Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:37, 2 January 2014

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

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

Apology: the wrong Thomas

I was intending to block Thomas Ivan just now, by clicking a "Block" link listed with the edit history of Islam in Estonia. Unfortunately, you were the next editor on the list, and I clicked the wrong Thomas. I realised immediately, and corrected my mistake, but unfortunately the result is that you were blocked for one minute. I apologise for the mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Is there a way to remove it from the block log? I've been proud of managing to have an empty block log for almost seven years... Thomas.W 11:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think there is, but you do still have an empty block log, Thomas. A misclick followed by an immediate correction doesn't count. I admit that if I'd been JamesBWatson, I'd have been slightly more fulsome in my unblock comment — as in, putting an apology in the log as well as here — that would have made the error even clearer. But really, you have an empty log. (I've always been rather proud of my own more colourful block log, but YMMV.) Bishonen | talk 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Yes, but having been blocked by Jimbo Wales for three hours is more to brag about than having been blocked by JamesBWatson for one minute... Thomas.W 12:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've only recently discovered that that block and its aftermath made its way into the page Role of Jimmy Wales (just search for my name). Fame!  :-) But you may have noticed I also have a one-minute block/unblock sequence just like yours; they are very common, and falleth on the just and the unjust alike. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen: "I don't think there is" - yes there is, and it's called oversight. Ginsuloft (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken, that's not what oversight is. As far as I know, if you've got a developer in your pocket it's possible — though even then very difficult — to get a block log expunged. They don't like to be asked, to put it mildly. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Is there a way to change the edit summary? To something a bit clearer than "Wrong account blocked"? Thomas.W 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to change it, no. What James could do is to give you a one-second block for the purpose of putting in another comment. The practice is described here. If that's what you want, you'd better ask him for it on his page. First, though, you should consider if that's really what you want, Tom. Then you'd have three entries in your log. ;-) Sleep on it, perhaps. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

I've slept on it. We'll leave it as it is, I'll just save a difflink to JamesBWatson's apology here, just in case. Thomas.W 08:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Oh, sorry. I just thought I saw User:Beeblebrox block <username redacted>, and the block log entry mysteriously disappeared. Since he was hiding other stuff by the same user at the same time, I just assumed the oversight was what caused the block log entry disappear as well. Since I just pinged him, perhaps he can explain what exactly happened. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen: And since I'm wrong, could you please clarify this statement on wp:oversight: It is used within strict limits to remove defamatory material, to protect privacy, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations, from any page or log entry (including, if required, the list of users)? Ginsuloft (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ginsuloft: Which means oversight can't be used here since the block log entry is neither defamatory, containing material that has anything to do with privacy or a copyright violation. Thomas.W 22:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what kinds of logs that refers to, Ginsuloft. Perhaps you should ask Beeblebrox about the incident you mention. Both ArbCom and Jimbo have been known to request block log removals, and been refused, in my experience. Of course block log entries are rarely defamatory or privacy-violating etc. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

• (reply to @Ginsuloft) Redaction of old blocks is possible but in practice is almost never actually done. Correction within the log is usually the way it is handled, as it was in your case.

What you saw was something different and I am not at liberty to discuss it, if you have questions about such matters you will need to direct them to WP:AUSC (and please do not reproduce anything you know to have been suppressed on-wiki, even a username) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry for re-introducing the username; didn't realize matters were this serious. Ginsuloft (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rumskulla oak

On 1 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rumskulla oak, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that sex scenes in the controversial 1967 film I Am Curious (Yellow) were shot inside the Rumskulla oak, an oak tree that is more than 1,000 years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rumskulla oak. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013 | reply

Hi want to clarify something, i didn't even edited the content of Enrique Gil Page. I just made some changes to the format copied the format of "Filmography" and apply it to "Discography". is that a problem? kindly reply :) Thanks :) Double melody :)

It wasn't me who reverted your latest edit, so I suggest you ask the user who did. Thomas.W 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

how will i know who is the user? kinda new w/ this one. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Double Melody (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Double Melody: Look at the latest warning you got. It was signed by User:Skarebo, so ask on his/her talk page. Thomas.W 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I plan to add link/sources for the page today. but you removed all of it.. may i know why? Double Melody (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You had plenty of time to add sources, but nothing happened, so the unsourced material was removed. Thomas.W 09:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Đakovica

Hi ThomasW. Thanks for the good faith contributions on Đakovica. If you look closely at the two revisions , you'll find there is no original research. The main difference in main space is the addition of the historical name (how it was in Turkish) and that is sourced. It is relevant for the English language and for the article. It was removed not for being original research but because the user to do so was reverting an alleged "sockpuppet". The very same contribution favoured there contains poorer English and removes the city name (article title) from the infobox along with its Serbian Cyrillic spelling. Since Bobrayner stands firmly by hat premise over common sense, he will likely revert on that principle. If any part of the current revision is erroneous, can I suggest you edit the page rather than pick one over the other, keep the good bits, take out the bad parts, add what you think is right. I don't think my contribution will be widely appreciated sadly. Thanks. --The Next Timelord (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source on the additional comment. The Next Timelord (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

संपादन बनाम व्याकरण शुद्धि

विकिपीडिया संपादित करने के लिए सूत्रों तथा सौजन्य की बाध्यता है, व्याकरण शुद्धि के लिए नहीं । — Preceding unsigned comment added by उत्तरादित्य (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know enough English to be able to write a message on my talk page in it you shouldn't be editing the English language Misplaced Pages. You can NOT change percentage figures for religion, or the population density, in the article about Uttarakhand, or arbitrarily remove languages from the list of languages spoken there, without reliable sources. Period. Thomas.W 22:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

मैंने बस तथ्यों को सही किया है, इसमें कुछ भी गलत नहीं है। — Preceding unsigned comment added by उत्तरादित्य (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Having the facts right isn't enough, they must be verifiable too. Read Misplaced Pages's rules about verifiability before making another edit. And write in English the next time. Thomas.W 22:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Are you online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by उत्तरादित्य (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Are you going to talk? उत्तरादित्य (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

KazekageTR

Thank you for re-reverting the edits by KazekageTR. You should be aware that I had already undone their edits and they just reverted them right back, so there is a chance they might do that again. Just a heads up. Happy Holidays. --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I've had a conversation with him on his talk page, so I don't think he'll change them again. Thomas.W 23:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Much appreciated. --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The latest Christian2941 sockpuppet

You have evidently put a lot of work into this, including a huge number of reverts. Good work. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a humble request

• Ok, before any user checks me i admit that i am rajputbhatti. but please let me explain why i have been making so much socks? my first sock was gujar. I was foolish enough to create it because i was blocked for tow days? I have now realized that i had waited for 2 days then nothing like this would have happened. with my these socks i became so notorious on wiki. my last sock was blolay. after its block, i almost had given up because it was just waste of time for wiki and me. i have not made any socks for more 1month. but at last i made another sock because i can't resist editing wiki. plz check contribs of ora. they are all sourced and neutral except hinduism(i watched on a tvchannel that hindu worship cows)but now i am sorry. the only request from is that plz give me one last chance so that i can prove that i am a true lover of wiki.
• for God's sake.plz just 1 chance. if i make any bad edits then block me at once.Ora7 (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• i know that rules are rules but i have been breaking them for a long time. plz stop me doing this and give me one last chance.Ora7 (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Address your concerns to JamesBWatson, who blocked you, not me. You can probably still edit your talk page, so discuss it there. Thomas.W 12:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!

Tack! Och glad Lucia själv! Thomas.W 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

hi Thomas

I responded to your concerns here . I really hope 'we can work it out' Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

When an edit

When an edit happens anonymously, and especially in a language you don't recognize, just say to go to the talk page, cause you risk offending. Speling12345 (talk) 8:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Speling12345: A) If you had posted a link, a diff or at least more info about whatever you're talking about it would have been easier to reply to it; B) edits in foreign languages (and I recognize/understand quite a few of them) don't belong on the English language Misplaced Pages. Thomas.W 08:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I really suggest that you read the post before you reply. Make a note of it. Speling12345 (talk) 8:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Speling12345: What post? Thomas.W 09:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:Just the one right here, the bad one. Speling12345 (talk) 9:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Speling12345: This is getting sillier and sillier. The only recent edit in a foreign language made by an anonymous editor that I have reverted replaced a large part of the article about the Finnish language with a comment in Finnish that translated into English means "Misplaced Pages's founders are homeless fagots who live in a mud hut without food and drink", an edit that is simple vandalism, and was treated/responded to as such. But I suggest you be a bit more specific next time if you want to be taken seriously. Thomas.W 09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:You do not need to make such a long reply for me to read the written etch words. Speling12345 (talk) 9:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, Tomas. This editor has been indefinitly blocked because of the editor’s disruptive edits. Or, Tjäna Thomas. Din plågeande har blivit blockerad. Bra, va? Hafspajen (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Det förvånar mig inte det minsta. Han/hon/hen (välj själv vilket du vill ha...) verkade ha lite svårt för det... Thomas.W 19:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Det där var nog en hen... en höna det vill säga. Hafspajen (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Spamlinks

User:malikjozane I dont understand why you removed my link but for your kind information the url contains the latest details of tatkal scheme. The URL was http://myirctcloginpage.blogspot.com/p/irctc-tatkal-scheme.html

And I know it doesnt increase my ranking in search. Just wanted to help :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikjozane (talk • contribs) 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Malikjozane: We only add official links, and the link to a page on Blogspot is not an official link. As for just wanting to help, your previous contributions, and the repeated warnings that your previous additions of spamlinks have earned you, tell a totally different story. Thomas.W 15:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin article

Hi Thomas,

I suspect I'd the one close to the boundaries on "edit warring" on the bitcoin article - I suppose because I've been quite active on the Bitcoin article in the past 24 hours.

Most of the reversions I've done have been with the addition of citations, for example

• One user removed the reference to bitcoin being "open source" because it wasn't referenced. Bitcoin is commonly known to be open source and instead of asking for a citation that user removed open source all together. This is a very very important aspect of bitcoin so I re-added the reference with a citation.

• The same user in the same edit removed the definition distinction between Bitcoin and bitcoin, again because it had no citation. Again this is an important distinction and the removed lines were re-added with a citation.

• Another user reverted my change, which was to remove factually incorrect information. I believe this was done twice. I removed the incorrect fact and provided an alternative and cited variation on the theme. In this case the article said bitcoin was effectively banned in china, the alternative clarifies this isn't the case and explains actual events.

Apologies if it is me, although I hope you can see the intention isn't edit warring (I suppose everyone says that) - If it is me, I'd love some feedback on better ways to deal with these sorts of problems on contentious articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinceSamios (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) VinceSamios (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@VinceSamios: You have more problems than just the edit-warring, as you could see from the conflict-of-interest notice someone else gave you (which was then promptly removed by you). So please read both WP:EW and WP:COI before continuing to edit the Bitcoin article. Thomas.W 20:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I thought I was doing you a favour by removing this following having read your reply, but if you have a specific wish to keep it thats also fine by me. I wasn't clear on the definition of edit warring so you've enlightened me, and my comment on the removal was "thank you" - I'm being quite civil here, I sense a little hostility but I'm moving on. edit: I keep forgetting sign stuff. VinceSamios (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@VinceSamios: I assumed good faith, so don't worry, but never remove stuff from other people's talk pages unless it's obvious vandalism. Most experienced editors do what I do, i.e. archive talk page content now and then, keeping everything in case I ever need to "revisit" something. Thomas.W 20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Got to Believe edits

Can you please explain the massive reverts that you have done on the Got to Believe page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polmags (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Polmags: See message on your own talk page. Thomas.W 09:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W':Thank you for your recent revert of the blanking and vandalism on this page. I will be adding more reliable sources/references to it. Polmags (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)polmags

Merry Christmas

Hafspajen (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• @Hafspajen: Tack, och God Jul själv! Thomas.W 20:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, skinka... korv... köttbullar... .........................................................................................................:)Hafspajen (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Merry Christmas!

External lunks removal

You removed external links to a Facebook (official) and Twitter (official) source for Katia Elizarova (page) that are akin to external links on all pages for people of note active online with fan pages and on various social media platforms. They a're wholly relevant supplements to bio material on Wiki and useful to those reading articles. Why would you want to remove these? I have put them back. Also, at the same time you also removed images too and didn't note it in your edit, which is not cool either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Carpefemme: AFAIK the links have not been confirmed as genuine, so stop your edit-warring. You're now at five reverts in less than 24h, so how about finding something else to do for a while? Such as trying to find out what Misplaced Pages is and isn't. Hint: It's an encyclopaedia, not a social web site as you seem to believe. Thomas.W 18:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know editing is not cool. Why not bother to investigate and find out that they are official. They are noted as such and in your poor editing you are also deleting images. Please take better care of your edits and indeed there is destructive editing of the page which you are recognised as complicit with, that I have to keep reverting. It is tiresome. So leave official links and edits alone and enjoy your Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your help with User:Carpefemme. Lady Lotus • talk 19:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

More problems

Carpefemme (talk · contribs) is still arguing on their talk page (in their unblock request) that that they were right. This is despite their breaking the 3RR rule on the other page with six reverts, and the evidence to the contrary. I can't look through this editor's contribs right now, but are you able to help? Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have posted on their talk page. Thomas.W 22:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The external link/official site for Elizarova redirects to a facebook page that isnt verified. Lady Lotus • talk 21:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus: Link removed. Thomas.W 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly :) Lady Lotus • talk 01:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No such article

-well there is now a redirect, as it is clear from google books searches that Rouzhi is a very respectable, perhaps more correct, transliteration of Yuezhi. Sometimes it's better to dig a little, rather than just revert. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Philoumenos of Jacob's Well - perpetrators

Dear Thomas,

As I described in more detail to the other Wikipedian, EpicGenius*, who had reverted the previous edit, I am happy to provide more materials for the claim about the Jewish perpetrators.

Will this be enough? http://www.acrod.org/assets/files/PDFS/Messenger/CM%20-%201-08_Web.pdf

After all he was not made an instant saint (not only a victim) for nothing.

• FYI, for the ease of reference, let me selfquote my recent Talk to EpicGenius:

"Philoumenos of Jacob's Well

Quoting your FAQ: "Most edits should be properly cited, sourced and referenced."

The original page, before your deletion, of https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Philoumenos_of_Jacob%27s_Well that is the mention of the Zionist perpetrators, was true. The claim is sourced, as provided in the article.

Why I feel strongly about it? Myself I was on the very spot there, and I talked to the current archimandrite. (I had not known about this murder at all before entering the church by chance). I could not believe it, as it was so shocking, so I did secondary research about this crime in Israel. It did indeed happen as described."

I know it is very controversial, so please guide me in properly quoting it and maybe providing insight into the other editors "POV" logic, to avoid further reverts.

PS. Here's another link, to an objective article,Archive of article, available only on Archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 22:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Zezen: I reverted your edit because your claim that the priest "was murdered by extremist Jewish Zionists" isn't supported by any sources. Even the latest link you posted here, to Reuters, says "when a group of people, believed to be fanatical Zionists" etc. Do you see the difference? Your text presents it as an absolute fact, while the sources report it as being something that some people believe, but that has never been proven. Potentially controversial claims, such as the one you made, must be directly supported, that is explicitly stated, by proper reliable sources. If they're not, you can't add them. And no synthesis of sources is allowed. Thomas.W 22:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I think I get it. I can see three solutions: 1. I add additional sources: A. "Synodic decision, classifying him to the hagiologion as a martyr at its 50th Session /11-9-2009 by the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem", partial source: http://www.jp-newsgate.net/en/2009/11/29/656 B. The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, Edited by: Ken Parry, David J. Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H. Griffith and John F. Healey eISBN: 9780631232032 Print publication date: 2001, saying "Philoumenos was murdered by Zionist extremists determined to remove Christians entirely from this sacred Jewish site. He is commemorated on 16 or 29 November." http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631232032_chunk_g978063123203220_ss1-39

-> Good enough?

2. I only mention that he was threatened by local Zionist settlers a week before his martyrdom, as per e.g. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Jacob%27s_Well, quote "In November 1979, a week after a Zionist group came to the monastery claiming it as a Jewish holy place and demanding that all religious iconography be removed, the custodian of the well, Archimandrite Philoumenos, was found hatcheted to death inside the crypt housing the well. Though the two events are thought to be related, no one was ever arrested for the murder."

3. I just give up, as it is going to be quickly censored (vandalized) anyway, as per the sorry editing history of the related Jacob's Well?

These are not rhetorical questions. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why I am described as a vandal here? Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What your problem ?

This is a real information . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.181.223.13 (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not, since you have now been blocked for two weeks... Thomas.W 11:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Philoumenos of Jacob's Well - perpetrators: references, wall painting

Dear Thomas,

As per our discussion above, I provided many more sources. Plus the photo. Is it good enough? I am afraid it will be vandalized (NPOVed etc.) soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dana Ewell

Bethana24 is continuing to do strange edits to the Ewell article. I have seen this so many times before a new editor who just pops out of nowhere and does not want to discuss only get their own way without discussion. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The user has now started outright vandalizing the article. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: It's not vandalism. I suggest you too step back for a while, as you ought to have done instead of making your own major rewrite just after I had reverted Bethana24. I'll keep an eye on the article for the next day or two. Thomas.W 21:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not checked out the article for a long time but realised that someone had made several strange edits even before Bethana24 that looked weird. And that is why I reverted it back to an even older version with more correct information. So I did not do a huge rewrite I simply reverted it back to a version which can atleast be considered useful. So I will not take any criticism of rewrites etc to heart as I only did what was right. Anyhow, it is good that you will keep an eye on it. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Italian Empire map

Hi, yes I know, in 1941-42 East Africa were not more part of the Italian empire, but that image is an anachronistic one, which not show Italian possessions in an year, but all the territories which were part of the Italian colonial empire, many of these for example Tunisia or East Egypt were part of it just for few months during the WW2. Anyway, if the anachronistic map is not good, no problem to use another one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you revert my uploaded image? I just changed the color! You are accusing me of things that I never did! Yes the other one was wrong, but I don't understand why you have changed my upload image. I just use a better red. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the image of 1939 that I have uploaded that you have changed, 1 there were other territories? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: You did not just change the color, you also "painted" San Marino and the Vatican State red, including them in Italy, which both was and is factually incorrect. Don't underestimate me or other Wikipedians, we're not quite as easily fooled as you seem to think... Thomas.W 14:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes you are right. Excuse me. I am not underestimate you, I thought that they was so little states to represent. Anyway excuse me again. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I changed the red in the photo with the red that I think it is better? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for that, so leave the image as it is. Thomas.W 14:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I just thought that the color was better... -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Self Appointed Police

Thomas W or Tom or whatever, you keep bullying around without having sufficient expertise on the matter. You keep blocking people and removing edits based in your preconceived ideas and notions. Why don't you instead spend time researching edits before bulldozing your way and deleting it.? Its sad that people like you have taken the onus of Policing on Misplaced Pages, someone who has ZERO ability to research and even lesser access to information.

I challenge you to prove my edits wrong. If you can prove me wrong, I will willingly delete those passages myself and if they are right you keep yourself from Misplaced Pages. In short you will have to practice a self imposed ban for been uninformed and arbitrary. Is that acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthglobal (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Parthglobal: The edits you made were a direct continuation of the "work" of Ulka1211, who received multiple warnings for both adding irrelevant trivia to articles and spamming directly promotional material (repeating the same non-notable company name over and over) on multiple articles. And since reverting me on Jaya Bachchan as your very first edit, combined with the fact that your account was created not long after Ulka1211 received a final warning for spamming promotional material, does look suspicious to someone who's been around for a while, the caution I gave you can be seen as both a notice to you to stop adding irrelevant material to biographies of living people, and a message to you that you've got eyes on you, in case you should decide to also continue the spamming that Ulka1211 was warned for. Thomas.W 15:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I jumped into the fray only on instance of ulka1211 who informed me that his/her edits were constantly deleted by you and you threatened to block ulka1211's profile. Ulka1211 is neither a publicist nor a PR spokesperson. Ulka1211 is an entertainment industry expert while I am a journalist with experience that probably pre dates even your birth. It will do you World of good, to refer to, La Mode magazine issue dated May 1995. That magazine was sold to a leading Eurooean Publishing house before its revival online. Other option for you would be to verify with jaya Bachchans office about that interview.

I think Jaya's involvement with indeginous Khādī movement is more worthy information then her grand daughter and son in laws information. Your lack of research and access to verifiable information cannot be blamed on someone who is stating facts here. I currently am not in possession of the magazine from that period but, I can surely ask ulka1211 to email you scanned copy of that interview as I am not sure if the web has page indexed from that year (1995).

I think rather then smell rat at every possible edit, you should do some research before going and deleting information that are worthy and factual. And let me sound you a word of caution, if you carry on with your unhindered policing I will ensure that the only page you will be busy with is this one. I will rain thousands of my readers to flood that page and all the pages that you irreverently block or delete leaving with no time or option to do anything constructive.

If you can resort to arbitrary destructive attitude then so can I. Unlike, ulka1211, I am not a rookie in this domain. This is a warning you don't want to take lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.103 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Unhindered Self Promotion goes unnoticed

I wonder how this FAKE article has gone unnoticed for so long, by the self proclaimed moral police on Misplaced Pages. While these uninformed morons are busy blocking or deleting genuine edits to an article, here is the case of unbridled self promotion being not only allowed to stay alive for this long (Since 2011) but, also flourish here on Misplaced Pages. Thomas W what will you do about this gaffé. https://en.wikipedia.org/Prince_Vaali.

This article has survived without a single verifiable link or news link. Is it a joke or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthglobal (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

112.210.88.105

This is an FYI. User 112.210.88.105 has carried on making multiple edits after your level 4 warning yesterday. I've erred on the side of caution and given them another level 4, as over 24 hours have lapsed. Also, I don't know enough about the pages this IP is editing to be confident about reverting them myself. So, it's up to you whether you want to pursue this yourself. Cheers, Nick Levine (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nick Levine: I noticed the warning you gave the IP, and promptly filed a report at WP:AIV. Thomas.W 21:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, fine. This leaves the task of unwinding the damage (sigh)... Nick Levine (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ford Mustang SVT Cobra edit by 95.208.248.102

I'm not a registered user and only contribute by occasionally reverting what looks like vandalism, such as the December 11 edit of Ford Mustang SVT Cobra that partially removed a two year old segment from the introduction. In fact, I considered this as kind of a duty as reader. I was unaware that to do this, it's necessary to actually know the topic and be able to cite sources to improve upon the previous state of the article -- it just looked like a pretty safe and useful activity. My apologies.

In case you weren't aware of the source of the content I added or the broken state the page was (and again is) in, this is FYI that I simply reverted an earlier edit manually. Just in case you want to remove the broken sentence fragment you left, or restore it to its former, complete (but uncited) state.

Because I know nothing about how and when Misplaced Pages notifies someone about something I'm posting this here. From the talk page guidelines, it seems to be permissible. Feel free to delete this. 95.208.248.102 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

M16 Bosnia and Herzegovina

warned away me regarding the feeding of our site M16 rifle, I do not put references here and you checked the source of the Ministry of Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina to use the M16 rifle in the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina

http://mod.gov.ba/OS_BIH/struktura/Operativna_komanda/6Pjesadijskabrigada/?id=15836 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mućkalo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Mućkalo: That link does not support your claim that the BiH Armed Forces use the M16 as a service rifle. All it says is that some people from the BiH Armed Forces have taken part in a shooting competition using the M16, which isn't particularly remarkable since the armed forces of most countries train their personnel in using common foreign weapons (which also seems to be supported by the article you linked to, since it clearly says that the shooting competition was part of BiH preparations for competitions against other countries...). What you need is a reference/source that says that the M16 is issued as a service weapon to members/units of the BiH Armed Forces. Thomas.W 16:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Gott nytt år!! Hope you are having a lovely time!!!! All the best for you! Some nice cake for you! Gingergread like this is tasty!

help me

help me

I’m Aditya Sharma a middle class man from India, Pune. I want to bring your concern to a very serious matter. I have some property in Lavasa(a city in Pune). Now I want to sell out that property for my daughter's marriage. she is getting married within this i-e in January, but due to the news of that controversy in Lavasa city, nobody wants to buy that property, and I’m not in a condition to manage all the money for the wedding. Unfortunately I have the only property in Lavasa city. that property is only the hope for me to settle my daughter's life, i have contacted many people and some are close to deal but at end when they research then they withdraw the deal by saying this is disputed land and not got clearance from ministry of environment but the fact is, it has got clearance on 9th November, 2011 but the article posted on your link gives a confused impression to the people. Since, Misplaced Pages is a reputed information provider so people believe what Misplaced Pages post. So please try to stop the wrong perception which is being created among people otherwise people like us who are in need will go into depression. I just want that the Misplaced Pages page is to take down that Misplaced Pages page, or else edit the controversy section from that page. Otherwise, I can’t be able to do my daughter’s marriage which will result a setback to my family. they will blame me for the wrong investment which can not be used for the fruitful purpose. I'm writing in this section page because I already had been contact to Misplaced Pages but Misplaced Pages don't remove this page, and that controversy section has been revert back again and again. Please help me to remove that page or just tell me the permanent solution?? I beg from you, please help me, and try to understand my problem. My daughter's life is at stake. Adityaa.sharmaa (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)