User talk:TompaDompa/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TompaDompa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, TompaDompa! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi, TompaDompa, thanks for having taken the time to fix all these maximum extents for the various historical empires of the world. I just wanted to let you know that your edit on the "Mughal Empire" was changed (and the source removed) as seen here on this article, by a pretty well known cross-article disruptor. I can't view the source he added, but perhaps you yourself are able to give a proper judgement (and f.e. revert) the change he made, if needed. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The answer to the question in [1] is: that was a mistake. For some reason I read the diff backwards. Thanks for catching that. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello TompaDompa,

We never reached a consensus on the territorial extent of the Tang Dynasty. I hope that you can continue the discussion on the talk page of "List of Largest Empires". BloonCorps (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@BloonCorps: By all means. I can't claim to have come across any new reliably sourced information, but if you have I'm more than willing to discuss it. TompaDompa (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That is very interesting. I am not able to come up with new sources (other than Baidu and the map on the Chinese Wikipedia) either, however I will share will you new information as soon as I find it (probably never). I hope that you do understand my reasoning for the claim, and why I think Taagapera is mistaken. I guess our consensus would be to leave as is, until I can find a reliable source. Again, sorry for my rudeness. BloonCorps (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I was able to find some sources on the size of the Tang Dynasty at its height: The figure 12.37 million square kilometers came from the book《中国历代疆域面积考》by 边城玫女, which is what Baidu cited. I do not have a copy of the book, but I will look into it, if you are interested.

I was also able to get a new figure, 10.76 million square kilometers, from the book《中国历史上几个朝代的疆域面积估算》by Song Yan (宋岩). The page with the table of the sizes of several Chinese Dynasties at their heights can be found here: http://tieba.baidu.com/photo/p?kw=%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%8E%86%E5%8F%B2&flux=1&tid=1120305728&pic_id=ebc5b31c8701a18b15bc041f9e2f07082838fe18&pn=1&fp=2&see_lz=1. This table lists the Chinese dynasties' names in the first column, the start and end date in the next two column, the year of their height in the third column, and the area in the last column. If you scroll down to 唐, you can see that the table from the book says that it lasted from 618-907, with its height at 669 and with an area of 1076 万平方公里, or 10.76 million square kilometers. This is the figure that the Chinese Wikipedia cites. The author Song Yan has a doctorate degree and is a professor, so I think the source is solid.

The size of Chinese dynasties is "controversial" because it is quite debatable, since it is quite difficult t get an accurate measure of the sizes of political states from 1300 years ago. However both of these sources are considered authoritative in China, because they both have their points, despite having a large disparity.

At this point I am actually not sure about which figure to use, or what you think about them, so please post your opinion.BloonCorps (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@BloonCorps: Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, we can't use the first one without actually having read it. Beyond that, I can't really evaluate which source is the best. Taagepera is in many ways an ideal source – it's specifically all about territorial extent, has a timeline instead of just the greatest value, shows how the figures were arrived at – but is of course not immune to errors. Preferably, a source replacing that one should be similar in those regards. TompaDompa (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess we should just use the second one with 10.76 million square kilometers, since I already have the copy of the page with the information. Song Yan's book specifically focuses on the Chinese dynasties, analyzing all the territorial gains from wars, and then calculating the total area by regions and adding them up. Taagepera leaves out various major wars were territorial gains were made for the Tang, so I seriously doubt that it is legitimate.BloonCorps (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree that replacing the number with the new source is the proper choice of action? Or do you think that there are still points that we should clear up first?BloonCorps (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@BloonCorps: I see no objection to that change. Just make sure to follow WP:NONENG (this is a case where a direct quote with a translation is probably necessary), and if at all possible provide the ISBN for the book. TompaDompa (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I have made the change to the table, along with the added citation and quote explanation. I will add the publisher and date of publication later. Thank you for your time. BloonCorps (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

thank you tompa domba; Please remove all lists. So that would be fair...--Gündoğdu (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gündoğdu: I don't know that fair enters into it; I don't think they add anything of value when there's already a map, and they have a tendency to be a hassle with regards to WP:POV. TompaDompa (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It's very different to use IMDb to state a fact than to cite its huge poll as, well, another poll in the list of films considered the best --Jbaranao (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jbaranao: You're right, it is. However, the same reason it is not a WP:Reliable source in general – being WP:USERGENERATED – also means the ratings do not meet the inclusion criteria for the article: representing a notable poll. WP:CITINGIMDB specifically lists

"The user comments for each title (this includes user reviews and ratings), which are pure user-generated content."

as content inappropriate to reference on Wikipedia. MOS:FILM#Audience response concurs:

"Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew."

I could've explained it better in my edit (specifically, I should've referred to either of the above – or even both – rather than WP:RS/IMDB), but the point still stands – IMDb user ratings do not belong on that article or any other on Wikipedia. I hope that clears things up. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation. In my opinion, to not even mention IMDb's votes is a mistake, but I see it is a general criteria. I disagree, but I will respect it. --Jbaranao (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TompaDompa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mr. Vernon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of films considered the best without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to add - I'm not criticizing you being bold, that page looks like it had a lot of cruft even through multiple AfDs. You seem to be doing a pretty good job cleaning it up. Just maybe get consensus first. I also archived the talk page (three years!) so you can edit the talk page without your machine running out of RAM. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

.... I re reverted the supposed update for reasons stated in my edit summary. If you can connect dots to show more recent numbers I don't object to making the changes. But the RS still says its numbers are from Dec 2, not Dec 4, so I re-reverted to the Dec 2 text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello from sergeantbreinholt, who is only vaguely familiar with the code needed to make Wikipedia User talk look fancy: Your edit on "Best Films of All Time" is understandable, as that particular link does not give the correct information; in reality, Lawrence of Arabia also has a Metascore of 100 http://www.metacritic.com/movie/lawrence-of-arabia-re-release . Regardless, its inclusion or not in this article http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/all/filtered doesn't change the fact that Lawrence of Arabia still has a score of 100, so I won't change anything. I hate edit wars. Just letting you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeantbreinholt (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sergeantbreinholt: That's odd. Really odd. I wonder if it has anything to do with that 100 rating being for the re-release.

(I put this in a separate section – I hope that's okay) TompaDompa (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Serbian Empire page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We include significant international responses by default. What is to be considered significant is another matter, but at the very least the official mentions by other heads of state is going to be in the article. Please don't remove this type of content, doing so is disruptive. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Other editors/admins please view this "warning" by an involved editor with a very large grain of salt. AusLondonder (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TompaDompa has been extremely disruptive.XavierItzm (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't remove author info from citations, as you did at [2] and again at [3].

Thankfully, it appears both have been reverted already, by HelgaStick.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was under the impression that authors for news articles generally aren't included (reflected in my edit summaries). Looking at WP:CITEHOW, I see I was mistaken. Not quite sure where I got that idea from. TompaDompa (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay no problem. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. GreyShark (dibra) 12:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for notifying me. TompaDompa (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the help :P. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What is it with grumpy IPs lately? That is the second one on that talk page that has sniped at me for no reason. Hey, and good work too on adding that consensus template, you're a star! Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I left a warning for User:Panam2014 which mentions your name. Please work for consensus about this infobox, if you intend to change multiple articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi I am strongly opposed to your edits. Now, please stop that and please restore the article content before your unilateral edits. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@EdJohnston: With regards to seeking consensus about the infobox, I would like to call to your attention this discussion from late 2016. TompaDompa (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That prior discussion is worth keeping in mind. But since your change has been opposed, why not propose it first on the talk page of the next article where you think the change is needed? EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is only recomended, not an obligation. Each case is different. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I ask the author of the deletions to hand over the countries in all the articles as long as there is no consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If I interpret you correctly, you're requesting that I self-revert the edits I made earlier today removing the parameter from the respective infoboxes on the different former countries. I have done so. Tell me if there are any I missed. TompaDompa (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank your. Now we could open a Request for comment. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me by answering my question on Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack. Rævhuld (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. In what context did you mean the Reactions' section (on 2017 Finsbury Park attack) was too long? Articles like United States, Donald Trump, etc, have long sections that are off-shoots to other topics. I don't see an issue with the "Reactions" section on the article. It was decided in AfD that the Reaction's article be merged to 2017 Finsbury Park attack. - TheMagnificentist 16:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: It comprises approximately half the article's length, consists to a large degree of a laundry list of countries that doesn't add much to the readers' understanding of the primary subject (i.e. the attack), and could easily be heavily condensed. TompaDompa (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Edited to add: I have now done so. TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey regarding the commanders and leaders section of the Battle of Mosul page, can you put the ones you deleted back to the timeline of the battle section??

Roy Larner is a hero. There is no reason to hide his name. Gui le Roi (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the intentions of the AfD, Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) still has major issues with its focus and WP:OR. Would another RfC benefit the article? With many articles about Islamist terror attacks (many of which fall under WP:NOTNEWS), it is essential to have an article such as this that accurately summarizes the situation in Europe. Another possible topic appropriate for discussion is when can we call an incident terrorism; breaking news coverage just cannot be relied upon for that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It might, and I have considered it. There are a couple of reasons that I haven't started a new one. One is that the last one closed fairly recently, and opening a new one could be seen as disruptive and/or indicative of trying to game the system. Another is that an ongoing RfC about the central premise of the article hampers the regular method of improving the article through consensus built by editing. A third is that I don't expect it to work out any better than the last one did. I could be wrong, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right and it would be best to wait a little longer before attempting to readjust the focus of the article. By the way, I am awfully impressed by your efforts to remove WP:SYNTH and your familiarity with guidelines. You should consider watchlisting this page if you have any further interest in participating at AfDs related to terrorism. I for one would value your ability to apply policy to what is a heated topic for some.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Did I miss something or are you under the impression that Get Out is a comedy? I'd like an explanation sometime soon, please. Alakazam (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alakazam: Rotten Tomatoes classifies it as such. Hence, listing it at List of films considered the best#Comedy with Rotten Tomatoes as a source is entirely appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Something is wrong in the state of Denmark if they think that a film that touches on racism is labeled as comedy. Did they get this movie confused with Blazing Saddles? Alakazam (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, TompaDompa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have weighed in on the discussion at Talk:Darius I#44%?. TompaDompa (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

On 20 April 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Avicii, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Good job. you are doing an excellent job getting the list redirected. /s Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to be nice. Please, for the 5th time, stop removing information. Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nergaal: It behooves you to familiarise yourself with WP:V and WP:NOR and abide by them. TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

wp:AGF. WIkipedia is a collaboration. If you don't like something you bring it up, you discuss it with someone else. Deleting information, after somebody put energy into adding it, presumably with good intentions, does nothing to advance any article. You don't own any article. If you don't like an information, feel free to build consensus, debate, etch. If you don't like things done any other way than you like, feel free to leave. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, TompaDompa. I get it what you mean. But you got to let me have Danai Gurira and Letitia Wright on the billing to stop the war as I did my talk on the talk page for Avengers: Infinity War. Make sure to look at my talk if you can.
  • - (Christian M. (2016)), 18:00 (UTC).

I just want the WP:Edit warring to stop. I haven't even looked at the difference between the versions other than to confirm that it's an edit war. TompaDompa (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with you, I don't want edit wars either. I'm basing my changes on other examples like X-Men: First Class, and would like to see the same done on this page. Reply to me when you have time.
  • - (Christian M. (2016)), 18:14 (UTC).

This discussion belongs on Talk:Avengers: Infinity War, and I'm not particularly interested in weighing in on it. TompaDompa (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

List of box office records set by Titanic Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I sometimes take the, purely pragmatic, attitude that a concise, reasonably balanced account of an event - or plot, is better than the utterly crap one that will almost certainly get inserted next week if we remove altogether. I wrote this one day in order to persuade myself to see the funny side! Pincrete (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

When you have a chance, would you please drop a note on the polio elimination Talk page to indicate what specific improvements you think are needed in the lede that led you to flag it back in February. It is easier to fix when I know what people think is broken. Thanks. Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Y I did some fixes (mainly to do with a, to me, illogical structure) and tagged the specific issues remaining on the article itself instead. TompaDompa (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you're working on this article would you like to join in on the talkpage discussion?★Trekker (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done TompaDompa (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Tjena, hur är läget? ;) Don't worry too much about if the target outcome of the RM is this or that. But since you changed your nom to reflect the current consensus, maybe {{requested move/dated|Danish colonies}} on the talk page and {{User:RMCD bot/subject notice|1=Danish overseas colonies|2=Talk:Danish colonial empire#Requested move 14 July 2018 }} on the article should be changed as well? Sam Sailor 21:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done I already changed the latter, but I see now that I missed the former. Thanks for the heads-up! TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

On 23 July 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shinobu Hashimoto, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Flagspam is insidious. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, although I'm disagreeing with you a bit on my Civilization games FLC, as an FLC delegate I want to thank you for all of the FLC reviews you've been doing over the last few days- they're really very helpful! --PresN 20:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@PresN: I realized that FLC reviews were in somewhat short supply when I didn't get as many as I thought I would in the time I thought it would take for my own FLC, so I figured I'd help out. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and all that. TompaDompa (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there and thank you very much for finding time to comment on my FLC above. Please note that I have responded to your comments. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the point you've mentioned. Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. Have a nice day!! Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've also responded to your comments at the List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s FLC. Thank you for your time! Note that I'm only writing on your talk page because I can't ping you. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've also worked on your last query. Thanks! Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it better now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

For your comments and eventual support on my FLC. Thanks!

Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, i responded to your comments nine days ago. I would gladly appreciate it if you could answer them if your schedule allows it. Thank you very much.--Lirim | Talk 09:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I’’m doing more research on the “Portugal” question. I have access to jstor as well as other references on the subject. Would you happen to know what the “”LK”” reference is in “”Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia””? This seems to be the core reference regarding the control of Brazil.

I’’m also looking into Leslie Bethell’s works, which seems like the only credible author who has been discussed on the talk page.

Normally I would discuss this on the talk page, but I think you understand why I don’t want to.

I’ also want to thank you for your patient diligence working through these sort of issues with those sort of editors. There are times that I just feel like quitting. It’s editors like you that make me keep going on. Work permit (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know. One might assume that it's one of the entries in the reference list, but it's also possible that it was accidentally left out (none of them seem like an obvious candidate to me). TompaDompa (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, TompaDompa. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Ppteles (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, the result was No violation. TompaDompa (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Ppteles (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, the result was No violation. TompaDompa (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "List of largest empires". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 September 2018.

The request for formal mediation concerning List of largest empires, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Plz don't remove the true history I have study about Afsharid empire very much Sasan Hero (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You need a WP:Reliable source that WP:Verifies the information you add to Wikipedia, since WP:Original research is not allowed. TompaDompa (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr tompa,please change the Spanish Empire to reliable source because Spanish Empire most be put on the list with correct and reliable source ,and I think Spanish source not good for Spanish Empire, all of Empires must be equal,I think Taagepera source is justice Sasan Hero (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I did, and the other user changed it back. I agree with you on the need for a consistent approach, but I'm trying to avoid an WP:Edit war by discussing it on the talk page. Feel free to weigh in there. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I know ,but u have changed the Achaemenid empire to Taagepera source and to many empires too but only Spanish Empire have an unacceptable native source please change it and lock the page Sasan Hero (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, I changed it, and then they changed it back. I don't want an WP:Edit war so I won't keep reverting, and I'm not an admin so I can't lock the page (and this really doesn't warrant locking it anyway). TompaDompa (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay thx,can you explain please why did u change the brzezinski source for Achaemenid Empire to Taagepera and Turchin's source? Sasan Hero (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, TompaDompa. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The greatest extent of mauryan empire is 5,000,000km so How does you include 3.2million km This empire is one of the biggest empires in the Indian subcontinent Gjfuibx (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Two different sources give two different estimates. List of largest empires includes both. TompaDompa (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for coming in here but I had accepted Gjfuibx's edit on this based on the other WP Mauryan article that had references. If you, TompaDompa, feel that this Mauryan article is wrong or misleading, please do fix it and if needed start an RfC on the Talk Page of List of largest empires, which will alert other pending changes reviews that this issue is contested. You can also mark (using the {{}} characters) beside the text of the material you want to protect that any pending changes reviewer should check with the Talk Page RfC to alert them that this issue is contested and to follow whatever consensus was reached. Otherwise, it is hard to reject these proposed edits. Hope that makes sense. Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. You recently hid my contribution in the article Islamic terrorism in Europe mentioning the 2018 Strasbourg attack. It's been proven that the perpetrator had pledged allegiance to the terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, that he was characterised as a "hardened criminal" who "converted to rigorous Islam", that his father said his son had been an Islamic State supporter and that nine days after his death, a USB key containing a video of him pledging allegiance to the Islamic State was found among his belongings. Are you sure it's not worth mentioning in the article Islamic terrorism in Europe? Regards, –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 05:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

We wait for official confirmation (usually from Europol) rather than relying on circumstantial evidence, no matter how strong. See WP:LABEL: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Right now, what we have is circumstantial evidence, but that can change (and I think it probably will, which is the reason I hid the entry instead of removing it outright). TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

you recnetly add a tag to List of highest-grossing superhero films you are welcome to go to the talk page and we can talk about it Fanoflionking 14:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I figured my edit summary would suffice in describing the problem as I see it, but I'll start a discussion on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Christchurch mosque shootings shows that you have violated the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. My suggestion is that you stop editing the page for some time; or take a voluntary step-back from reverting any other editor's edits. Of course, you probably violated the 3RR accidentally; and if that's the case, I'll suggest you undo your last revert and step back from reverting for some time. Lourdes 09:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I'm honestly unsure which edits this refers to besides this one. Would you care to clarify? TompaDompa (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

[4][5][6][7] Lourdes 16:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. I wouldn't consider all those content removals reverts, necessarily (if I did, I wouldn't have made them all). TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, you need to start considering them now, to avoid getting blocked. I'm sure you've understood the situation quite clearly. Please be careful going forward. Thanks, Lourdes 20:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I hope I'm not bothering, but I would very much appreciate some comments on my current FLC linked above →. Just disregard if you're too busy at the moment. Many thanks and have yourself a good day Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, maybe I shouldn't have done that without leaving an Edit Summary. My reasoning is basically this: the content was sourced and clearly related to the articles' topics (at least according to those sources). I believe at least one other editor has also expressed this opinion, so I'm curious as to why you keep removing the material. As long as it's properly sourced and reliable, I see no harm in leaving the content be. I really don't have a strong opinion on the said chunks, but in my view, you should probably discuss with the other editors before attempting to make those changes again. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

LightandDark2000: Both reverts were of edits that I made in response to other editors suggesting I edit the content instead of outright removing it (The section could be shorter but outright deletion does not represent reliable sources accurately. here and I've restored that passage for now, feel free to change the citation if you think it is misleading. here). TompaDompa (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to tell from the Edit Summaries you left behind - you should be more careful in the future (I have the same problem sometimes, but I try to use specific edit summaries whenever I am responding to others or making potentially controversial edits). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

LightandDark2000: Fair enough; misunderstandings happen all the time. Would you be so kind as to undo your reverts? If I were to do it myself, that could easily be misconstrued as WP:Edit warring. TompaDompa (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically, you could undo them yourself, if you leave an explanatory edit summary (unless there's something I misread in the 3RR policy). But, I'll just do it myself. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

LightandDark2000: Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

On 5 July 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chris Cline, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

– Ammarpad (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings,

The Wikipedia page for the Largest Empires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires) contains misleading information. I'm asking for unprotection because there is a used named Edmundo Soares (a brazilian user with negative reputation), who moved the Portuguese Empire to number 21st instead of 10th, in favor of the Brazilian Empire to make it to number 11th. It is important to mention the 10.4 million km2 that the previous unedited version had, is, in fact, the correct value (I cannot find the 5.5 million Km2 value in any source, it is made up and does not make any sense). If you need extra proof, just know that the Portuguese Empire undeniably encompassed the whole country of Brazil and much more and, as I mentioned, Brazil is 11th on the list and the Portuguese Empire is 21th for some wierd reason.

Best Regards, EloctPT

I do not have the ability to change the protection settings of any pages. The figures have been discussed multiple times on the talk page, including here. The source for the 5.5 million km² figure is this one.^[1] That's a scholarly source, and you are very welcome to check it out yourself. I suggest further discussion of this matter be held over at Talk:List of largest empires. TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to warn you, Jennifer Lee, the creator of Frozen is destroying the competition. We have to tell the world to pull the advertising and releases of Frozen II! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:C181:B70:E518:407C:9154:B3E2 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

On 27 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Per Olov Enquist, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know if it is within your field of interest, but please take a look at the article about Gunnar Seijbold that I created.BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

On 30 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maj Sjöwall, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

On 3 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sam Lloyd, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Just letting you know I have a FLC running, if you ever have time, feel free to leave some comments. Greets and all the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I would appreciate your imput on my FLC named above, but feel free to disregard in case you're too busy. I hope you have a wonderful weekend! Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of box office top ten horror films in the United States requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Timeline of early Earth science satellites requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

When you close a discussion, such as this one, it would be helpful to note which way the SNOW fell, support or oppose. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

	Sockpuppet hunter barnstar
	I wanted to compliment you for your SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesOredan - that was a very well-done list of evidence and comparison with past sockmasters. Excellent work! GeneralNotability (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: In fairness it was Joserchm who figured it out. I just compiled the evidence. TompaDompa (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa, Where do I find this criteria for the articles on which basis you deleted half of the lists? Sokrates2987 (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In the respective "Guidelines" sections (like this one). First bulletpoint: To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism". This was apparently the result of this RfC. TompaDompa (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Does the merging of all articles of a year into one single article make sense now? I don't think you need articles for every single month when there are only 4 incidents per month that meet the criteria. (Sorry for my bad English) Sokrates2987 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to it, but some kind of formal discussion would probably be necessary first. TompaDompa (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's also a weird criteria, because you can just write an article for every incident and then add it. Also, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense that only incidents with own articles are relevant. But I won't start any formal discussion because I have no time and my English sucks. It would be nice if you did that (also because you made the article so small). Thx Sokrates2987 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I got "lost" in looking at the various versions of the edit history pages, and screwed up. Thanks for correcting my error. (Tiny, well-meaning tiger slinks into cave) Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got a lot of these to go GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
{{order of succession by country}}

I know. I figured I would nominate another batch when the last batch has been closed. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wonder if you would be interested to dealing with this article, Head of the House of Aisin Gioro, which was about the former Chinese throne. Despite that there are references included, I think it falls into the same category as original research. - George6VI (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I already removed the WP:OR "line of succession" a week ago. TompaDompa (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Then what about this one? Template:Pretenders to the Chinese throne and probably the linked articles can be checked. I always find it absurd as this is pretty much the root of so called "Chinese pretender" claim. - George6VI (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Who deleted Prince Alexander while Prince Gabriel is still there for days and days? I'd like to write to that administrator, maybe even file a misconduct report, but I don't know how to find out who it was. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You can see who closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland. I don't see any signs of misconduct, however. There is currently quite a backlog, see WP:AfD/Old. I'd just wait. TompaDompa (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I see it has been fixed now. Wikipedia at its very worst when it comes to playing tedious games with the life stories of living persons, backlog or not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I see where you are doing a massive amount of article changes unlinking redirects. Looks like you've misunderstood what redirects are for. Unlinking them defeats the very purpose. Friendly suggestion: fix all that asap! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the redirects that bear the name of a living person but redirect to their parent after the article for the child went through WP:AfD. The thing is that redirects are only helpful when they aid navigation (and frankly, in these instances deleting the articles would have been at least as good an option as turning them into redirects). When both the redirect and the target are listed on the same page, the redirect is not helpful. Likewise, when the redirect is linked in a context that does not apply to the target, the redirect is also not helpful. Most if not all of the redirects I removed or unlinked were either not helpful or actively unhelpful. I'll take a quick look to see if I accidentally removed any helpful redirects in my effort to remove the ones that weren't. TompaDompa (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You did indeed. Let's stop pretending. If you don't correct those serious errors, I'll have to make a big stink about it. Where the boys were linked in the articles on their mother & grandparents, there is no excuse for removing a redirect link. I fixed the royal family's links for you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. The redirect target, i.e. their father, is already linked on both their mother's article and their grandparents articles. What's the point of having multiple links to the same article (their father's article) right next to each other? I don't see any benefit in doing so, but if you want the links back you can simply revert the edits that removed them. I would also like to note that the article for one of them was straight-up deleted (the one whose AfD was closed first), so when I removed those links they were not redirects. Removing the redirect links for the other one after that AfD closed seemed like a consistent approach. TompaDompa (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello TompaDompa, Please explain the "reverted reversion" and the meaning of: "overstating Portuguese influence and control" whit the my sources presented. Already had the chance to read? Talk page already made. No answers. Tank you--Hugo Refachinho (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll let Chuka Chief explain why they thought that your addition was WP:UNDUE (as is my interpretation of their edit summary), but the reason that I reverted you is that they provided a perfectly valid reason for reverting you, and you re-added the content without addressing the point they had raised (which is something you also did over at List of largest empires). Your next step after being reverted should instead have been to discuss the matter at the talk page for the article (in this case, Talk:Kenya). TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

So you delete (reverse) all the information that you dont know. "Due and undue weight... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight "...they provided a perfectly valid reason..": To revert a publication whit books and works_ i m still waiting for an answer about the books and publications that i put there. Is this Disruptive editing? Plese help me. Hugo Refachinho (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that I find it a bit difficult to parse what you're writing, but here's the bottom line: when an editor undoes your changes and provides their reasons for doing so, don't reinstate your changes without addressing the objections that were raised against them. Doing that is just a recipe for an WP:Edit war. Instead, please discuss this with the editor who undid your changes on the talk page of the article in question. See WP:BRD. TompaDompa (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I was about to revert back to your version after having read the article somewhat more thoroughly. Perhaps he never existed, but it does not seem to be well-known folklore either. Regards, Stalverk80 (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Tompa, I entirely agree with your deletion of the ETF-1, AS-201, and China's orbital test flight entries on said page. Had originally intended to delete the first two entries as being not sufficiently related to the subject but then decided not to upset the status quo and so instead added an entry. Thanks. Cheers. Spotty's Friend (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

On 1 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Timothy Ray Brown, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

On 2 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pia Juul, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Greetings...you have voted at Afd's for many Royalty related articles. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripura Sundari Ammani. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Slaver Rebellion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 10#Slaver Rebellion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Dr Paulo Oliveira e Costa is a specialist in the Portuguese Empire whit PHD And Masters degree. Maybe you should real those volumes insted of a “ Google search” Its Nice , When a forigner wants to teach a portuguese is Own story. --2001:8A0:6756:9B01:656D:590D:740D:2FB2 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, two small pieces of information:
1. Do not make a dummy edit like this [8] for comments. Use the article talk page.
2. Regardless of what is said on talk pages, we do not alter what sources said. That is vandalism. I'm entirely open to including Spanish as a world language, but that whole discussion, like your comment, builds on a failure to understand how Wikipedia works. We report what sources say, we do not make up arguments ourselves (see WP:OR). If a source says that languages X and Y are world languages, then editing the sentence reporting that source to claim that language X, Y and Z are world languages, or that only language X is a world language, is to falsify the source.
Best regards Jeppiz (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Jeppiz: I considered simply pinging you on the talk page, but I didn't just want you two to see the talk page, I want anybody who looks at the history to see that there is discussion on the talk page. I don't know why you're telling me We report what sources say, we do not make up arguments ourselves (see WP:OR).; if you read Talk:World language#Spanish language is also a World language, you'll see that I said editors have looked at the criteria for world languages as outlined by reliable sources and then made their own assessments about whether particular languages meet those criteria (which is of course a WP:SYNTH violation), instead of relying on the assessments of the sources themselves. You don't need to try to convince me that we shouldn't make up arguments ourselves; I made that same point over a month ago. TompaDompa (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if my remark was vague. I was explaining why I reverted a few recent edits; I'm well aware you didn't make those edits. Jeppiz (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)