User talk:Thomas.W

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 6 as User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 5 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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

Relevance of linguistic situation

The undisputed fact that two different, distinct, and grammatically known Germanic languages were spoken in the area should not be obscured as it is most certainly relevant to the question of the Geats. The linguistic information needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article in some form and not obscured or brushed under the carpet. Demanding a source for what is common knowledge and common sense is not a valid pretext to wipe all information or mention that there were indeed two different languages from the article. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If it is an "undisputed fact" that two different languages were spoken in the area then provide a proper reliable source for it. Once you have such a source you're free to add it back again. But you are not going to get it back into the article without a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia's rules regarding verifiability; quote: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Thomas.W ^talk 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to educate yourself a little before looking like an ass demanding "proof" that there was such a Germanic language as the Gothic language in the Baltic. We even have a wikipedia in that language and you demand "proof" it existed? lol very funny! Seriously, the burden is not on me to prove common knowledge. Why dont you try and see if you can find anyone challenging that there was a Gothic langauge, or see if you can find one even scholar claiming that the Gothic speakers were really Norse speakers. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the article about the Geats? The sentence that you keep adding can be reverted both because it's unsourced and because it isn't relevant to the article, especially not to the section it appears in. Thomas.W ^talk 15:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm really trying to follow your logic here, but I am afraid I cannot. You challenge that two different languages were spoken in the area even though no scholar denies this, and you fail to see the relevance of the linguistic situation in the area to the question of the Geats' identity? Perhaps you could elaborate further for me. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Oh, and while you're at it read Wikipedia's rules regarding personal attacks, because this edit summary wasn't kosher. Thomas.W ^talk 15:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Đ

In case you didn't get farther down in the article, yes, a number of scholars have indeed suggested a possible connection between the Geats and Goths. The fact that two related languages were spoken by two groups is entirely relevant, even if you "dontlikeit". And in fact that was not a "personal" attack, a "personal" attack would be if I had said "Thomas W. is a completely ignorant idiot" or some such, but I never said that. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If we take the last thing first, you implied it, since I was the only one who reverted you. As for the rest you seem to be quite a bit confused. Proto Norse/Old Norse being slightly different from the language of the Goths a few centuries later can be explained by their languages having split from the same root, evolving in different directions. It does not in any way support a claim that "two different languages were spoken in the land of the Geats". I don't deny that Old Norse and the language(s) of the Goths in Southern Europe differed from each other, but I very much doubt that it was because of a language split that had ocurred in Scandinavia, before some of the people there set off for warmer latitudes. Which is why I challenge your claim further up in this discussion, and, in full accordance with Wikipedia's rules, request that you provide reliable sources that support your claim. Thomas.W ^talk 15:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you will notice the preceding claims in the article are uncited and have been tagged as such for around a year. You didn't remove those claims that should have been removed since the tag has been up long enough, you left the tagged part and removed the only factual sentence there. Next time please just add a cn tag if you feel it is necessary and wait a while before removing the tagged material. Thanks 71.246.144.34 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There are different levels of "unbelievability". Claims that seem slightly dubious will be allowed to stay for the time being, just getting a {{cn}} tag, while claims that are totally off the charts will be removed at sight if unsourced. That's how it works. And since you obviously can't find any reliable sources for your claims I suggest you self-revert, and remove the sentence again... Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the evidence that the Goths spoke a different language from Norse is directly touching on the Geats and removing this evidence seems like suppression of evidence. No one disputes that these are different languages, no one disputes that the Goths themselves claimed to have been on the move back and forth between Moesia and Scandinavia for a number of centuries in their wider range, no one disputes that modern archaeology also points in this direction, and I doubt many think as you do that the Scandinavian Geats described as foes of the Norse in Norse sagas eg. Battle of Brávellir, must themselves have been Norse speakers, although it's possible a few may argue that the Geats were also Norse speakers. 71.246.144.34 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote, you seem to be quite a bit confused. The Geats were a Norse tribe, just like the Swedes/Suiones, the Danes and the Norwegians, and spoke Proto Norse/Old Norse just like the other Norse tribes, and the Battle of Brávellir was not between the Geats and "the Norse", but between the Eastern Geats (i.e. the Geats in what is today the Swedish province of Östergötland/Eastern Geatland) and Danes on one side, and the Swedes/Suiones and the Western Geats (i.e. from the area of the Swedish province of Västergötland/Western Geatland) on the other side. As is clearly stated in the article about the battle. At least try to get your facts right... Thomas.W ^talk 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just one more thing: The Battle of Brávellir took place some 600 years after the people who became the Goths left Scandinavia and moved south (based on archaeological evidence both in Geatland and on the southern shores of the Baltic), and so has nothing whatsoever to do with the Goth language(s) and the split of Proto Norse. Thomas.W ^talk 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said anything unfactual yet. Sure there were Geats and Norse on both sides of that battle, that really isn't relevant to the question of the Geats' language, I only picked that article as one example of several wikipedia articles involving Geatish-Norse conflicts. But okay, you assert that the Geats must only have spoken Norse also. However you may learn from Old Gutnish that the idea Goths had been in Gothland is not a startling new theory, and actually it is an suggestion that has been around for at least 1500 years, why try to suppress it now?! 71.127.133.169 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Old Gutnish was a Norse dialect, not a separate language, one of several Norse dialects, and it differed from other Norse dialects for the simple reason that it was spoken only on a fairly small island out in the middle of the Baltic Sea, with a small population, separated from other areas where Proto Norse/Old Norse was spoken. So sofar all of your claims have been wrong/unfactual. The Battle of Brávellir actually took place 700 years after the ancestors of the Goths left Scandinavia, BTW, mid 8th century vs 1st century. Thomas.W ^talk 17:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said anything unfactual yet. The article on Old Gutnish should hopefully elucidate you that some scholars think Old Gutnish is most closely related to Gothic, or are you pretending you didn't see that? As far as the question of what languages the Geats may have spoken, details about when the Battle of Bravellir was fought or what sides they were fighting on are irrelevant to that question. What both the Gothic accounts and Swedish accounts actually describe is more like a process over several centuries of multiple departures and emigrations, in these sources there were always some "stay at home Goths" and the "away" Goths so a battle supposedly being fought in Scandinavia by Geats in 700 AD tells us just that and nothing more or less. But you want a source for a statement in the article that is simply a helpful reminder that Norse and Gothic were two separate languages, which fact I'd have thought no one could argue with, without even getting into any claims about which of these the Geats possibly spoke. What kind of source should I find that would satisfy you that yes, Gothic and Old Norse are not the same languages, but were rather two related languages spoken by two different Germanic groups? 71.127.133.169 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Noone has disputed that Gothic and Old Norse were two different but related languages, spoken by two related Germanic groups. But, a), the sentence I removed doesn't belong in Geats, particularly not in the section where it was, and b), your claim that two different languages (Proto Norse/Old Norse and Gothic) were spoken side-by-side in the land of the Geats, i.e. in Scandinavia, as presented in this discussion, is a totally new, very fringe, and very laughable idea. Not supported by any reliable sources. In spite of your claims about it being an "undisputable fact". Thomas.W ^talk 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Up until now you have been arguing as though you dispute everything about the removed content, and now you concede that you do not dispute the factual statement at all and recognize it is true, you just want to shift to a different excuse now for doing away with one of the only factual and undisputed statements in that article. Shifting excuses from one to the next usually suggests there is some other real reason you don't want Gothic language linked or accessible from Geats and even to the point of insisting nobody before me has ever before suggested any relevant connection between the Goths and Scandinavia. Wow. 71.127.133.169 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is shifting, you are. The unsourced sentence I removed, and you repeatedly added back again, has nothing whatsoever to do with that article, and particularly not the section it's in, as I have stated here several times. The other things we have discussed here, such as the ridiculous claim that Old Norse and the Gothic language were spoken side-by-side in Scandinavia, were brought up you, not me. All I have done is to show you how wrong you are. Sheeesh... Thomas.W ^talk 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If I were the first person in the world ever to suggest that Gothic language was spoken in Scandinavia, you might have a leg to stand on with your cries of "original research". The fact is I am clearly not the first person to suggest this, it is not original research, the fact that you might personally disagree with the published scholars who have discussed this possibility is irrelevant to the fact that scholars consider Goths relevant to this topic -- especially considering the factual statement you object to doesn't even state who the "Geats" were, but merely states a common knowledge fact that you even agree to be true -that these known languages were obviously spoken by different groups of people. You are not being in the least reasonable. 71.127.133.169 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why should I be reasonable? This is Wikipedia, here everyone is expected to be able to provide a reliable source for everything that is challenged, except for the most basic things, such as the sky being blue. I've asked for sources for your claim, but you can't provide any, for the simple reason that there are none. I win, you lose, learn to live with it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC) (PS. Only the editor who added that sentence would spend so much energy defending it...)

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

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

Oh, come on, TE, that's not a nice way to talk to a lady. Thomas.W ^talk 20:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'd your page for a week, Thomas. Please let me know if you don't like it. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

It's OK with a week's semi. There have been quite a few IPs and new users posting crap here lately, so it's been protected on and off for quite a while now. I guess that's an unavoidable side effect of my spending most of my time on WP chasing vandals and socks... Thomas.W ^talk 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I might add the "proud grandfather" userbox back again one day, men ett steg i taget... Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I just got as far as "So, since you're clearly a more experienced editor than I am..." and stopped reading to edit here. So we are working in the same area and you speak Swedish! Thats a major plus for editing about Northern Sweden. Don't worry about the edit conflicts or your inexperience (sic). What you could particularly help with is checking the Baggbole article as its about to feature at DYK on the main page. If we can find a reference for every paragraph of your? mansion article then that too can go to the main page. I can add some of the stuff but I cannot find a ref for the stuff that has just been translated from the Swedish wiki. It is 99% probably right but we should find a ref and I would not recognise one in Swedish. Hope you take up the offer of working together.... Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I'll take a look at Baggböle tomorrow, check it paragraph by paragraph, and see what new sources I can find (for both Baggböle and Baggböle manor, because most sources could probably be used in both articles). Thomas.W ^talk 19:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - your new article made me realise that I had mixed up James R Dickson with James Jameson Dickson - a matter which I hope I have fixed. Victuallers (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the correction. The Swedish article said James R:son Dickson, which is, or rather was, a common way of abbreviating patronymic middle names. Right now I'm looking for references for Baggböle manor, and have found a very reliable source that contradicts a small part of what the Swedish WP article said. Which I will of course correct, with reference and all. Thomas.W ^talk 19:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

PT-76

Why PT-76 section that i added deleted? i was copied russian wikipedia. the russian wikipedia is reilable. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%A2-76 , see this. the Object 740 (PT-76) is K-90 prototype tank upgraded version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrqa (talk • contribs)

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

Lord Laitinen

• Regarding my Jaguar XF photo, I understand your opinion. I will not return the picture again, and I will tell you why. You were polite, unlike the other disrespectful users. Perhaps if they had explained their opinion in a nice and polite manner, an edit/revert war would not have happened at all. I truly appreciate your respect. Go with God. Lord Laitinen (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Albanian land forces

Hello there , just writing to inform you that i did undo , one of your edits in the albanian land forces thread . In fact the edits that the user had done were absolutely right . Albania is a NATO member , operating in missions in Afghanistan , previously also Iraq etc.etc. and those APCs and vehicles are an integral part of the albanian armed forces . For more visit the albanian armed forces website or see some videos and photos . Sources will be added by me . Regards , Gjirokastra15 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

DYK for Baggböle Manor

Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Vikings article intro

Re: (Undid revision 613128173 by Pjamescowie (talk) That wasn't "streamlining", but an edit that introduced factual errors: Vikings weren't "knows as" Norsemen, they WERE Norse people)

Evening, Thomas.W: I don't dispute that Vikings WERE / ARE Norse people, nor did my edit today assert otherwise. Contrary to your opinion, therefore, I don't believe that I introduced a factual error into the overly-long introduction for the Viking article. The fact is that in the English-speaking world at least, for good or for bad, 'Vikings' is by far and away the more common designation for Norse seafarers of the 'Viking Age'. My balanced edit simply pointed out that Vikings are also commonly (and alternatively) known as "Norsemen", which - in the English speaking world - is absolutely true. As a result, I don't see what problem you could have had with it. As regards "streamlining", that was my over-riding intent: to prune the extended discussion of Viking / Norse sea-faring technologies within the intro of the Vikings article - this level of detail more properly belongs in the longship article, to which my edit carefully pointed. Paul James Cowie (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pjamescowie: Hello. Before making any more attempts to "streamline" the article please read the discussions on the talk page, including the suggestions there about what ought to be in Vikings and what ought to be in Norsemen. As for the common misconception that Vikings and Norsemen are synonymous, we can't let the misconceptions of "people in general" take over. "Vikings" were only a small subset of the Norse people. Thomas.W ^talk 21:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Peugeot

Re: Peugeot. I changed the right hand column info. to be consistent with the body of the article. All the changes come from info. in the first 10 paragraphs. Why do you sabotage somebody's work without doing your homework first? Do you need to be reported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.206.51 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Replied on IP's talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 18:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious

chasing vandals
Thank you, Thomas, proud for a good reason, for spending most of your "time on WP chasing vandals and socks", for fighting vandalism and misconceptions, for precision in language and linguistic, imagine polychoral praise: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. Such praise almost makes me blush, even at my age... Thomas.W ^talk 09:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with blushing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)