User talk:Thomas.W: Difference between revisions

Two years ago ...
chasing vandals
	... you were recipient; no. 896 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:33, 3 August 2016

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 10 as User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 9 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

THIS USER IS ACTIVE ONLY NOW AND THEN ON WIKIPEDIA, SO REPLIES TO POSTS HERE MIGHT TAKE SEVERAL DAYS, AND EVEN WEEKS.
Please use the "New section" button when adding a new discussion so that it is added at the BOTTOM of the page. Older discussions have been moved to my talk page archive.

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeeTylerToe

RE: Assault rifle page edits. I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll. His talk page edits follow the profile. He asks questions for which the answers are obvious. He asks multiple often repetitive question. He refuses to listen to the answers. He demands to know who decides which answers are correct, then repeats the questions. He provides nonsense examples and long draw-out often rambling comments, including 10 or more questions. He has done this not only on the Assault rifle talk page but every talk page that he edits. Now, I have added a "Do Not Feed the Trolls" gif to the Assault rifle talk page. Is there anything else we can do?--RAF910 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is TeeTylerToe block log and it should be noted that he was indefinitely blocked and that block was lifted when User:Hasteur agreed to mentor him. Said user has recently retired and is therefore no longer mentoring him. This may explain his refusal to listen to other editors and his insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps it would be best to reinstate the block and be done with it.

Please See this acceptance of conditions Mentorship Proposal section at the bottom, which I believe he is currently violating.

08:33, 10 January 2013 Bjelleklang (talk | contribs) unblocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) (User has agreed to be mentored by User:Hasteur. See this acceptance of conditions and debate [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#TeeTylerToe...)

21:54, 19 September 2012 Foxj (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Allowing talkpage access for another unblock appeal given UTRS is a bit iffy and user seems apologetic on IRC)

10:09, 30 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Edit warring continuing to abuse other editors while blocked)

09:48, 30 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Edit warring abusing editors while blocked\)

08:31, 28 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) blocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

18:05, 24 July 2012 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) blocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: Sikorsky S-76)

--RAF910 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RAF910: You could take it to WP:ANI if you wish, since it was made in connection to a discussion there. Make sure you link to the previous discussion. Thomas.W ^talk 15:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User:Materialscientist to look into TTT. If you would like to commment, please do so--RAF910 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by TTT most recent talk page comments and the fact that he had his TPA blocked as well. I can guarantee that his first edit coming off the block will be to file an ANI against us and for meat-puppetry. I left a note on Skyring talk page as well. As Pete is still hopeful that "people change in their habits and behaviour".--RAF910 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RAF910: I don't think TTT will change, and would welcome an ANI-complaint since it's sure to backfire, most likely resulting in a quick WP:BOOMERANG. So don't worry about it, but keep an eye on new user accounts and IPs that show up out of the blue on TTT's favourite articles, and give me a ping if you see any newcomers with the same editing style as TTT... Thomas.W ^talk 21:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do...Thank You.--RAF910 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

-- Frivolous DS-notice removed --

- Thomas.w I assume you're well aware of this, since you posted it on my user talk page. But perhaps you haven't read it fully. Felsic2 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Felsic2: Unlike you I haven't edited articles under discretionary sanctions, i. e. "pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues", only articles about guns, which are not under discretionary sanctions. Thomas.W ^talk 07:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions is a form of personal attack, no matter the topic under discussion. Now that I've brought this to your attention and asked you to stop I expect it won't happen again.

I can't claim to know exactly what "broadly construed" means in practice, but I do see that ealier this year the discretionary sanctions were applied to an editor because of his work on AR-15. Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Felsic2: "Broadly construed" means among other things that discretionary sanctions can be applied also for discussing gun control and related people and organisations on all other pages here, including both the user pages of other editors and an editor's own user pages, including sandbox and drafts. As for your repeated claim about "casting aspersions" I suggest you take a look at WP:Casting aspersions, where it says "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause". Which means that commenting on another editor's editing isn't a sanctionable personal attack if an editor's contributions clearly show that all they do here is making POV edits promoting a certain view. And your editing, moving from gun article to gun article to try to get negative material into them by posting walls of text to wear down all resistance, and a total refusal to accept that other editors don't share your views, coupled with at least some of your edits on articles that clearly fall under gun control discretionary sanctions is a perfectly valid reason for questioning your motives for being here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can question each other's motives all we like, but only in the proper forums please. Talk pages of articles aren't the proper forums. There's common phrase: "comment on the content, not the contributor".

I see you think I'm wrong about you casting aspersions, about that being a personal attack, and about the application of discretionary sanctions to the talk pages where we've interacted. If it comes up again I will refer the matter to WP:Arbitration enforcement and let the admins over there decide. But I'd much rather that you either drop the allegations or at least stop making them on article talk pages. Felsic2 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you start doing what we're supposed to be doing here, i.e. edit from a neutral point of view and respect the opinions of other editors. I also suggest you stop trying to intimidate other editors by threatening to take them to Arbcom, or whatever... Thomas.W ^talk

I am not trying to intimidate you. I'm just trying to get you to stop casting aspersions against me on article talk pages.

I do respect the opinions of other editors. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them or ignore deficient articles. No editor is neutral - we all have biases. Let's work together to get consensus that results in NPOV articles. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Kashmir/Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir

What I did was not (at all) vandalism, the area which is listed as Azad Kashmir on Wikipedia is actually known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). A quick Google search might help. Also move the article back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.vivek0305 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making an undiscussed move of Azad Kashmir, an article with a long history of POV vandalism, to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, the name that multiple editors, primarily IPs, repeatedly try to change every mention of Azad Kashmir in the article to, is POV vandalism. Thomas.W ^talk 07:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.vivek0305: This edit, made after posting the message above, does not send good signals. Please read up WP:NPOV and also acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's arbitrary sanctions on India-Pakistan topics. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: It's a disputed territory, if you can't call it PoK than you can't name it Azad Kashmir either. I see this user (User:Mar4d) who has heavily vandalised the article but it's a shame for Wikipedia that it couldn't recognize this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.vivek0305 (talk • contribs)

@Mr.vivek0305: The territorial dispute is mentioned in the lead paragraph at Azad Kashmir in accordance with WP:NPOV, the same way it is on Jammu and Kashmir too. Jammu and Kashmir is also known as Indian-occupied Kashmir. However, we use the official names per WP:NPOV which are Azad Kashmir and Jammu Kashmir, not PoK or IoK. Mar4d (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mr.vivek0305 is well aware of the discretionary sanctions that apply to all pages related to India-Pakistan since they were given a discretionary sanctions alert by Kautilya3 almost a year ago. Thomas.W ^talk 08:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: @Thomas.W: My sincere apologies for my remarks, I thank both of you for explaining me the reason behind why that article shouldn't be named as 'PoK', I agree with Mar4d 's point and I comprehend it. Will take care of it in the future, sorry again. Mr.vivek0305 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2016 (IST)

@Mr.vivek0305: No worries. Glad to hear that makes sense. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.vivek0305: Apology accepted. Editing in contentious areas here is a balancing act along the narrow line right in the middle of no-mans-land that says "Neutral point-of-view", one small step away from that narrow line, in either direction, and all hell breaks loose. Thomas.W ^talk 17:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High-speed rail in India

Excuse me sir, I onky updated year from 2015 to 2016. The train is introduced. I changed from future tense to present tense. Also users have provided sufficient links. The information in the already mentioned links has been updated. I relayed them here. That's it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shine47 (talk • contribs)

It took me a couple of minutes to figure out what you were talking about, but it's apparently the edits of yours on High-speed rail in India that I reverted a month and a half ago, edits that did more than what you say above since you also increased the average speed of the train and claimed that it reached a top speed of 160 kmh, and that I would revert again if you make them again since neither the average speed nor the claim about having reached 160 kmh is supported by the sources in the article. So if you want to make the edits again you must provide new references/sources that support your changes... Thomas.W ^talk 17:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi economy

Saudi economy growth is growing every half year 50% Derek Deso (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Derek Deso: The edits I reverted have nothing to do with that, it's an IP-hopping vandal in Austria that I'm reverting (making edits such as just switching the names of two countries in a list, and changing data to random numbers...). Thomas.W ^talk 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Analysis

Fair enough, just bear in mind that tha article in itself citing Macedonia as a country not internationally sanctioned to be called like so, is tantamount to siding with one party in the dispute. Maybe that ought be raised for all F.Y.R.o.M articles.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.12.111 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve rather than revert

WP:BRD:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. Reversion should be a last choice in editing: the first choice in editing should always be to improve an article by refinement, not to revert changes by other editors. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).

WP:PRESERVE

Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it).

Thomas.W, you have been reverting my contributions a lot. And you've threatened to revert more. You've intimated that I need to get your consent to add content to articles. This all makes for a very inhospitable editing atmosphere. I'm requestig that you refrain from instantly reverting every edit you disagree with. Unless the edit does harm to the project, please leave it. Or improve it. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Felsic2: I have reverted very few of your edits, and never without a good reason for it, and the reasons for reverting the edits of yours that I have reverted on SIG MCX are: the first two were reverted because your edits weren't in any way supported by the sources, but badly distorted what the sources said, as can be seen in the discussion that followed on the talk page, and the latest edit I reverted doesn't belong in the article, and most of all not in the lead, since it's trivia, and written in your typical tendentious style, emphasising that marketing videos on You-tube had "a battlefield style" etc. So what? U S Armed Forces active duty soldiers can, or at least could a year or two ago when I last checked, buy rifles etc themselves and then use them in the field, so of course part of the marketing will be aimed at them. And that goes for all U S manufacturers of "AR-style" rifles, not just the MCX that you have decided to target because of its use in Orlando. Thomas.W ^talk 20:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek wrote a whole article on the MCX. I distilled what seemed to be the main points. You haven't disputed that it's a correct summary. You simply say it "doesn't belong". That's the same as saying "I don't like it". That's not a valid reason for reverting/deleting. If you don't like the location of the material then move it to a better location. Felsic2 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Newsweek did not "write a whole article on the MCX", even that claim of yours is false, they wrote an article that is 95% about SIG Sauer and the gun industry in general and 5% about Omar Mateen, with the MCX playing only a very minor role in it. As I pointed out to you on the talk page of the article after reverting your edit claiming that "the MCX saved SIG Sauer from bankruptcy", a claim that is patently false (as can be seen in the discussion on the talk page). Thomas.W ^talk 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it's a reliable source for the material I added. You seem to call anythig you don't like "trivia".[1] Why is this material so offensive to you that is has to be removed immediately? The article isn't overly long - just the opposite. The material isn't libellous or off-topic. I wish you'd be more tolerant of material you don't like. Felsic2 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black. You're the one who's doing the tendentious editing, not me. And "be that as it may" isn't a good enough answer when being called out for making false claims. Thomas.W ^talk 20:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any policy-based reason for deleting the sourced material? If so, please quote it on the talk page. "Trivia" doesn't count. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a long time the same issue with Thomas.W in many articles. He doesn`t bother to check your sources or the issue at hand at all. He only reverts. I don`t know if he is creating any content to Wikipedia or just harassing writers.--Velivieras (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a load of BS, and you know it. I revert you because you're a POV-pusher, just like Felsic2, only in a totally different subject area. Thomas.W ^talk 10:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting articles, as you did to Tavastians, Baltic Finns, Bjarmaland etc. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on Revert only when necessary. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Velivieras (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Velivieras: No it doesn't, it's your persistent addition of unsourced and/or insufficiently sourced content that contravenes Wikipedia policy. WP:Verifiablity is a Wikipedia policy, and WP:Reliable sources is a content guideline, with status very close to being policy, whereas Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary is an essay, i.e. the personal opinion of one or more editors, and just a suggestion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 ::::::::That's a load of BS, and you know it. I revert you because you're a POV-pusher, just like Felsic2, only in a totally different subject area. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 10:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 :::::::::[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please stop reverting articles, as you did to [[:Tavastians]], [[:Baltic Finns]], [[:Bjarmaland]] etc. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary|Revert only when necessary]]. If you continue to do so, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia.--[[User:Velivieras|Velivieras]] ([[User talk:Velivieras|talk]]) 11:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
+::::::::::{{ping|Velivieras}} No it doesn't, it's your persistent addition of unsourced and/or insufficiently sourced content that contravenes Wikipedia '''policy'''. [[WP:Verifiablity]] is a Wikipedia policy, and [[WP:Reliable sources]] is a content guideline, with status very close to being policy, whereas [[Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary]] is an ''essay'', i.e. the personal opinion of one or more editors, and just a suggestion. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 11:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)