User talk:Thomas.W

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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[1]. 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 talk to me 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.[1] 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 talk to me 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 Wikipedia, 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[2]. Kvenland[3]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.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 talk to me 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 talk to me 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: Wikipedia: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 talk to me 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. [2] 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 talk 20:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
12 hours of local peace. Favonian (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Thomas.W talk 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 talk 18:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).