Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 9 June 2014

Please add new discussions at the BOTTOM of the page. Older discussions have been moved to my talk page archive.

Please see

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (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.)

• Thomas, Thomas, inte tänker du väl överge oss? Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, what Hafspajen said. Take it easy Thomas. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Popping up

I'm glad to see you popping up a little, at least. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

Something called "real life" took over... Thomas.W 13:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

King of Kvenland

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. Do you realize that? Finnedi (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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... Thomas.W 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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.Finnedi (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are the sources? To write anything in Misplaced Pages, you need sources. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Charles IX was a King of Sweden (never a King of Kvenland), who lived in 1550-1611. Kvenlandvanished 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.Finnedi (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@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". Thomas.W 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?Finnedi (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@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. Thomas.W 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.Finnedi (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@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 assumption of bad faith. Take it to the article talk pages please. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@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?Finnedi (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

category reverts

Hi - I just wanted to let you know that I've re-reverted some of your recent reversions of User:59.101.85.1. I believe they were constructive, even though they appeared suspicious. Please see my comment on that IP's talk page for details, and please let me know if you think I'm in error. Thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Finnedi has opened a section at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but s/he had misspelled your user name so here is a manual notification: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Kvenland. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting my user page. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@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... Thomas.W 18:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper at United States Secret Service and FN P90

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 United States Secret Service article removing sourced info and adding lots of his own WP:OR. I challenged the WP:OR 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 WP:GUNS project. ROG5728 (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Finnedi again?

Just FYI: I've opened an SPI on 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.) Bishonen | talk 06:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

Padlock?

If you'd like your talk page temporarily semi-protected, just say the word. Favonian (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Favonian: Yes, please, 'cos this is getting boringThomas.W 20:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

12 hours of local peace. Favonian (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Thomas.W 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) Skeptic2 (talk) 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. Skeptic2 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that it's a single-purpose account. Thomas.W 18:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Vikings vs Norsemen

Hello. I've noticed that the discussion on the talk page 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, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

SAR-21/TAR-21 vs AUG

File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Becoming A Soldier of the Caracal Battalion (59).jpg vs File:Operation Tiger Balm 09 SAR-21 MMS.jpg vs File:Steyr AUG A3.jpg

• FWIW, I'm on your side because we all agree on the same thing on IMI Tavor TAR-21 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. --Dave 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Regards of Range Rover Evoque marketing material

Your assertion over my post for WP:PROMOTION 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 Misplaced Pages:Point of view, 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 Range Rover Evoque 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 whole GEICO article. -- 142.150.48.219 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@142.150.48.219: It doesn't matter what it's like in other articles, this is solely about Range Rover Evoque. 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. Thomas.W 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 GEICO Cavemen, 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 WP:PROMOTION clearly stated: 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. 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 Range Rover Evoque commercials are unencyclopaedic yet GEICO ads somehow are encyclopaedic shows clear inconsistency. -- 142.150.48.219 (talk) 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 WP:STYLE and ask yourself if your edits are of an encyclopaedic nature.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

T-80 and Equipment of the Syrian Army== 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.User talk:aubmnAubmn (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Aubm: Al-Khazar has also been warned, but unlike you he hasn't broken the three-revert rule (three reverts within 24 hours). Thomas.W 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.User talk: AubmnAubmn (talk) 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 here. Khazar (talk) 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 Dinesh Lal Yadav i request you to please stop sharing wrong information as i am brother of him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bk250101 (talk • contribs)

• 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 WP:WATERMARK, period. Thomas.W 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And do NOT remove content from the user talk pages of other users! Thomas.W 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to give you a quick thanks for changing my PROD to a CSD at Porsche 911 GT1 Straßenversion (Road Going Version). Now I know about WP:A10 for the future. Bahooka (talk) 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 DBaK (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That IP

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

Delhi

Delhi, delete - keep smiling! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. 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.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list, and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
	I hope you accept! - Wes Mᴥuse 23:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Sleep and User:Lisaanng8289'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 Sleep)? --Hordaland (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@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. Thomas.W 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. --Hordaland (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Songs and albums

Is this notable? Or stuff like this? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, so feel free to nominate for deletion. Thomas.W 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. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 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 reliable source 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 Misplaced Pages's rules regarding verifiability; 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". Thomas.W 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 Gothic language in the Baltic. We even have a wikipedia 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. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the article about the Geats? 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. Thomas.W 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. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I challenge that two separate languages were spoken in the land of the Geats, yes. You claim that it is an "undisputed fact", yet I've never seen anyone claim that the people there spoke other than Proto Norse and then Old Norse. So it's up to you to prove that two different languages were spoken there, with reliable sources that support it. Just as WP:Verifiability says. So go find those sources...

Oh, and while you're at it read Misplaced Pages's rules regarding personal attacks, because this edit summary wasn't kosher. Thomas.W 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. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 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. Thomas.W 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 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There are different levels of "unbelievability". Claims that seem slightly dubious will be allowed to stay for the time being, just getting a {{cn}} 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... Thomas.W 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. Battle of Brávellir, must themselves have been Norse speakers, although it's possible a few may argue that the Geats were also Norse speakers. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 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 Swedes/Suiones, the Danes and the Norwegians, and spoke Proto Norse/Old Norse just like the other Norse tribes, and the Battle of Brávellir 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 Östergötland/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 Västergötland/Western Geatland) on the other side. As is clearly stated in the article about the battle. At least try to get your facts right... Thomas.W 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. Thomas.W 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 wikipedia articles involving Geatish-Norse conflicts. But okay, you assert that the Geats must only have spoken Norse also. However you may learn from Old Gutnish 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?! 71.127.133.169 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Old Gutnish 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. Thomas.W 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? 71.127.133.169 (talk) 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 Geats, particularly not in the section where it was, and b), your claim that two different languages (Proto Norse/Old Norse and Gothic) 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". Thomas.W 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 Gothic language linked or accessible from Geats and even to the point of insisting nobody before me has ever before suggested any relevant connection between the Goths and Scandinavia. Wow. 71.127.133.169 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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... Thomas.W 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. 71.127.133.169 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why should I be reasonable? This is Misplaced Pages, here everyone is expected to be able to provide a reliable source 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. Thomas.W 20:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC) (PS. Only the editor who added that sentence would spend so much energy defending it...)

• I have blocked the IPs posting above for block evasion. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

< Ungentlemanly comment redacted >. 71.127.135.80 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, come on, TE, that's not a nice way to talk to a lady. Thomas.W 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. Bishonen | talk 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... Thomas.W 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ScottXW and his "deletion heros". Thank you. Yunshui _水 08:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless you'd like me to start referring to you as hen?

It may be all we need to know, but we'd like to know that you're a proud grandfather! Bishonen | talk 19:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

I might add the "proud grandfather" userbox back again one day, men ett steg i taget... Thomas.W 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 Victuallers (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I'll take a look at Baggböle tomorrow, check it paragraph by paragraph, and see what new sources I can find (for both Baggböle and Baggböle manor, because most sources could probably be used in both articles). Thomas.W 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. Victuallers (talk) 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. Thomas.W 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. :)--ANKAN GHOSH DASTIDER (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

PT-76

Why PT-76 section that i added deleted? i was copied russian wikipedia. the russian wikipedia 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrqa (talk • contribs)

@Hrqa: Wikipedias in other languages can not be used as sources on the English language Misplaced Pages. See WP:Reliable sources for what can be used and not used. Thomas.W 14:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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. Lord Laitinen (talk) 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 , Gjirokastra15 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• See message on user's own talk page. Thomas.W 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE

Please familiarize yourself with our manual of style, in particular the section on Format of the first sentence. 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. --85.197.52.156 (talk) 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 MOS:BOLDTITLE, BTW, than having too little bolding. Thomas.W 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 List of stadiums by capacity and List of association football stadiums by capacity, 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. --85.197.52.156 (talk) 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 MOS:BOLDTITLE, unlike my edits. Thomas.W 18:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you look at Misplaced Pages:Featured lists, 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. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Probably because it's a slow day and we have nothing better to do. Well, well, I'll go get me a cup of Lapsang Souchong and see if it cheers me up. Thomas.W 19:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.emersonkent.com/images/maps/europe_814.jpg
2. http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107208/Charles-IX
3. http://www.davidkfaux.org/files/deBeaufouFullReport.pdf