User talk:Threeafterthree: Difference between revisions

Welcome.......

Do YOU know what the word outwith means???

Tom's Archives
December 7th, 2005 – May 16th, 2006 May 17th, 2006 – July 24th, 2006 July 25th, 2006 – August 31st, 2006 Sept 1st, 2006 – April 19th, 2007 April 20th, 2007 – August 10th, 2007 August 11th, 2007 – September 17th, 2008 September 18th, 2008 – November 20th, 2008 November 21st, 2008 – xx/xx/xx

Unfortunately, after so many attempts to get you to stop deleting this material, I don't see any other practical course of action other than to seek administrative action. Please be advised I have requested that you be blocked from editing the Palin article due to your ongoing and repeated deletions. Sorry it had to come to this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker atyourservice, why don't we seek some type of dispute resolution rather than this? --Tom 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At no time have you given any indication that you were amenable to discussion or compromise. You have simply deleted it over and over and over again. Even while "seeking comment" in an RFC you have just continued to delete the material. Frankly, I only have limited time to edit Wikipedia and cannot afford to waste time in arbitration with someone who is simply trying to toss out roadblocks with no intention of stopping the problematic behavior. Your conduct has warranted blocking multiple times, and I have let it slide -- and the result has just been more work for me, undoing your continued deletions. On top of that, we held discussion on this for weeks and all you really said was "this goes in the Fannon bio" while repeatedly deleting it. It's disingenuous to now claim that you seek discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that we should get others involved, especially dis-interested parties if possible. --Tom 20:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Seek and ye shall find" did not work for FCays. Per Mr. Connolley : Many of the edits that you adduce as evidence of misdeed predate the consensus you point to. No vio. This is a content dispute; both sides are reverting and are equally liable to block. Your consensus can be re-opened; sorry if thats frustrating. Further discussion on the article talk, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC) " Collect (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that you are edit warring at Sarah Palin, and if necessary, you may be blocked to stop the disruption. Note that edit warring does not include exceptions for being "right", so that is no defense of your actions. Stop repeatedly reverting the article, and instead use the talk page to work out your differences. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron32, I have tried to use the talk page with very little success. I have also tried a RFC. Could you please suggest other dispute resolutions? Thanks, --Tom 18:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You never use the discussion page for discussion. You just keep repeating the same stuff about a non-existent Fannon page. You talk about discussion just for show.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is meaningless when you continue deleting the material you are seeking comment on. I also want to point out that when you say you "tried" the talk page, you simply stated your brief opinion over and over while deleting the entire section yourself, ignoring the discussion the rest of us engaged in, and ignoring the compromise the rest of us reached -- which you have been deleting ever since. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker, you keep repeating that consensus was reached and the archives just don't support that. --Tom 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which archive? And is any archive more current than the fact that the issue seemed to be settled until recently?71.225.223.143 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I pointed out which archives on the talk page. --Tom 22:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the layout guidelines would require removal of the section. I'm not a regular editor on the article and saw it on my watchlist. I figured I'd ask you if there's been a change in policy or what the scoop was in regards to the revert. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramsquire, the 1st entry is listed above the lead and is unneccessary. The 2nd entry should be worked into the article if relevant. I will review this and use the talk page. Unfortunately, a bad faith editor, not you, doesn't like my editing so. --Tom 13:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response here [1].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a look at WP:CAT but did not see an obvious reason why the categories you removed were unacceptable. Please explain. ► RATEL ◄ 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how reinserting clear personal attacks onto a talk page does anything to help improve the encyclopedia?--AniMate 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AniMate, I reverted comments removed by another editor. I didn't think these were really that bad, but the editor who wrote them actually deleted them him/herself, which is better. I agree that personal attacks and off topic blather should be removed from talk pages since they are not open forums for whatever. Anyways, no biggie. --Tom 14:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This text is in the public domain, so I simply copied it here from the website of the Library of Congress. I don't think it needs changes. Squash Racket (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squash, I certainly don't want to get involved in a content dispute in this article since I know zip about it(even though that usually doesn't slow me down) I was more trying to copy edit for neutrality and readability of the text. I do not believe I radically changed the emphasis of the material since that was not my intent. Anyways, again, I have no "side" on this since I know zippo about the facts or the "truth". Cheers! --Tom 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use the short time I have, trying to make you aware of not interfering with other editors comments on talk pages. Surely you can do whatever you want on yours, no questions ask. Gosh, do you need some more cookies? I'll provide them for you if you need them (to also stay on good terms with each other as long as you want to and aren't just looking for competition or such...  :) . Regards from --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Will write you more about the previous "non-issue" when I'm fully back.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey The Magnificent Clean-keeper, is there a specific difference you are talking about? If people post general commentary or attackful posts, or off topic nonsense ect, I will remove them since talk pages are not just forums where anything goes. Please see WP:TALK. I usually try to give quite a bit of slack in this area because one man's attack can be another man's praise or something like that? Anyways, --Tom 22:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response here [2].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war on these, per WP:BRD. I looked at the changes you made, accepted a large number of them, and selectively reverted or changed those that do not make sense. Obviously I do not agree with a number of your edits. The process should be to discuss and understand, not to revert-in changes. I don't think the end result of a thoughtful process on article construction would be to replace all specific statements of residency and fields of endeavor with simple statements of the nation of citizenship. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS seems pretty clear on this unless Iam missing something. The lead should include nationality and what the person is notable for. After that, you can get into "smaller" details, but this seems to be generally accepted for bios. Maybe take this to the MOS board or to the biography board for other imput? --Tom 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be edit warring across multiple articles on this point, to insert edits that do not have a consensus. On several of those articles (e.g. this one[3][4][5] you are at WP:3RR and risk a policy violation by continued reverting. Please stop, as asked. As an experienced editor I hardly need to tell you this, but if you continue to edit war you are subject to a short block to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see you have reverted to 3RR on all of your proposed edits. I will ask you to self-revert and take it to the talk page, in some centralized place if need be. Otherwise I am going to take this to AN/I as disruption. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this be discussed at biographies board and will do that. --Tom 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert. If you don't, I will at some point pending a resolution - when editors disagree you shouldn't try to get your way on Wikipedia by simply being the most apt to edit war.Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a sec, I am trying to post to the biographies board, thanks, --Tom 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this. I should also post on the MOS page. --Tom 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see it. You've noticed a dispute but not started a discussion. It's not a BLP issue, and the question is how to word specific articles rather than what MOS should be. Again, please restore the articles to their previous version and wait for consensus when your edits are challenged. Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted here. Hopefully others will chime in.--Tom 19:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Wikidemon, since you are the one who disagrees with the intention of MOSBIO, you should gain consensus for your version of the articles it seems. --Tom 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for who has the "right" version I contend that mine are clearly superior in the cases I reverted. I can stand back too and proclaim that you are the one who has a problem with our encyclopedic standards but such talk is pointless. You are proposing a disputed mechanical mass edit to a series of articles I have worked on that have been stable for some time. You therefore need consensus to make your changes and should not edit war to put your version in place. You have set up as a fait accompli by bullying in your edits then telling me I am supposed to gather consensus to override you. As such the premise of your dispute notice is off, and I do not accept that as a proper attempt at dispute resolution. I will wait a while, perhaps a day, before restoring the stable versions. Those stay unless you gain consensus for a change. Use proper dispute resolution channels and not edit war further on them or this becomes a behavioral issue on your part, not a matter of article style. Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on a notice board and the MOSBIO talk page. What other dispute resolution forums should we use? --Tom 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have advised you against edit warring on these articles. If you continue, I will report you to WP:AN/I and you will probably be blocked from editing to avoid disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted any of the articles that we were going back and forth on. --Tom 21:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are stalking and harassing me at this point. And yes, you have just expanded your edit war by reverting on yet more articles.[6][7][8][9][10][11] I am preparing an AN/I report rather than engaging you in edit warring. Stop now and self-revert your disruptive edits, if you do not wish to be blocked. Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have not responded to the above, I have filed an AN/I report at WP:AN/I#User:Threeafterthree in hopes that will stop you from edit warring on these bio articles. I hope and trust you will not continue to edit war while the administrators sort this out. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Providence meetup is today. The plan is to try to meet between about 4-6pm and we'll be ordering pizza around 5pm. Note, that I will be there during the entire 1-8pm, and anyone is welcome to stop by, but I thought a more specific time might make it easier for people to plan attending. See the talk page for more info and discussion. --mikeu ^talk 13:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=GD it!! I totally forgot :(. I had it on my calander at work and then I completly forgot about it! Crap! Oh well, hopefully you had a good time and hopefully I can catch one in the future. Cheers! --Tom 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand your concern. The rule is basically in place to allow the dispute resolution process to take its course. I recommend taking advantage of our available avenues: Third Opinion or Request for Comment. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably do that. Its too bad when editors tag team and claim talk page consensus when non actual exists as is the case here. Anyways, --Tom 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought I could engage him openly and try and settle down the attacks being fired off, but I suspect you're right. At least anarchangel has seemed to calm down a little bit, but I suspect this is just a brief respite before he continues his edit warring.LedRush (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. Cheers, --Tom 20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made this edit, claiming the material isn't supported by the cite. Yet it clearly is supported by the cite. What gives? Can you please explain yourself? You must be aware that you are deleting a paragraph that was added after weeks of discussion and compromise, and you are entering into a new dispute. Yet the claim that the material is not supported by the cite has not yet been raised in talk. If you believe that to be the case can you explain that in talk? Thank you. csloat (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I replied on the talk page of the article; thank you for contributing there. I'm hoping we can reach resolution on this, but removal of the material completely is not acceptable. I am happy to accept any rewording that brings the text closer to what is in the linked articles (in fact, I would prefer direct quotes). csloat (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've opened a discussion about whether the lede sentence in Michelle Malkin should label her as a "conservative" at Talk:Michelle_Malkin. For once, I disagree with you, so please go there and tell me if I'm wrong. (Perhaps the problem is related to the word "conservative", which in US politics means "advocate of change based on traditional values" more than "opposed to all change".)

BTW, you might want to change the Wiktionary link at the top of this page to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/outwith (instead of .../Outwith).

Cheers, CWC 15:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CWC, I will check out the MM talk page and join in there. I personally hate "labeling" individuals in the lead unless absolutely neccessary. How are most other bios handled, both liberal and conservative?? This isn't the biggest deal in the world so I should probably defer to others. I will also check on my talk page about outwith :) Cheers and happy New Years! --Tom 15:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemoe. --Tom 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I am not being cute but...does that mean just "I made an edit." or does it mean "I changed the wording but intended the meaning to stay the same." or ? If this is a silly question, my apologies, but it just isn't obvious to me. Thanks in advance for any response. :)sinneed (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sinneed, I have my preferences set so I always need to use an edit summary. I use "ce"(yes, copyedit) as my "simplest" or "default" edit summary when I make an edit that I feel doesn't materially change the article but is more changing a word or phrase or whatever. Since you ask, I could probably use "better" or "more accurate" summaries but I'll admitt that I am sometimes lazy about it. I feel that about 1/2 of my editing is copy editing but a good New Year's resolution would be to use better edit summaries. Also, a review of WP:COPYEDIT tells me that I should also say WHAT ce I made. Actually, thanks for the comment since it does remind me that I should use "better" or more accurate edit summaries going forward and not just "cop"yedit "out" with "ce" :) Cheers! --Tom 04:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I am not sure you need to use the more longwinded summary very much for edits of that sort...Wikipedia needs literally millions of them. Pros and cons to everything. Thanks for the reply. I should have said "Please feel free to reply here, I'll check back.". All the best! :) sinneed (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What does "meh" mean by the way, I've seen it before but never asked? Also, I patrol the BLP board so that is why I ended up at Polanski. I agree that "child rapist" or whatever does not belong in the lead sentence but in the lead section as it currently is. --Tom 04:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)ps, its five minutes till midnight here on the East coast so I am off to bed. I never stay up for New Years :) Cheers! --Tom 04:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I consider it a verbal shrug. IRL I use it and "Hrmmmm." to indicate that I am thinking or undecided or to exaggerate the act of pausing to think. I find I think more slowly than other people, and if I just stare into space they think I have died or dropped into a coma or something (not quite but they get impatient).sinneed (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I didn't know what outwith meant. Fun. I shared that one with my spouse. sinneed (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see, that makes perfect sense. The "stare" into space is funny :) My wife actually does that sometimes and I find that my daughter also does it sometimes(sort of freaky), so we call it the "Vartanian" stare for her maiden name :). Cheers,--Tom 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the best, and Happy New Year. sinneed (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert Eric Wone, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone. Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, --Tom 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like your edit. Collect actually fought against calling him a "former plumber" at one time. Let's see if he leaves it alone. You have my full endorsement to fight for it. You might want to change the infobox as well for accuracy. The Sarah Palin article has similar language on her former broadcasting career if you need an example of how's it been done on Wikipeida. Mattnad (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was more trying to change how the article read... was called a plumber during the campaign which was awkward and not totally acurate to say the least. I don't really have a dog in this so I will watch and jump in if necessary. Collect has been helpful on the Palin article. I don't know the history on JTP and probably don't want to. Cheers! --Tom 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your input on a RFC taking place on the Keith Olbermann talk page. Thanks. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLease read the Gimpelevich article before reverting.Galassi (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its in English I will take a look. I am no expert on this material and don't even know what the "truth" is about this. Its more about the use of POV terms like "considerable" or "widely", ect terms. Sources should specifically say this or its open to interpretation or POV. --Tom 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you damaged the references. I revert back to where the reference section wasn't damaged. You always have to be careful and peek at the reference section after you hit "save page" or use the "show preview" button first. It is very easy to damage the reference structure with a misplaced bracket, or an unclosed ref tag. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I use the preview button about 1/4 of the time to be honest. If that was what you were reffering to, then I apologize. I thought you were referring to my edits as damaging, not messing up the ref list :) Anyways, if there are any edits of mine that you have an issue with, please let me know so we can work it out either here, or preferrable on the article talk page so others can chime in as needed. Cheers! --Tom 17:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Olbermann thing is being discussed on the Bernard Goldberg talk page. Do you have anything to add? Mark Shaw (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just responded there. Your point about O'Donnell is spot on. Of course we don't include criticism from individuals who have a clear bone to pick(sorry the pun) unless that connection is clearly spelled out and put into context. Bios are suppose to be NPOV from 3rd party sources, not anything goes muckracking. Anyways, no biggie, --Tom 14:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be following me. Keep up the * work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleSBernard (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking? Thats a little strong :). If an artilce/bio does not make mention of a person's religion or ethnicity, please do not add a corresponding category about such to the bio. Pretty simple it seems. Also, can you please sign your posts with four(4) tildes(~)? Thank you, --Tom 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I plan on going through more throughly the Jewish Journalists today or tomorrow and adding a couple hundred or so to the category. I will stick to only those whose religion is already mentioned in the article - as I think I did for all but David Shuster. I understand this is probably a personal issue with you, and you perceive it as antisemitism but the category clearly asks for help in populating it, and I did NOT create the category or add the request for populating it. So far you and other users have not brought the discussion to the category, you have instead reverted my tags. Thanks MichelleSBernard (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, if a person's religion or ethnicity is already mentioned in the article, then its not a big deal to me to add the appropriate category. Some editors do not agree and they can speak for themselves. This really isn't a personal issue with me since I truly try to leave my POV at the door and actually "err" if anything counter towards my own beliefs and background when editing here. I am a deletionist/minimalist/removal of unsourced materialist for the record. Anyways, I try to assume good faith until there is clear evidence to the contraire, which I haven't seen yet. The category talk page would actually be a good place to discuss this and let folks know your intentions. Anyways, --Tom 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding a category that really isn't the correct one. If you know the person's nationality then it belongs there, not just "Jewish Journalist". This is not good. Another editor went around adding "jewish businessmen" to 100s of bios and ended up crashing and burning. Is there a point you are trying to make? Does this help. Again, before adding a category to tons of bios, I would gain concensus that it is helpful and proper so a lot of work is saved. --Tom 18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The category already exists. I am simply adding the tag to people who are members of the category. The point that I am trying to make is to do work to make wikipedia more complete. During the recent Gaza War I came here looking for a list of Jewish Journalists. I found that category, and the Category said that it needs work to be populated. I did work to help populate it. Thats all. MichelleSBernard (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was discussed before, maybe I am wrong, that there was/is a category Jewish-American Journalists, which would be more specific. Anyways, this is a can of worms that I am sure others will know more about and will chime in shortly. I will probably have to bring this to one of the many boards that cover this type of editing pattern, Anyways, I will still assume good faith, but would suggest that we get others to imput in order to save alot of time in effort. If consensus is with you fine, but if not, then will see. --Tom 19:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I obviously disagree with your viewpoint. Please inform me what boards you posts to and I will be glad to follow whatever consensus is reached there. MichelleSBernard (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Will do, --Tom 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me posted also as I had a similar discussion. Thanks -- Econewbie (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left messages at two users who have tons of experience on this and will await their replies. No problem, --Tom 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this discussion to 2 users who have an obvious Zionist bent is not the same as bringing the discussion to a neutral discussion board. You are basically self-selecting the jury to come up with the outcome that you want. In that case I would not honor the decisions of those 2 users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleSBernard (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to suggest two admins without a "Zionist bent" that would be fine with me. What are we arguing about again? --Tom 00:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't care to. But you suggested that we bring this to a neutral platform. Who do you select as neutral? Well you select a guy who has a posting that suggests we delete all lists that categorize Jewish people. [[12]] Yeah, great neutrality there. I wonder what position he will take? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleSBernard (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears this subject has been brought up before, and the argument favored in your proposal failed to gain consensus [[13]] So please refrain from de-listing people when there are references in the article to support that the person is a Jewish Journalist. Thanks, Michell, I will consider it to be vandalism, and I will to steps to report that vandalism to admins. MichelleSBernard (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Tom. MichelleSBernard, I've removed the insertions of this category from biographies of living people where it is was unsourced. Please do not return the categories to the articles unless you have proper sourcing for it, in the article itself. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Jayjg. MichelleSBernard, as I pointed out, as long as the category is sourced in the body of the article, I don't have a real problem with it. Hopefully this is resolved, but time will tell. --Tom 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

In the article snowmobile you took out the genericized trademark "Ski Doo", the first mass production of this kind, but you left snowmachine and snowsled whitout asking for justifications. This is equivalent to say that Kleenex is not often used for paper tissue but that it can be called locally some obscur name. You have to be logical : either you leave the most common and obvious OR you take all the local names out.

Pierre cb (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pierre, I am currently trying to figure out additions to Jewish Journalists and need to head to a pee wee hockey game momentarily so let me check this out in a few. My biggest gripe would be with what RS say. Do you have a source that says something like what you want in the article ie, Snowmobile are commonly referred to as Ski Doos or whatever the verbage was? I ended up at that article due to the Palin spotlight on them, so I am no expert. Again, I will look into the kleenex comparison and advise. Thank you! --Tom 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a ref. that I've inputted. Pierre cb (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back from hockey. I will have to check this out. How do other articles about products that have genericized trademarks treat them? Like Hot tub? Again, I would leave this out of the lead. I wonder if there is a wiki guideline about this? Sorry to ask, but have too at this point, but do you have any COI with this article? Also, is it really that important to have this material in the lead and not durther down? Many questions and such few time. Cheers, --Tom 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look at the article genericized trademark, most of the products do not use the trademark name in the lead. Would you be open to moving it out of the lead sentence? Also, I will probably take this to the article talk page so others can comment. I will not revert for now but try to get others involved. --Tom 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)ps see Gelatin dessert, it is in the lead but not the first sentnece. This might be the best compromise. Thoughts? --Tom 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have nothing personally against taking this out of the lead but all mentions to local alternative names must be taken out too. Already, I have simplified sometime ago this part as some IP or users had put a larger number of them and were adding the region of use of each term. Pierre cb (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Pierre, that sounds pretty reasonable. I might try to take a shot at rewriting the lead to define snowmobile in the first sentence and then in the second sentence cover the "alternate" names. --Tom 14:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good compromise, leaving out Same-Sex Marriage as a "see also" but keeping Homophobia. I accepted that with just a few seconds thinking, seing how that was just right. So... Good diplomacy and compromising there. Just wanted to tell you :) Dendlai (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I actually posted to the talk page as well. I understand why people might link to homophobia, but I could also understand why not to include it since it might wrongly imply that people for Prop 8 are homophobs, not saying that some couldn't or wouldn't be. Anyways, will wait to see what others think. Cheers! --Tom 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I reverted at Layout; I hope I understand what you were trying to do. I think you meant to signal that WP:EL is a shortcut that will take a person to WP:External links, but Template:Shortcut doesn't go on the page where you want to tell people about a shortcut, that template goes on the page where the shortcut points. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank55, Yeah, I see what I did, wrong as usuall. I was trying to match per the sections above, like in the See also section. Is there a way to do that I wonder? The road it hell is paved with good intentions :). Anyways, thanks for corrected that and posting here. --Tom 17:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: The Larry Sanger 3O redact. Thank you so much for that edit summary! First great laugh I've had in all too long. Just wish I get out that easily. ;) — Ched (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I know its sometimes hard to step away from editing differences but it is best to do so from time to time to keep one's sanity :) The article/project will still be here and will still be open to revision/discussion. The best thing I have found is to get as many NPOV eyes involved as possible which can be difficult on "low level" articles or ones that are heated and divisive. I am not sure what the deal is here, but I have been involved in the past in regards to the Wikipedia co-founders "issue". I firmly believe that it is critical that Sanger's role as co-founder not be "bastardized" over time simple because he is no longer part of the project or simple because Jimbo now considers himself the sole founder. Anyways, good luck and stay cool. --Tom 14:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Three, I noticed that you had weighed in on a similar matter and I am wondering if you can take a look at Lee Strasberg and weigh in about the citation needed tags. The tags are applied to statements of gross generalities which should need citations to make them verifiable. Thanks. I5kfun (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I generally agree and have commented so on the appropriate talk page, cheers! --Tom 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or the sprinking of ca. 17th C. French Protestants emigrating to locales where Catholicism, instead of Protestantism, was suppressed (Switzerland cantons, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, New England... ) and their contributing to each local gene pool. To me, Whatever: my not being of Hugenot descent; but were I to pride myself on such a background I might well view your lack of esteem for the category as "being a hater" towards those who'd find such a connection cool! ↜Just me, here, now … 21:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. In many cases the claim wasn't referenced, in others the person was already in a sub-category. I've reverted them all. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threeafterthree: This is my first time editing Wikipedia; I was completely unaware of any preexisting issues with categorization and only edited in good faith- I had and still have no intention of furthering any of "this never ending nonsense." My goal was to make the pages I annotated easier to locate by adding them to "American Jews" - a category that many other pages are subsumed into. I still profoundly disagree with the idea of preferring specific categories of generals ones (isn't Alan Dershowitz both an American Jew and a Jewish-American writer? Why can't he found in both categories?) but will respect the wishes of the editors. I thank you for your time. 99.175.102.100 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi no problem then. Unforetunately, the categorization of individuals has been very problematic to say the least over the past few years with a ton of "shananagians". I have given up on trying to read peoples minds or their intentions. Also, IP or anonymous editors are usually cut less slack, something I don't agree with or like, but just how it flows. Again, if your intentions were harmless, I apologize and wish you well. This project can be lots of fun I would not want to wish any good faith editor a hard time or discouragement from editing. Cheers and good luck! --Tom 13:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom,

Thanks for your support, and sorry to get you involved in any way with people who I consider to be very nasty. Hitting somebody with a sperm-filled pie just because you don't like his journalism - I can't imagine why anybody would consider that acceptable behavior. Bragging about it on Wikipedia - again, I can't imagine how anybody can do this. Not removing it when it's brought up at BLPN - impossible!

Well obviously, there's something about this that just gets to me.

Thanks again,

Idlewild101 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just try to keep your cool. I have found that it is always helpful to get other folks involved and hope that the "correct" consensus forms. If it doesn't, that is just the way it goes. Try not to ever take things around here to seriously or personally. Good luck. --Tom 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the source on the Michael Wines article that you put in, to the one that looks most professional to me. The LA alternative paper looks like a smarmy frat boy article to me. But feel free to change it back if you think that the LA paper is better. I don't know how the Michael Wines deletion will go - probably keep - but I don't care much. I do think that the section in the eXile article is over the top and it has been growing even as people say minimize it. All the best. Idlewild101 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your commentary here, but I have to object to your removal of other editor's text. I understand your objections on the grounds of WP:FORUM, but removing this material right now is, in my opinion, counterproductive. I'm restoring it. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. At some point it is best to stop feeding the trolls. --Tom 14:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, already done. Deleting their stuff gives them more ammo. In addition, one of the two whose material you deleted actually agrees with us, if you hadn't noticed. Best to leave it, but attempt to get them to conform to WP:FORUM in later edits. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice, but his forum comments about the article subject were not appropriate, especially from an admin. If the IP wants to discuss the article contents, no problem. His attack on other editors motives, ect is not appropriate for the talk page however. --Tom 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the theory that all you are looking for is another wikibreak, I escalated to ANI. See WP:ANI#Threeafterthree. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, a warning here before going to AN/I would have been more proper, AN/I is pretty extreme and can be disruptive, cause should be clear and preceded by warning on the user's Talk before taking an issue like this there. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "theory" Hans seems as sound as cold fusion :). ANI is WAY over the top, imho, but whatever. --Tom 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself warned with regard to behavior described in WP:ANI#Threeafterthree. I thought that premature when I responded there, but your subsequent edits show that it might not be. --Abd (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you, --Tom 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tom.

I'm going to submit a request for a third opinion on the Eagles fans situation. I just put up my take on it, and I thought I'd let you know about it before I put the request in. —Bdb484 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Hopefully even more editors than that can take a look and help out. --Tom 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to this page, most of them appear helpful, however you removed the phrase "as of 2006" with regard to Cassiere's number of Guinness world records. Clearly, this number is highly likely to change in the future (if it has not already), and needs a date associated with it. I added 2006 assuming the following references backed this fact up. If this is not the case, a new date (2009 if appropriate) needs to be added and a new reference cited that states this fact. Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rogerb67, I thought articles were to suppose to be "timeless" but I couldn't find that policy, go figure :). Anyways, I wouldn't mind terribly either way so no biggie. Also, you might want to add this comment to the article talk page, that ways others can comment as well. Cheers, --Tom 22:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the policy on this type of thing that I can see; I think it applies here. WP:ASOF. I'll put a note on the talk. Cheers. --Rogerb67 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was wondering if it would be okay to make a template for my signature given that under My Preferences there isn't enough room to code in my sig picture. My President is black 07:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am not an administrator but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night :) Not sure what you are asking but I would refer you to WP:SIG and also say that being Bold is also ok. If it is a problem, somebody will hopefully advise. If this doesn't help or you need more direction let me know. Anyways, good luck, --Tom 14:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops, my bad! Thanks for your help though (I haven't been to one of them in a long time)! My President is black 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ce" mean as an edit summ? Codigo'll aka Huh? 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copy edit. It is my usual "default" when making changes that hopefully aren't to feather rustling. If you have a specific edit, please let me know here or on the article talk page. Thanks, --Tom 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove a reference and two external links from Nadia Styles? No reason was given. You left it mentioning her Christianity without any reference. Thanks. --TQ (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citations were questionable imho and same for the externals links. Maybe take this to the article talk page. --Tom 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable in what way? Thanks. --TQ (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the pinkcross.org a reliable source? Not sure. youtube links should be avoided as external links. Again, it is probably best to have this discussion on the article talk page so others can weigh in as well.--Tom 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what got sand up your whatever, but can you lay off the reverts of my edits? It's sort of creepy.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I tell my students "It depends". Have you noticied that I have only reverted the edits which I "disagree" with you on and not every edit you make? I would also be happy to use the article talk page or this page more, even though I try to although you have accussed me of not doing that. I used to never edit "political" articles because I knew how "sided" they probably were, but I have found them to be interesting lately. Unfortuneately many articles, even ones you would never think of as having "sides", do have "sides" and I enjoy trying to find balance and defending a "side" even if I don't support that "side". Anyways, Tom 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, nice to meet you. I put back in my sentence about Conason's column on the Israeli connection for the pardon of Marc Rich. It turns out that Conason is notable. I don't know whether his claim has validity or not, but it doesn't matter, I think, because his claim is quite different than anyone else's that's been heard from, and he's a wellknown journalist.(Although in fact I so far have believed Conason to be solid.) Best wishes, Rich (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add it to the Rich or Conason article if anywhere. It probably really isn't notable unless it has been covered by multiple 3rd parties. Salon is probably not the best source for establishing noteworthyness. I will move this to the article talk page. Thank you, Tom 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick Santelli. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.