. the value of a fixed datum (such as the date for Lincoln's assassination) appears twice on a page and varies between occurrences, is there a way to flag the error without actually modifying the page? Not being the author of the page I prefer to let them know there's an issue rather than change the data myself, after all I might pick the wrong value.

Sacbob2011 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. So let's get to specifics.

Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne (I hope that's a sufficient reference for everybody) states "Charlemagne had eighteen children over the course of his life with eight of his ten known wives or concubines". Just under this statement there are 20 children attributed to Charlemagne in a table, which also shows which of his wives/concubines delivered them. This is a discrepancy which casts doubt on the integrity of the data. What other, potentially more critical, mistakes haven't been found?

While I could I could fix the discrepancy myself (probably the opposite way to what it should be) I've already been shot down twice for one unsourced change and I'm not going to do that again for fear of excommunication.

Sacbob2011 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

139.195.23.13

This IP continued to make unsourced edits to Malaysia Airlines destinations page and attacked me on my talk page. Rzxz1980 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of my content on the page for Chink

Hello, and welcome to the Internet. Here's a website you may find helpful for future referencing needs. https://www.google.com/#q=joe%27s+chinks2001:558:6027:7F:5D6C:BE24:3540:D5E2 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)