User talk:Threeafterthree

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 September 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 – March 28th, 2009 March 29th, 2009 – October 18th, 2009 October 19th, 2009 – September 6th, 2010 September 7th, 2010 – xx/xx/xx

Please look at the revision history of the Kagan talk page, in particular the comment by the admin Dougweller not to add to the first lesbian justice section. After that, I'm sure you'll remove your GF comment from the section. Beautiful picture of the Tetons, BTW.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like. Yeah, I wish I was there now, its been twenty plus years :( --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. We went to the Tetons about six years ago this month. It was unseasaonably cold (about 20 degrees below the usual) - it even snowed. We still had an absolutely wonderful time, although it occasionally interfered with our hiking when the cold wind got a bit too much for us.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I sent two full summers, as a high schooler, inside the park, on the last privately owned ranch with about the view you see here that also had a "working" beaver pond, absolutely amazing. I climbed both the Grand and Mt. Owen. Today I can barely make it up the stairs without pain in my knees, old man :). --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what develops over the next few days in the media, and I will look for better cites. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok. Reality truely is stanger than fiction :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Paul campaign now claims that DailyKos set them up. Bizarre. If it gets picked up by major news outlets, it's a doozy. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least one conservative blogged that he does not want it picked up. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "sub" article out there, ie 2010 campaign? I prefer this "stuff" floats down into those since I refuse to edit or read them :) Anyways, I thought high school was petty....--Threeafterthree (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is not worth contesting, in part because it doesn't damage what was "carefully" constructed previously to survive the whims of a belligerent editor. -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I am not that belligerent editor, but whatever. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know you, but unless you're User:KeltieMartinFan reincarnate, I don't consider you belligerent at all! : ) -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, so ok. I find that it can be sometimes difficult to know who people are talking to/about when posting on the internet. Probably me becasue I admitt that I am thick and my spelling also sucks :) ....--Threeafterthree (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on making changes, please get the citations right. -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about one's self on TV, that's not the epitome of RS? (Oh, and the statements are available in publicly provided transcripts, too. Sounds like RS to me, too.) C'mon. -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe or trust a dang thing on the tv or the interent these days :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reverted. Editors should be building articles; not tearing them apart.1archie99 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please see talk page and WP:MOSBIO --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See talk, archives from years past

That is not a valid rationale to revert any edit on Wikipedia. You are going to need to start using the talk page like everyone else. Please do not make drive-by reverts with vague, ambiguous edit summaries. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a valid comment. Unless you can obtain a different consensus, it is wise for you not to edit war on any article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not a valid comment on Wikipedia, either in an edit summary or on a talk page. Please do not give out false information, Collect. Furthermore, please do not make false claims about me, as I have not edit warred. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no such 'claim" was ,made (your post was 3 days later), I fear you misread general sound advice. Collect (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more obfuscation. Why would you give me advice about edit warring when my comment was about blanket reverting/edit warring by Threeafterthree? Are you trying to change the subject under discussion? In any case, your explanation doesn't hold water, Collect. The context of your comment implies that I am edit warring, when the opposite is true, as both you and Threeafterthree were edit warring, leading to the subsequent article protection. Yes, facts are funny things, but it's all documented with diffs and everything, as you know. This discussion only provides more evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Gwen's comments - please avoid me and I will avoid you. And if you have diffs to provide, then provide them. WP does not take kindly to aspersions per arbcom decisions. Collect (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the games. You know perfectly well that I've documented the diffs of your edit warring in my user space, and you've made it perfectly clear that you are aware of that page. Really, you need to stop with the 24/7 obfuscation and multiple wars of attrition. Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rm material not supported by cite and not appropriate for lead, maybe add below if properly sourced

On the contrary, the material is supported by the cite to the CSM[1] in the body of the article where the quote already appears,[2] properly sourced. Your blind, blanket revert isn't supported by your edit summary, and you've been here long enough to know that we use the talk page to explain reverts, not edit summaries. Also, the material was properly summarized from the Obama subsection, and your removal was against best practice in regards to writing lead sections. For the record, this is the second blind, blanket revert you've made with an erroneous edit summary without properly discussing the issue on talk. If you don't know already, this kind of editing behavior is classified as disruptive, as it does not encourage discussion and contributions. If you feel compelled to revert edits in the future, please make an attempt to discuss on the talk page first, not in the edit summary. Wikipedia requires a calm, friendly atmosphere to function, not a battleground mentality where editors revert good faith contributors at their whim. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have notified me about your wondrous casting of aspersions. And read WP:CIVIL while you are at it - noting that civility is required in edit summaries. And you might also note that others might well see your actions as quite "disruptive" indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, are you defending Threeafterthree's false edit summary with false claims of incivility based on your previous false claim of edit warring? Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "false claim" are you asserting I made? Collect (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just explicitly told you in the comment you are replying to above, based on your false claim of incivility here and in the above section at 11:38, 26 September, where you told Threeafterthree that his edit summary was acceptable (it wasn't by any stretch of the imagination), and where you claimed I was edit warring (I wasn't and there is no evidence indicating I was). And, after I just explained this to you, you ignored it, and pretended not to hear it, asking again, "what false claim". This appears to be part of the pattern of opposition, obstruction, and obfuscation that I am documenting for DR. I would advise you to stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General sound advice that it is "wise not to edit war' is an accusation of some sort? Dear me! You seem to have totally misread my comments. As I made no claim, it can scarcely have been a "false claim." Collect (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history shows you and Threeafterthree edit warring, not me, so why would you give me advice? Please stop with the deliberate obfuscation. This is the second time I have asked Threeafterthree not to make invalid justifications in the edit summary, and not to make blind, blanket reverts without discussion on the talk page. Since you are reading this, Collect, the same applies to you. Stop edit warring and start using the discussion page. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Saw your edit to the Stern page and as you appear to be an otherwise uninvolved editor, I thought I'd ask a favour. The subject of the article is not happy with edits I have made. His first message is archived here and the second is on my talk page. To be honest, I don't have a lot of time or energy to deal with this and maybe now I'm a little too close to it. His main beef seems to be that I have made the article worse (and possibly libelous) with my edits. I removed some extra info on the topic of the Wikipedia Art project (an article that was deleted) and Stern had some interaction with the foundation. My thought was to remove the extraneous info and keep it simple. Perhaps I am wrong and I'm relying too much on one source (as Stern accuses). He also feels I am biased about the topic; maybe I am. As such, I was hoping an uninvolved editor could have a look, if you have time or the inclination. I will take it to the Visual Arts Project as well, but the editors there were also part of the AFD, so I'll wait on that. I may also take it elsewhere for some more impartial opinions. But since you edited the page, I thought I'd pick on you first. Cheers. freshacconci talktalk 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Just for full disclosure, I am a deletionist/minimalist(especially for BLPs). Unless the/any "material" being added to a BLP is widely reported/covered by main stream reliable sources or widely recognized publications, I would leave it out. Also, the article subject's happiness level dosen't really concern me, since I doubt few folks are happy with their articles. I just thank g@d I am not notable enough to have a page to fret over :) Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking a look at this. As you can see, the issue with Wikipedia Art is not reliable sources / a deletion issue (Wall Street Journal, PBS.org, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and more), but a misrepresentation of the information found on these sources. The statement "the Foundation requested that Stern and Kildall post a notice on the Wikipedia Art website to distinguish it from Wikipedia" is a PR quote from Jimmy Wales, taken from the PBS article _as_ a PR quote but treated as if PBS says it. It is not only factually false (in actuality, Wikimiedia requested the domain be handed over), but also a misrepresentation of the PBS article, whose _own_ verified information, _outside_ of a quote from Jimmy or me or anyone else, says Wikimedia requested the domain. Of course I'd love having all about the piece on the Wiki, it's history and value, and current nomination, etc, but that's not what I'm arguing for. I simply object to the falsehood in question being propagated on Wikipedia. Possible to reflect the actual story somehow, even if only briefly (from MJS or PBS - the Journal article is only a small mention)? Or just say it was a domain dispute over trademark that got some coverage and leave it at that - no bias, less is more? Or perhaps just delete the legal controversy entirely, and put one sentence about the work itself (it's unclear here what the work actually is, as opposed to my other work)? I'm really open to anything you see fit, as long as that sentence is changed. Thank you again. NathanielS (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this discussion moved here NathanielS (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel,no problem. I would say/agree that keeping this at the BLP board, or better yet, the article talk page is ideal, since all can see and comment in one central place. I will keep on working on the article to try to "improve" it so it covers notable material in a neutral and fair way to all parties involved. Anyways, I am off to squirt hockey with the little one(not so little actually :))...--Threeafterthree (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! My 4-year-old daughter does soccer (er, football for her South African mom) twice a week. Tadpoles, they call it. This is not an attempt for a "second phase" of the project on the Wiki, as your edit reason jokingly suggests. Once was enough. Yeh, let's keep the conversation over at the article's talk page itself.NathanielS (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, sounds cool. Hopefully this won't get too "involved" and everyody will be satisfied...--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

still happening? let me know if/how I can help. I once sent a Wikipedia editor published "stuff" on request, and am willing to do so again. NathanielS (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure what/if the concern is here currently, but feel free to advise me here or on the aricle talk page of any concerns/issues you might have. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I do feel better about that there is no longer a falsehood on the page, but there is also nothing about what the work is or does. it's weird that much of my other work has descriptions and talks about what's at stake/why it's important, but this piece, which has appeared in the WSJ, Wired, PBS, MJS, in hundreds of other publications, on Venice, is the most well-known (why I would guess it has its own section instead of being part of "his work"), and was recently a nominated finalist for the prestigious Transmediale award, says nothing at all of value to someone actually looking in an encyclopedia for "Wikipedia Art". Every time someone tries to add info, it seems, it gets deleted by Wikipedians who were part of the original debate. Take a look at what that IP had put on that Acconci reverted, for example - perhaps an edited version of his/her text would be a good compromise between this and that? If you have time, I wouldn't mind your looking at my plea regarding Acconci's deletes of my academic writing as well, but I understand that that stuff is not mainstream so I may be pushing it.... Thanks again! NathanielS (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can work on "improving" that section with detail via the talk page and see what develops or if others have input? Anyways...--Threeafterthree (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added some links. thanks!NathanielS (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look...--Threeafterthree (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Threeafterthree for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification since I was unaware of this case. Regards, --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the books.  :) BTW, I've got a new game out, Fantasy University[3] in case you'd like to add it to the bio as well. Went public on October 19, and there are various reviews here and there so far.[4][5] On the credits (there's a credits link at the bottom of the game page if you want to check)[6] I am listed as "Quality Assurance Mistress" and in the "Contributing design" section. If you don't feel there are enough sources yet though, no worries, I am not in any hurry. Just wanted to keep you informed! --Elonka 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome and no problem. I'll probably add this material to the talk page and then to the article. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious whether you have a relation with Frank Luntz, in light of your defensive editing of Koch Industries, a company Luntz (a public opinion manipulator) has connections to with regard to spinning global warming lies, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz http://www.dccc.org/blog/entry/big_oil_billionaire_koch_brothers_funding_swift-boat_attacks_on_house_/

Any conflict of interest going on here, Tom? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.207.52 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no relation or COI. I knew of Frank from Penn, but his slimmy election antics as president of the UA left me very unimpressed. Not much has changed since. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed referenced material from the Andre Agassi page. Did you not read the quote that listed him as an important "Iranian-American" sports figure among other notable Iranian-Americans? He is known as Iranian-American just as Christianne Amanpour (naturalized British born) and Pierre Omidyar (eBay) are notable as Iranian-Americans. Christiane Amanpour is also half-Iranian. So is Catherine Bell. He is constantly listed as Iranian-American or an American of Iranian descent (same thing) by sources (I already mentioned the official group for Iranian-Americans and The Huffington Post). Even a UK tennis source says he is an "American of Iranian descent" on his biography page. Which is why he has the "Americans of Iranian descent" category on his Wikipedia page, and why he is listed as "Iranian-American". I mentioned other sources on the talk page, including the tennis player's own book, mentioning his father's background (Iranian Olympic athlete). The book reveals the notoriety of the tumultuous father/son relationship. Andre Agassi is notable for representing Iranians and Iranian-Americans in sports. I also added a quote from a German newspaper that shows Iran having a special place in Andre Agassi's heart. Please do not remove referenced material that does not violate Wikipedia policy. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would again refer to WP:MOSBIO. Many folks are referred to as xyz-Americans, but this doesn't mean that their ethnicity is the reason for their notabilty. There dosen't seem to be consensus for adding ethnicity to the lead, but that can always change. Anyways, we can continue this on the subject's talk page and hopefully others will chime in. Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! There is a case at the mediation cabal that is open naming you as a party - if the dispute is still ongoing, I would be glad to help out and try to mediate this matter. Is the dispute still ongoing and if so, are you open to the mediation process? Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Not sure if this really warrants a mediation cabal. I was hoping this could be resolved on the Talk:Andre Agassi talk page. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)ps, sorry, I guess I didn't read all your message. Yes, I would be open to mediation and would abide by its outcome. Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you don't know Kathy and Bob Dodd, by any chance, do you? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SarekOfVulcan, I actually don't. Though most folks here know everybody, my wife is the "native". I have been here almost 11 years now, and I still don't think I'll ever be a native :)...Cheers and Happy New Years! --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, threeafterthree, any edits to the article are very welcome, User:Off2riorob/Gordon Novel, some small cited expansion and it's a likely candidate for speedy return to the main article space. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you...--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- there was a lengthy discussion, involving many editors, with regard to the placement of the place of birth/place of death in bios. As you may be aware, the convention in most encyclopedias is to place that information next to the highly related information of the date of place of birth, and place of death. It was appreciated that not only does that approach follow long-standing convention in bios, it also is eminently logical (though of course editing conventions sometimes only appear to follow logic in the breach). It was also noted that especially with regard to athletes, who can appear on behalf of the country in which they were born (in Olympics, baseball world games, and other international competitions), the importance of reflecting the place of birth in an athletes bio in the first paragraph is especially relevant.

If you like, I can spend ten minutes of my life searching for that discussion.

In addition, I think -- and I expect that you may agree on this point -- that where editors disagree on the location of information, it is most helpful to make sure that the information is not willy nilly deleted entirely during the pendency of the discussion as to where it is best to deposit the information, as that deprives readers of information that may be of interest without a countervailing benefit.

BTW -- on another point -- have you done any work on lists? I've spent time the last two weeks trying to improve many of the lists of [x nation]. Some are in great shape. But many have entries of persons who have no wikipedia article, and for which there is no ref. It is a big job, but the lists were in such bad shape that I've started to bring them into the barest of compliance by cleaning out those entries that have no article and no ref. The relevant guideline suggests that -- and here it differs from some other guidelines -- when it comes to lists of persons, such entries should be removed. Any thoughts on that?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche, I am really not trying to be a nudge about the birth/death place, but rather trying to follow MOSBIO. I actually was never that into or aware of how encyclopedias worked before getting hooked on this project, so no, I wasn't/aren't aware of what the "standard" conventions for encyclopedias are. I am very thankful for MOSBIO and similar guidelines because I think they are critical to bios having the same layout/conventions/styles/placementofmaterial/ect/ect. I am going strictly by how the MOSBIO appears to treat dob(not including place of birth with it). If this is not the standard/consensus, I would really like to know that since that would greatly effect my editing. I can see how if the person has an info box, it would be redundant to list the plce of birth again in the lead. Also, if person was born in one place, and then moved/changed nationalities, then that could be an exception as well and maybe a reason to include it. If we are talking about a "vanilla" type bio, ie guy is born in US and lives here and has no other citizenship, I would just include place of birth in the info box or the "early life" section. But again, this isn't about your or my preference, it is about what is the standard/consensus MOS on this material and how do most featured articles treat this, ect?

I do agree that removing the place of birth entirely from a bio is not a good solution and I will try not to do that and apologize if I did.

As far as the lists go, again, you mention "relevant guidelines". Can you link to that/those? I would defer to them, just like I try to do with MOSBIO and I also do alot of seealso clean up as well as try to have external links comply, ect. I have been here over 5 years with over 20k edits and feel like I know nothing, except that deffering to consensus is very important :)

I will look at some of the list and try to "clean" them up as well. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps, per MOSBIO:Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability.....--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pss, is this your starting point for the lists you are trying to improve or is/are there other(s)? just curious...--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to take a look for the discussion, and leave a link to it here. Probably not in the next day or two, though. One problem of course is that wp is ever-changing, and discussions take place that those who "fixed" a policy miss -- I will try to figure out what the story is here. As to the nationality lists, yes -- either that, or the bottom here. Each have related lists near them. The approach I've taken is to make at least one change in each of the nation lists pointing to the rule, so that people working on the lists don't have a shock by immediate massive deletions. I've then gone back, and delete some more over time. I've focused only on those that both fail to have a wikipedia article, and fail to have any ref whatsoever. Some of the entries were clearly self-promotion, and some were a mix of sad and humourous. Most of those lists still have entries to be deleted. To the extent that editors have reacted, one working on the Iran list was happy with the improvements (having improper entries tends to reduce the seriousness of the look of the list), but two lists have had editors who were upset -- I've tried to explain the thinking at length, and tried to give them a bit more time to fix their lists, but they are not happy (you might avoid the L's for the moment ....). Of course, just as the non-verified entries include self-promotion of non-notables, they can also include truly notable period where there is not yet an article and nobody has bothered to add a fn (too much work for me to add what would be thousands of footnotes, so I've sought to comply w/the rule). Anyway, it seemed up your alley possibly, so I thought I would mention it if that is the case. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is "up my alley" since I find nationality/ethnicity/bios to be very interesting and they can also involve ownership/pov/ect issues. I try to do a little here, and a little there. I feel like a speck of sand of the huge beach that is Wikipedia :). You probably already know that I am a deletionist/minimalist and usually just "bounce" around the place not trying to be too fixated on any specific issue or field, ect since I am an expert in nothing :)...anyways, carry on!--Threeafterthree (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made my comment on edit warring board. You're discussing me on the article talk page. When will you learn,Threeafterthree, that articles talk pages are to discuss the articles and not the contributors? My agenda you said? Yes, I have an agenda I am writing articles. I wish I knew what is your own agenda? Otherwise keep your suggestions to yourself, will you? Please have a nice day. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point :)--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)ps, try to practice what you preach or retire fully. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you believed my comment proved your point, then it means that you have not a slightest idea what you are talking about. I should have realized this earlier, after the comment you left at the article's talk page.

I would have retired you know (I have much more interesting things to do in RL than editing wikipedia), but I feel sorry for wikipedia. I mean, if the editors as I am to retire and the trolls as you are to stay what will happen to the poor thing :)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for proving my point. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Three -- I know I owe you an answer on the above string, which I will address presently. Happened to notice this string, directly below our conversation. I would suggest you cool down, as the language you chose in the above diff is I expect more heated, personal, and presumptuous (and less civil) than you perhaps would have chosen in a more relaxed moment. I think we've seen editors bopped for less, so would think it best for you to avoid an eager sysop introducing you to the hammer -- you know how these subjective civility issues can go, depending on who the admin is, and the potential cost would far outweigh any possible benefit (if, indeed, there is one). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Best -- enjoy the long weekend.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a school teacher, I actually have the whole week off :) Same to you and yours....--Threeafterthree (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher! Good to hear. My father was, and one of my siblings is, a professor -- I have a great deal of respect for teachers. God's work. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article OurWorld! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OurWorld! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OurWorld! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I notice you've seen this article which has just appeared. The same user who penned it has made about half a dozen edits on the same topic, to WP articles elsewhere. Im wondering of its a PR puff piece written by someone with a serious conflict of interest. Id be interested in your view. CheersNickm57 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually haven't done enough "investigating" of who did what/when to know if there is a COI/puff piece. I came to the article from the BLP noticeboard. Now that the article is here, you/me/us/we/somebody needs to 1) determine if the subject of the article is notable enough to warrant an article and if so, 2) is there a conflict of interest? I am seriously tired right now and need another wiki break, even though I am fresh(supposidely) off a two month break from the project. You could also bring this article to the COI board if you are concerned. Anyways, good luck and cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your addition of American...

Wonder if you would like to help edit this article further.

I have said I will not make any edits to the piece for a while, as some editors felt I had a conflict of interest, so they have been overseeing my editing requests. A few days have passed without comment/response from any of those editors (you can see on article discussion page), so asking you for advice on what you see below.

Would appreciate your thoughts. Thank you very much. --Jespah (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS I WOULD APPRECIATE BEING ADDRESSED FOR INCLUSION IN ARTICLE. THANK YOU.

1. Featured in an Emmy-award winning[3] and Emmy-nominated episode of 60 Minutes.[4]

2. John Prendergast was part of the facilitation team behind the successful two-and-a-half-year U.S. effort to broker an end to the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.[5] Jespah (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

3. Mention of Mr. Prendergast as a 'big brother',[9] which he has been for 25 years. His soon-to-be released book is about his experiences, and is co-written, with his 'little brother'. --Jespah (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a formal request for moderators to protect the Walton & Johnson show page today. They denied it. Maybe if you do the same, at the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection page they'll listen this time. Fish Man (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added my 2 cents there and will edit the article as needed. To say that article is a train wreck would be like saying the Titanic had some minor problems on its shake out voyage. Anyways, good luck...--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your edits to the article. However, I reverted two of your deletions. The first, regarding the fact that he didn't win the Norris, was referenced in the article itself, and included a quote by him about why he didn't think he would win one. For a defenceman to have such a long and illustrious career and *not* win a Norris is a big deal, and should be noted. As for the Phaneuf part, where else would it go but legacy? He inspired a younger defenceman (and probably more) - if that's not legacy I don't know what is. All the other edits were fine, though. Anthony (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good enough since this is a collaborative effort :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Threeafterthree. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 22:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yoenit (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please ensure that you tag articles like this with an {{BLP sources}} and/or {{No footnotes}} rather than unsourced, as there are two references in the infobox as well as some external links that do verify the information. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to censor the edits I have made to the Barney Glaser page? I have not stated anything remotely libelous or made an ad hominem attack. I am simply summarizing very briefly some important facts that the bankruptcy court has discovered. The fact that Dr. Glaser does not wish these documented facts known should not be considered because they are part of the public record. He destroyed the savings of over 100 investors who trusted him. This fact I also have not reported, as I wanted to be completely objective. My edits are entirely based on public records from the State of California. Ricste (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricste, I removed a few duplicated links from the See also section per style guidelines. As far as censoring your edits, not sure that was me, anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Threeafterthree. Thank you. (Note, I did not start this discussion, but am merely informing you as is protocol.) --Kinu ^t/_c 21:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for recidivist disruptive editing in the form of edit warring, gross violations of WP:BLP, personal attacks on another editor, and apparent refusal to engage on talk pages instead of engaging in said problematic editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Threeafterthree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have no desire to and do not feel I have been severely disruptive to this project. I feel I do try to take constructive advice and learn from it. If a majority of editors feel I should be banned from the project, I would be open to having that discussion. Thank you, Threeafterthree (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Really? You try to take constructive advice? Have you see your block log? Each of those blocks came with constructive advice, and instead of learning and improving you got worse - indeed, you stooped to the lowest of the low, premeditated personal attacks. That is beyond behaviour expected from any human being towards another - the anonymity of the internet does not excuse that. Would you do what you did to someone standing right in front of you? We could have a WP:BAN discussion, and I'd be the first to support it based on only a cursory glance at your behaviour. Your best piece of advice is this: read WP:OFFER. Go away. Work on another Wikimedia project. Grow up. Come back in the spring and keep your behaviour a little more mature. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• As the blocking admin I won't be the one reviewing this, but I note this request is vague and utterly fails to address the specific reasons for the block. If you could explain why you chose to make what certainly appears to be a premeditated attack on another editor that might be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What premeditaed attack are you referrinmg to specifically? Can you please provide a link? I didn't attack anybody, please. I have a long history with Gamaliel, an admin, over many years, of him reverting to his prefered version of including external links. I was also accused of owning or running a web site that I have nothing to do with, its out of Canada, I am in Rhode Island.

Also, please enough with the block log. Do I need to go back and defend each of those? Do you really know the details? Oh course not. I would behave the exact same way if this was face to face. Again, what exactly did I do that was so beyond the pale? I live at 1 shore, drive barrington, ri, usa, please stop by...if you provide your address I would love to stop by as well....Grow up? Nice comment. Anyways....

Gamaliel adds external link… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorothy_Kilgallen&diff=prev&oldid=446685535 Gamaliel Undid revision 446261318 by Threeafterthree, adding back dead link… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Bolling&diff=446686102&oldid=446602640 I added back correct link… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Bolling&diff=446695499&oldid=446695150 Gamaliels NEXT edit is to tag an article I created???… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exum_Mountain_Guides&diff=prev&oldid=446686415

hmmmm, who is hounding whom here??

I have the Michael Moore page watch listed and have edited it before and made a revert based on that. Can Gamaliel say the same thing about the Exum guide article?

All of my edits have been reverted back to Gamaliel's preferred version. Fine. I don't intend on reverting those back. Another admin agreed that Gamaliel's adding the MacAdams link to the L. Fletcher Prouty article wasn't appropriate, but its back, check it out. A self published web site attached to over 500 wiki pages here.--Threeafterthree (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add WP:NOTTHEM to your reading list. Gamaliel didn't block you, I did. Based on your behavior. The details and diffs are all at the conversation that led to your block, which I linked in the block log, so it's hard to understand how you could claim ignorance, but here it is again: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717#User:Threeafterthree. Any future unblock request should specifically address those concerns instead of being a vague statement like your last one. And your block log is entirely relevant. You opened that door in your unblock request by claiming that you learn from past criticism anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I believe I had. I don't edit war, especially 3rr, I might revert but wouldn't 3rr or go against CLEAR consensus. I don't remove comments from talk pages. Anyways, I did read the passage you linked and didn't mention the other admin in my original request. I thought indef blocks were not meant to be used to "ban" editors. I can assure you that if the block is lifted, I will try to avoid this other editor and would also appologize to him for some of the material that was on the "Prouty" site, which I have nothing to do with and don't support. I may disagree with including certain ELs but would never want to "attack" somebody, especially somebody I don't know and I have never even met! The thing I really hate about the interenet and writing is sincerity is so hard to measure. I do NOT want to casue disruption or pain to anybody. I have publicly identified myself and as always would be happy to meet in person over a drink to prove this. I really feel that this was more of a content dispute, over years. Anyways, please excuse my poor spelling as well --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my first attempt was vague. I want to apologize for the link I added and to the user it affected. I also want to say that I will not interact with this editor going forward and seek an uninvolved administrator if I feel their is a problem/conflict going on, ect. I will also not add any other external links going forward. I want to apologize for any disruption I have caused to the project and promise to try not to do so in the future. If their are any editing restrictions others feel would be useful in this case, or other action I need to take, I would be willing to abide by those. If there are an other concerns reagrding this, or more explaination on my part is needed, I would be open to discussing that here or via email. Again, I am very sorry this happened and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to return and prove that I can edit without harming the project or other editors. Thank you,Threeafterthree (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the thread contained here could I ask for additional admin input here, please? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start the clock on WP:OFFER once he finally understands that his actions were inappropriate related to the other editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Threeafterthree to make a detailed response to the problems laid out in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717#User:Threeafterthree, which was the basis for Beeblebrox's decision to issue an indef block. That thread includes the charge that you mischievously added links to www.prouty.org/mcadams, a website now blacklisted, which attacks John C. McAdams. A whiff of nasty conspiracy theories does not make it more appealing to consider unblocking you. I am hoping the episode which led to your block was just a brief lapse of judgment. In this deleted edit at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories you made a defamatory statement about McAdams. Can you explain if you still have this opinion, and if you have evidence for your statement? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume my lack of interest in unblocking is already clear, but if we are to even consider it I would like to know why the previous six blocks somehow failed to get the point across to this user that edit warring is not acceptable behavior. Of course they deny in the previous section that they did edit war in this case, so that's another problem. If you can't understand what edit warring is after being blocked for it five or six times I don't have much hope that you ever will understand and be able to avoid edit warring behavior, which as you ought to know after five years of editing here is not limited only to 3RR violations. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Hi EdJohnston, thank you for replying and will try to explain what exactly happen, over only a few hour period, if that? And yes, this was a lapse of judgment, I did make a mistake, I do apologize again to the communitty and the other editor involved. There has been, or I have had a dispute over whether we/you/I should including McAdams web site links in the EL section of articles. I feel that it doesn’t, and certainly wonder why nearly 500 pages in the project link to it? It is personally published by the author and I don’t believe it is really peer reviewed per say, but whatever, I believe the feeling was, whatever, the guy is an academic, he is big on the uunet(?), he has a book, he is a real big JFK buff but the material on the site might not be of the most encyclopediatic tone, ect. but how does it hurt. Basically very few people care about this since it really is so low level, ect. and there was never any lock down, concrete consensus, if you remove/add it you will be in trouble, ect. I have removed it and it has been added back and I have removed it and it has been added back over years now, whatever again. The other editor reverted two of my edits and then immediately tagged a very obscure article I created. I know I am not suppose to talk about otherfolks behavior, but I admitt that I took this personally, felt hounded and then felt that if the Prouty article has the McAdams critique, why can’t the McAdams article have the Prouty critique? That was a mistake. I believe I found the Prouty site by googling both their names. I read the top where it says “crackpot” which mirrors what the McAdams site says in it title, tit for tat, so I added it. I believe this all happened over a period of minutes or at the most an hour? I was wrong in doing that. I don’t now anything about blacklisted sites except that the wiki software won’t you add some sites? I really usually remove material from the project if anything, I am an admitted minimalist/deletionist. I don’t have anything to do with the Prouty site and certainly don’t support it, seems pretty nutty and I certainly didn’t intend to out another editor, or call them a Nazi. I certainly would not add it in the future. I really don’t edit JFK article since I have little interest. The Michael Moore revert, I do have watch paged, and have edited it before, and didn’t agree with the other editors removal of content but that to was a mistake as well since there was a ongoing dispute with him, ect. Anyways, I HATE walls of text like this and now I certainly wouldn’t have the patience to read it, so I appreciate who ever follows along. Again I apologize to the communitty, but more so to the other editor. We might disagree over content, but not to the level where I want to hurt anybody over this, seriously. Anyways, if I missed anything or you would like more specifics, please let me know. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)ps Beeblebox, ok, I do conceed your point. I usually think or edit warring as 3rr. As explained above, this really is, unfortuately, a very low level type dispute which it seems few other edits really care about, or enough to the point where there is clear consensus. Anyways, I would promise going forward that I won't remove any McAdams links since there is no consensus(either way it seems). I feel like there should be consensus FOR inclusion, rather than other way around, but would not remove them since this has risen to such a level. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)pss Wow, sorry, in all my wall I didn't even answer you question Ed. I don't now anything about McAdams and realy don't want to, especially after all of this. I really don't have ANY opinion about him, this was a content dispute over ELs. The things I mentioned were what I found by googling Prouty and McAdams and reading different forum postings ect.. The reason I never linked to any sites in the past was becasue none seem of high quality or reliable and didn't want to repeat them here. I never found anything in the NYT for example. I can assure you that I am NO conspiracy believer and actually think those folks are nuts, but never say so as to try to be NPOV. Anyways, I hope that helps abit? --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are quite getting it. You have been repeatedly blocked for edit warring behavior on a variety of controversial pages. So, what is more important than how you will go forward as regard this particular article is how you will go forward in general when editing in controversial topic areas. Otherwise it seems likely given your pattern that we'll be right back here in a few months discussing why you edit warred at some other hot-button page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beeblebrox, I really don't edit that many controversial topic areas anymore exactly because I don't want to get into disputes. I try to do mostly MOS edits but do admitt that I watch the BLP board and try to help out there, so that can get disputed. My last block for edit warring was I believe 2 1/2 years ago. My last block was for removing talk page comments that I felt to be forum and have not done since. Anyways, I have 20k edits over 5 years and have 10 archieves of talk pages. I have made mistakes!! I wish I had a clear block log but I don't. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a forty-six year old man, and a five year veteran of Wikipedia, threeafterthree's behavior both past and present are APPALLING. There are many things that need to be kept in mind when making a hobby out of building an online encyclopedia, one of important ones being that it is not therapy. If you have some kind of personal issues and/or disorders that prevent you from socially interacting with others, this is not the proper outlet for them. This user has shown a long history of being unable/unwilling to work together with others in even the most innocuous of contested articles. HOWEVER, I would still caution the reviewing admin to keep in mind that this editor has made a lot of valid and valuable contributions which should not be arbitrarily dismissed. Were this a new and inexperienced user causing an inordinate amount of drama, I wouldn't bat an eye at sending him on his merry way forever, but in this case I'm more cautious. As such, I believe there can be room for compromise here. I agree with the above comment that the standard offer is in order. Should he wait the whole six months for it? eh... maybe... maybe not. But regardless, any unblock should be done weighing in his past contributions and also involve the stipulation that he avoid ALL articles that he has show a long-term inability to edit without edit-warring. A year of 1RR isn't out of the question either. Bottom line is, I look through this user's contribution history and while there is a lot of bad, I see a lot of good too. His above comment, while made at the tip of a sword, at least show an acknowledgement of his past actions and an understanding of WHY he has been blocked. I don't think it would be out of order to see some conditions of unblock drafted rather than a shrug and summary decline of the RFU. Trusilver 23:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trusilver. Thank you for your reply and comments. I actually try to delete my watchlist (out of sight, out of mind) every so often in order to avoid articles that he has show a long-term inability to edit without edit-warring ie, I used to edit/watch the Fox News article, but no more. I used to watch/edit the Palin article, but no more. As mentioned above, I really find BLPs to be the most interesting and of the most importance to the project, but upon reflection, these can be the most contentious articles in the project, especially ones that involve politics, no surprise there I guess. I would be open to your or others suggestion of conditions for unblocking. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above from Trusilver mirrors my view, and is why I resurrected this thread here. I now need to see a response from Threeafterthree to suggestions relating to WP:OFFER. A comment in response to posts relating to edit-warring would also be helpful.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bradbury, I feel that the communitty usually gets it right, but 6 months seems like a long time out, not that I am in any rush or anything. I actually did some editing over at the Wikiuniversity, but that was as "interesting" as watching paint dry. There is no real human interaction, which is something I enjoy here, and the reason I do feel bad about what has happened. As far a edit warring goes, I know that there are never any "winners" and it can suck all around. Nowadays, I usually will revert once, maybe most twice, even then not really, and then stop, having "put" my position "on the record" as you will. One of my favorite things about this project is the transparancy, ie users contribution record and article history. Again, there is no specific article, except BLPs in general, that I feel attached to, or find interesting or feel I would edit war over. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I should be posting here, but I wanted to let other admins discussing this matter know that Threeafterthree emailed me a personal apology last week that I do appreciate and I believe to be sincere. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind about my unblock request and have removed that template. Thank you. - Tom H.--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the target of Three's misbehavior, the last time Three was subjected to an indef block. The facts there were as he says that he removed others' comments from talkpages. He left out that he had been warned not to do so seven times in the month prior to his final infraction. That, and other disturbing aspects of his behavior, are detailed here. It is troubling to see that he has engaged in disruptive behavior again, even with multiple prior blocks, and the passage of time in which to reconsider his behavior. His indication above that he wanted back in because he wanted human interaction concerned me, given the nature of his interactions that led to his blocks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you deleted two External Links I had posted on his page. What was the reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovper (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[reply]

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Malcolm Barber.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Threeafterthree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Would like to try again. A year older and hopefully a year wiser. Thank you. :I was blocked for adding an external link which was an attack site which outed another editor. I was really sorry about that and still am. I emailed the user to explain what happened and apologized, and he seemed to be ok, which I appreciated. I will not be adding any external links of the like, that is for sure. I will try to proceed with caution going forward and not be disruptive to the project. If there is more that is required, I would be open to that. Thank you. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The below indicates that there are a number of past issues which remain unaddressed. For anyone to consider this, please address all of your past misbehavior and specifically what you intend to do differently, not just the most recent instance of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and so, as per WP:GAB, the above is where you explain why the behaviour that led to the block was improper, and how it cannot happen again, and how you're proceed in the future. The above as it stands is not an unblock request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One year older does not always mean one year wiser, especially as you were blocked in 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2006. What would be different in 2012? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FisherQueen, being away from the project has given me time to reflect and realize that my behavior was not alsways productive and that I should and can improve. I certainly made mistakes, but would like to think I can be more productive going forward. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NO. You were not blocked for "adding an external link which was an attack site which outed another editor". That ridiculously foul action was merely the proverbial straw on the camel's back. You had already been indeffed once, and allowed to rejoin the community. You then returned to similar - indeed worse - behaviour, and are indeffed again. I'm not sure you recognize the severity of ALL of the actions you have taken on Wikipedia since Day 1. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BWilins, I believe I do recognize the severity of my actions over the years and will edit in a more productive way going forward. Is there any other recourse I have? Thank you. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Threeafterthree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked. I was first blocked for evading blocks with sockpuppets etc., creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits. I was wrong for using a different account. I didn't use a different account after that and will not do that going forward. My next blocks were for breaching 3rr. I am really sorry for having edit warred and will not do that going forward. I know that edit warring is disruptive and not helpful to the project. My other block was for disruption related to removing talk page comments that I thought were inapproriate. Again, I was wrong to edit war over that whatever I might have thought the reason for doing it. I will not remove talk page comments or edit war. I intend to be very cognizant or 3rr and actually maintain just 1rr going forward so as to not even approach that point. Finally, I really feel bad about my last block and will not repeat anything like that as mentioned above. I would also be willing to work with a mentor if the community thought that might help or any other suggestion people might have to show my sincerity to rejoin the project and prove that I can edit construtively without disruption. If you would like to email me with any suggestions or comments, I would be open to that as well. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At this point, you are unable to find a mentor, and the community has placed mentoring as a condition of unblock. It is your responsibility to find a mentor using the tools available to you. At this point you have a couple of choices: find a mentor, and once an appropriate mentorship agreement is in-place you may request unblock accordingly. Otherwise, you can go and be productive on another project (such as Simple Wikipedia) for a few months. Return here then, shows your positive (and definitely non-socking) edits, and request unblock. Be prepared, however, to address any concerns or conditions that are laid out at that time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Just as a point of reference for this conversation, in addition to the previous discussions still visible here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717#User:Threeafterthree is the actual discussion that led to the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to unblock if you make a firm agreement to remain at 1RR for 6 months under the threat of a block. I'd also feel much better about the unblock if you did find a mentor who you could talk to when you get in a dispute that you feel overwhelmed about. I don't think you need a mentor for general day to day editing, but it seems to me that when you got into a dispute with User:Gamaliel that your frustration took over a bit. I think a mentor whom you could talk to in those situations would be beneficial to you and the project. Find a mentor and agree to 1RR for 6 months and I'll unblock you per the standard offer. I assume, of course, that the socking was over 6 months ago although I can't seem to find the details on it.--v/r - TP 14:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TParis. Thank you for very much for your measured response and offer. I have emailed an user from the "rehab project", I think it was, to see if they would be willing to function as a mentor. I want to wait to see what they say before mentioning their name. They are not an admin, but seem to be a trusted member of the communitty but of course would defer to others to see if they were acceptable. I would also agree to a 1RR for 6 months. Again, I feel really bad about my past behavior and and do not want to repeat it in any way. The socking incident was 6 years ago I believe. I also want to again apologize to Gamaliel and say that he was very magnaminous(sp) in his response to a personal email I sent him which I really aprreciated. Thanks again for your offer and putting this on hold. I will post here again, or above in the unblock request area, when and if I find a mentor willing to help and who is agreeable to the communitty. Regards, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just let me know when you get word back.--v/r - TP 20:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty lining up a "mentor". Could you or anybody else suggest the names of maybe 3 or so "trusted" user's who you think might be willing to assist me that I could email to discuss this request with? I am really hopefully that if I was unblocked, I wouldn't need that much "mentoring" since I would really be committed to keeping my behavior in check and having no drama added to the project. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Adam Gertler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Host of non-notable shows, no notability in his own right

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]