Talk:Internal Security Operations Command

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV template without ongoing discussion per [[Template:POV]] instructions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Internal Security Operations Command. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170222111120/http://www.bb.go.th/budget_book/e-Book2560/FILEROOM/CABILIBRARY60/DRAWER01/GENERAL/DATA0000/%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%93%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%87%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%9B%202017-Eng.pdf to http://www.bb.go.th/budget_book/e-Book2560/FILEROOM/CABILIBRARY60/DRAWER01/GENERAL/DATA0000/%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%93%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%87%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%9B%202017-Eng.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111105130053/http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/25/national/national_30011902.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/25/national/national_30011902.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104175411/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/25/headlines/headlines_30011945.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/25/headlines/headlines_30011945.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303180101/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/30/headlines/headlines_30015051.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/30/headlines/headlines_30015051.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303175605/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/14/national/national_30029259.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/14/national/national_30029259.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first paragraph has this text: (Thai: กองอำนวยการรักษาความมั่นคงภายในราชอาณาจักร; RTGS: kong am nuai kan raksa khwam man khong phai nai )
The text in the RTGS transliteration doesn't match the Thai text (which is correct, according to the Thai wiki article), it's missing the ราชอาณาจักร part (which makes the meaning different, nor just vague, from "within the kingdom" to "on the inside")
Also, from checking the RTGS page, it seems words with multiple syllables shouldn't have spaces between them, which seems to be implemented inconsistently? Considering that, the correct transliteration should be "kong amnuaikan raksa khwam mankhong phai nai rachaanachak"
Is this something that's specific to wikipedia? Or should this be fixed as I've mentioned here?
TG977 (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The end was truncated, probably by mistake, in this edit. I've fixed that (Cc: Seligne). Yes, the spacing issue is treated pretty much inconsistently, partly because it's not always clear what constitutes word boundaries in Thai. มั่น (man) and คง (khong) are individual words, which combine to form มั่นคง (mankhong), but ความ (khwam) is a combining prefix, so should ความมั่นคง be khwammankhong? The same goes for กองอำนวยการ, etc. (Capitalisation is another question, as proper nouns should generally be capitalised as in English, but is the RTGS representation of a Thai name itself considered a proper noun?) --Paul_012 (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTGS transliteration in first paragraph doesn't match Thai name