User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 8

Ease of doing business

2016 report: I don't know how to order it according to 2016 data! :( Also I don't know how to update quickly. I stopped at Mongolia and then only added Russia and Ukraine which are countries on the news. Can you do it?--146.199.126.230 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About deletion of content

Pethmakhama is known for the religious monument Asar Sharief and religiously important to every Muslim of Kashmir. If the importance of the village is not there then it is useless to keep an article on Wikipedia without the basic information. The Village is the hub of sports activities so why delete it. It is true and important with verified facts from Kashmir India. Information about the mohallas makes Wikipedia more informative. So why delete the content which is well referred, neutral and accordingly written as per Wikipedia standards of writing.Pethmakhama 12:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pethmakhama (talk • contribs)

@Pethmakhama: It's an article about a small ordinary village, one of tens of thousands of similar villages in that part of the world, and what you're adding is excessive detail; every village and town in the world has local sport activities, what a mohalla is can be found in a separate article and isn't something we add to every article (the details you repeatedly add about the mohallas in Pethmakhama are also excessive, and of interest only to the people who live there), and Asar Sharief might be important to the people who live in Pethmakhama but obviously not important enough to have an own article, which it probably would have if, as you say, it's "religiously important to every Muslim in Kashmir". Several experienced editors have asked you to stop adding trivia/excessive detail, but you're still edit-warring over it, behaving as if you own the article (including editing as IPs too until the article was protected), and until you removed most of them your talk page was full of messages and warnings from other editors, all relating to your edits and your behaviour on Pethmakhama, Budgam. So stop. Thomas.W ^talk 13:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I

I wanted to add some info about modern literizations. 5.156.44.176 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about a historical person who is also an Orthodox Christian saint, so trivia like the material you have repeatedly tried to add to the article does not fit in... Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries in Ukraine

Re the subcategories for centuries in Ukraine, what century would you start with? I added Category:9th century in Ukraine and Category:10th century in Ukraine to be to be a parent for the existing Category:9th-century Ukrainian princes. The category Category:Medieval Ukrainian royalty includes Ruthenian princes and Rulers of Kievan Rus’ , The category Category:Varangians regards them as “Russian people of Swedish descent” as they are an ethnic Scandanavian dynasty in this part of Europe, whether categorised as Russian or Ukrainian. Hugo999 (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Hugo999 since that's where the discussion started. Thomas.W ^talk 23:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Knowledgeninja100

Please note the comment I left on this user's talk page today. Yesterday I reported this editor here as a vandal. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Thomas

This IP adress 178.152.28.45 is continuously vandalizing the wikipedia page Pethmakhama, Budgam. Plz warn him/her for the behaviour. Thankyou. ( Gowhar Nabi^TALK 06:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Language

Hi, you have deleted one of my edits on this page List of languages by number of native speakers, that was (clearly indicated in edit comment) based on this non-wikipedia source http://www.francophonie.org/Estimation-des-francophones.html that states between 212 and 220M french native speakers in the world. please explain why you deleted my update... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisi eu (talk • contribs)

@Wisi eu: Yes, and I will delete it again if you keep adding it. The list is about native speakers (i.e. "first language", "mother tongue"), and sorted in descending order by number of such speakers, not about total speakers, including "partial speakers", which is what you're adding. Thomas.W ^talk 13:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am talking about native speakers, someone just got the wrong numbers... 212M is the number of native speakers, 274 is the number of total estimated speakers... try to document or read the french version if you can. or cross verify info with french wiki moderators. It's annoying to see such outdated information on wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisi eu (talk • contribs) 13:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wisi eu: No, the number of native speakers isn't 200 M (Nationalencycklopedin says 74M, the French government says 80M...). So don't try to add it again. Thomas.W ^talk 13:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is clearly ill will: the population of metropolitan and oversea France (67M), Francophile Belgium (over 4M) and the native Quebec french speakers (over 6M) already exceeds 75 million people... (not taking into account native speakers in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monaco, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Tunisia, Senegal, Ivory-Coast, Madagascar, Togo, Niger, Mali, Benin, Gabon, Haiti, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Pondichery region, djibouti and a few others, which all have french as sole or (more rarely) co-official national language...

I am observing this kind of attitude towards french data all around the anglophile internet, but some time enough is enough. If you don't trust the sources I bring (?) document yourself on the actual (factual) number of native french speakers (yes, the ones who learn and use french as a first language) in these countries and then modify that number on the wiki page accordingly. The sources for chinese, spanish, english or arabic languages are not even that solid and well documented... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisi eu (talk • contribs)

@Wisi eu: Your talk about "ill will" is just silly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to boost egos. You obviously don't know the difference between first language and second language speakers, and people who know some French but don't use it everyday (like me). And your figures are wrong, not even everyone in France is a first language speaker of French, there are millions of first and second generation immigrants in France who speak Arabic or other languages as their first language, and French only as their second language, so the total number of first language speakers of French is somewhere between 74 and 80 million (see Talk:French language#Population inflation for more). Thomas.W ^talk 14:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

@Dharmadhyaksha: Thanks, and the same to you! Thomas.W ^talk 09:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk:NeiLN

Thanks. for show that you said is true and thats beliefs are definite, you need go to a debate about Ancient Egyptian race controversy, we are debating here if my edits are valids in the White people article (about adding Da Vinci image) althought you can contribute in this particular debate in talk:Carwil when you see it convenient, your contribution can help a consensus in the debate--Vvven (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no desire to join that discussion. Thomas.W ^talk 18:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beauman

Hope I didn't tread on your toes, most of the articles I write on are somewhat becalmed. It's a bit of a surprise when someone responds. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: ? I haven't edited any article named Beauman or similar (by your contributions I assume you mean either Beauman Division or Archibald Bentley Beauman), so maybe you intended to post on ThoughtIdRetired's talk page instead? A username that describes me too, BTW. Thomas.W ^talk 22:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops wrong bloke, sorry. Keith-264 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: No problems. You did a good job on Beauman Division... Thomas.W ^talk 23:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I pinched material from Operation Cycle, which I'm rewriting. The various improvised formations involved are interesting and I'm putting relevant passages into them. Keith-264 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Serneholt

If you want to, please take a look at the article Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for posting false info

I realized what I posted about the Impala was a fake. I agree with the F-16 Viper user. 2607:FB90:270E:8F8D:0:49:FD39:6901 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: Not that I will add the biturbo Impala in the article anymore (I will not do so again), but a GM newspaper holder/archiver has definitely confirmed the car. Coolestcars2015 reminded 96wayss that they had the article. 2607:FB90:270E:8F8D:0:49:FD39:6901 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When are you ever going to stop, Jason? With all your energy you could become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, instead of posting one hoax efter the other... Thomas.W ^talk 19:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? 2607:FB90:270E:8F8D:0:49:FD39:6901 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With no intention to threaten you, are you freakin' blind, Thomas? 2607:FB90:270E:8F8D:0:49:FD39:6901 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: creates hoaxes about American muscle cars, <check>, editing style, <check>, geolocation, <check>, and so on. So no, I'm not blind. Thomas.W ^talk 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what the hell? I don't even drive an American car. I have a Nissan, two Subarus, and a BMW. 2607:FB90:270E:8F8D:0:49:FD39:6901 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

plz dont block

My violation of 3 revert rule occured due to my ignorance of the rule .sorry Bdw sir ,it is also a result of another experienced editor's repeated reverting my contribution too...that made me aggressive as i felt he is not letting me add facts .. ! Apologies ...the rules of wiki editing are difficult compared to Facebook etc. Atleast to new users . This ignorance of rules and frustrated assertion may seem like ,single purpose editing or ill intentions. Trust me it wont happen again ! Ranjan s nayak (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello & Thank You

Hello, and thank you for preventing users from removing factual information from the Punjabis page to suit their own interests. Could you please tell me how a I can "revert to a previous version" of a page in case someone starts discriminating in the page again? I'm a relatively new editor. Vdr11 (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Motorsports Archive

Thank you for giving the IP a proper warning. I only knew how to give an informal one. It looks like he may have stopped at 1130 Innes Ireland. I have reverted quite a few of the problems, but by no means all. I messed up twice trying to do the Raymond Mays one. Sorry. SovalValtos (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Hi Thomas, I'd hate to think that you're taking a break in part because of my comments at the SPI. I assure you that was the mildest of "criticisms" and changed nothing about the respect I have for you as an editor and your work at SPI. I have this thing about non-admin-cu-clerks tagging anyway that has zip to do with you specifically. Just like I understand what it's like to be grumpy (our little discussion on my Talk page), I also know what it's like to resent comments people make en-wiki. We deal in a virtual environment and sometimes it's just plain hard to know what people mean when you don't have the benefit of other sensory data. Of course, if you need a break for other reasons, please enjoy the time off, but I at least wanted to clarify my comments at the SPI. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: No, it's not that, even though I didn't like it, after all I was only trying to help, it's a combination of general frustration, as expressed on your talk page, and disliking things I see here, such as the events that led to the summary desysop of Yngvadottir (who IMHO should be given her tools back ASAP). Thomas.W ^talk 13:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought you were doing anything but trying to help. Even assuming you were an SPI clerk, I might take issue with your decision to do X and "overrule" it if I felt strongly enough. Speaking of which, how does your general disgruntlement fit in with your wish to become a clerk trainee? As a trainee, you would be expected (a) to participate and (b) to take direction from those training you. Obviously, we're all human and entitled to good and bad days, but becoming a clerk is a commitment you should not make if you're in a "bad place". Mind you, I'm not trying to dissuade you from becoming a clerk. Your accomplishments at SPI and your abilities, in my estimation, make you a good candidate, but it needs to be a positive experience for you and for the trainers.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I don't feel I'm in a bad place, I just need a bit of rest. And I haven't changed my mind about clerking, if you all feel I can be of help I'm available. Clerking might even help relieve my frustrations since people probably would be more willing to listen to someone who's a clerk at SPI than someone who's just "an ordinary editor"... Thomas.W ^talk 15:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. BTW, I wouldn't think of clerking as therapy. Just because you're a clerk doesn't mean anyone listens to you. You should see some of the abuse Vanja has had to put up with. The important thing is not to let yourself get sucked into a fight. If it happens, just deal with it firmly but without heat. Get some rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Please can you post a request at WP:ANI for the unprotection of user_talk:TheGracefulSlick. I need to leave them a message but their talk page is protected. Thanks, 193.24.32.52 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the history of that user page I'm not going to help you or any other IP circumvent to protection of it... Thomas.W ^talk 17:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:( Really? Can I leave the message here instead then? 193.24.32.52 (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Training

Thank you for applying to become an SPI Clerk. At this time we have decided to take you on to the December 2015 training. Please watchlist the page and keep updated with it as time goes on. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, congrats Thomas, you will be very effective and useful as SPI clerk, specially cases related to sock puppetry on India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topics. Best luck.--Human3015^TALK 20:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Results

I thought you might be interested in knowning what I found because it wouldn't be obvious based on my block log.

No account is related to Evlekis.
JohnnyWelcome was confirmed to an account not on your list: Lame-Llacnacuoy.
SocialIncognito and another account, SocialLoafer, were confirmed to sockmaster Imtitanium.

Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to recalibrate the detector... Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12 06 2015

I have not provided any personal analysis but have only restored the original article before it was edited disruptively. I did not add anything on my own. Some editors are removing its content. Markangle11 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Sultan Bahu#Vandalism. Thomas.W ^talk 15:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good one :)

Hello! Just saw this. Could be your friend Najaf ali bhayo again? [1] Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: Most of his edits seem to be unsourced/unexplained and his behaviour is clearly disruptive, but the style is slightly different from Najaf's usual style (except for the diff you provided, which is "Najaf-style"). So I'll keep a close eye on what he's doing. Thomas.W ^talk 06:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon and Thomas.W: please don't let suspected socks of that one fester. Faster CU, admins, etc can RBI it, the better. DMacks (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar languaje

Khowar has not releated with Punjabi language punjabi is releated to urdu language spoken in pakistan khowar is related to kalasha language and it has some persian language words please correct this mistake now thenks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.64.226 (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

khowar

now i have given the refrence that khowar is closer to kalasha and its working correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farooq balti (talk • contribs) 07:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Farooq balti I think you lack clarity about what is written in the article. Let me explain. Its written First; Khowar is a Dardic language (Need less to mention that Dardic languages include kalasha language as well). Second Dardic languages are separate group but has strong influences from neighbouring Indo aryan languages specially Punjabi (but also Sindhi, Pahari etc) . See the linguistic reference already given there which exactly says all this.Now I hope you will not remove Punjabi with Kalasha bcoz Kalasha by default is in the same dardic group just like shina and 20 other languages. 39.47.210.128 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can always revert on sight and completely ignore the OP, yet another sock of Najaf ali bhayo. DMacks (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited

Hello Thomas! Thanks for the edits on the page. Just wanted to know if you would be able to talk about the edits one by one. To start with:

1. Logo - I had drawn direct inspiration from the Logo section of Samsung Electronics for the logo changelog on this page. As far as I can see, there is no promotional content here. Please advice, and thank you for your time. Thanks Tejas Nair (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: What logos a major international company that has operated for many years, making home electronics that can be found in the homes of hundreds of millions of people all over the world, has used is of more general interest than what logos an Indian telecom company that isn't even in full operation yet has used over the short time it has existed. The logo section is also only a very small part of the total article about Samsung Electronics, whereas it on Reliance Jio Infocom made up a major part of the article. But feel free to add it back again when Reliance Jio Infocom reaches the size of Samsung Electronics. Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Point well-made. Will consider it in other articles. Thanks Tejas Nair (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Out of the other pruned content, can I select a few, rewrite it without a dot of promotional or speculative promotionalism, and without making it look like excessive, and add? Of course, I will be consulting you before and after the edits, provided you will be sparing time for that. Please advice. Thanks. Tejas Nair (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. How can I ensure that a page is a well-written encyclopaedic article? I am surely reading the guides here, but a hands-on approach would do better. Can you give me a live example of a page that you might have across here? Please advice. Again, thanks for your time, Thomas. (I see you are a granddad :).) Tejas Nair (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Feedback accepted

Hey,thanks for the feedback for unconstructive merging. Libragagan (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faridkot Page edits

Hey, Recently I changed 3 pages named Faridkot, merged them into one page with all the reasons. Can you keep my changes back to one page. Because I am from Faridkot, it's just one city, one name and there are 3 pages with content which can be included in one page for the simplicity of the reader.Libragagan (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sámi People # Games

Hi, You deleted a good part of the "games" section. The information you considered to need sources is listed on the Wikipedia sites for the individual games, and the sources are given on those pages. Is it necessary to every time one adds a link to another Wikipedia page, write all the links on the linking page as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.88.92.14 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. Your edits were reverted for being totally unsourced. Thomas.W ^talk 14:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if it should really be seen as "totally unsourced" when the other Wikipedia sites linked to give scientific articles and published, printed books as sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.88.92.14 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia articles can't be added as references, the sources must be added to each and every article that needs them. Thomas.W ^talk 14:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then. Added references from the other Wikipedia articles.

Warnings and sourcing. Bangladesh Army.

Hello Thomas.W.

It is possible your warning to User:BeautifulBD might be rather harsh considering their edits? Looking at the sources supplied for edit such as this one, I even did not find evidence in the source for numbers or types of tanks upgraded, but I did see in the source the following, "a process for upgradation of the old tanks of the corps has already begun to make those tanks time-befitting" which I think may be the basis for the added content "Bangladesh army is upgrading 174 Type-59 tanks to Type-59BD standard". Also I did see in the source "a plan for formation of two more armoured regiments is in our consideration" which I think may be the basis for the added content "Process is going on for the formation of two more armored regiments with 88 new tanks".

Since User:BeautifulBD is only recently started adding content on Wikipedia, I am thinking it is more appropriate to give advice on only adding content that is in the source, not content that they have got from somewhere else. Instead of giving them a warning about deliberately falsifying information which I do not consider they have done.

I hope you will consider this. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: If a source says that a process of upgrading is planned, or has just begun, it cannot be used as a reference for a claim that 179 (or whatever) tanks have already been upgraded. The warning(s) weren't just for that, though, but for making a considerable number of totally unsourced fanboy-type edits on multiple articles. Almost all edits of theirs that I checked where unsourced, in whole or in part, which is not acceptable. Thomas.W ^talk 22:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will check into more of the edits made as I had only looked at the article I had watchlisted. BeautifulBD has made helpful edits there in the past. I do not know what fanboy-type edits are. MPS1992 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also you only made one Warning or comment on the user Talk Page as I can see from page history. MPS1992 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

The using free web proxy, sock puppet Gabucho181. template page {{IPsock|Gabucho181}} editing user blocked by Gabucho181 indef account, not indef ip address, The see Gabucho181

Mr. Thomas.

Hello, Thomas. W, as you may notice I am new in Wikipedia and I thank you for your advise and apologise for my actions. However my current contributions does not inflict any Wikipedia laws so therefore is completely legal. Please do not Change it. Thank you, Sir. (Nicholas Raiser (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, Nicholas Raiser. You should hardly ever use nowiki tags in articles, as you did in Sweden just now — they negate the code between the tags. Look at how it came out when you nowiki'd the link metal; it displayed as [[heavy metal music|metal]], which I'm sure wasn't what you intended. Your edit has been reverted by another user. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your advise.

Again, sir, thank you for your advise. I will still add Amaranthe between the bands listed but in a proper way and without inflicting any laws of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Raiser (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicholas Raiser: All you're doing here on en-WP is plugging Amaranthe and some of the members of that band, and that's using Wikipedia for promotion. You were given a "conflict-of-interest" notice a while ago because of it, and I strongly suggest you click on the links in that message, and read the pages they lead to. I have removed Amaranthe from Sweden again, BTW, along with a few dozen other bands that also don't deserve mention in an article about Sweden, the country, in an encyclopaedia. Which is what Wikipedia is, not a place for plugging upcoming bands, as you seem to think... Thomas.W ^talk 21:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings - Gott nytt år!
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: Tack!!! Och gott nytt år själv. Thomas.W ^talk 20:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolut. Varförsnackarviengelskahelatidendetärobegripligt. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grått nytt hår everybody! Bishonen | talk 11:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Tack, detsamma. Mitt hår kan dock inte bli gråare än det är, och något nytt lär jag inte få... Thomas.W ^talk 11:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in rock and roll

Please contribute constructively to the talk page discussion, rather than simply reverting edits that do not accord with your personal position. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghmyrtle: I have contributed to the discussion, as you would have seen if you had read it. A list article named List of deaths in rock and roll is about rock and roll artists, nothing else, or it would have had another name. If you want to change the scope of it, propose a move. Thomas.W ^talk 10:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that your view of what does and does not constitute "rock and roll" is not universally shared - for example, it apparently conflicts with the position of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (excluding Marvin Gaye, to give one example), not to mention our own article. There is no consensus; discussion continues; and until it is resolved the status quo ante should apply to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghmyrtle: The only practical way there is to handle a list this size is to go by genre, if their article here on en-WP lists rock and roll among their genres (which it doesn't on Marvin Gaye), they belong in the list, if it doesn't, they don't. In other words, let people decide the genres of each artist on the artists' own articles, and what is or isn't rock on Rock and roll, not on this list, where few people see the discussion and can participate in it. Thomas.W ^talk 11:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you must realise, that is not "the only practical way". Genre categories in infoboxes are notoriously subject to change and edit warring, and I have my doubts whether that is a suitable approach. In your edit, did you check all the other entries to see if that is the case? I'm happy to open this up for wider discussion - where do you suggest? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brillat-Savarin

Several pictures of his grave are to be found on Commons, like this one File:Père-Lachaise - Division 28 - Brillat-Savarin 02.jpg, used for instance on his french page (...and by the user you don't like, but who is perfectly accurate in this case). Mechanical destruction of everything a contributor does, under whichever pretext, is not constructive. Sapphorain (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting spamming isn't "mechanical destruction", it's a cleanup job. I've made a further comment on your talk page, please read it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this has nothing to do with "WP:POINTY" i think its better without galleries or infoboxex

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. what i have done has nothing to do with WP:POINTY because i agree of the removal of both galleries and infoboxes Dannis243 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a WP:POINTY removal of content, because there is AFAIK no consensus for removing the infoboxes in articles about ethnicities, as you are doing, only the galleries. Thomas.W ^talk 12:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better that you should not interfere in my edits I am Pakistani and I know that what is true or false on Pakistani articles so please dont interfere in my edits.

Greater Malmö

Greater Malmö is even less about the city than what the Öresund Region is. And above all it is nothing for the lead. A good lead shall cover the contence below. As of now there is far too much demograpics in the lead. And Greater Malmö is not like Greater Stockholm which is a commuter area and a län. We do not just copy everything from SCB. They may be a support for us (English Wikipedia), but as Greater Malmö serves no local purpose does it not qualify for the lead. Also - its borders are questionable and the borders have changed many times. Western Scania is a far more interesting area, the E6 motorway from Trelleborg up to Ängelholm together with the railway between the same towns constitutes a highly populated area. Of Scania's 1,3 million inhabitants a large majority lives along this artery. The importaint thing here is the high population density around Öresund. And the population density is of significance. Already in school books from the fourth grade does pupils all over Sweden learn "that many lives around Öresund". That is basic facts, which in general hasn't changed every fifth year or so. Boeing720 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further You reverted the statement about the Øresund Region to be the most densly populated in Scandinavia. But put like that, the statement becomes untrue. Greater Stockholm has around 325 inh/km2 while the entire Øresund Region with around 3,9 million inhabitants at 20.000 km2 only has close to 200 inh/km2. Somehow I do though believe we quarell about something we can agree about. But tell me why the Greater Malmö area is so importaint and which municipalities that SCB counts - but at the same time rejected (and presumably misunderstood) my contribution which in a nutshell was that the population around Öresund is the most densly populated in Scandinavia. The Öresund Region comprices entire Scania, entire Zeeland including smaller islands in Øresund as well as elswhere, Amager, Bornholm, Falster, Møn and Lolland. This is made up by the Öresund Committy. Didn't you read my inline refs ? So - if we wan't to be "the most densly populated in Scandinavia", then we sure cannot use the Öresund Region. However - if just counting the former HT-area - today the Danish provinces København by, København omegn, Nordsjælland and Østsjælland (with exactly 2.0 million inhabitants at some 2850 km2 area) together with all Scanian municipalities which borders either directly to the Öresund or border to a municipality that does - but not longer. Then we have atleast 925.000 inhabitants at some 3350 km2 in Western Scania. And together atleast 2.925.000 inhabitants at an area of 6200 km2, which gives some 470 inh/km2 - which indeed is a higher value than what Stockholm has. Can you see the reason for my contribution now ? I hope so. Boeing720 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boeing720: What has Lolland, Falster, Göinge and so on got to do with it? Those areas are all far away from Öresund, and thus have nothing to do with a statement saying that "the area around Öresund is the most densely populated area in Scandinavia". You also compare apples and oranges by comparing the population density of Stor-Stockholm, which is a fairly small area including very little "empty spaces", with the population density of the entire Öresund Region, that is all of Scania, all of Själland and all of a lot more, which is a much larger area and includes lots of peripheral "empty spaces", far away from the "area around Öresund". A fair comparison would be between Stor-Stockholm and the areas directly bordering on Öresund, i.e. the Capital Region of Denmark and the westernmost part of Scania (Stor-Malmö, Landskrona Municipality and Helsingborg Municipality), which is the true "area around Öresund", and has a population density of a bit over 350/km², in spite of including half of Scania, and large agricultural/rural areas. Så gör om, gör rätt. Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please , Thomas - I haven't made up those borders. But neither You or I can change facts. Please read the Øresund Region article. And as long as the Öresundskommitten doesn't change the boundries or borders closer to the very densly populated area closer to Öresund, then we cannot lie about it. There are though other ways do come to the conclution we both prefer. Problem is that there are no such region. However I believe that describing the very densly populated area around Öresund is the correct way to go. But you deleted my attempt.

And a friendly advice, as I gather you are rather new here (on English Wikipedia). Forget about Swedish Wikipedia ! Here are the demands for inline references extremely hard. In Swedish or Danish related articles things may this appear to be a bit less strictly. But I can assure you that in the long run it just will not work. You will discover this as soon as you add things to articles which the English speaking world finds to be importaint.

So - even if both You and I believes that Göinge and Lolland shouldn't be included in the formal Öresund Region, can we still not make statements which so easily are discovered as OR or pure lies. We simply can't wright that the Öresund Region is the most densly populated in Scandinavia, as it's formally untrue. But we can wright that the population around Öresund is the largest as well as most densly populated part of of Scandinavia, provided that we can prove it. I really hope you do understand me, I've been here for four years, and I have learned a lot, although I'm no expert. Boeing720 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super8

It seems you are ignorant of the fact that crop factor and focal length equivalents are determined by format size, not by whether a format is chemical or digital. The 1/2.5" sensor size is accurate to at least one decimal point (0.1) to the focal length figures for Super8, hence the difference is irrelevant in practice, as there are hardly any lenses manufactured to a finer difference than 0.5mm. --79.242.220.27 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I'm very well aware of that. But the material you added still has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article in question, that is Super 8 film. Thomas.W ^talk 15:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave

If you are deleting Findagrave links from Wikipedia, migrate them to Wikidata first, please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): "findagrave.com" is a privately owned ([2]) money-generating ([3]) user-contributed/user-generated ([4]) website, and not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and thus can't be used as a reference. Anyone can add information to the site, all you need to do is create a free account there, and with 400,000 members/contributors ([5]) there's no way they can check the information. Thomas.W ^talk 16:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are describing Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons; and IMDB, owned by Amazon. I do not think people would be happy if you removed IMDB. Anyway, please migrate them to Wikidata. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to some ruling the declared Findagrave blacklisted?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Don't you have anything better to do? This is getting ridiculous... Thomas.W ^talk 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, that is why it is so vexing. Get consensus to make controversial changes on a large scale, rather than trying to force change through large scale controversial edits. It save everybody time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a long-standing consensus that Findagrave isn't a reliable source. Which means that there's no need for me to seek a consensus, and that my edits as a consequence of that aren't controversial at all. I suggest you stop your repeated deliberate misrepresentation of what I have been doing, BTW, because it's backfiring. Your first ANI-report was quickly closed, and your second one is now seeing people ask for topic bans for you, and even a block... Thomas.W ^talk 22:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Can you please don't delete the data's that I've put inside the Miss Malaysia Wikipedia page because I have a hard time doing that and I hope that you really appreciate it😀 so please don't delete any data that I put there anymore,please? Miss Malaysia Organization (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog, and nothing you have added has any source of any kind. Which is why it has been removed. Thomas.W ^talk 10:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on articles about districts of Los Angeles

Your recent editing history at Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Note that in addition to Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, this edit-warring also extends to Encino, Los Angeles and Toluca Lake, Los Angeles. If you are unable to reach agreement with the other editors involved, I suggest that you open a WP:RFC to find a consensus solution, and that in the meantime you all stop adding and/or reverting contested material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Please show me where I edit-warred. Both where and when. Thomas.W ^talk 21:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas, you are involved in a prolonged content dispute across several articles which so far has been resolved by you and another editor repeatedly reverting contested material, and by you objecting to any expansion of the articles' coverage of the area's economic profile. I am not going to diff-farm at this stage; you know well what articles are involved, and can read the diffs yourself. If and when this becomes a matter of proposed editing sanctions, then I (or whoever else takes action) will post all relevant diffs ... but I very much hope that will not happen. It would be much better for you and the other editors involved to stop simply blocking change, and start start looking for ways to expand the articles in a WP:BALANCEd form which covers different perspectives per WP:WEIGHT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: That is not what has been happening on those articles over the past 8-9 days. BeenAroundAWhile has been repeatedly adding POV material that multiple other editors have opposed and reverted, five other editors as per last count, not stopping after being reverted, not stopping while it was being discussed, not even listening to what others have been saying, clearly showing that they intend to continue thei slo-mo edit-war until all resistance has been worn down. I'm not even close to edit-warring, and neither is Magnolia667, who you also warned. The only one who has been edit-warring is BeenAroundAWhile. Thomas.W ^talk 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring cannot be done by one editor alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, edit-warring can be done by one editor alone, and often is. Thomas.W ^talk 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is only one editor, there is no war. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: ???? We're talking about edit-warring, not editing. The classical POV-pushing scenario involves one editor adding POV that is then opposed and reverted by multiple other editors. Many editors, but only the one who is repeatedly adding the POV material is "edit-warring". And based on seeing that kind of behaviour for years, and seeing who got blocked for it, multiple editors who defend a clear consensus by reverting an editor who refuses to stop, and clearly shows he/she intends to continue to edit against consensus, aren't edit-warring, as long as they don't violate the 3RR-rule. If editors weren't allowed to defend a consensus there would be total chaos here. And please read the latest comments on Talk:Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles about real-estate spammers, the term "affluent" and why it shouldn't be in the article. It might make you understand why we're so opposed to it. Thomas.W ^talk 23:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, edit-warring can be done as part of a tag-team, and still be edit-warring. £RR is a bright line, not the only definition of edit-warring. The answer is always to stop reverting, and start discussing.

Between one editor insisting on cherrypicking sources to support unqualified single word, and other editors objecting to expansion of the article's coverage of that aspect of the topic, nobody is coming well out of this.

Anyway, I have said my piece. If this dispute if continues, another admin will pick up on it.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We did discuss it, as can be seen on the talk page of the article, but BeenAroundAWhile ignored all opposition and just continued adding their POV... Thomas.W ^talk 23:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Fadia

Hi,

I have no intentions degrading the quality of wikipedia content. I had quoted a relevant and genuine source.I don't understand why the content was reverted back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhisheksinghbiet (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit saying that Ankit Fadia (a biography about a living person) is a "charlatan", with just "youtube.com" as reference is neither relevant in an encyclopaedia nor properly sourced. Don't do it again. Thomas.W ^talk 18:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilwale Edit

I have quote a reliable source.This is a review by a English Daily in India. Please let me know if I am missing something Abhisheksinghbiet (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhisheksinghbiet: Your edit on Dilwale (2015 film) gave this as source, which is just a review of the film, with no mention of box-office performance. Which means it can't possibly support the claim you made in your edit about the movie having performed well at the box-office ("Despite mixed reviews from the critics the movie performed well at the box office") Thomas.W ^talk 18:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much for your suggestion.

In future i will take care of it.

Abhisheksinghbiet (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Should this redirect be RFDed for deletion? Just wondering after noting edits to page I have watchlisted. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@[email protected]: Nominating it for deletion would probably stir up more feelings, and cause more disruption, that just leaving it alone. Thomas.W ^talk 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templating the regulars

Honestly, if "templating the regulars" is bad, as an essay asserts, which is something I do not believe, then your choice of admonishing me for it on an article's talk page instead of on my own talk page is just as bad, for the exact same reasons and rationale. I am not impressed.

In any case, in response to your "Do not template the regulars" essay, I will respond with WP:Equality, which in my opinion makes a pretty compelling case that just because someone is a regular they don't deserve special treatment when they do things that warrant them something that, one way or another, equates to a warning template. LjL (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you shouldn't post a 3RR-warning, what I said was that you should post a customised, "hand written", message instead of a template, especially when it's on the talk page of an editor with as much experience as Malik Shabazz... Thomas.W ^talk 22:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why though? Because their edit count has necessarily earned them my respect and additional time to write a personalized edit message even when they're clearly on the verge of breaking a bright-line policy? My opinion, as a matter of fact, is that if anything, a new user (see also WP:BITE) could deserve a more personalized message, to let them understand clearly what they are doing wrong in the specific circumstance, while a regular should already know a lot better. In other words, I basically disagree with that essay, and I have every right to, since it's not a policy or anything, and there are other essays (and even actual guidelines) that arguably contradict it, like the mentioned WP:BITE and WP:EQUAL. I would probably reacted better to your advice if you had phrased it as advice, not as a "don't", and on my own talk page, instead of on the article's talk page as if to shame my behavior in public. LjL (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that your experienced editor was blocked for incivility and the like as recently as last summer, and by calling the other guy a "dick" now and me a liar, one could argue he's getting there again. And all this, because someone wants to highlight the apparently true fact that, contrary to other ethnic group, the population of one in question is increasing. Totally deserving of insults... not, but of a warning template, probably. LjL (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts make me wonder what you're most against, Malik Shabazz as a person/editor or the removal of the (in my opinion totally malplaced) template. Thomas.W ^talk 23:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template is fine, I don't consider the template a big deal either way - it's just a small arrow, after all, and having it or not will not add or remove an enormous amount of information from the article. The smallness of the issue goes both ways, of course. As a matter of personal attitude, though, I do tend to take issue with editing behavior that is inappropriate according to policy and common sense and courtesy (which is in turn codified in policy). The editor adding the arrow seems a less-experienced editor acting in good faith, while the one sort-of-aggressively removing it seems like an "experienced" editor with previous civility issues and a bad attitude when it comes to debating his nearly-rulebreaking actions. I consider that a problem worth highlighting. Both editors should justify their actions better, in any case. LjL (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What have you guys done?? O Lord!

you guys changed a whole page title. please check this video check this video >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXf8Wi3tR9M please rechange the title to lux new face of year WikiBriefed (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiBriefed: You are the one who is making a mess of the articles. Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut didn't exist before 1995, instead there were Lux Face of the Year and Best Newcomer. So restore the article to what it was before you started to mess with it this morning. Thomas.W ^talk 07:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

arre no yaar it existed as combined award. please. i have checked it all over. please re-read the edit summaries again. it will spoil everything. 1995 tabu and sonali got different awards. WikiBriefed (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also on imdb not everything is correct. and please dont take my words in a rude or mean way. its just that i am frustrated correcting each and everyone again and again. first it was sallu winning debut. thank god it got resolved thanks to you. otherwise i had to fight repeatedly for days for convincing he didnt win. now this mess has been created. please yaar. please dont do this. WikiBriefed (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. What matters here is sources, and the only sources available sofar show that my edits on those articles are correct. So leave it that way until you have sources that support the changes you want to make. Thomas.W ^talk 08:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits promoting Aarhus University

you have redone my corrections regarding uppsala and lund university even though the statements written have been deleted from other university pages in scandinavia among aarhus university and university of copenhagne both ranked as two top universities according to ARWU, Times higher and QS.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.149.115 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter what is done on other articles since each article stands on its own. What you have been doing, remving properly sourced material about their international ranking ([6], [7]) from the articles about other universities in Scandinavia, while at the same time adding unsourced peacockery on Aarhus University is clearly disruptive. You have also previously caused massive disruption on Copenhagen Business School, so stop. Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is outrageous, Aarhus is ranked better than oslo according to all major rankings lists. and both statements such as those on uppsala and lund can would have been deleted on both university of copenhagen and Aarhus sites. furthermore the links you claim prove anything on the wikipedia page of lund university is just links to ranking lists i could do the same for aarhus and copenhagen because they are both listed as high as uppsala and lund on ARWU, Times higher and QS. also the reason for writing aarhus in the oslo faculty of law page is because the link used is for a 25 year old book before Aarhus university began being really famous, here in Denmark many people prefer to study law in Aarhus which is also why the entrance is more competitive than copenhagen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.149.115 (talk • contribs)

I have already replied to that on your own talk page, so let's keep it there. Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

African American imagery

Your so called "rule" about no imagery for African Americans is dodgy. It is not recognised Wikipedia policy and appears to be ad-hoc re writing of the rules-This is not acceptable.

It also appears particularly suspicious as it only appears to affect African Americans. For example, the pages for this [8] and this ethnic groups are liberally littered with imagery.

What is going on here?DanJazzy (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 18:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Elizarova

Your removal of new content from the page seems to counter your point for its removal. I have re-inserted it because of this, I hope that is okay. You mentioned that only important items should be included, so I am sure you will agree that a first cover shoot for a model, and a major global campaign shot by the world's premier photographer are important moments, amidst the many many other bits of work that are omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.132.245 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on Sindh

You reverted my edit on Sindh just a little while ago. That table lists only official census figures and 2011 figures are not official census figures moreover 2011 estimates are mentioned in infobox as well as in the prose below that table so they do not need to be mentioned in the table as well. Also that source which was removed is inaccessible. I added an accessible source in the infobox and in the prose below that table so honestly we do not need 2011 figures in the census table. We should keep that for official figures. If you see the column heading it does state "census" since there was no census in 2011 thus those figures should not go in that table. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: If it was a dead link you should have replaced it with this reflink from the infobox, which isn't dead, instead of just removing it and leaving no source at all for the number. A change of reflink that I have now done. Thomas.W ^talk 20:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was one issue, the other issue is that estimate does not belong in census table. We should keep that for official census figures. That the information sourced does not mean that we should mention it three times in the article. That was my actual reason to remove it from the table. It is misplaced. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should have removed both the 2011 figure and the reference, not just the reference... Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty confident that I removed the whole line. Do you mind double checking what you restored? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: Yes you did, my bad. Sorry. The numbers were hidden among the code, but they were there. But I still think the 2011 figures should be in the article in spite of not being official census figures, since it lets the readers see the rate of increase in the population. Thomas.W ^talk 10:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

Is that true? Or was this account created by another user? Since three fake accounts from sysops here where created, I'm a bit careful ;). Greetings, Luke 081515 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one is real. I saw your posts on the talk pages of the other users (in my watchlist) and decided to create an account at beta, just to make sure the same wouldn't happen to me. Thanks for checking. Thomas.W ^talk 18:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke081515: If you look at the pages created by the fake Ohnoitsjamie account on beta you'll find that there's a bit of a clean-up to do. The creator of the fake accounts is obviously Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002, a very prolific socker and vandal here on en-WP (based in Russia), so you can most probably expect more of the same... Thomas.W ^talk 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massdeleted this pages ;). This vandal creates always pages with this content from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 there. So I've created a global filter at beta some time ago who blocks him. The problem is, that he spams at every wiki at beta, so after a time the filter gets automaticly disabled... Are there actual IPs he uses? At beta checkuser is disabled, so we can't check... Greetings, Luke 081515 18:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He used to operate from Russian IPs, mainly in St Petersburg and Moscow, but has switched to whatever open proxies he can find lately, so he can edit from anywhere... Thomas.W ^talk 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try your luck

Go ahead then u will know who I am . But i will never allow raw agents to spread fabricated propoganda against kashmir and pakistan . Human and kautiliya and u all are warned by me. Be fair and never try to play clever. Now get lost 39.47.170.56 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up, kid, Wikipedia isn't a playground. Thomas.W ^talk 17:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Protection

I want to protect my article named Oasis Academy School. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarojupreti132 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin so I can't protect it, but I wouldn't protect it even if I could, because page protection isn't used to prevent other editors from editing articles you have created. As for your article, it is unsourced, about a subject that by Wikipedia's rules is barely notable, if at all, in a promotional unencyclopaedic tone, and in need of copy-editing (for both tone and language/grammar), so I suggest you start by clicking on the links and reading Wikipedia's rules about notability, reliable sources and verifiability, and then add reliable verifiable sources to your article, because if you don't it will most probably be nominated for deletion by someone. Thomas.W ^talk 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City popultaion

It is genuine, though it is private. If you need explanation, I will.--Vin09 (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They claim to use Indian Census 2011 data, yet their figures seem to differ from what the official Census 2011 data says. Why? Thomas.W ^talk 10:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added wrong link, but still for some cities, census have (M OG), so added figures are not actual city population, so this site provides with calculations. I couldn't get correct for Surat, but others it may. I still obey your wording. Then we need to add a note in every page by providing census calculations on talk page or as a note. Any comments.--Vin09 (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For AP - cities let's see Vijayawada-10lakh
Census site - PAGE 48 it is M.Corp OG

One more point the link which you added was provisional population and not final. User:Vensatry have explained me long ago and hence on his guidance I've been following it.--Vin09 (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added Content as Spams of IP Sock User:JeSuisBilly is 49.149.176.208

This is Blockuser of JeSuisBilly is 49.149.176.208 is IP Sock has Place of Added Content and Spams like Vandalism Please help Click Here. 112.198.98.244 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

answer to your attack to person and insults

A.S.: I got tired of correction your fake info and every time explaining exactly what and how. That's why the last time I used "fixed typo" mention. ("A.S." is before text, like PS is after text)

What "official cited sources" I supposed "removed"??? Wikipedia is full of uncited sources texts! How did that got there? According to you, that is NOT permitted. Or you change the rules again, as you go along? Or the rules are only for some, not for everybody?? The change I made, was at the page Medes, which does NOT (nor ever had) anything yo do with Grece. The illegal link there was leading to the page "GREEKS"! Not to any "cited source" of any kind for any information presented there, let concerning the Medes page. If you wouldn't be so bias, you would stop trying so unsuccesful to contradict real historians, where history is concern. The second mention of "greeks" on that page was even more absurd and put there out of thin air, and it did NOT had any cited source beside it. CHECK IT NOW, if you do not believe thectruth I allways tell you. The greek nationalist* just said there that (and I quote!): "A few archaeological sites (discovered in the "Median triangle" in western Iran) and textual sources (from contemporary Assyrians and also Greeks in later centuries)..", inserting "Greeks" there with no cited source what so ever, something which according to your personal rule on this personal wikipedia domain, is NOT PERMITED. At least that is what you continuously insult me with, when I replace bias bullshit whit real historical info. WHERE IS THE PROOF of that "greek textual sources"?? The inserted link "Greeks" there leads to the Greeks page. NOT to any "greek textual sources" about Medes. So, your rules does not apply to your greek nationalistic friends which vandalise Wikiledia for decades now? Only I have to placed cited sources in my postings? And if links to another wikipedia pages are considered "cited sources", as you very well know, my posting contained numurous links to other wikipedia pages. So, what's your problem??? I posted many official and real historical info on wikipedia since 2015, and you, full of hate against all non-greeks, wiped them all out! You even ILLEGAL replaced the amount of soldiers in the Trajan's Wars against the Dacians, from 30,000 in the first war, and 15,000 in the second (real historical info which existed on wikipedia since wikipedia started!) with some kakameny amounts of some couple of hundred thousands, WITHOUT ANSOLUTE ANYBSHRED OF CITED SOURCES! And when I tried to changed back, I got insulted, hunted away, than insilted again, and that blocked! Now I understant. You are GREEK. And your perpetual life goal is to falsify history in your favour, thinking that wilipedia has any historical value in real life. That's why you told me that ansurdity last week about "greek and roman influence on the balkan (Bulgarian, therefore SLAVIC) language. Even the dumbest linguist on Earth could tell you that the SLAVIC language has NOTHING to do with greek, nor with latin. I tell you one more thing. My JOB and in tje same time my hobby, is collecting and giving informations. Everything you ever did and say to/against me, is being noted, and not only. Also the agressive and bias BS your greek friends are inserting every minute, for years, allover wikipedia, like the monsense of "how is this being written in greek"😉 to every possible name of person or place on Earth, like anybody is interested how you write that in greek, while the page subject has nothing to do with Greece. If you are not bias, I expect you to add all the other translations in at least 10 popular languages, beside the greek version of it.

Example of what I mean above, copy and paste from Medes (Iran) page, city and race with no connection as race and language with the greeks: "The Medes[N 1] (/miːdz/, Old Persian Māda-,Ancient Greek: Μῆδοι, Hebrew: מָדַי) were anancient Iranian people[N 2] who lived in an area known as Media (Northwestern Iran) and who spoke the Median language."...

Muntele (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you do here is adding unsourced POV material and remove properly sourced material, almost all of your edits with edit summaries saying "fixed typo". Removing everything you don't like and adding whatever things you like, with total disregard for Wikipedia's rules (such as WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Neutral point of view) is clearly disruptive. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a fan forum or a blog, so play by our rules, or dont play at all. Thomas.W ^talk 23:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muntele

Hi, I see you last warned this guy about his actions. I thought I should let you know that he has continued adding nonsense to articles with no sources and usually misleading edit summary.[9] He has also pretended he doesn't know how talk pages work even though he clearly uses them just fine.[10] This guy is clearly a troll or atleast doesn't understand what he is doing. Sorry for contacting you about this. I'm not familiar with En-wiki and I have no idea where I should report this. I'm tired of reverting this guys edits and seems no administrator has noticed this. I thought maybe you could help getting him blocked or something. Thanks. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them again, and will keep an eye on their edits. Thomas.W ^talk 18:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

~~Hey T, who do you suspect this is a sock of?~~ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! Found the SPI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, I was poking through your common.js file. You might find User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js useful. It takes a little bit of getting used to, but it will mark blocked accounts with a ~~strikethrough~~, which makes it easier to locate potential sockmasters. Sometimes you'll look at a page history with this tool and you'll be like, "Oh, I see what's going on here..." Add importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js'); to your common.js file if you're interested. Obviously it's none of my business--I'm only bringing it up because people rarely offered me any editing shortcuts, and I wish they had! Took me a year of editing to learn about Twinkle. Sheesh! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already use it (it's the last line in common.js; I load it from a Russian source), but thanks for the tip. It's a very useful script. :) Thomas.W ^talk 18:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a moron. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not, those files aren't easy to read. Thomas.W ^talk 19:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperborea

Why do you continue vandalising Wikipedia? What do you think you achieve with it in the real World? Every day you remove official documented information from wikipedia, from numurous pages, because it does not fit your hidden agenda. The mention about Homer and what he mentioned regarding the Location of Hyperborea (and as such mentioned as title of a sub-paragraph, of the EARLY SOURCES, at the Hyperborea page here) was removed entierly (after many years of being there, when you didn't reach the level of prime terminator of wikipedia and the true history), together with it's next paragraph. I found it (the real/old/original version of it) in an older documentary on youtube, in the original version, in the movie (minute 16:33) being presented a screenshot of the wikipedia Hyperborea page which is now shorter on wikipedia, many things were wiped out.. After what Pausanias said.. ending in "..Boreas."[7]" was the paragraph about Homer and below ot some other info, now all wiped out. Typical greek. ;). No wonder (you forgot to whipe that too!😉) bellow there somewhere says that the romans and the greeks (racial being both greeks) kept falsifying history by continuously changing the location of Hyperborea (and Ripean Mountains) acording to their hidden political agenda, which you obviously inherited, acording to all the fake info and ferocious defending your idols (romans and greeks) against everybody, continuously removing real historical info and replacing with BS in favour of your idols mentioned above. I also had a screenshot of it from 1 year ago, but I can't find it just yet. I will if necessary. Real historians know about Hyperborea, it's location acording to Homer (despite later attempts to change it's location, by later wannabe historians, in a time when Hyperborea did not exist anymore with this name), and we are aware of Homer's writtings. So no matter what you falsify on daily basis, the real historians only laugh at you. You have no human value what so ever. Our long history "together" (me placing historical info and you removing it regulary, sometimes replacing it with unsubstabtiated BS, something which you continuously acuse others of doing😉), prooves that. Now start yelling "Attack to person!", and go home to momma. Muntele (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

???? I have never edited Hyperborea, and the only history I have with you is reverting unsourced POV on a handful articles... Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Qualitatis (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qualitatis: I didn't close anything, I only tried to help you on the talk page, by explaining how Wikipedia's rules about notability work. The deletion discussion was closed long ago, and the recreation of the article (under a slightly different name to evade scrutiny) was then deleted per CSD G4 (recreation of an article deleted at AfD) by DESiegel. Thomas.W ^talk 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history was also deleted. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been deleted, it's just hidden, including the page history, the name it was recreated under (which is not the name of the organisation that is the subject of it, nor the name the original article had), the name it was moved to (which also isn't the exact same name as the original article), every edit that has been made on it, and who did what when. The original article is also just hidden, so it's easy for administrators to compare the original article to the recreation. Thomas.W ^talk 11:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Your accusation on my talk page was insinuating if nothing else. Anyway, place to resolve content disputes is article talk page. Moreover, I would not allow Pakistani hate-filled sources as well. There is a different between a news piece and an opinion piece and you are supporting to add an opinion piece. Please see WP:RS to identify opinion pieces vs. news pieces. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insinuating anything, I'm telling it as it is. Your removal of everything except the official Pakistani view, with a bogus claim that the Indian source is full of hate and not reliable, when all the source (Times of India, a respected Indian daily) does is calmly reporting the official Indian view (just like the Pakistani source, which you find OK, is reporting the official Pakistani view), is POV-pushing. Thomas.W ^talk 22:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not check Pakistani source recently, it was added weeks ago and established consensus but when a new thing is added against what was prior consensus, it gets scrutinized by the editors who has that page in their watchlist, nothing more, nothing less, there is no POV-pushing here. The newly added source is an opinion piece and starts with labeling Pakistan as a terrorist state and it continues on in a way that is nothing more than an opinion. And by the way, i have added many sources from Indian newspapers and Indian authors so do not accuse me of POV-pushing based on source choice. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citations

I have addes additional information to statement i had previous removed.I have also provided reference to information as you said. A9452819015 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

Hello Thomas.

on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Right_Monitor I received this note : Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this article should not be deleted. If you have already posted to the talk page but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.

I create this page in English to linked it with the Arabic one : https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/المرصد_الأورومتوسطي_لحقوق_الإنسان but I don't know why i couldn't, and why this page must be deleted?

It maybe confusing that Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor is Euro-Mediterranean Human Right network but they totally different.

Salsabeel Zeineddin (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is totally unsourced (the only reference in the article is your own website, which doesn't count towards establishing notability), and a recreation of an article that has been deleted after a deletion discussion at AfD. We don't care if there's a similar article on another Wikipedia, since each WP is a separate entity with its own rules, and our rules clearly state that a subject must be notable, by our standards, to have an article here. And your organisation isn't. Thomas.W ^talk 20:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel

Where did you get 0 as the number? I see that you are saying I don't have a source. But you can't say 0 without a source either. Put a dash or something, but 0 is just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.78.119 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS:

PS: The proof I attached in my info box after correcting the vandalism, are correct (about the Greek war against it's neighbours and taking their teritory a century ago.. etc), and that can be checked from numurous sources, even if all those information are common knowledge allready. Some of the sources were mentioned in that info box mentioned above, and you were free to check them. In sted, you refused real proven facts, and made changes on wikipedia based on your personal opinion (I quote) "there is no doubt"😉, empty words which does not say nor prove anything, being also incorrect as if there was "no doubt", I wouldn't of changed it. It's interesting the fact that you greek fans administrators attack real historian whith comments like "you are not allowed to modify info with no source proof of it", while you never bring any proof in your modifications or comments to historians. If historians tell you that, not liking the truth, you usually block them yelling "attack to person!"😉.* What does that say about you.. it's redundant to mention. The facts speak for themselfs. Besides, if so many (countless actually!) facts weren't so contradictory on wikipedia, no historian would bother to try to make sense of it by correcting the mistakes, this being also something you can't get..

and even that, you pretend to attach a link to reply, for the victim, while you block the link so the victim can't reply. And THAT makes the story complete. Muntele (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about your message to about the Alexander Macedon page

I am a historian. And as every real historian, I know the real facts, one of which being that NOT Greece conquered Macedonia, but Macedonia (Alexander) conquered Greece.("conquered" being a bit inapropriate as long as Greece were to afraid to fight Alexander, so they offered him Greececon a silver platter). Therefore NOT Macedonia "was a part of the Greek/Hellenistic world" as you pretend without any shred of proof (except your bias personal opinion that "there is no doubt"😉), but Greece was a part of the Macedonian World. The empire was of the Macedonian Alexander, who's name was ALEXANDER MACEDON, and NOT "Alexander Greek"😉! (as the whole World knows, this being common knowledge). Alexander was Dacian, also knkwn as "Thracian" because of Trax/Thrax, the Greek God of War(before the greeks took over Arie(the Greek version being "Aries", the greeks adding "s" to almost everything; later shortened version "Ares"; see Ram sign, "Aries Cobstellation" on wikipedia, Alexander allways being portreted with Eam horns at his head, tha THRACIAN sign, Aries/Ares being a THRACIAN GOD as even the child knows and everybody which ever heard of wikipedia), the Dacians being known as GODS OF WAR, therefore "Traxi" (or Thraxi), "Thraxus" (Thraxus) being singular version, therefore now in english "Thracians", Alexander being born at PELLA, in the Thracian province of Macedonian, his teacher Aristotel being also THRACIAN born in southern Thrace (see his page on wikipedia if you have no other sources), which was exiled from Grece because he was Thracian and not Greek (see his page if you are no historian) because of theceternal greek hate towards the Thracians, essoecially during the Greek wars against the thracians/pelasgians from Sparta/Peloponesia, Aristotel being also incorrect mentioned as "greek"😉, while expelled from Greece for being non-greek. The vandals are you, the GREEK administrators, which being natural bias-ists in your favour, you allways place unproven afirmations on wikipedia pretending that "there is no doubt"😉 of it, to contradict official proof with this empty alegation. Everybody knkws where Pella (Alexander's birth place) was (Thrace/Macedonia), as well the birthplace of Aristotel, Orpheus, Apollo the Hyperborean(also Olympian God!).. etc etc., which you greek fans, allways present them as "greeks"😉, while their origin places were not even near Greece, nor Hyperborea was in Greece! This is MORE than common knowledge. Belongs even to common sense! If the ancient greek scripts are not enough for you, which confirm all these, suggest you to quit administrating historical (info) pages, and let this job for REAL historians. The fact that Alexander also spoke greek, there is no doubt, because while the Thracians from all over the world spoke many languages and many Dacian/Thracian dialects (including Sanskrit, Latin, they also invented it, including Latin; see the Real History, the Vatican manuscripts and also the internationally reknown lingvist & historian Miceal Ledwith, which says thecsame thing), the greeks couldn't speak or learn any other language than the one they were born with, so when Alexander became king of Greece and incorporated Greece into the MACEDONIAN EMPIRE (which was huge, up to India), he used allover as official language the GREEK LANGUAGE, a language that EVERYBODY understood(!). And the fact that he knew also Greek, that does NOT makes him "greek"😉. I also speak English, but that does NOT makes me "english"😉. All the CORRECT & REAL facts above are common knowledge. Esspecially the birth place of all the historical figures mentioned above. You guys falsified so many facts and names on Wikipedia, that nobidy in his real mind believe anything you say anymore. Real historian put real data on the site, and you falsify it, or you simple add nonsense to it, so all the contradictory facts (explained above) are know to by found side by side on wikipedia, facts which anull eachother, which makes wikipedia a chaotic nonsense. When real co sacrated historians (incl. myself) tries to make sense of all these and present real facts by replace vandalism with real historical facts, which most of them comes from ancient greek writers (often presented as "greek historians"), you come and change the chaos back, in it's vandalised contadictory form, probable pretending to "inform the public better this way"😉. Well, the "informed" public informs you that many wikipedia pages proves otherwise, and contradicts your personal opinion of "there us no doubt"..of anything, which you serve me here as "proof"😉. I advice you to CORRECT all the historical fscts on Wikipedia (if you pretend to be a "historian", which I seriously doubt) if you want to have any credibility what so ever, because countless facts on it, related to many other countries (but on many pages incorrect linked to Greece on bias reasons) are atributed to Greece, while the very same Wikipedia pages atribute them to the Thracians/Pelasgians (ever heard of Pelasgia??), which makes Wikipedia not only 100% contradictory, but places it in the "nonsense" area. And THAT is what I got from you on and off line. Muntele (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8×58mmR

Thank you for your recent edit to subject page. Can you provide a reference citation for the revised dates since they are inconsistent with the reference citation for the previous dates? Thewellman (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewellman: As source for 1894 for the carbine and 1896 for the rifle I'll add "Carsten Schinke - Die leichten schwedischen Infanteriegewehre Armee und Heimwehr - Journal-Verlag Schwend GmbH - 1990" to the article, but finding a WP:RS source for the exact year for the 6.5x55mm is harder, especially an online source, since there are three different years: it was designed in 1891 (by Gevärskommittén), formally approved by the king (Oscar II of Sweden-Norway) in 1893 and entered service in 1894 (even though it of course had been around for a couple of years by then, since the weapons that were approved/entered service in 1894 had been designed for it, and had been extensively tested with it...). The designation for the 8x58mmR in Swedish service was Patron m/89, BTW, in case you feel it's of interest in the article (also sourced to Schinke, one of the very few sources that even mentions the 8x58mmR). Thomas.W ^talk 17:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI clerk training

Just checking in with you here, are you still interested in the SPI clerk training? A new section opened up last week on case reviews and we've been paired up. I pinged you to it a couple times but you haven't participated. Maybe you missed it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I must have missed it. I'll take a look at it. Thomas.W ^talk 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidatafazoli

Before I file a sockpuppet investigation, I like to know your opinion about Vidatafazoli. He really gives me the idea that he is not a genuine new editor (new editors seldom write proper articles straight away). And this edit combined with this edit really gives me the idea trhat this is a reincarnation of Amgood1993, already blocked as socpuppet from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colombiabeauty. The Banner talk 18:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: It's clearly not a new editor, none of the new accounts editing only beauty pageant articles that keep popping up is a new editor, the problem is what master to pair them with. My guess would also be Colombiabeauty (who judging by what I saw in my watchlist had at least one sock blocked not long ago), but you'd have to make a thorough check/comparison of their behaviour before filing a report, and create multiple diffs showing identical, or at least very similar, edits. Thomas.W ^talk 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The Banner - This might be helpful. Also I notice this article is crawling with Colombiabeauty socks starting October 9, 2015: Yuliaalipova, Torrie1975, Valentinaitaly, Amgood1993. That along with any other diffs you may be able to dig up would suggest strongly that it's the same dude. There are a lot of sock operators at that article dating back to 2009. Judo112 was a CU confirmed sock of Jingostar. Mebbe the guy's been at this for years. Alas, we may never know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already hammered a few sockpuppets, but indeed it is often difficult to pinpoint who is the master. Unfortunately, present CU-rules accidentally protect the sockpuppeteers.

The Banner talk 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

list of languages by total speakers

Hello, I actually did bring that number (340 mio) in line with the very numbers already given in the table. So the version before me should bring - somewhat impossible - sourcing for the contradiction. Gonna change it again. 84.168.220.195 (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then say so in the edit summary, don't just change the numbers. Thomas.W ^talk 10:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom edit war

Thank you for the notification. I made 3 edits to United Kingdom today, out of which one was a revert. All 3 had explicit edit comments. I opened a section in talk to talk about the issue, before your kind message. If you would be so kind to remove the warning from my talk page, that would be very kind of you. Otherwise, I will take the liberty to remove it myself, as I believe my Wikipedia editing habits are far, far, far from edit warring. Place Clichy (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: The definition of "revert" used when determining if someone is edit-warring or not is not the same as the one you use. To quote WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" (my emphasis). And by that definition ("undoing another editor's actions, whether in whole or in part") your three edits on United Kingdom today ([11], [12], [13], each of which removes, adds and reshuffles material) all count as reverts, which is why you were given the 3RR-warning. Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: Thomas.W is correct, this was edit-warring by Wikipedia's accepted standards. I just wanted to mention that, if you don't want the warning on your own talk page, you are entirely free to remove it, according to WP:OWNTALK, which states that removing it indicates that you have read it. MPS1992 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Trillo - Citing

Hi! When you remove citations, maybe try not to ruin the template. And by the way, Yes! Magazine Top 100 Beautiful Stars is still a recognition. I see those contents in several wikipedia pages. I guess they're just fun blogs huh? MBdemigod (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing DHA Karachi

Hi Thomas

I understand that blogs generally would not be viewed as reliable sources however the situation in the Pakistan real estate market is such that the statistics complied by research and real estate portal zameen.com are the only statistics widely available and also it seems no "official statistics" are available and therefore research complied by zameen.com and (quoted on their zameen.com/blogs) are used by established sources such as Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Euroasia review amongst others as genuine stats. For example if you read the article link below of bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-14/murder-free-days-underpin-property-boom-in-biggest-pakistan-city

In the above article Bloomberg.com runs main heading as Property prices booming in Karachi and later on provides figure complied by zameen.com so it seems that the zameen.com blogs are as reliable as Bloomberg itself as bloomberg(and other established journals) base their quotes and sentences on research work complied by this web portal and presented in the blogs. I believe these figures are as "genuine" as it gets considering the lack of data available for a third world country like Pakistan and its authencity is obviously bolstered when used by larger widely credible websites like above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an international English language encyclopaedia, not a local Karachi newsletter, meaning that current real-estate trends, prices etc in Karachi don't belong here, especially not when they're sourced only to a blog... Thomas.W ^talk 19:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wikipedia is a English language encyclopaedia not a local Karachi news letter but its okey for it be a newsletter for a large Western City such as New York City and its okey to promote real estate on their "article". Quote below from New York City article of Wikipedia, completely irrelevant, advertising and soap boxing material.

New York City is home to some of the nation's—and the world's—most valuable real estate. 450 Park Avenue was sold on July 2, 2007 for US$510 million, about $1,589 per square foot ($17,104/m²), breaking the barely month-old record for an American office building of $1,476 per square foot ($15,887/m²) set in the June 2007 sale of 660 Madison Avenue.[281] According to Forbes, in 2014, Manhattan was home to six of the top ten zip codes in the United States by median housing price.

Futher-more you said real estate prices etc do not belong here "especially not when they're sourced only to a blog". But Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal and Reuters running statistics headlines sourced "only to a blog" makes them no less credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

chasing vandals
Thank you, Thomas, proud for a good reason, for spending most of your "time on WP chasing vandals and socks", for fighting vandalism and misconceptions, for precision in language and linguistic, imagine polychoral praise: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 896th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies, Gerda <sigh>. Or maybe it's just me getting slower and slower... Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Extended content

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for your patience with my erroneous response at AN/I today. You could've snapped at me for completely misunderstanding Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, but you didn't do so. It's much appreciated. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your expansion of Super 8 film. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For watching my user page while I enjoy the weekend. 117Avenue (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Because some things are tedious, and tea invigorates and soothes. (You know of what I speak, I'm sure.) bonadea contributions talk 21:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and I will have a cup of tea. Cheers, Tom Thomas.W ^talk 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced presence on Wikipedia

For multiple reasons, ranging from health issues to beginning to lose faith in the project, after seeing too much of the negative sides of it for too long, and battling aggressive POV-pushers, PR-people, spammers and what have you too many times, I have decided to reduce my presence on Wikipedia even more than I already have. Trying to fight POV-pushers, PR-people and spammers in a fight that can't be won as long as registration isn't required for editing, and confirmation through a valid email address isn't required for registering an account, has made me see my "work" here as just a waste of time and energy, so for the foreseeable future I will be just a reader of Wikipedia, apart from some minor uncontroversial gnoming on articles that interest me. Thomas.W ^talk 10:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, but I do understand what you mean. A break can be a good thing - I hope you can find renewed inspiration for the project, because it needs people like you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W It's quite odd that you claim, above, to be "battling aggressive POV-pushers". On the article "Terry Bean", you are clearly ASSISTING "aggressive POV-pushers". You are threatening immediately to block editors who simply remove biased, contentious, libelous material. Maybe your position depends entirely on the POV? And maybe your POV is somehow related to the "health issues" you mention above? Hint: People like Terry Bean furiously engaged is a lot of health-issue-spreading over the last 40 years. Perhaps you got caught up as well? 67.5.192.83 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not "assisting POV-pushers", I'm reverting edits by a POV-pusher, you (in your multiple incarnations, repeatedly editing Terry Bean as [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and possibly more as I didn't look very far back, all of the IPs geolocating to Portland, Oregon...), first adding unsourced content regarding alleged sex abuse and then repeatedly removing sourced content about it, in an attempt to portray him in as negative a way as possible. Thomas.W ^talk 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to "first adding unsourced content regarding alleged sex abuse" interests me, in part because you did not provide any examples of it in diffs. (despite having cited diffs prior to that, and of those merely claiming that there was "repeatedly editing". Apparently your only objection to the edits you actually listed was that they were negative to Bean; you don't show examples of "adding unsourced content.") Let's discuss this "unsourced content": Question, if somebody tries to make an edit, and while he is preparing the citation the edit is reverted by someone else, does that constitute "adding unsourced content"? Another question: have you looked to see if anything negative about Bean, which was properly sourced, was removed with the (false) claim that it was not properly sourced? You should be willing to admit that your allies (confederates; people of similar POV) are misbehaving. Also, you don't seem to realize that when you accused me of an "attempt to portray [Bean] it as negative a way as possible", that is an unjustifiable accusation: The issue isn't supposed to be whether Bean is portrayed as a child-molester, it is whether the material is verifiable and is cited from reliable sources. If reliable sources say that Bean engaged in child-rape, then neither you nor any other person has a valid objection if that source is cited. Your (and others') mere desire to make Bean look better than that doesn't justify cleaning up the article to remove negative material. Also, notice that the people who want to make Bean look better virtually never use the Talk Page; if they are unwilling to justify their actions on the Talk Page, they should be presumed to be acting improperly. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not say that Bean "engaged in child-rape", they say that he was accused of it and arrested, but the charges were dropped and the case never went to trial. Which should be mentioned in the article, as it is, and Bean's response to it through his attorney, i.e. the material you're repeatedly removing, should also be mentioned. I deliberately ignored the stupid comment ("People like Terry Bean furiously engaged in a lot of health-issue-spreading over the last 40 years. Perhaps you got caught up as well?") you made in your first post, BTW, in order to not feed the troll, but don't push your luck, Wikipedia is not a place to pursue personal agendas, and comments like that could easily be seen as a "personal attack"... Thomas.W ^talk 20:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just retrieved a properly-cited edit that explains WHY the "charges were dropped and the case never went to trial". Previous edits of Bean's statements and those of his attorney falsely claimed this entirely cleared him of the accusations; at most, they cleared Bean of the official charges, and only for very limited reasons: In no way was Bean exonerated (found actually innocent of the accusations. In fact, Bean's accuser actually hid from the prosecutors, in Los Angeles, so that they couldn't find him to subpoena him for trial.) It was also improper to remove the material from the lede: Like it or not, once those charges were filed, Bean became by far best-known for this accusation, and not anything else he might have done. If you doubt this, think about OJ Simpson: What first comes to mind? And yes, OJ was ACQUITTED of the murder. Bean was never acquitted.

The following is the first paragraph of the lede for OJ Simpson: Orenthal James "O. J." Simpson (born July 9, 1947), nicknamed "the Juice", is a retired American football player, broadcaster, actor, and convicted felon. Simpson played college football for the USC Trojans for the University of Southern California (USC), where he won the Heisman Trophy in 1968. He then played professionally in the National Football League (NFL) as a running back for 11 seasons, with the Buffalo Bills from 1969 to 1977 and with the San Francisco 49ers from 1978 to 1979. In 1995, Simpson was acquitted of the 1994 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman after a lengthy and internationally publicized criminal trial, the People v. Simpson. In 1997, a civil court awarded a $33.5 million judgment against Simpson for their wrongful deaths.

So, Thomas.W, stop playing games, along with your buddies. Stop helping your friends clean up Terry Bean's article. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well Lurie2, in the same edit you also removed the text reporting Bean's response to the case, i.e. the same material you have been trying to remove for a long time, probably thinking that noone would notice. Well, I did notice, and your comment about Simpson (referring to a discussion on your talk page a bit over a month ago, a discussion a random IP wouldn't know of) shows beyond doubt that you and all the Portland IPs who have been doing the same thing on Terry Bean since October of last year is one single person. As for your comments about me they're so stupid that they're not worth a reply. The article has been protected now, BTW, so you'll have to find a new hobby. Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pretending to be a detective. The issue is whether the material being added (or removed) is well-sourced. Not merely whether you happen to like it. The fact is, this article has been subject to intense resistance to adding negative material about Bean from at least as far back as he was first accused (and later charged) with child rape. See, for just one example, this entirely unjustified revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Bean&type=revision&diff=634838295&oldid=634838194 Your foolish comment that "As for your comments about me they're so stupid that they're not worth a reply.", that's a clear sign that you realize they are indeed worth a reply, it's just that you can't figure out what to say without looking foolish, stupid, malicious, or evil. If you guys keep "sticking together", you know what that makes you, huh? 67.5.192.83 (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about being sourced, it's also about not giving undue weight, and maintaining a neutral point of view, and that's where your edits fail. As for your ~~moronic~~ childish attempts to annoy me, a quick look at my user page would have shown you that I'm a grandfather (and a happily married one too), but I guess you're not smart enough to look there. My only connection to Portland is that I passed through Portland on my way by car from LA to Vancouver in the 1970s, and as for the guys you say are "sticking together" you seem to know a lot more about that world than I do. So shooo, you're not welcome on my talk page anymore, not in any of your multiple incarnations. Thomas.W ^talk 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't explain why my (and some other) edits lead to "undue weight". Nor do you explain how the cabal trolls (your allies) are somehow maintaining a "Neutral Point of View". Hint: You AREN'T. Yes, you are sticking together in your GANG. That's what it's called, a "gang". A "gang" is a group of people who are willing to back each other up, using improper and (if necessary) even illegal methods. Blocking people improperly is improper. Reverting properly-sourced material is improper. Claiming false violations of copyright is improper. Falsely claiming that somebody else is violating the rules is improper. Don't claim that you, personally, didn't do all these things: The reality is, people acting as if in a gang are backing you up. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all very nice, but the IP has now been blocked for 24 hours, and further similar behavior will lead to blocks of escalating length.

I am not aware of Thomas.W making any comments about copyright violation (that was me, yo), but if he did, then he was correct to do so. MPS1992 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the second Official website

Have you tried searching via Internet Archive Wayback Machine? I disagree with you on this matter, but that being said, there is never anything wrong with researching. If you know the url, give it a shot. Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Laura Brannigan

In an effort to keep the conversation sensible, I've had to impose really strict rules. I'm sorry that I had to delete your second post in the thread, but as you will understand, I have to be seen to be fair. I'll repost your comment in a new section. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hendry

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Betty Logan has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: Issuing an edit-warring warning to you after you've made three reverts on Stephen Hendry, with no attempt to discuss your changes on the talk page, is not abusing warning templates, but posting the totally unwarranted warning above is... Thomas.W ^talk 21:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 13:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stay out of that discussion since I don't feel that I'm really involved in it. I've had much worse messages posted on my user pages than what he posted... Thomas.W ^talk 13:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians

You've reverted some of my edits on the article Bulgars, particularly "a tribe that was able so easily to defeat a large and well-trained Roman army must have been a tribe of considerable dimensions." (Runciman) Why? This is the only way to evaluate the number of Bulgars, if they were able to defeat 50 000 Roman army at the Battle of Ongal then their soldiers must have been at least 30 000 or even 40 000. Why have you deleted this? --62.12.114.214 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're an obvious sock of an indefinitely blocked user (see page history of Bulgarians). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is a good reason to delete information from articles. --62.12.114.214 (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it's being repeatedly added by multiple socks, without discussion, and conflicts with what other sources say, then yes, it is. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatning me

I am well within my right s to edit and remove unsourced content. Please give me time to write the article properly. there is also a lot of OR and probable bias. For example about Upinder Singh's work, the article states she provides no justification for calling dasa (Sanskrit: दास) in the Rig Veda as "slave"but doesn't provide any justification. however, no source is used for this assertion. We cannot use our own arguments, we are not scholars or historians and OR is not permitted. All views must be represented fairly without any OR. There is a lot of other OR as well. I am only rewriting the article so it doesn't go into self-interpretation. You are needlessly calling it disruptive. Or and unsourced content can be removed. 103.40.196.158 (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of content as such is the least of the many problems with your edits on Slavery in India, an article that is regularly hit by a whole bunch of POV-pushers and socks. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The exact reason behind my edits was to remove unsourced and OR edits without using any reliable sources, even to the extent of self-judgment, some of which were already known, others I identified. Also I've rewritten content which I positively identified containing content not in source, OR or cherrypicking while also expanding with notable content. The purpose was to improve the article. I've fairly represented all viewpoints which should be done here. 117.215.225.207 (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRANSLATE WELL FROM ITALIAN

Cossiga says at the end of the article the all secrets in the military sector ar overed by silence or lies.Don't remove correct translations.Picuslor (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are disruptive editing with bad tranlation!Picuslor (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Picuslor: What Cossiga says in that interview is "... so believe me: there are no state secrets that are not already known" ("... modo mi creda: non esistono segreti di Stato che non siano già noti"), and anything beyond that is just your own POV interpretation of it, i.e. POV OR. I have reported you as a suspected sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets, BTW, for making the same POV edits on the same articles as Benniejets, in the exact same broken English as Benniejets...

Jhansc

Somebody disagrees with my removal of spam from Switzerland. Pointing at the talkpage of Jhansc does not seem to help. Any advice? The Banner talk 22:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you are not updating New information about sonipat..

sir u r not updating sonipat city page. many information about sonipat is not on this page. whenever i update you instantly remove that data.. why? RV SONIPAT (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are reverted because they're unsourced, unencyclopaedic and in such bad English that they're almost incomprehensible. As you were told more than a month ago on your own talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

about sri ganaganagr district

why did you handicapped this article?? 116.202.248.254 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't handicap anything, but I did revert your unexplained edits on Sri Ganganagar district that returned the article to an older version, and restored a large amount of material that had been removed for being both unsourced and unenecyclopaedic. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for posting that Google Trends link on Talk:Bangalore/Bengaluru, very instructive and just used it myself for something else. Had no idea the tool had been developed so much. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jutes , geats , goths and jat

If I say jutes , geats , goths and jat shared common ancestor what would you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serjatt4 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "total rubbish". Jutes, Geats and Goths share a common ancestor, but have nothing to do with the Jats of India. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me learn about Wiki's copyright rules via your explanation and links to the info pages Azeroth92 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Hello, thank you for your patience and for letting me know the rules for external links in Wikipedia articles. I am still learning the proper etiquette and your comments have been helpful. I meant no ill will towards any rules, nor do I have intentions in bad faith. If I have any questions, would it be okay to reach out to you in any instance for guidance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by THBAO (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@THBAO: Feel free to ask. My first advice to you would be to tone down the promo in Draft:PopWrapped. And please note that while using the subject's own website as source/reference generally is allowed, there are limitations (see WP:SELFPUBLISHED), one of them being that using it as the main source for an article isn't, as they are in your draft once sources that can't be used because of being usercreated or simply being irrelevant have been removed. Because many if not most of the sources in your draft are there just to make the reflist seem impressive, and give you an excuse for adding links to PopWrap. If I was to go through that draft and remove everything that doesn't comply with the rules (see WP:Reliable sources) or simply doesn't belong in an article in an encyclopaedia, there wouldn't be much left of it, but I'll give you a chance to fix it yourself first... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•@Thomas.W: Hello again, Tom. Thank you for your advice. I was a little put off by the deletion yesterday, but I have had some time to relax so that we may have a civil discussion and come to an agreement about this, a compromise. I followed your advice with the promotional language. I am still getting used to writing in a certain voice for Wikipedia, so please excuse the errors. After all, the article is still a draft and is being actively worked on and changes are being made. The other issue I have is that I am not sure why there wasn't, from the start, an assumption of good faith when we encountered one another here. I am not a bad person, Tom. I have no bad intentions with anything in life, let alone here on Wikipedia. My only wish was to accurately provide evidence within passages within the article. When you mentioned that I couldn't use links from the actual news stories that I was referring to as citations, I scoured the web to find outside sources that supported the claims therein. I added them, not to make the reflist seem impressive, as you said, but because they supported what was being communicated within the article. The word "impressive" never entered my mind when I sat down and started drafting. Instead, my mindset was that I should find (selectively) links to sources that support what is being written. It could have been 3 sources or 30, and I still wouldn't think that. Also, as a sidebar, I'm not being sarcastic here, so please don't think that I'm angrily attacking, here. This is the truth. Now, if I can't use self-published links like social media accounts, that's fine. I don't take issue with that. There are, however, plenty of links to articles pointing to the accuracy of information within the passages that are separate from the website itself. The next issue I have is with the accusation of name-dropping. As a reader of news on this website, as well as other American entertainment news websites, I felt it was necessary to add this entry, not for promotional purposes and not to provide a POV or anything against rules of neutrality. The last thing I want to do is break rules. I am a reasonable person. I am sure you are used to dealing with a lot of belligerence and that has given you reason to assume the worst in editors at first glance. I am here to work with the community, not against. Before deciding to start this article, I loooked at other articles that covered similar publications. The sole purpose of a news agency is to provide quality news and break news, so I gave examples. By the logic of this edit, it would be like saying that Ford cannot list their vehicles. The news is the product, in this case and the other articles that are news organizations on Wikipedia. On the TMZ page, there is also a section entitled "Notable coverage" and being that PopWrapped is a similar site, I used the format as inspiration and as a guide to construct the PopWrapped draft. It was good because I could see how that was constructed and helped me brush up on my markup, etc. On the TMZ page, I noticed that links to the articles on their website were used as references in the "Notable coverage" section. One would then deduce that it would be permissable to do so on another article being drafted, correct? Especially since there are other sources pointing to the claims written within the article and not just from the website itself. If the rules have changed since the inception of the TMZ article and that isn't allowed anymore, then pardon my mistake and maybe we should think about correcting that mistake on that article, and all other articles that contain these kinds of links (People is another example), to avoid confusion for others in the future. If this is simply a misunderstanding regarding my intentions, then I hope this outreach has quelled some of your distrust in the community. I would like to compromise with you on this and reinstate the section without the links to the PopWrapped site, if need be. And I do know that links are "nofollow" so it wouldn't matter if they were used anyway, but just as a show of good faith to your accusation of trying to somehow attempt to increase SEO (which I wouldn't even know how to do anyway, I'm a simple person!). Let's work together on this. I know that you have a lot of years of experience, so please be easy on me. I'm sure that your patient guidance can help a great deal. Thank you, Tom.

Persistent ignorance

Brother, you are helping spread misinformation and damaging the Wikipedia reliability. If you have nothing else to do, take a rope and hang yourself, your stupidity is costing a lot of time to people with actual knowledge.125.212.216.208 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "you have been blocked indefinitely" was it that you didn't understand? (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cocainaenvenenada) - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have a family to take care of? Why are you all the time online bullying the name of Ismael Ogando? Do you know this person is under state protection in Germany and his work is now monitored by the Bundespolizei? Are you also getting paid for erasing his name from Wikipedia?125.212.216.208 (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man, maybe his is part of the wikinazis damaging the refugees name from Wikipedia, they are being monitored as well by the online crime unit from Germany. 103.75.116.120 (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, just ignore this loser. He was reported for abusing and mobbing and vandalizing information. 217.64.127.113 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeesh, a whole flock of IPs. Talk about not having a life. Ismael Ogando has been found non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place where people can promote themselves for free, and Cocainaenvenenada has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts in their endless attempts to promote Ismael Ogando. It's as simple as that. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life idiot. 217.64.127.113 (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man, just end your own misery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledernier (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will spend your life refreshing your browser, loser. Ledernier (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's on autorefresh. And you're wasting more energy on this than I am, finding new IPs, creating new socks, trying to get people on the 'Net to help you, etc., while all I have to do is click "revert"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it hilarious that people who spend so much time socking dare to accuse us productive editors of wasting our time on WP! This farm is a trip. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and dependencies by population

Please stop removing the data template for Sweden from List of countries and dependencies by population. As is clearly explained in the notes that you are ignoring, as well as the page's edit notice, {{Data Sweden}} is used to automatically calculate the information used in the article. It does not matter if the population clock for Swden no longer exists. {{Data Sweden}}, not List of countries and dependencies by population should be updated, as also explained in the notes. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The data template is for the population clock, but the population clock no longer exits, meaning that it now requires a manual update. Check the raw code for the list afticle, countries with a population clock use, such as the US, use a template, countries without a population clock, such as Russia, do not use a template, but are updated manually. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Asking for a mediation. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have another source on Rollo

I have another source if you would just chillout for one second. How about a warning huh. Oh by the way, the Norwegian SNL is edited by academics, so learn your shit. Anyway, my next source is from professor Robert Bartlett, and if you remove it then I will report you.

Have a nice day.

What is the problem please answer me

What is the problem?? youtube is not the source! It's a documentary presented by a professor ???

What are you doing

Thomas, why are you changing the page, you did not reach an agreement on the talk page. You may be reported for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.168 (talk • contribs)

I'm changing it to what reliable sources say, as you very well know since you edited as Special:Contributions/85.154.25.92 yesterday. And claiming that it's vandalism is just silly. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source says that, what are you talking about? Every RELIABLE source says the Al-Khalid tank is from Pakistan. Who gave the approval to remove it? I left the last message on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.168 (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources say China, whether you like it or not. And Template:Infobox Weapon says that the field for "origin" should be "the country or place where the weapon originated or was first manufactured", which in both cases is China, not Pakistan. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas this is false information!

Army recognition, janes and quwa have all said the tank was developed and manufactured in Pakistan, the project is by HIT. A lot of other sites have Pakistan as the country of origin! No Al-Khalid standard tank was manufactured in China! The MBT-2000 is which is different! I have already debunked the blogs and forums you listed on the Talk Page. Go there before you change the article. Please respond there and leave the article how it was before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.168 (talk • contribs)

You haven't debunked anything, as anyone who reads Talk:Al-Khalid tank can see. The Al-Khalid is a slightly modified version of the Chinese Type 90-IIM/VT-1A/MBT-2000 (pick whichever name you want, they're all the same tank), not a tank developed in Pakistan. And even the prototype for the Al-Khalid was built by Norinco in China. All HIT has done is cooperate with the Chinese when making the slight changes there are in the Al-Khalid compared to the Chinese original, and then manufacture the tank in Pakistan under license from Norinco. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I asked you to pull up the agreement where Pakistan signed a contract to build the tank under licence you couldn't, because it doesn't exist and that's false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.168 (talk • contribs)

We go by what reliable sources say, and they say it's license-built. So go find another hobby. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources say its not licence-built! Look i don't wanna say anything more because your probably a nice guy, but we don't agree here so please leave the article how it was before until others agree that it was licence built or say otherwise, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.168 (talk • contribs)

whats with the double standard

dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI has russia and india listed as the country of origin. But it is PROVEN to be licence produced in india. The design and country of first manufacture is Russia and india is listed, but you dont have a problem with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk • contribs)

Every article stands on its own, so there being errors in other articles is not a valid reason for introducing new errors in the article you're interested in. And the reason for me not having problems with what it says in Sukhoi Su-30MKI is that I haven't seen it, and I have no intention of getting involved in that specific article either since there are enough articles on my watchlist as it is. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you do have a double standard is what your saying, it took you 5 mins to change the other article but now you just say naaah i don't have time for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk • contribs)

Five minutes? If there are people who are as stubborn/persistent as you there, i.e. people who absolutely refuse to accept that they don't get their way (as there with all probability are...), I would have to waste as much time on that article as I have on the article you're interested in. So thanks but no thanks, you'll have to fight your battles yourself... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know it'll just get changed back, I have added to the talk page by the way but you just decided to ditch.

So if you would like to respond do so or some changes will be made.

Dude just stop

It is becoming irritating, I have told you to come to the talk page and build a consensus but you come back and do the same thing. Im trying to raise a discussion and leaving the article to how it was before but now it is you engaging in disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to waste more time on you, so from now one you will be treated like any other OR- and POV-pusher here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we're all Indians now. From this comment and previous ones, the user has violated WP:POINT. - BilCat (talk)

Student

You reverted my addition of a DAB on Student, without explanation; I now notice that there is a disambiguation page for it, so I've added the "about" template instead.

By the way, I don't see the "New section" button. --Macrakis (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: Your edit was reverted for being misplaced (right at the top of the page, between maintenance templates...) trivia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to a point...

Hi. Thanks for at least having the courtesy to message me about you reverting my work on the Spain article, but I think your actions are excessive to say the least. Does every change have to be discussed? If you think I have shown bias in my summary you could have edited it rather than just delete. Lin4671 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lin4671: No, there's no need to discuss every change, but POV edits such as yours, clearly slanted in favour of Catalan independence and thus violating WP:NPOV, not only need to be discussed on the talk page but also need to be extensively rewritten... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alhazen

Visionlearning is a reputed website.It is web-based resource for students and educators in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics.So its an academic website.Also the article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7810846.stm is a work of Jim Al-Khalili.He is currently Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey. I dont know how you are saying it has got its information from non-academic and non reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.63.185 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an academic source unless they get their information from acknowledged experts in the field in question. An academic source would be a book written by a professor specialising in the history of science, or similar, not a website that provides material for students, unless it can be clearly proven that they got their information from a true academic source. So discuss it on the talk page of the article, and let other editors weigh in on it, before adding it again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Al-Khalili is a professor of theoretical physics.The article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7810846.stm was written by him.So its written by a professor specialised in the feild of theoretical physics,and the argument is whether alhazen was one of the first theoretical physicist or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.63.185 (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then add it with the BBC link as source, not Visionlearning. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.63.185 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverting of my edits

Hi. I do not object to editors disagreeing with me and entering discussion on talk page. However you have chosen not to enter discussion but instead merely revert without explanation. By the way you also reverted my second edit that was correcting an error. You do not own this article any more than me so it is not for you to instruct me to not add information until I get support for the proposal - I had offered people the chance to object and no one took it. Regards Lin4671 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lin4671: Your edits are slanted and POV, and not needed. The short mention that is already in the article (Spain) and a link to the dedicated article (2017 Spanish constitutional crisis) is enough. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. metro area

Hi Thomas, thanks for your contribution.

The Los Angeles city page also talked about the metro area in the introduction. For example "The Los Angeles combined statistical area (CSA) also has a gross metropolitan product (GMP) of $831 billion (as of 2008), making it the third-largest in the world, after the Greater Tokyo and New York metropolitan areas."

I would imagine being able to include that information in the Dallas page as well. Economic activities like employment and GMP are measured at the level of the metropolitan area. Due to the sprawl in many of the U.S. cities versus other countries, the focal city in the metro area is usually synonymous with the metro area itself.

GattacalGattacal (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thomas,

I've updated the figuers with providing sources (15 October 2017 WEO/IMF). Thanks for your help. Economy of Turkey The source link http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2017&ey=2022&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=44&pr1.y=16&c=186&s=NGDPD,NGDPDPC,PPPGDP,PPPPC,PPPSH,LUR,LP&grp=0&a= Ytru30 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Thomas.W, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]