Misplaced Pages

User talk:Thomas.W: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:18, 9 June 2014 view sourceThomas.W (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,972 edits →MOS:BOLDTITLE: cm← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:54, 18 December 2024 view source MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,142,123 edits →New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|optout=ifd, nolicense}} {{bots|optout=ifd, nolicense}}
{{Archive basics
<div style="background:white; border:2px DarkOrchid solid; padding:12px;">
|archive = User talk:Thomas.W/Archive %(counter)d
<big>'''Please add new discussions at the BOTTOM of the page. Older discussions have been moved to my ].'''</big>
|counter = 12
</div>
}}


{{User:Thomas.W/templates/background|pagetop}}
<div style="background:#ffffbb; border:2px #ff0000 solid; padding:12px;">
__TOC__


{{semiretired|since Misplaced Pages has changed beyond recognition, and is no longer a place where I enjoy spending time...}}
__TOC__


== Always precious ==
==Please see==
]
] - ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --] (]) 10:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
==WoW==
Thomas, inte tänker du väl överge oss? Brukar du göra DYKs? Om ja, var snäll och titta igenom detta. Det är för många Svenska referenser i det, så det verkar som ingen vågar. (Fixat redan.)


== New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive ==
::*Thomas, Thomas, inte tänker du väl överge oss? ] (]) 18:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
*Yeah, what Hafspajen said. Take it easy Thomas. ] (]) 01:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; color: #000; padding:10px 15px 0"
==Popping up==
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''] |''' <span style="font-size:85%">]</span>
I'm glad to see you popping up a little, at least. ] &#124; ] 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
|rowspan=3|]
:Something called "real life" took over... ] ] 13:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
|-
|
* On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
* Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
* Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
* Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
* Interested in taking part? ''']'''.
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ]
|}
] (]) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1242377836 -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
== King of Kvenland ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
Only a Swede would try to insert Charles IX in an article about the Kings of Kvenland. I'll forgive you your nationalistic aspirations, but you must realize that Charles IX had nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient Kvenland.<ref>http://www.emersonkent.com/images/maps/europe_814.jpg</ref> Do you realize that? ] (]) 21:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
:Charles IX is actually the only historically accurate/verified king of Kvenland there has been, so he definitely belongs in the article. The rest of the article is just a bunch of myths and speculations... ] ] 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
:: Charles was not and could not have been a King of Kvenland, because he lived centuries later and Kvenland was never a Sveas' land to begin with. Kvenland was a Finnish area that existed long before the Swedish crusades in the 13th century. Sweden has never been linked with Kvenland in any way in the Swedish history books either. You just have to accept this historical fact.] (]) 22:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
:Where are the sources? To write anything in Misplaced Pages, you need sources. ] (]) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Charles IX was a King of Sweden (never a King of Kvenland), who lived in 1550-1611<ref>http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107208/Charles-IX</ref>. Kvenland<ref>http://www.davidkfaux.org/files/deBeaufouFullReport.pdf</ref>vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. Therefore Charles IX does not belong to the article about Kvenland or the one about the King of Kvenland.] (]) 15:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Finnedi}}: The Kvenland you're POV/fringe-pushing about is just a '''myth''' since there's no historial evidence that such an entity ever existed (blogs don't count...). The ''name'' Kvenland, with a few different variations in spelling, has however been used in various contexts, one of them being the royal title used by Charles IX. So he was undoubtedly "King of Kvenland". ] ] 15:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Thomas, take a deep breath before you continue. Kvenland is mentioned in several norse sagas and history books later. Charles IX was never a King of Kvenland nor did he himself or any historian ever claim that he was. You are the first person who does that. Even linking Charles IX with Kvenland is absurd because he lived in the 16th century and Kvenland had disappeared from written accounts by the 14th century. The thing that Charles IX may have used the title "King of Caijaners etc.", never made and still does not make him a King of Kvenland, nor was he ever associated in any way with the area that was known Kvenland. If you want to connect Charles IX to Caijaners, why don't you add the info in the article about Charles IX himself?] (]) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Finnedi}}: 1) The Norse sagas are '''sagas''' and what's written in them can not be taken at face value, unless it's supported by historical documents or archaeological evidence. And AFAIK no historical documents or archaeological evidence support the existence of a political entity named Kvenland, let alone the existence of kings of such an entity. The existence of a political entity named Kvenland is just a myth. 2) I'm not the one who added Charles IX, but since the claim that he used the title "King of Kvenland" seems to be properly sourced you can not remove it unless you discuss it on the talk page of the article '''and get consensus for such removal'''. Period. ] ] 18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thomas, I'm not interested in arguing with you about Kvenland, the area. The problem is that you want to include Charles IX in two articles where he does not belong. Charles never ever used the title KING OF KVENLAND of himself. Nor did any historian ever do that. I already explained you why it wouldn't have been possible in the first place. Such unhistorical absurd interpretations are not needed in these articles.] (]) 19:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Outdent}} {{ping|Finnedi}}, I have started sections on the talk page of both articles repeating what you have been told all along, that the section is referenced and describes something scholars have raised in this connection, and that no one is claiming it was still called Kvenland in the 16th/17th century. Despite your edit summaries, you have not acquired consensus for removing this referenced material; you have simply said repeatedly that ''you'' disagree with it, and I see you here impute nationalistic motives to Thomas.W for disagreeing with its removal. Please make your case where it belongs, on the article talk pages. But so far you - and an IP that was probably you? are the only person/people arguing for its removal, and since it's referenced, your argument is not persuasive, to me at least (and is not improved by the ]. Take it to the article talk pages please. ] (]) 21:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Yngvadottir}}The reference to Charles IX does not belong in the articles about Kvenland or the King of Kvenland, because Charles IX has never been connected with Kvenland in any way by any known historian. If you dispute this fact, you must present source material that says the opposite and can be verified by myself and others. Can you present such source material?] (]) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== category reverts ==


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
Hi - I just wanted to let you know that I've re-reverted some of your recent reversions of ]. I believe they were constructive, even though they appeared suspicious. Please see my comment on ] for details, and please let me know if you think I'm in error. Thanks! --] (]) 15:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


</div>
== Dispute resolution noticeboard ==
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->


== New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive ==
Finnedi has opened a section at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but s/he had misspelled your user name so here is a manual notification: ]. ] (]) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
== Thanks... ==
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | ] | <span style="font-size: 85%">''']''' </span>

| rowspan=3 | ]
...for reverting my user page. ], ], <small>]</small> 16:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

== Finnedi ==

If you post a polite request on Finnedi's talk page asking him to stop posting to your talk page, he is required to stop. If he doesn't, he will get a couple of warnings and then a block. --] (]) 17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Guy Macon}} Finnedi is free to post on my talk page as long as his posts are reasonably constructive and related to an ongoing discussion. What I don't like is his new-found hobby of repeatedly copy-pasting totally unwarranted/frivolous user warnings here... ] ] 18:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

== IP hopper at ] and ] ==

Thanks for your frequent maintenance/anti-vandalism edits on WP:Guns articles. You may have noticed already, but there's an IP editor on the ] article removing sourced info and adding lots of his own ]. I challenged the ] and warned him on his talk page, then he switched IPs (both New Jersey) and started citing the same exact source that I was citing (Jane's Infantry Weapons). He hasn't made any communication with me so far on either of his talk pages.

It seems like we see this a lot on the firearm articles, where editors just cite random sources for their additions, thinking that no one will notice. Of course, I have access to the source being cited, and it doesn't say '''anything''' about the stuff he's citing it for. It may be necessary to alert an admin, but Nick-D is gone on a holiday, and he seems to be the usual admin for these kinds of issues in the ] project. ] (]) 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

==Finnedi again?==
Just FYI: I've opened an SPI on {{noping|Nuutinpoika}}. It's not obvious like the other one was, but you might let me know if you see further suggestive edits. If it becomes obvious, I'll block without waiting for CU. (I understand they're backlogged.) ] &#124; ] 06:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

== Padlock? ==

If you'd like your talk page temporarily semi-protected, just say the word. ] (]) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Favonian}} Yes, please, 'cos this is getting boring] ] 20:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
::12 hours of local peace. ] (]) 20:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks ] ] 20:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

== Doctor SK ==

I think we have a problem with Doctor SK, who might or might not be related to another pro-UFO editor calling himself Dr Fil (who seems to have gone dormant). FWIW, the Jerry Cohen site he keeps trying to push is not factual research but simply opinion, and much of it based on his own misunderstandings. But of course we can't say this in WP. Anyway, thanks to you and Bobrayner for slugging it out with him. (PS: And, yes, I am Ian Ridpath) ] (]) 17:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:He seems to have created an account just to attack skeptical explanations of Rendlesham and the Exeter Incident, so his POV is fairly obvious. ] (]) 17:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, I noticed that it's a ]. ] ] 18:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

== ] vs ] ==

Hello. I've noticed that the discussion on the ] has degenerated to a debate over the meaning of the term. To avoid any continuation of this argument, I've proposed that we merge those two articles under the name "Vikings" and address the debate over the proper meaning by creating a new page about the raiders/traders/explorers under a name such as "Viking (activity)" or "Viking (pirate)". If this is acceptable to you (or if you have concerns over this being implemented), please weigh in on the issue, as it is difficult to establish a consensus with only two people involved. Thank you, <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

==SAR-21/TAR-21 vs AUG==
] vs ] vs ]
*FWIW, I'm on your side because we all agree on the same thing on ] but there are always some nationalistic dicks who keeps insisting on this and that weapon is a copy of his country's, what do we do? Removing it might just trigger that blooming idiot coming back to start a fresh round with us. Thanks but no thanks, I would rather defeat him at his own game with well researched facts than to be drawn into some idiot's game of illogical reasoning. Best and out. --<small>] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup></small> 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

==Regards of ] marketing material==
Your assertion over my post for ] accusation is not correct, and was not supported by facts. First of all, the rule 1 exempts objective reports of advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment from the ], which for the record, were abstracts for the said item, so your deletion had no merit. The postings were not opinion pieces, not were they gossips, self-promotion. All the posting over the marketing section over ] were backed-up by links from the identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. In other words, you were wrong to claim my addition was purely promotional material. Those were, in fact, '''reports of the existence of''' promotional materials, which made a significant difference. If you can't differentiate that, you should have deleted the ]. -- ] (]) 12:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|142.150.48.219}} It doesn't matter what it's like in other articles, this is solely about ]. The material that I removed is totally unencyclopaedic, being purely promotional material sourced directly to Jaguar Land Rover. Reading like excerpts from a sales leaflet. Much of it isn't even directly related to the car as such, but deals with marketing activities surrounding the car (such as details about an iPhone app, an art installation, a bicycle, and so on...). So it is definitely promotional. ] ] 13:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::Actually the comparison with Geico is a valid one, because the Geico campaign wiki article also refers to entries not directly related to insurance service either, such as ], which became a spin-off television series. Just because a marketer doesn't directly promote a product/service doesn't mean the promotion isn't about the referenced materials. All that aside, you still don't get the difference between promoting or reporting the existence of promotional materials. As ] clearly stated: <q>An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.</q> If anything, the GEICO entry is worse because many of the campaign entries were unsourced (such as Radio ads), while every one of my addition over it include corresponding source. Your judgement over ] commercials are unencyclopaedic yet GEICO ads somehow are encyclopaedic shows clear inconsistency. -- ] (]) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I have been troubled by your (the ip's) edits for a long long time. Never ending lists of dinner ingredients at Mercedes W222, never ending lists of promotions and appearances at shows or in TV series. Most of your copy reads like it is lifted directly from the PR departments, except for your halting grasp of English. Please read ] and ask yourself if your edits are of an encyclopaedic nature. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 15:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

==] and ]== IDF==
Hello, look I 'm new in editing ,I' trying to learn ,I mentioned a source, you have more experience than me ,you could have helped me, the information I put about the T 80 was with another editor who is writing about this subject, actually he did put the information in the conditional, you could have talked to me ,I opened a discussion page on the talk page of the equipment of the Syrian army ,no one responded specially al-khazar.At least I gave reasons for the reversing of Edicts ,he didn't; he also reversed more than three edicts yet I'm the person warned, it is okay I 'm leaving this subject, no problem but I think this is the kind of behavior that is making many editors to stop contributing to Misplaced Pages.]] (]) 20:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Aubm}} Al-Khazar has also been warned, but unlike you he hasn't '''broken''' the ] (three reverts within 24 hours). ] ] 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello about IDF,I want to say that my contribution and rectification was positive and done with a good intention ,I did not add up one sentence to my old contribution, first I thanked the editor who revert my edit and than I rewrite it keeping only one sentence out of four, I specially removed everything partisan and kept a technical information linked to source 8 and 9 of the article, it is a fact that the Israeli army is perhaps the strongest in the Middle East like when you say the U.S.A is the greatest economic and military power in the world ,this are common facts, anyway it is okay no problem but please cool down a little, I don t have bad intentions ,I'm learning; the other editor who revert me seem content with my reply, so all I say there is no bad intention here, we are all working to the same goal. Thank you.]] (]) 12:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

== User:Aubmn ==

Sorry about that. But please keep in mind that I already warned him/her about this dispute and refused to reply . ] (]) 20:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


== May 2014 ==
hay i have already read all water mark policy there is nothing wrong in my picture as per watermark policy and its seems you have share many wrong information above ] i request you to please stop sharing wrong information as i am brother of him {{unsigned|Bk250101}}

*If you're his brother you ought to be able to get a picture of him without a big ugly watermark across his face. Your picture violates ], period. ] ] 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
:And do '''NOT''' remove content from the user talk pages of other users! ] ] 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

I just wanted to give you a quick thanks for changing my PROD to a CSD at ]. Now I know about ] for the future. ] (]) 15:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Thank you very much for your kind remarks - I am delighted to have been of service. :) Cheers ] (]) 19:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

== That IP ==

Thanks, blocked. ] (]) 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

== Delhi ==

], delete - keep smiling! ] -] 20:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

== ] Invitation! ==
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|
| <center>'''You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!'''</center>
|-
| ]
| You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining ]. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.

We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles.
|- |-
| |
* On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
| If you decide to join the project, please add your name to ], and add the ] to your ].
* Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
* Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
* ] will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
* Barnstars will also be granted for ] previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
* Interested in taking part? ''']'''.
|- |-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ]
|
| I hope you accept! - ] ] 23:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
|} |}
] (]) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1263150419 -->
== The article ] and ]'s edits ==

You and I seem to be having a minor (so far) "edit war" with Lisaanng8289 about her (Lisa is probably a she) edits at Sleep. What happens when she keeps it up and doesn't read (or heed) messages on article talk and user talk? Is there any way to contact her (if she keeps on restoring her content to ])? --] (]) 18:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
: {{ping|Hordaland}} If she doesn't read the messages and start a discussion, just continuing to edit-war, she will no doubt end up being blocked. But we're not there yet, so let's wait and see. ] ] 18:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
:: OK, thanks. She looks like a student who's had no help at all. No one helped me, either, when I started here, but I did it voluntarily. Makes all the difference. --] (]) 18:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

== Songs and albums ==

Is ] notable? Or ]? Regards. --] (]) 16:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
:Probably not, so feel free to nominate for deletion. ] ] 16:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

== Relevance of linguistic situation ==

The undisputed fact that two different, distinct, and grammatically known Germanic languages were spoken in the area should not be obscured as it is most certainly relevant to the question of the Geats. The linguistic information needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article in some form and not obscured or brushed under the carpet. Demanding a source for what is common knowledge and common sense is not a valid pretext to wipe all information or mention that there were indeed two different languages from the article. ] (]) 14:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:If it is an "undisputed fact" that two different languages were spoken in the area then provide a proper ] for it. Once you have such a source you're free to add it back again. But you are '''not''' going to get it back into the article without a reliable source. Please see ]; quote: ''"any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed"''. ] ] 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::Perhaps it is time to educate yourself a little before looking like an ass demanding "proof" that there was such a Germanic language as the ] in the Baltic. We even have a[REDACTED] in that language and you demand "proof" it existed? lol very funny! Seriously, the burden is not on me to prove common knowledge. Why dont ''you'' try and see if you can find anyone challenging that there was a Gothic langauge, or see if you can find one even scholar claiming that the Gothic speakers were really Norse speakers. ] (]) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::What has that got to do with the article about the ]? The sentence that you keep adding can be reverted both because it's unsourced and because it isn't relevant to the article, '''especially not''' to the section it appears in. ] ] 15:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm really trying to follow your logic here, but I am afraid I cannot. You challenge that two different languages were spoken in the area even though no scholar denies this, and you fail to see the relevance of the linguistic situation in the area to the question of the Geats' identity? Perhaps you could elaborate further for me. ] (]) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::I challenge that two separate languages were spoken in the land of the ], yes. You claim that it is an "undisputed fact", yet I've never seen anyone claim that the people there spoke other than ] and then ]. So ] to prove that two different languages were spoken there, with ] that support it. Just as ] says. So go find those sources...

:::::Oh, and while you're at it read ], because wasn't kosher. ] ] 15:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Đ

::::::In case you didn't get farther down in the article, yes, a number of scholars have indeed suggested a possible connection between the Geats and Goths. The fact that two related languages were spoken by two groups is entirely relevant, even if you "dontlikeit". And in fact that was ''not'' a "personal" attack, a "personal" attack would be if I had said "Thomas W. is a completely ignorant idiot" or some such, but I never said that. ] (]) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::If we take the last thing first, you implied it, since I was the only one who reverted you. As for the rest you seem to be quite a bit confused. Proto Norse/Old Norse being slightly different from the language of the Goths a few centuries later can be explained by their languages having split from the same root, evolving in different directions. It does '''not in any way''' support a claim that ''"two different languages were spoken '''in the land of the Geats'''"''. I don't deny that Old Norse and the language(s) of the Goths in Southern Europe differed from each other, but I very much doubt that it was because of a language split that had ocurred in Scandinavia, '''before''' some of the people there set off for warmer latitudes. Which is why I challenge your claim further up in this discussion, and, in full accordance with Misplaced Pages's rules, request that you provide reliable sources that support your claim. ] ] 15:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::If you will notice the preceding claims in the article are uncited and have been tagged as such for around a year. You didn't remove those claims that should have been removed since the tag has been up long enough, you left the tagged part and removed the only factual sentence there. Next time please just add a cn tag if you feel it is necessary and wait a while before removing the tagged material. Thanks ] (]) 15:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} There are different levels of "unbelievability". Claims that seem slightly dubious will be allowed to stay for the time being, just getting a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag, while claims that are totally off the charts will be removed at sight if unsourced. That's how it works. And since you obviously can't find any reliable sources for your claims I suggest you self-revert, and remove the sentence again... ] ] 16:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::No, the evidence that the Goths spoke a different language from Norse is directly touching on the Geats and removing this evidence seems like suppression of evidence. No one disputes that these are different languages, no one disputes that the Goths themselves claimed to have been on the move back and forth between Moesia and Scandinavia for a number of centuries in their wider range, no one disputes that modern archaeology also points in this direction, and I doubt many think as you do that the Scandinavian Geats described as foes of the Norse in Norse sagas eg. ], must themselves have been Norse speakers, although it's possible a few may argue that the Geats were also Norse speakers. ] (]) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::As I wrote, you seem to be quite a bit confused. The Geats were a Norse tribe, just like the ], the Danes and the Norwegians, and spoke Proto Norse/Old Norse just like the other Norse tribes, and the ] was '''not''' between the Geats and "the Norse", but between the Eastern Geats (i.e. the Geats in what is today the Swedish province of ]/Eastern Geatland) and Danes on one side, and the Swedes/Suiones and the Western Geats (i.e. from the area of the Swedish province of ]/Western Geatland) on the other side. As is clearly stated in the article about the battle. At least '''try''' to get your facts right... ] ] 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Just one more thing: The Battle of Brávellir took place some 600 years '''after''' the people who became the Goths left Scandinavia and moved south (based on archaeological evidence both in Geatland and on the southern shores of the Baltic), and so has nothing whatsoever to do with the Goth language(s) and the split of Proto Norse. ] ] 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::::I haven't said anything unfactual yet. Sure there were Geats and Norse on both sides of that battle, that really isn't relevant to the question of the Geats' language, I only picked that article as one example of several[REDACTED] articles involving Geatish-Norse conflicts. But okay, you assert that the Geats must only have spoken Norse also. However you may learn from ] that the idea Goths had been in Gothland is not a startling new theory, and actually it is an suggestion that has been around for at least 1500 years, why try to suppress it now?! ] (]) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::] was a Norse '''dialect''', not a separate language, one of several Norse dialects, and it differed from other Norse dialects for the simple reason that it was spoken only on a fairly small island out in the middle of the Baltic Sea, with a small population, separated from other areas where Proto Norse/Old Norse was spoken. So sofar '''all''' of your claims have been wrong/unfactual. The Battle of Brávellir actually took place '''700''' years after the ancestors of the Goths left Scandinavia, BTW, mid 8th century vs 1st century. ] ] 17:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::I haven't said anything unfactual yet. The article on Old Gutnish should hopefully elucidate you that some scholars think Old Gutnish is most closely related to Gothic, or are you pretending you didn't see that? As far as the question of what languages the Geats may have spoken, details about when the Battle of Bravellir was fought or what sides they were fighting on are irrelevant to that question. What both the Gothic accounts and Swedish accounts actually describe is more like a process over several centuries of multiple departures and emigrations, in these sources there were always some "stay at home Goths" and the "away" Goths so a battle supposedly being fought in Scandinavia by Geats in 700 AD tells us just that and nothing more or less. But you want a source for a statement in the article that is simply a helpful reminder that Norse and Gothic were two separate languages, which fact I'd have thought no one could argue with, without even getting into any claims about which of these the Geats possibly spoke. What kind of source should I find that would satisfy you that yes, Gothic and Old Norse are not the same languages, but were rather two related languages spoken by two different Germanic groups? ] (]) 17:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Noone has disputed that Gothic and Old Norse were two different but related languages, spoken by two related Germanic groups. But, '''a)''', the sentence I removed doesn't belong in ], particularly not in the section where it was, and '''b)''', your claim that two different languages (]/] and ]) were spoken side-by-side in the land of the Geats, i.e. in Scandinavia, as presented in this discussion, is a totally new, very fringe, and very laughable idea. Not supported by '''any''' reliable sources. In spite of your claims about it being an "undisputable fact". ] ] 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Up until now you have been arguing as though you dispute everything about the removed content, and now you concede that you do not dispute the factual statement at all and recognize it is true, you just want to shift to a different excuse now for doing away with one of the only factual and undisputed statements in that article. Shifting excuses from one to the next usually suggests there is some other real reason you don't want ] linked or accessible from ] and even to the point of insisting nobody before me has ever before suggested any relevant connection between the Goths and Scandinavia. Wow. ] (]) 19:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} I'm not the one who is shifting, '''you''' are. The unsourced sentence I removed, and you repeatedly added back again, has nothing whatsoever to do with that article, and particularly not the section it's in, as I have stated here several times. The other things we have discussed here, such as the ridiculous claim that Old Norse and the Gothic language were spoken side-by-side in Scandinavia, were brought up '''you''', not me. All I have done is to show you how wrong you are. Sheeesh... ] ] 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:If I were the first person in the world ever to suggest that Gothic language was spoken in Scandinavia, you might have a leg to stand on with your cries of "original research". The fact is I am clearly not the first person to suggest this, it is not original research, the fact that you might personally disagree with the published scholars who have discussed this possibility is irrelevant to the fact that scholars consider Goths relevant to this topic -- especially considering the factual statement you object to doesn't even state who the "Geats" were, but merely states a common knowledge fact that you even agree to be true -that these known languages were obviously spoken by different groups of people. You are not being in the least reasonable. ] (]) 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::<small>''(edit conflict)''</small> Why should I be reasonable? This is Misplaced Pages, here everyone is expected to be able to provide a ] for everything that is challenged, except for the most basic things, such as the sky being blue. I've asked for sources for your claim, but you can't provide any, for the simple reason that there are none. I win, you lose, learn to live with it. ] ] 20:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC) <small>(PS. Only who added that sentence would spend so much energy defending it...)</small>

*I have blocked the IPs posting above for block evasion. ] &#124; ] 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

:< ''Ungentlemanly comment redacted'' >. ] (]) 20:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::Oh, come on, TE, that's not a nice way to talk to a lady. ] ] 20:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::I've semi'd your page for a week, Thomas. Please let me know if you don't like it. ] &#124; ] 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
::::It's OK with a week's semi. There have been quite a few IPs and new users posting crap here lately, so it's been protected on and off for quite a while now. I guess that's an unavoidable side effect of my spending most of my time on WP chasing vandals and socks... ] ] 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

== Notice ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ]&nbsp;]] 08:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

==Unless you'd like me to start referring to you as ]?==
may be all we ''need'' to know, but we'd ''like'' to know that you're a proud grandfather! ] &#124; ] 19:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC).
:I might add the "proud grandfather" userbox back again one day, ''men ett steg i taget''... ] ] 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

==Hi==
Hi I just got as far as "So, since you're clearly a more experienced editor than I am..." and stopped reading to edit here. So we are working in the same area and you speak Swedish! Thats a major plus for editing about Northern Sweden. Don't worry about the edit conflicts or your inexperience (sic). What you could particularly help with is checking the Baggbole article as its about to feature at DYK on the main page. If we can find a reference for every paragraph of your? mansion article then that too can go to the main page. I can add some of the stuff but I cannot find a ref for the stuff that has just been translated from the Swedish wiki. It is 99% probably right but we should find a ref and I would not recognise one in Swedish. Hope you take up the offer of working together.... Roger aka ] (]) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Victuallers}} I'll take a look at ] tomorrow, check it paragraph by paragraph, and see what new sources I can find (for both Baggböle and ], because most sources could probably be used in both articles). ] ] 19:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks for the offer - your new article made me realise that I had mixed up James R Dickson with James Jameson Dickson - a matter which I hope I have fixed. ] (]) 19:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, I noticed the correction. The Swedish article said ''James R:son Dickson'', which is, or rather was, a common way of abbreviating patronymic middle names. Right now I'm looking for references for Baggböle manor, and have found a very reliable source that contradicts a small part of what the Swedish WP article said. Which I will of course correct, with reference and all. ] ] 19:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Thomas, thanks a lot. I'll create the articles by myself from the next time. Thanks again for your help. :)--] (]) 03:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

== PT-76 ==

Why PT-76 section that i added deleted?
i was copied russian wikipedia. the russian[REDACTED] is reilable.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9F%D0%A2-76 , see this. the Object 740 (PT-76) is K-90 prototype tank upgraded version. {{unsigned|Hrqa}}
:{{ping|Hrqa}} Wikipedias in other languages can '''not''' be used as sources on the English language Misplaced Pages. See ] for what can be used and not used. ] ] 14:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

== Baggböle manor ==

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Baggböle manor}}

==Lord Laitinen==
*Regarding my Jaguar XF photo, I understand your opinion. I will not return the picture again, and I will tell you why. You were polite, unlike the other disrespectful users. Perhaps if they had explained their opinion in a nice and polite manner, an edit/revert war would not have happened at all. I truly appreciate your respect. Go with God. <span style="font-family: Script MT Bold"><span style="color:#800080">'''Lord Laitinen''' (])</span></span> 16:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

== Albanian land forces ==

Hello there , just writing to inform you that i did undo , one of your edits in the albanian land forces thread . In fact the edits that the user had done were absolutely right . Albania is a NATO member , operating in missions in Afghanistan , previously also Iraq etc.etc. and those APCs and vehicles are an integral part of the albanian armed forces . For more visit the albanian armed forces website or see some videos and photos . Sources will be added by me . Regards ,
] (]) 16:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
* See message on user's own talk page. ] ] 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

== MOS:BOLDTITLE ==

Please familiarize yourself with our manual of style, in particular the section on ]. Parts of titles, as in the pages I edited, are generally not formatted in bold text. I reverted your policy-violating revert accordingly. Thank you. --] (]) 17:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:And I suggest you read it yourself, because this is what it says about bolding in the first sentence: ''If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence''. Which is why ''association football'' and ''football stadia'' had been bolded. What was wrong in the articles wasn't that text had been bolded, but that '''too little''' text had been bolded; something I intend to correct. Removing the bolding altogether, as you did, is a greater violation of ], BTW, than having too little bolding. ] ] 17:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::You may give it up right now, because you are not going to have your way on this. I know more about the Manual of Style than you, and I'm applying it correctly. You have now been applying it incorrectly twice. Let me educate you:
::The titles of the pages in question are ] and ], respectively, which had the words "sports stadia" and "football stadiums" bolded, respectively. That's the clearly non-MOS-compliant version that was initially in place and which you reverted to, in apparent ignorance of the Manual of Style.
::What's worse, since it is a separate violation of the manual of style: parts of those bolded phrases were wikilinked, as are the phrases in your ludicrous recent edits.
::I recommend you cease editing those pages now, since you evidently don't have a firm grasp on our Manual of Style. I'm reverting, and suggest you ask more experienced editors than yourself at the Manual of Style talk page. Thank you. --] (]) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::And I suggest you stop your silly reverts, because your last reverts, the third within just a couple of hours on each of the two articles (which is what earned you the 3RR-warnings, warnings that I am sure your familiar with...), were clear violations of ], unlike '''my''' edits. ] ] 18:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

{{tps}} If you look at ], you'll see that featured list articles typically do not have anything bolded in the first sentence; I randomly looked at 20 of the sports-related lists shown on that page, and 18 had no bolding, and 2 did. My first guess was that the two with bolding might not have had it when they were first featured, but that isn't the case either. So I think the best takeaway from this is: ''If Featured List reviewers don't care whether it's bolded or not, why do you two?'' Is there any other reason beyond "being right"? And assuming that this doesn't convince anyone to stop arguing, I'd say an unbolded first sentence appears more likely to follow the MOS. --] (]) 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:Probably because it's a slow day and we have nothing better to do. Well, well, I'll go get me a cup of ] and see if it cheers me up. ] ] 19:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:54, 18 December 2024


SEMI-RETIRED

since Misplaced Pages has changed beyond recognition, and is no longer a place where I enjoy spending time... This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages.

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Thomas.W: Difference between revisions Add topic