User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Sarah Palin

Please see Talk:Sarah Palin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

I'm gonna poach your agenda userbox! Madcoverboy (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it :) Maybe can form a new secret "agenda" cabal :) Tom (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if we get to endure accusations of having a secret agenda. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your work on Douglas Feith. I had quite given up on the article as an irredeemable mess, but then I saw the way you rolled up your sleeves and dauntlessly plowed into it. All my respect, RayTalk 04:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The funny(not really) thing is you know it will get summarially reverted with some snarky edit summary :) Also, look at the bios of the men that preceeded and suceeded him, its a hoot :) Anyways, I was so tempted to take a chainsaw to the whole thing but thought better :) Anyways, I did a little, but as you suggested at the BLP board, it could use a major rewrite. Anyways, I am done for now :) Cheers and thanks for my 1st Barnstar, whaa whooo!Tom (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously edited articles related to residential colleges at Rice University. There is an RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wassermann

Thanks for letting me know. He's just skirting the edge of a new, lengthy ban. Time will tell if he has finally decided to take WP:BLP seriously or not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tomboy article

This part that you changed is sourced. I do not see why that source has to be right there at the top of the beginning statement for people to see that it is connected to the next sourced line about it, but I went ahead and added it there as well. As you stated on the talk page, there has been much talk about that statement. All that talk about it is why it was left there...because it is a valid statement. I can add better sources to it, though.

I will reply on the Tomboy talk page to your request. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer

Judaism is religion not ethnicity. Being Jewish and pro-Palestinian is a notable characteristic of the subject. Jewish-American but pro-Palestinian is a rare combination in the Is/Pa conflict. "Sponsors" are a secondary source which give the subject added notability. Henry Delforn (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is consensus for inclusion, ok. Otherwise, leave it out of the lead. Also, can we contain this to the article talk page? TIA, --Tom (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just given him a 3RR warning. He doesn't understand what we mean by notability at all. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Not even sure if this article meets notability standards. Editor is blanking his/her talk page and edit warring over including Jewish-American in the lead. I sort of know how this will end. Anyways, will step back for now. --Tom (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your last removal

Since you're taking it quite offensive if someone else removes your edits (in their user space) [no, no need to give a dif as I don't intend to "attack" you at all] you shouldn't do the same on your talk page but rather remove it (if you wish so) with a more neutral edit summary. I guess you will take my comment the wrong way anyway and probably remove my good faith input with a similar edit summary so let me say one more thing: I don't care what the issue is in this case, but I care about your treatment of editors as they seem mostly just based on your mood at the time and it would suit you well if you could change it just a little bit. Honestly. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Its ok to calling trolling trolling. Tom (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Basically you're right but that wasn't a respond to my comment (and I don't expect you to do so and there is no need for). Just think about it; That's all I'm asking for. Anyway (as you like to finish your comments :) ), --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And I believe its... Anyways, Tom (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyways :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting comments

Excuse me, but if you are going to do things like this, you will need to apply that same rule to all "forum-y" comments on that page, including the comment I was responding too that was a bunch of sarcastic crap about Media Matters and Olbermann. Let's not have any sort of double-standard, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any comments that are off topic there. I will take another look as well. Also, please don't speak of double standard as you know you wouldn't allow the type of comment you made to stay on the Obama talk page. Thank you, Tom (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that section, since you decided to be a bit of an ass about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine. Calling me a bit of an ass is not appreciated. Tom (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you were being a bit of an ass about it. Despite WP:FORUM, there is plenty of idle chit chat on talk pages. Singling out my comment in particular was unreasonable. I'm sure your skin is thick enough to cope. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't single out your post. I have that page watchlisted and I do remove quite a bit of blather from talk pages when I see it. Anyways, Tom (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)ps, how thick my skin is doesn't excuse your rudeness.Tom (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reily

Seeing as you were a participant in this discussion earlier, you may wish to know that the criticism page is being looked at again. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out the main article bio. An editor just reverted another editor saying that consesus was reached about including the "widely considered a conservative" material in the lead when it was discussed by 3-4 folks and the lead had been stable for a while? Its pretty laughable at this point. Anyways, Tom (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not A Troll

I'm not a troll, remember no personal attacks and assume good faith right?--E tac (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. Please stop acting like a troll. Thank you. Tom (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a history of similar personal attacks. I am politely asking you to stop this nonsense at once. I am acting in complete good faith and came here to make positive contributions. Feel free to examine my edit history and see for yourself. Drone2Gather (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I will defer to others to review our histories and past judgement, thank you very much, --Tom (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for less than a week and the attitude here is already starting to sicken me, mainly because of remarks such as yours. Drone2Gather (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this project isn't for you then? --Tom (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As Will Smith would say in "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air": "Eeeeeeeee... guess again!" Wikipedia is for everyone. I have the right to defend my point of view just as much as anyone else. You have assumed bad faith from the get-go, as opposed to this policy. The previous incident involved me being unjustly called a vandal, and the editor in question has promptly apologized upon realizing the error. Drone2Gather (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what "previous incident" you are talking about, nor do I care. You say you are a newcomer, which is fine, but then you tenatiously edit war over including ethnicity in the lead sentence of a bio which goes against WP:MOSBIO and goes against the revision of a number of uninvolved editors. Please try to get a hint at this point about not adding "Jewish-American" to bio's lead sentences. Anyways, if you wish me to assume good faith and not bite, stop making whatever point it is and edit constructively, and when a few editors disagree, listen to them and move on. Again, I will try to defer to others and take guidnace from them. --Tom (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am obviously not familiar with each and every policy here. Instead of being welcoming, you are attacking. I was defending my point of view because I was not familiar with WP:MOSBIO. You keep attacking me even after I've gone out of my way to prove I'm not a troll. Is the attitude here "guilty until proven innocent?" Please answer this question.

Generally, in the future I sincerely hope if I'm mistaken again, you and other veteran editors will try to help me by politely quoting the respective policies (I believe here it's called "inline citations") instead of assuming bad faith just because I haven't been here for as long as you have, but have the tendency to edit "tenaciously" because I have certain beliefs. I'll try and keep cool next time. Drone2Gather (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are guilty until proven innocence, what do you think this is, America? j/k :) Seriously, fair enough and good luck in your future travels here. --Tom (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Fingersnowboard.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fingersnowboard.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review For Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

I asked for a deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie. Can you also state an opinion, most of the Rachel Corrie page editors are away taking wiki breaks at the moment. Kasaalan (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Saddleback church article

It was discussed. And the ruling was that as long as they were fair, the fact the term had been connected with he church so publicly made it noticeable enough to place the connection in the article, if done NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.55.19 (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Rice University residential colleges

An active Rice-affiliated editor (AniRaptor2001) came around and saw the light and he and I finished merging all the Rice University residential colleges into Residential colleges of Rice University. However, the natives are getting restless again on talk and I would welcome any input you had so that its not a situation of everyone vs. me. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment about "firsthand knowledge" which I agree with you about. If you need more comment/imput, just let me know. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Rufus Wainwright invitation

This brand new project is looking for members to help improve articles related to Wainwright. Feel free to join! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Supiran

Please be aware that Supiran is the subject of this article and please be more careful when reverting. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I hope you will not think any less of me. I was only trying to help, but it seems I have a lot to learn from the people who have seen it all before. Please accept my contribution as null and void, and I wish you and others the best of luck in trying to resolve the issues (which, admittedly, are in reality very insignificant). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jarry1250, absolutely no need to apologize, seriously. The thing I like about this project is 1)The transparancy, ie. folk's edit history and article history ect. If one is really, really willing to spend the time looking at these histories, alot can be revealed. 2)The "community" usually gets it "right" if enough eyes are involved. Anyways, hopefully I wasn't to gruff and I hope you also enjoy this project and keep chimming in. Nothing can't be undone and no edits will "break" the project and all good faith editors should be welcomed. Best regards, --Tom (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is how I've seen the attitude here so far: assume bad faith, bite the newcomers and most importantly – ignore all positive contributions when (selectively) looking at edit history. I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong so I can become a part of the Wikipedia community, as I am positive of my abilities to constructively contribute to this project. Drone2Gather (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, --Tom (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Replying here instead of there

Hello. As to your question of whether 1027E is Errol Sawyer, I'll respond here because the issue is kind of iffy with the policy toward "outing," although 1027E, who previous used her full name as her username, has been pretty open about who she is - Sawyer's wife/agent. User:Efsawyer is Sawyer himself. But then again, who knows who is editing under what account? One - or both of them - are using other accounts as sockpuppets to edit the article based on the results of the UserCheck I requested.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mbinebri, I think I remember that being the case. Anyways, I am tring to explain things to this user and hopefully this won't grow into more drama than needed. As long as a few eyes are around it hopefully will end well :) Cheers and good luck! --Tom (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

As a participant in the RfC, this is to inform you that Brendan19 has recently filed a request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. --Tom (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Generation Jones

An article that you have been involved in editing, Generation Jones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A. Yager (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Generation Jones

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Generation Jones. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Tom (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Old edit

I am curious why you removed Russell Weiner's middle name from his article. Ironiridis 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, not sure why. Maybe it was added by an ip without a citation? Not sure. Anyways, if Weiner's middle name is sourceable, please feel free to add it into the article. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Levin

Look, I don't mind categories being removed and potentially difficult factoids being {{fact}}-tagged because they don't correspond to verifiable material in the article -- even though at least the categories do correspond to well-known facts. I don't particularly mind that because I am well aware of the prerequisites of WP:BIO and WP:BURDEN etc.

But maybe it's going to worry you at least a tiny little bit to learn that I was half-expecting you to revert after my recent edit (my very first to the article, just in case you were wondering).

Could we at least agree that the material from the People.com article would warrant some kind of mention in the Harvey Levin article, especially in conjunction with other available articles that mention similar utterances by Baldwin about Levin regarding that particular matter? 84.44.249.40 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. What are the other sources? How is this "material" going to be worded? What is the "context" and is their "rebutal" from Levin? Can I suggest crafting something on the talk page before inclusion? Again, my opinion is that this "material" is more related to the subject's TV show and I am still not sure if it has risen to the level worthy of inclusion in his bio. Anyways, I will take this to the talk page. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright controversy: Durban conference

Hi, on the talk you started here, I want to let you know: I merged it somehow with another talk on the same sentence. If I disturbed your talk there doing so, please let me know for a damage-control. If not: hope you can enjoy my adding. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems. --Tom (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO: At the moment there are two discussions in the same tread (simply said: from your an from my initial remarks). I hope I can keep them apart (trying to). I think there are (our) two reasons to drop the text, each valid in itself. I will pick up your line separately, mixing seems disturbing to others. No limiting any of you own thoughts and actions intended. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. --Tom (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Kate Gosselin

Hey there...In regards to your revert of the edit I made re. an upcoming announcement of her divorce, don't you think it's relevant as far as her show, which is the primary reason for her notability? The show is about her family and her marriage, and this announcement will change the show drastically. Cactusjump (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news or a crystal ball. Why not wait until there is something concrete so it can be evaluated? Then, the community can make a decision as to its inclusion. Anyways, maybe we should take this to the talk page? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I see the point. No worries. Cactusjump (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here :) --Tom (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Ethnic Identification

• Why are you removing the ethnicity of Puerto Rican and Dominican-Americans from their bios? I find this a bit selective. Why arent you doing this to Italian-Americans,German-Americans, etc?--XLR8TION (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you kidding! I have been "doing" this to 1,000s of bios for many years now. I was about to drop you a note so we could avoid the back and forth. Please see WP:MOSBIO. Ethnicity does not go in the lead sentence. Its fine to add it under family, early life, ect. The lead refers to nationality. If the person was born outside the US then moved here, its a bit more tricky and I have tries not to edit those articles. Also, if the person holds dual nationality, that too need to be sourced and then included. Anyways, hope this answers your comment and hopefully we can reach agreement. If not, then maybe we should get more uninvolved eyes to chime in. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Removal of Ancestry

I have answered in my talk page. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good! It is agreed that "ethnicity" will not be mentioned in the intro. even though it can be mentioned within the article. It is great when a discussion can be settled in a civil level-headed manner as you both have done. If any of you ever need my advice please do not hesitate to ask. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony the Marine, I believe that is what I have been saying since the jump :) You do mention on your talk page that its ok to to say the person is American of xzy descent in the lead which had me confused?? I have no problem with ethnicity in the article, just not in the lead sentence unless it relates to their notability, anyways, hopefully that was just a misunderstanding? Anyways, not that huge a deal, and thanks for the replies, cheers! --Tom (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Now that I think of it, I also agree with in that ethnicity should not be mentioned in the intro., within the article is fine. It has been a real pleasure interacting you on this subject. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Likwise, cheers, --Tom (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Leighton Meester

I updated all of the Leighton Meester "early life" source links. You should not have removed all the information in her early life section. Her mother being in prison and her brothers are all relevant and pertinent to her early life, in addition to all having valid sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonori47 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure about relevance and sources. Anyways, can we continue this at the article talk page? I have started a section there. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

American Jews

You appear to be systematically deleting Category:American Jews and other similar categories from people who are obviously Jewish such as Lawrence Summers, Larry Page, and John Landis. Please stop this practice immediately. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually only do that if ethnicity is not covered in the bio. If it is covered in the bio and I removed it in error I apologize and feel free to revert as long as it is sourced. Adding any material to this project because it is obvious is problematic to say the least. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ps I guess you missed where I had to add ethnicity back into an article? --Tom (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

pss, using the article talk page is also useful, just a thought. --Tom (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I contacted you not because you are not applying the same standard to all ethnicities. You appear to be fixating on American Jews. --GHcool (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

They are the most fun :) Seriously, I do my "runs" on a number of different ethnicities. It seems that adding "Jewish-American" to leads of bios is pretty common and never ending around here. Whatever the reason for this, I revert on sight. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ps, look two threads up where Puretoricans got there "turn" :) --Tom (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Hey Tom, you seem to be asking the right questions about the Matt Sanchez article. I worked on the article early on and I dont' think there is another piece on here where bias has been so strong in either direction. The piece needs work and the subject is in the news lately. Not sure how you were drawn to the article in the first place, but you might consider working on it. I am reprinting my earlier comments that I left on the talk page.

There's an issue here, Tom, that is not being addressed. Marine Corps Times and Navy Times, both of which are weekly newspapers published by Gannett Corporation are all minor niche publications. Sanchez is now more notable as a writer for Foxnews.com or even Worldnetdaily, where he hasn't published for some time (as far as I can tell it's been since early this year.) Matt Sanchez is also a common face on the Fox News Strat Room a place I first saw him as one of the military commentators. I, frankly, don't think he is known as a pornstar or even notable as a pornstar. From the fighting I have seen on this board and (check out the archives that go WAY back a couple of years). There is a concerted effort to portray Matt Sanchez in a pornified image. It's silly when Horologium refers to The Advocate (a biased source just by the name) and Keith Olbermann when we're dealing with a guy who is on the most watched news network in the US FNS and the TV5MONDE is the fourth largest global television network available around the world after the BBC, CNN and MTV.[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.66.157 (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing?

You can't remove comments from a discussion page. Dumaka (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If the comments are not related to improving the article, then they can and should be removed. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello and good day. What's wrong with this? The source is OK. It also has a link to the official website of Israel's foreign ministry which repeats the story. PLEASE PLEASE don't say I am a jew supporter or whatever! I just reffered to that site because it was a source. Plus everybody saw Neda's father on the TV saying "foreign agents killed her daughter". While he was outside the country when she was killed, howcome he discovered who has killed Neda? What kind of sources do you need? Regards, --Breathing Dead (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RS. An english language source is best so all english reading editors can review it. Good luck and please do not take this personally since it is not meant that way. Also, maybe try the article talk page and see what others think, Cheers! --Tom (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The persian source is quite reliable. However I couldn't find any english sources. Hence, I leave the article untouched since the tragedy is horrible enough which doesn't need anymore reasons to show the level of brutality of these Islamic terrorists who I and my people unfortunately have to deal with them everyday. Regards, --Breathing Dead (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Glen Beck

There is a discussion on that page you might be interested in. Bytebear (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have returned and posted responses on Talk:Glenn Beck and Talk:Cleon Skousen. I may not be able to put forth anything else until next week, though. --Hardindr (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am back as well :). Anyways, --Tom (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve Beren - previously resolved link farm issue

Tom, hope all is well with you. About 3 months ago, you raised an issue about a "link farm" on the Steve Beren wikipedia page. The farm, as it were, developed gradually over time - primarily in response to suggestions that the original (long ago) article was not sufficiently sourced. Also, negative links were deliberately added to provide more balance - not that the original article was biased necessarily, but some people thought it might be. Anyway, shortly after you raised the link farm issue, I went on to the page myself and did my best to sincerely and reasonably address the link farm issue. I think I did so properly, and probably if you look at it now you will agree. But since you asked that the "link farm" tag not be removed, I of course left it up - that was wholly appropriate. But at this point I suggest the link farm tag be removed. What is your opinion, Tom? All the best to you. - Steve Beren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.18.249 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

German American Politicians -- Category Deletion Discussion now at ...

[1] --Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WB

Hey, welcome back, hope you enjoyed your break! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi KC, thank you, yes it was very enjoyable. I think everybody should take time off from this project from time to time to recharge and put things into perspective as it were. Anyways, I am back and hopefully more mellow :). I feel like hopefully over the years I have become more tolerant and even-keeled and a positive to this project but I am sure others would disagree :) I guess time will tell :). Anyways, cheers and thanks again! --Tom (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Aja (pornographic actress)

Which part of WP:EL are you using to justify removing the archived Luke Ford interview link? Not saying it might not be justified, just asking which part; specificity is always helpful! That interview was the source for the religion info you removed as unsourced, BTW. Шизомби (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that EL/site is only indirectly related to the subject of the bio(#13) as opposed to to say her personal web site, ect. Maybe use that EL/link as a citation for the material you wish to readd to the article regarding her religion, ect? Anyways, maybe add this discussion to the article talk page so others can comment/correct me if I am wrong which is about 1/3 of the time :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

jimbo wales article

WTF are you doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRAZY SCIENTIST (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not much. You? --Tom (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. Your wikibreak did do you some good! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, at least I am smiling :) so hopefully you are right. Anyways.....--Tom (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks that way from here, and I am glad to see it, rather than the somewhat frustrated posts you were posting a bit before your break. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schiff is jew

Sorry but I have dynamic IP, access to thousands of web proxies, skills in Javascript and PHP to write bot that will take care of that article and passion for truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.101.182.250 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not impressed in the least. Also, my personal will trumps your proxies, skills in Javascript and PHP(whateverthehellthatis) every day of the week :) (or the page can be protected). Seriously, don't you have anthing better to do? I know I am going to go play golf and guzzle bear for awhile. How are the golf courses over there in Russia? Cheers! --Tom (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to impress you. I want you to know that you can't hide the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.101.182.250 (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

hide the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!...just kidding....dude, at this point I think everybody and his monkey's uncle know's that Schiff is Jewish, or that you want that known. Rather than edit warring, find a reliable source and add it to the talk page. I would be more than willing to work it into the article under family background ect and then we can all move onto bigger and better things. Is that doable? If not, then we are nearing the finish line with this "business". --Tom (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that he is Jewish when I saw him first time. I think many people want to know what his ethnicity is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.36.186.157 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tila Tequila#Vietnamese American

Thank you for your support in this discussion. Although the discussion is long since over, and it has been shown by the majority of editors of that page, that they do not seek a citation/reference of her legal residence or citizenship, that does not mean that the support is not appretiated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Tom (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Crusade against external links ?

Hello 3after3, nice to meet you. I have noticed that you have been following my edits the last day or so and removing those external links that I add to articles. Of note these are not my own personal websites, and always belong to reputable news organizations and websites. I am familiar with the unfortunately vague Wp:EL, and thus don't see how many of these clearly violate this policy. If you are the only one that removes those links that I add and not others, then it becomes even more clear that they potentially are not a violation, but perhaps ones that you don't like or part of an overall preference on your part against most EL's to begin with (which is your prerogative, but short of an official policy against all EL's it doesn't seem collaborative). Additionally, I feel like you should have messaged me about the links if you felt they were in violation (could have saved me the time), rather than merely shadowing my edits and removing them behind me. You are obviously a veteran wikipedian (as I am), and I guess that is why I find your lack of letting me know to be out of character for a veteran of the project considering the fact that I am not a troll, vandal, spammer etc. Let me know what you think.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Redthoreau, like you said, the ELs you are adding might not be gross violations, but adding clearly paritsan blogs, not reputable news organizations as you put it, that are not directly related to the material per say does not improve the article but promotes an agenda. I will probably need to seek clarification. Thank you. --Tom (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Attack?

I have no idea why you seem to consider my allusion to you claiming to have founded Wikipedia in 2001 a personal attack. You really might want to check your own user page - either you are Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger in disguise, or you are temporary delusional (or drunk)(or stoned) when editing your user page, or you have a security problem with your wikipedia password. Choose your poinson.... but, still, I think you might want to fix that. Wefa (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands

I noticed that you lived on the Cape and Islands. I don't know if you know that there is a project encompassing the Cape. If you are interested on joining, click on this link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom, You raised a question on the Quaker discussion page with regard to Richard Nixon about whether a person can claim CO status based on one's parents Quaker affiliation. I'm a Quaker pastor and have an interest in counselling with regards to CO status. As of today, Aug. 2009, there is legally no draft, so legally no specific grounds for claiming CO status. Generally you have to make the case that your objection to war is based on your religious beliefs, and yes, the Quakers meet that criteria. However we counsel young people (just in case a draft is instituted) that they need some documentation to show they've adopted those beliefs for themselves. I've held CO workshops and incorporated my attendance lists into the Meeting's legal minutes for this purpose. I would doubt that claiming one's parents as Quakers would work. 96.230.96.49 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleon Skousen article

You were involved earlier on the Talk page for the Cleon Skousen article reagrding edits I had made. I have created a Sandbox for changes I would like to make. Your input on the talk page, if you are interested, would be appreciated. --Hardindr (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Chorost

Why did you object to the category Cyborg for Mr Chorost? Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that it was properly sourced. I will take it to the article talk page. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Question re: Fox/FAQ

I noticed you changed the FAQ from "Many" to "Some". Last time I was here, there was a discussion and general agreement to use the language "Many", and that's why I changed the FAQ to reflect that discussion. If it's changed that's fine, I'm just trying to see where you are coming (since I don't see any additional discussion) and to avoid any possible edit war. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That FAQ probably needs a relook since some of the discussions might not be as current. Regarding the "Some vs Many", that part of the FAQ could probably be rewritten per the last discussion. Not sure how to summarize it. It seems that a few biased editors changed that over a month or so and declared consensus. For the lead, that probably could use more input it seems. Anyways, I will take this to the talk page. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I noticed your recent vigilent work in reversing the fringe/POV pushing at the Latham & Watkins article. A SPA has been altering the article, and I happened to notice your work in reverting it. Thanks for the earnest effort, best wishes on your future editing! —Finn Casey * * * 05:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The more non involved eyes there the better. Hopefully going forward, only well sourced material, from main stream reliable sources, will be added to the article, but of course we will see. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)