User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 2

Improper edits by 140.239.142.125

While browsing Wikipedia at work I was show the notice that I have a new message available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:140.239.142.125&redirect=no

I am unfamiliar with Valor Christian High School, but my office is in Denver, so I assume somebody else in my office is making these changes. I only mention this because the reference to block the user from editing concerns me. Would this block everyone on my network at work from editing articles on wikipedia, since we share the same network? — Precedingunsigned comment added by 140.239.142.125 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It would block all anonymous, that is not logged in, users from editing Wikipedia, yes. So I suggest you tell whoever might have done the editing to stop. I also suggest you tell that individual to read the welcome banner and friendly advice that I have just added to your talk page. Thomas.W (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not my place to tell somebody what to do or not to do in this case. Either way, I don't know who is doing the editing. Thanks for the information about the potential block.140.239.142.125 (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverted one edit by [ip] on Clavicle (April 2013)

Hi Thomas. I made the change on the Clavicle page in April 2013 of removing the section 'Evolutionary variation'. This change was in fact made on good faith (Wikipedia:Assume good faith), as the theory that the human species is a result of years of evolution is nothing but a theory - more and more non-religious scientist have stepped away from it as it can simply not be true. See for example some reasons collected on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎217.121.172.85 (talk • contribs)

Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies

Hey Thomas. I get your point but, honestly, there's no need for the proposed boundary changes to remain. It's not just crystal balling, it's worse than that, it won't ever happen. doktorb_words^deeds 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits in the articles on the Finnish kings & Kings of Kvenland & Sitones were pure nationalistic Swedish propaganda

Being a Swede, you should not touch the articles in the first place. In addition to that you clearly lack the education to discuss the history, so how about finally backing off? If you want to defend yourself, give me your email address where I can express my opinion about your Wikipedia practises. Don't even bother answering without an email address.91.155.236.125 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Defend myself"? Don't be ridiculous, and stop adding your incoherent fringe rubbish to Wikipedia. Thomas.W (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

I urged user:drg to strike out his comments calling others fascist, per comments from Future Perfect. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I thought you referred to my comments. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

AT4

Here's a picture of Chilean soldiers using the AT4, enough? http://www.flickr.com/photos/ejercitodechile/5450863062/in/set-72157626066939334

Lazar BVT/Lazar II

Hello Thomas. I just wanted to ask you can you make difference betwen Lazar BVT and Lazar2. I made some modifications to page Lazar BVT about similarity betwen Lazar and Patria AMV. I agree that Lazar BVT is not similar to Patria AMV but lazar 2 is. I didn't wanted to compare Lazar BVT with Patria AMV,only Lazar 2 is similar. Is is true counterpart to Patria AMV,almost same armor ( STANAG IV and V ),better basic weapons and military experts said that they are 2 most similar Vehicles. Only main difference is their cost.I can provide you with additional information regarding these 2 vehicles. I'll be greatfull for any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyDeepJunior (talk • contribs) 8 July. 2012 16:47 (UTC)

My edit was to add "See also" paragraph but in same time while page was edited other edit was applied, my suggestion was Lazar 2 instead of II and I in previously edits even added references for that claim. So it was unintended edit by me. Loesorion (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

JAGUAR XK140

Hi Thomas.W I'm not sure where I can find published citations for the detail changes. I make replacement body assemblies for jaguar XKs and own all three versions of the XK140. The detail changes come from factory blueprints, factory parts books and my own personal experience. I could quote the individual part numbers, but it would make for a very clunky article. I was just clarifying a previous paragraph that wasn't entirely true. The location of the battery is dependent on model and which side the driver sits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagjim (talk • contribs) 10 July 2012, 12:33 (UTC)

Hello, Jim, welcome to Wikipedia. I don't doubt that you have good knowledge of various models of Jaguars but the rules here on Wikipedia are strict when it comes to providing reliable sources for everything, except perhaps for the most obvious and mundane of things. I know that we don't always live up to it, but we try to make sure that all new information is properly sourced, and also try to weed out older improperly sourced content as time allows. So please read the pages about inline citations and reliable sources, and then continue your "work" here. And once again, welcome to Wikipedia, a place were you will find many others who share your love for cars, both Jaguars and other marques. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand the need for verification, but I've never seen any published work that showed these distinctions re- XK140. Whilst this is unlikely to inconvenience anyone, the paragraph as it now stands is incorrect. How do I publish the factory memos and drawings that cover this area? Regards Jagjim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagjim (talk • contribs) 10 July 2012, 13:02 (UTC)

What I most opposed was the comment about the original designation of the XK140 being XK120 MkIV, not the info about the battery placement. So I'll make a partial revert and add that to the article. But publishing factory memos and drawings might be a problem since Jaguar own the copyright to that material, which means it can't be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. (PS. Please sign your talk page comments with four tildes.) Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply and ...

Greetings Thomas.W. I can assure you that I’m usually the first to revert and/or warn users for needless and “unconstructive changes from British English to US English” and I was in fact going to revert it myself. However, after checking first the exact article name I realised that the IP had made a perfectly necessary change. Unfortunately, in this particular case, the edits you reverted had solved at least three redlinks, as well as creating a new link. And, as you point out, there had been a valid copyedit. As you can see, the current version following the changes made by the IP and myself is clearly better. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in spite of any doubt you may still have, I can assure you I checked carefully before reverting your good faith edit.

If you look at the version to which you reverted, you will see that there are at least two redlinks, on the one hand, Centre of Percussion, which was corrected by the IP, precisely because the article name uses US English, and on the other hand, duelling swords, which I later solved by creating a redirect, again, because there was no link to the corresponding article. Far from being “unconstructive changes from British English to US English.” the IP’s edits clearly improved the article, as did mine.

As I pointed out to you above, my knee-jerk reaction was also to revert, precisely for the same reason you used in your edit summary (WP:ENGVAR), but I just happened to notice that the edits made improved the article. Hope this allays your fears. Regards,--Technopat (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@Technopat: And my last edit both kept the changes you value so highly and restored British spelling. But you still reverted it. Where's the logic in that? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted legit changes?

Hi Thomas, you recently reverted my changes to the Altima page. It is definitely important and relevant news. I believe you reverted it because the reference where I found it was a blog. I think "blog" nowadays is synonymous with online news source if written by a reputable one with a track record, and this one is. The term "blog" used to be bad in terms of reliability and referenced a personal blog written by some dude. But now, blogs are full blown news sources and are often more reliable and accurate, not to mention more timely, than the big news sources. Look at Jalopnik.com or Autoblog.com or TheCarConnection.com - the last two of which at least are referenced in that same Altima page, among other blogs. Ultimately, what's the difference between a news source that calls itself a blog and one that doesn't? Both deliver the exact same thing; news and editorials in their industry delivered in chronological order. Thanks for being so active and thorough on Wikipedia; you're the type of editor that keeps out the spam and we appreciate that. I look forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by193.93.203.40 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave

I'm sorry to see this. I can't blame you for being discouraged — resisting promotion from paid company shills is an uphill battle. Please know that your work has been appreciated, and I hope you feel like coming back to editing at some point. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC).

Looked at your contributions. What Bish said. Take a break then please come back soon, Thomas.W. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

UMP

Is this considered as a reliable source proving that Croatian Army DOES uses the H&K UMP? Tekogi (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Tekogi:No. That picture is not a reliable source since we have no information about it. In other words there's nothing that confirms that the weapons on the table are part of the inventory/arsenal of the Croatian Army, which is what matters. Those weapons could just as well have been there only to show what other types of weapons look like, or be weapons that had been tested but were never accepted into service for one reason or another. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

PARISTechnologiesInernational

IS there a specific reason why you added my account to the ban accounts page, I have not done anything wrong and I do not intend to do so. This username is primarly for helping the Wikipedia revive helpful and beneficial information on On Line Analytic Processing — Preceding unsigned comment added byPARISTechnologiesInternational (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a specific reason: According to Wikipedia's username policy "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted". So please follow the link to the policy and read more about it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Strickland (surname)

Stop removing these edits on this page or else I will consider it vandalism, your argument that "no one not mentioned previously in Wikipedia should have an entry" is absurd, show me where in the rules it says, by the way I was just linking John Lilburne in that entry. If you want help in future ask. Pandaplodder (talk)

@Pandaplodder: "Or you will consider it vandalism"? It doesn't matter what you consider to be vandalism, what matters is what the rules say is vandalism. And removing irrelevant trivia, such as people who have received an obscure award (so obscure that it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, and in fact isn't even mentioned in the article about the Citizens In Charge Foundation), is most definitely not vandalism according to the rules. So learn what the rules are before you start accusing people of breaking them. As for rules about inclusion in stand-alone lists, which Strickland (surname) is, is governed by WP:NLIST, which among other things says that inclusion in a stand-alone list is governed by normal rules about notability (includingsingle-event notability), which means that people who aren't notable enough to have an article about themselves aren't notable enough to be included in a stand-alone list. So totally non-notable people who have been awarded an apparently non-notable award is trivia, and does not belong in the list. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Opel

Well, I don't think Opel South East Europe should be included in the list either, because, it does not produce anything different than OpelIustin444 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter Drewett

No probs. I should have been clearer.Deb (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Turks Head

Sorry about that. Turk can be a racial slur and I thought the ref was bogus. Will remove warning with apology. Jusdafax 14:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: No problem. It's actually a fairly common name for pubs in the UK, which is why I checked the ref when I saw the revert. And please note that the name is "Turks Head", which is an old sailor's term (it's the name of a decorative knot that looks a bit like a turban...), not "Turk's Head", so there's nothing racial about it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC) (I believe the US name for the same knot is "Turk's Head knot", but the proper UK name is "Turks Head", just like the name of the pub...)

• After glancing at your talk page, may I say I am in total agreement with your stand against paid editing. I too believe it is likely to be the end of Wikipedia. Jusdafax 15:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It almost made me quit WP, that's how much I dislike it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Longest Sniper Shot

I made a change to a distance because another source quoted a different distance but then changed it back because other sources agreed with the original. I didn't realise I'd changed anything else. I think the editing facilities are kind of confusing and could do with improving. When someone adds something and then changes it back, you'd expect it to go back to how it was. Z07x10 (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Requests for page protection

Hi, Thomas. The edit warring IP at Cossacks and Varangians is static, so I blocked for 48 hours rather than protecting the articles. Please let me know if you notice further disruption, then I'll protect. Bishonen | talk 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

My Edits

Greetings Thomas. I would like to know what about my edits was unsourced? Gondophares is the hellenized version of Gandapur the same way Persepolis is (the Hellenzied version) of Parsipur. This can't be "sourced". It's common knowledge. Gondophares is simply the way Gandapur appears in Greek texts. Thus you shouldn't allow this vital information from being kept from Wikipedia. Please do review. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalagdama (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Spalagdama: There is no such thing as "common knowledge" on Wikipedia other than what is listed here, which doesn't cover what you are doing. So providereliable sources or don't edit. And stop making what seems like nationalistically and religiously motivated edits. IP76.97.177.227 was blocked just three days ago for doing the exact same types of edits as you are now doing, on the exact same articles as you are now editing. Which, based on my experience, is very seldom just a coincidence. So stop what you are doing, or risk being blocked. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W

With all due respect, I do not appreciate your confrontational tone, especially when I am trying to resolve the matter.

Where have I made "nationally" and especially "religiously motivated" edits? To point out the location of a kingdom, or culture isn't "nationalistically motivated", it is quite simply the truth. Would you like instead for it to be written that the Parthians ruled out of Denver, Colorado? Please make some sense; I am not making any "nationalistically motivated" edits; your antagonism towards this factual information on the other hand shows that you have a nationalistic bias. I'll be glad to escalate this matter with wikipedia should your nationalistically and religiously based bias and racism continue. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalagdama (talk •contribs) 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Spalagdama: Just one example: diff. An unsourced edit that totally changed the meaning of the text and introduced an unsubstantiated claim of "armed Hindu pogroms against Buddhist populations". That kind of edits are not acceptable, especially not in combination with a false/deliberately misleading edit summary like the one you gave for that particular edit: "Corrected the spelling of Buddhism". Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:

I am well aware of what is and is not acceptable. And that is not even my edit. So please don't create diversionaries. You originally threatened to block me for simply stating that a kingdom, dynasty or culture was actually from where it really was from, and termed this "nationalistic bias"; obviously not mine, but in fact your own.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalagdama (talk • contribs)

@Spalagdama: That edit was made from the same account you're currently using, which means that you're responsible for it. Or do you mean to say that you're sharing that account with others? In that case you're violating Wikipedia's rules about not sharing an account, which is a blockable offense. So either you admit that you made the edit, with whatever consequences that may have, or admit that you share the account with others, which is a violation of the rules that you risk getting blocked for. Either way you're in trouble, unless you stop making your unsourced and seemingly biased edits. Thomas.W ^{talk to me}21:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas, the user is new; how to read a diff may not be obvious to them, so I don't think it's necessary to jump to conclusions about shared accounts. But I agree that is a troubling edit, especially the misleading edit summary. On the other hand, it was made more than a month ago; water under the bridge. Spalagdama, Thomas is giving you good advice, and warning you that you'll be blocked if you continue to add tendentious and unsourced text to articles. Those are warnings on your page, not "threats", as shown by the fact that Thomas can't in fact block you. He's not an administrator, merely an experienced editor trying to help you to edit appropriately. I am an admin, though, and I will in fact block you if you don't heed the warnings you've received. P.S., please sign your posts on talkpages. I put some information on your page about how to do that. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen Greetings,

Thanks for your input on this thread. I am all for communication on how to edit properly. As you can see, I initiated this discussion in a civil and cordial manner. Conversely, if you read Thomas.W's posts to me as well as others, you will learn that his tone is very confrontational, disrespectful and therefore inappropriate. His original claim against me was "nationalistic bias"; when he could not hold onto this, he pulled up something new, which as you verified is over a month old, and is also something about which I was not aware. I have sent a complaint against Thomas.W to wikipedia and they have in fact informed me that he is not able to block, have sent me links on how to dispute information on pages, and have asked me to keep them in the loop should any further bullying occur. Thanks for the information on signing off. I will attempt it now. Spalagdama (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(See, the signing worked, good job!) You sent a complaint "to Wikipedia" and they asked you to keep them in the loop about bullying..? OK, that's interesting. Thomas is a good editor. I'm afraid I agree with him about the "nationalistic bias" of several of your edits, that's why I used the word "tendentious" above. Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen

I look back and the only place where I may have not "sourced" an edit was where a page indicated that the script on Parata coins was in Brahmi (when in fact it is in Kharoshti script). I wholeheartedly agree on sourcing and will try and get a source for this [A source by a certain Dr. Tandon comes to mind]. Otherwise, I am afraid I disagree with both you and Mr. Thomas.W on the allegation of "nationalistic bias". If a culture is situated in a certain geographic location, then that is mere fact which needs to be stated, and not in fact "nationalistic bias". No one would bat an eye-lash if a page stated that "Persepolis, the seat of the Sasanian capital, is in south western Iran". It is a mere fact, despite any current 'reservations' one may have about the area. Similarly, I am being chastised in this case because of the biased views of certain editors/moderators and nothing incorrectly stated on my part. And should it come down to it, I will be happy to appeal this information through the proper channels provided to me by wikipedia. Thanks once again for moderating and for the information provided on signing off. Regards. Spalagdama (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Spalagdama: Who do you think you're fooling? Both Bishonen and I see a nationalistic bias in your editing, and the edit I provided a diff to (both the unsourced part about "armed Hindu pogroms" and the false edit summary) was far over the top. You have been warned not to continue with your both unsourced and tendentious editing (please read the link to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing that Bishonen provided you with), and the warnings stand, so if you continue with it there is (as you can see in Bishonen's "I will in fact block you if you don't heed the warnings you've received") with all probability a block coming your way. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC) (And please do "appeal this information through the proper channels", but don't forget to read WP:Boomerang first).

@Bishonen

I'll let you deal with this character's repetitions. I've already said what I've had to say. My thoughts on this matter stand above. (I'll be glad to speak further with both you and wikipedia, should that be required.) Regards Spalagdama (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Spalagdama: What part of "I will in fact block you if you don't heed the warnings you've received" was it that you didn't understand? If you have problems with it, ask an adult. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think someone's trying hard to have the last word, sending me alerts, begging for interaction, but getting ignored; not likely an adult. Spalagdama (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Mediator ram

I'm glad you noticed him. I may be guilty of failing to assume sufficient good faith, but the contrast between his apparent knowledge of Wikipedia policies and practices, laid up against a couple dozen or more plainly disruptive edits, makes it hard. I wouldn't give him a whole lot more rope - JohnInDC (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on him to see if he continues with his disruptions, but he seemed to stop after getting warned. Because, like you, I get the impression that he's trolling, deliberately doing things that he knows he shouldn't be doing. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, just another data point: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277#16_August_2013. JohnInDC (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page. – The Welsh Buzzard – 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Irish block evader

Yes, but at least (I suspect) we're making him get a physical workout trying to find new IPs. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Modesto vandal

How do we know RonaldClownsterMacDonaldHater (talk · contribs) is a sock of this guy? Is it something about the name? because he has no history whatsoever to tell this from. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, you had misspelled it. I figured it out and blocked him. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: (Edit conflict) The duck test. Based on the edit history of RonaldClownsterMacDonaldHater and the IPs (which all geolocate to the Modesto-area), their interactions with each other, the latest IP suddenly stopping and the named account taking over, doing the same things, and so on, I'm 99.9% certain that it's the same person behind both the named account and the IPs. And the 0.1% uncertainty is evened out by the named account's behaviour, which makes that user deserve a block anyway. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC) (I had already written an answer so I might as well post it...)

Don't worry; it's all good now (For us, anyway :-)) Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RonaldClownsterMcDonaldHater - Areaseven (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be a possibility that RonaldClownsterMcDonaldHater is also Jasons99Contour. While their edits are not the same, the IP addresses they've used lead to the exact same location in Modesto, CA. Coincidence? - Areaseven (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

New article to protect

Hi, I don't want to violate WP:3RR in this article [1], I also reported that user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputbhatti. Just the same way: Islam and India (this time is Religion in Kerala, Islam in Kerala and other articles). Always blame other users for "unexplained deletion" with non-stop reverting his edits without respect or discussion and sometimes forget to writing capital words. Thank you. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• We can report him here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but I don't know how to do that. Thank you so much.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• @Angelo De La Paz: I've already done that. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Template

Greetings Thomas, I've left you messages at Talk:Claims to be the fastest-growing religion regarding the neutrality template. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits by banned editors

Please see User_talk:Debresser#Palestinian_political_violence that your revert was wrong on two accounts. Please be so kind to self-revert. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, my revert was not wrong. See reply on your talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 06:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Your only warning"

No need to warn IPs acting like that. I've blocked 'em. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen: It wasn't actually a first and only warning. Please see User talk:41.103.100.94 and this WP:AIV-report: [2]. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. See also this. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

"RAID" edits

Re: your recent deletion of my additions to the RAID page when you asked for citations.

Change 1/ I changed 'Another concern' to 'A concern' because this was the first point that a 'concern' had been raised on this particular issue. Hence 'Another concern' is wrong.

Changes 2,3,4 & 6/ These are facts universally acknowledged by all 'in the know'. I realise this does not render a citation redundant but the sources checked added a bias I wanted to avoid. For example compare http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/conf/ctrlSoftware-c.html , who says that hardware RAID is better, with http://augmentedtrader.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/10-things-raid/ who tells you that software is the better option. Maybe at a later date, when I have a LOT more time, I can go on a quest to find a suitable page.

All computer professionals have their own idea which is best, often dependant on the particular area in which they are working. So which should I pick for my citation and then how do I avoid having to go into lots of fiddly details to correct the apparent bias which will then arise? For this reason I concidered a citation unhelpful. Especially when you consider the additions were only 'standard' knowledge, ask anyone who KNOWS about computers. There is no citation requirement on theGrass page where it states that grass is eaten by many animals, citations are good but we can go OTT on their requirement.

Change 5/ 'Fake RAID'. Perhaps this should have a citation but I'm unsure how to do it. The phrase is slang and so has no formal definition, but googling 'fake RAID' declared 185 million results so the phrase is definitely in use and so should be mentioned. Could you help here? kimdino (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia Page Edit

OK, sorry, I have changed to the latest version that I got it from here http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeks_Pembangunan_Manusia Angsanley (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Angsanley: Wikipedia articles can't be used as a reference, neither other articles on the English Wikipedia nor articles on other Wikipedias. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: also from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR2013_EN_Summary.pdf Angsanley (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Angsanley: Nope, that link has the exact same figures as the en-WP article about Indonesia, i.e. the figures that I reverted to, HDI 0.629 and ranked as #121, and not the figures that you added. Thomas.W ^{talk to me}12:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: the original article shows the 2012 year, so I searched and found the 2011 that is higher value, then I searched and found out that the value was wrong, so I changed to 2013 value.Angsanley (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Angsanley: There is no 2013 value, the latest figure is the 2012 value presented in the report dated 2013. And changing to an older value because it ranked Indonesia higher, and in your eyes made Indonesia look better, is not acceptable. Which is why I told you not to. So don't do it again. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: OK, OK, calm dude, sorry, I'm not doing that anymore. Thanks for your time btw. Angsanley (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Return of the comparisoners!

• Here we go, again. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Nice work on BTR-80 and so many other pages. Dealing with unsourced claims and national aggrandisement on military articles is a sisyphæan task... bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You and Spalagdama

Thomas, as I said at his talk page, all I did was respond to your AIV report and retraction thereof. Just because I did does not make me the person to arbite your dispute (you have addressed comments to me that actually seem to be referring to something he said). For now I think you should defer to the clerks and checkusers at the SPI you filed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Longest Sniper Kill

I am currently awaiting some more "official" confirmation as you put it. The second source I added had far more details than the first from yesterday, as more info comes available I will add it. Reviewing the unknown Norwegian kill it hardly seems official either, it is an interview with a soldier by one author, in the article the Norwegian army does not officially acknowledge the distance or kill, how is that seen as official then? Garrethe (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Garrethe: There's a discussion on the talk page, with a number of editors trying to collect reliable sources. Join in there, but don't add the South African sniper to the article until the sources have been sorted out. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Gary Barlow - genre

Hi, sorry for the interrupt. Can you revert the genre for Gary Barlow page? Yids2010 was not allow other users to revert any genre. But according to AllMusic, genre says pop/rock and classical. As for soft rock was not supported by citation and hasn't cited from AllMusic at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.127 (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ask for citation and you will get them instantly

But don't remove all my work for simple math asking for a citation

1 + 1 = 2 does not need a citation

14.7psia is atmosphere Superchargers displace air and increase displacement of an engines 15psi boost will cause the engine to have 30psia in the cylinder

5L @30psia = 10L @15psia therefore a 5L engine with 15psi boost actually moves(displaces) 10L of atmosphere Why do you think every says 15psi doubles HP , cause it double atmosphere & displacement Mechanical piston displacement has nothing to do with the displacement of a supercharged 2stage engine

in europe they call a 5.0L a 600 because it displace more air from the supercharger

Piston displacement only equals Engines displacement in real engineering terms only works for NA engines

as per how a supercharger works

citation need mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1203_2013_ford_shelby_gt500_trinity_5_8l_v8/viewall.html GT500 engine block is Honsel Gt500 has 15psi Boost GT500 has 11.6L effective displacement

2.3L displacement supercharger turning 2.5 times faster than the engines SVT says GT500 is bored to the max

All of your citation on one page, but now i have to redo all that wording

you have to count all displacement of an engine including the supercharger, you wouldn't out 2 - 5.0L engines in a car and only count one ZL1 makes 580hp @7psi but with performance package s smaller pulley turns the charger faster, displacing more air measured in boost@15psi makes 790hp, displacing more air makes more hp * citation how engines work, how superchargers work, how engine displacement is measured for supercharged 2stage engines — Preceding unsigned comment added byXXXVaporXXX (talk • contribs) 09:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @XXXVaporXXX: With very few exceptions, and this is not one of them, there is no such thing as "common knowledge" on Wikipedia. And what you write above is not a citation or a reference. For more info on that please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And please note what the first of those two guides says about "burden of proof". It's up to you to provide a proper reference when making an edit, if you don't, your edits can be removed for being unsourced, which is what I did. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Need to fix, GT500 engine is not a ford

Then i can remove that GT500 engines is am modular ford, since i can easily prove GT500 engines is 100% made by honsel in germany, and not shipped to Ford until the engines is completely cast Ford has never made a GT500 engine in this century, so it would be impossible to prove they did, but they do tighten the bolts to the parts they ordered — Precedingunsigned comment added by XXXVaporXXX (talk • contribs) 09:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @XXXVaporXXX: Only if you can provide reliable sources for it, as described in the two guides that I pointed you to. If you can't provide such sources, then no. Also read this:Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. And no, I didn't write those rules, I just follow/enforce them, because without rules about verifiability Wikipedia would be a total chaos. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

MUSTANG 5.0L MAGAZINE IS A RELIABLE SOURCE

I doubt 100% factual data that is VERY IMPORTANT about a car iS VANDALISM

as soon as i figure out how to make citation i will fix all these problems

A Honsel is not a Ford

http://www.mustangevolution.com/mustang-news/press-release-shelby-american-adds-dynotech-engineering-driveshafts/

Press control & F then type Honsel for a reliable source about who makes GT500 engine

I bet you have no reliable source saying Ford makes GT500 engine as that would be impossible, I thought you had the BURDEN OF PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only if you can provide reliable sources for it, as described in the two guides that I pointed you to. If you can't provide such sources, then no, It cannot be listed a Modular Ford engine

I can provide sources for ALL my data, so get used to seeing what i have already wrote, just let me get all my data together. — Precedingunsignedcomment added by XXXVaporXXX (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My appologies

Yeah, you weren't the person I meant to address. My bad. Thanks for the heads up !  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  13:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback !!

Hello, Thomas.W. You have new messages at Maxx786's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Maxx786 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Authenticity of bdmilitary.com

Hi, I have found in many pages regarding Bangladesh and Bangladesh military that you are taking a blog named bdmilitary.com very seriously. Whereas, I know some of the members of that site and they sounded like full of wishlists of some fan boys. In many occasions (more than 20) they provided information about Bangladesh armed forces procurement, however turned out to be they were just guessing. Example: They had a headline for a long time that: Bangladesh army is buying 310 T-84 tank. However, Bangladesh bought 44 MBT-2000. On another time they said, 300 T-59G has been procured. Whereas the fact is Bangladesh evaluated only 1 unit. They said Bangladesh Air Force procured 4 batteries of BUK-M1 SAM but instead we found that Bangladesh bought 1 battery of FM-90 SAM. According to bdmilitary.com Bangladesh Army bought 6 batteries of PLZ-45 self propelled artillery gun (SPAG), however, Bangladesh did not. Bangladesh Army bought 3 batteries of Nora B-52 SPAG from Serbia instead.

I can give you a list of vandalism by bdmilitary.com and still you are relying on them for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added byKamrul512 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kamrul512: I'm not relying on bdmilitary.com, in fact I'm questioning their reliability (see Talk:PLZ-45 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#bdmilitary.com). But you can't remove stuff without discussion or a consensus that bdmilitary.com is not reliable and can't be used as a source. So if you have information about bdmilitary.com please join the discussion at the links I gave you. Thomas.W ^{talk to me}07:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Lavasa

Hi Thomas, please note that certain activities revised by you such as CSR initiatives are activities planned for the citizens of Lavasa City. Request you to please undo the same and restore the paragraph on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryongen (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello Thomas, I am not sure the best way to reply to your message. The YouTube channel contains three videos of the mouse selection experiment that has been conducted by Dr. Garland. Is there some other way to refer to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiguana (talk • contribs) 20:38 (UTC), 3 September 2013

@Whatiguana: Yes, add them to Dr Garland's own website. I'm sure those readers who are interested in Dr Garland's work will be able to find them there, especially since there's already a link to that website in the external links section of the article. But Wikipedia is not a collection of links (nor are Wikipedia articles intended to be used as résumés), so they don't belong here. For more information about Wikipedia's policy regarding external links see Wikipedia:External links. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I Love Munich

Thanks for picking up on that. Blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Cossacks

I did verify the link to an original story by Sholom Aleihem I was citing. One link was to the original story "Шолом Алейхем. Быть бы свадьбе, да музыки не нашлось Железнодорожные рассказы. Рассказ №9" (published in 1960 in Russian, translated from Yidish). You can use google-translate to verify the correctness of the source I have given. The second reference was to a blog, which gave an English summary of the story, which meant to give a rough idea about the plot to an English-speaking reader. You have deleted BOTH of my sources, without verifying the correctness of the first source. So I restored the first link, but I have now deleted the reference to the blog, which was indeed improper (but well intended). ViktorC (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@ViktorC: I have downloaded the story by Sholom Aleihem that you are referring to, and have machine-translated it in its entirety into English, with the intention of starting a discussion on the talk page. My first impression though is that it doesn't merit extensive mention in the article. The story does imply that Cossacks were used as a form of police, but I can't see that Cossacks did more of that kind of job than other Russian military units did (or military units in other countries at that time for that matter). So the question is, IMHO at least, how prominent it should be in the article. A brief mention of Cossacks occasionally being used as a police force would, again IMHO, be OK, but not much more than that. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

8mm Mauser

With all due respect the modifications I made to the 8mm mauser article are valid.

The original article claims the .30-06 cartridge and 8mm mauser are comparable - which is completely false. The 8mm mauser contains 1000J more energy for the same grain bullet. This is a legitimate fact -check my reference.

I did not turn the article into a 'hunting guide' I simply explained the characteristics of the cartridge that were absent in the original. The only 'hunting' information I included was added a few relevant game animals to the existing list of animals that were already included.

Rather then deleting entire paragraphs perhaps we can discuss first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by24.222.47.171 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyvios

If the files are at Commons, you need to tag them for speedy deletion there not here - tagging the file pages here doesn't work. I have now tagged commons:File:Vishakha Singh in fukrey 2013-09-10 16-39.jpg and commons:File:Abdusalamov Gadisov , Russian wrestler 2013-09-10 12-26.jpg but can't delete them myself as I'm not an admin on Commons. Thanks for spotting them.Bencherlite^Talk 15:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't look closely enough at it. I've tagged dozens of images as copyvios on Commons so I know the routine, but just didn't notice that these images were on Commons and not here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I, too, was in a bit of a hurry and purported to "delete" the images when in fact all I did was delete the page you had created asking for the images to be deleted... Bencherlite^Talk 15:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Lazar 2

Hello, You've just made changes on Lazar 2 page. Can you change all the remaining Multi-Role Armored Vehicle pages (such as Patria AMV, BTR-90, and others)? You can find list at the bottom of page Lazar 2 (See table Wheeled infantry fighting vehicles and armoured personnel carriers). Thank you! Arz1969 (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You very much! Arz1969 (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Lavasa

I've removed and rewritten some blatantly promotional material on Lavasa. I do believe that the surrounding villages need mentioning but am open to wholesale removal of all other promotional material.Fleetham (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, what you have done is repeatedly trying to insert blatantly promotional material into the article. You have also, with a misleading edit summary, removed properly sourced material that is critical of the project. So you have most definitely not just "removed and rewritten some blatantly promotional material". Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsure how to proceed such that villages are mentioned and promotional material is removed. I will reinsert villages mention removing all other traces of my former edit. Fleetham (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No you will not, unless you find a reliable external source (which excludes www.lavasa.com). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I can add that judging by the comments on your talk page you seem to have recently aquired a habit of making sneaky edits with deliberately misleading edit summaries, removing content with no explanation. Such as removing 57 intermediate edits with a single click on Tata Nano to get the article back to an earlier version by you, with a misleading edit summary. And your edits on Lavasa are strange, to say the least, since you, an autoconfirmed user, all of a sudden start making edits of the same type that IPs have done recently, more or less continuing their work after the article was protected. So whatever you're doing, stop doing it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, please explain how the below violates such "external sources" rules. Am I to remove or qualify each statement that is sourced from a primary, interest-holding entity? If I need to do that, then it must be done. Fleetham (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(%< Snip, tons of text removed.)

I've done some basic historiography on the below edit. Is this sufficiently non promotional? Fleetham (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(%< Snip, even more tons of text removed.)

• Why did you post all of that on my talk page? You could just as easily have created subpages to your own talk page, posted your stuff there and then posted a link here. Since you're an experienced editor with thousands of edits you ought to know that. So do that, then read the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing and citing, which you ought to be able to find yourself (if you can't there are a couple of links in the warnings I gave you...), make your changes, and ask again. But do not dump it all on my talk page again because that kind of behaviour really p*sses me off. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Thomas, I was just trying to remove those huge swathes of text bloating up your page; you edit conflicted me. I don't think Fleetham knows how else to point to what he wants to show you. I've posted some advice on his page. (I thought of asking him to make user subpages, too, but it strikes me that the texts are probably versions of the article which exist in the history.) Anyway, please be nice, I don't think he was trying to annoy. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC).
    • Well, maybe I'm being grumpy, but I think he was. His recent edit history, particularly on Lavasa, is also kind of strange, as if he's recently become a new Usmanwardag([3]).

• • • Usmanwardag? You're not suggesting... or are you? It doesn't seem likely. But no doubt similar goals lead to similar styles. You have mail. Bishonen | talk19:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC).
      • No, I'm not suggesting he's that. But it seems kind of strange to me that an autoconfirmed user suddenly starts adding promotional material and at the same time removing criticism, with misleading edit summaries to boot, on an article that has just been semi-protected because of IP-hoppers trying to add promotional material and at the same time removing criticism, with misleading edit summaries. And Fleetham apparently trying to remove my comments about that (see a few steps above) when he dumped those tons of text here doesn't make me less suspicious (see below). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It's this edit that I'm talking about in the last part of the post above. Copying the text under the header "Lavasa", removing my comment and adding his own, then pasting it, along with 20K of irrelevant text, back onto my talk page. What he failed to notice was that he had only copied the text under the header "Lavasa", and not deleted it, so when he pasted it all back onto the page again there was all of a sudden two headers saying "Lavasa". And removing one comment when adding a new is not something that happens by accident. But even if he had deleted it, and not just copied it, I would have noticed it, because I always look at diffs to see if someone removes something that is already there when adding something new. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• The only bit I find relevant and interesting are those copied and pasted below. I think that the current page would benefit from the below change if implemented. Fleetham (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Surrounding villages

Smaller, preexisting communities sometimes interact with Lavasa and its residents. Some have been the focus of CSR efforts, and villagers provide construction labor to the project.

Future plans

Lavasa has established a pattern of promoting grand plans that do not, ultimately, see fruition. Oxford University at one time had attached itself to the project, but other, name-brand plans including future sports facilities have yet to be officially cancelled.

While some sections are complete, construction of Lavasa will not be finished before 2020. After the city is fully built, its total population may be 200,000, and it will comprise four or five towns built on seven hills. The first of these, Dasve, was initially slated to be complete by 2010 although some residences there were still under construction as of 2013. Mugaon, the second town, may be finished by 2013, and as of May, 2013, construction continues. Work on this town began in mid-2012. In 2013 the chairman of the construction company building the project confirmed that Lavasa will include four large towns and one low-cost town.