Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:48, 17 June 2010

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 – xx/xx/xx

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting four tildes like this: ~~~~ at the end of your post.
Start a new talk topic.
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting a new topic. I will respond to you in here so please watchlist this page. If I posted a comment on your talk page, please reply there as I will watchlist your talk page and reply there as well. Thank you. - Tom

Incivility

Hi there,

Please try to keep your comments more civil than your recent contributions to Talk:Sarah Palin. Especially on an article like that, it's critical to keep the tone of the discussion respectful and focused on the content, rather than the contributors. I understand getting frustrated, but expressing that frustration on the talk page through attacks does not accomplish anything. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are right. Maybe I should refer the matter to the "troll" notice board. If the trolling continues,I will head there. Thank you. --Tom (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nola Kaye

Hi, regarding the removal of this. I'm in agreement that it's trivia which should not be in the lead. However the information is sourceable, if you'd choose to re-add it elsewhere:

• Dunin, Elonka (2009). "Kryptos: The Unsolved Enigma". Secrets of the Lost Symbol: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code Sequel. Harper Collins. p. 319. ISBN 9780061964954. Dan Brown himself has admired Dunin's work and paid her the stellar compliment of writing her into The Lost Symbol as Nola Kaye . . . {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Taylor, Greg (2009). "Decoding Kryptos". In John Weber (ed.) (ed.). Illustrated Guide to the Lost Symbol. Simon & Schuster. p. 161. ISBN 9781416523666. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

These two should probably also be added to the "Books" section of the article, but I'll leave it up to you as to whether you think they're worth including (or whether you have time to do so).

• Dunin, Elonka (2009). "Kryptos: The Unsolved Enigma". Secrets of the Lost Symbol: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code Sequel. Harper Collins. pp. 319–326. ISBN 9780061964954. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Dunin, Elonka (2009). "Art, Encryption, and the Preservation of Secrets: An interview with Jim Sanborn". Secrets of the Lost Symbol: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code Sequel. Harper Collins. pp. 294–300. ISBN 9780061964954. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

FYI, --Elonka 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, Yeah, I can add that first part back into the article somewhere, as well as the two books, just need to finish up the Holidays first :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the latest book just went international, in case you'd like to add that too... --Elonka 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that book was added to the article as an inline citation from amazon.com? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the "Nola Kaye == Elonka" link is picking up steam. I keep finding more books that are mentioning it. For example, if it's useful:

• Haag, Michael (2009). The Rough Guide to the Lost Symbol. Rough Guides. ISBN 9781848360099.

--Elonka 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The dark side

Use the force, hilarious, thanks for the laugh Tom, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It seems like you do alot of BLP improvement/noticeboard help which is cool, imho. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal for wording

Hi, I still think we are misrepresenting facts and would like you to take a look at Talk:Johnny_Weir#Sexuality_verbiage_still_needs_work. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ok,I will check it out, but to be honest, I don't have a very strong opinion about the current wording/inclusion either way....it seems that folks are trying to reach a consensus on the talk page, so that is good, and it dosen't seem that something can't be worked out....I will continue there, thank you...cheers! --Tom (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help at article you recently edited?

Hi,

You recently edited an article on the Whittemore Peterson Institute, and I was hoping to ask if you might consider poking your head in there once more. I could go into detail in explaining why, but I think if you take one look at the article in it's current form it will become abundantly clear why your help is requested. Thanks for your time.74.51.82.241 (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit- The article has already been reverted to a more acceptable form, so it's hard to say which version you will see if you do take a look. Basically one editor has made a practice of cherry picking anything even remotely disparaging about the Institute from any number of sources, even if a particular adjective or descriptor is only used in one source, such as the descriptor 'small' which you edited out(and was used to describe the lab space provided by the Univ. of Nev. which the Institute currently conducts it's research in and is to be abandonded when the Institute's permanent home is completed later this year), and then building the entire Wiki article solely out of this cherry picked junk until the article reads like the Wiki Enquirer or something. Sorry if you're not interested, just thought I'd ask. Thanks again.74.51.82.241 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi 74.51.82.241, Sure, I'll take a look. If someone is trying to push an agenda there, be it promote or disparage, then it should be pointed out and dealt with. More eyes/imput is always good, as well as using the talk page. Anyways --Tom (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ps, I have to admitt that there is also/an "advanced medical" disagreement going on which I won't get into since 1) I have zero medical knowlege and 2) I faint at the sight of blood :)...--Tom (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for offering your view and help at the WPI article, your mention of weasel words described a large part of what's been going on. Thanks again. 74.51.82.241 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem and good luck. --Tom (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, William Connolley, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 00:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I did not know this was the case. Is there any way for folks to know this before editing an article so as not to get into trouble? Maybe I just missed it. Anyways, no biggie since I was more doing MOSBIO editing than edit warring. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

opps, it is on the top of the talk page, never mind. I admitt that I didn't read the talk page first, which is actually pretty common unless I have a reason to first. Anyways, hopefully no harm, no foul, and I will try to be on good behavior if I edit there again :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(After edit conflict): Sorry, I usually don't bother to notify people doing "gnome"-work, as they're unlikely to do anything controversial or to stick around and edit more. I should have looked more closely at your edit. The talk page is the only place with a notice about the probation, and typically somebody doing style changes doesn't need to look there. The sanctions don't apply to those who aren't yet aware of the probation. --TS 00:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Yeah I do about 40% gnome work, 40% article improvement, and 20% "yue talking to me? yue talking to me? lets...rumble" work :).....cheers! --Tom (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Max Warburg not jewish?

As I am fed up with the neo-nazi vandalism on Max Warburg myself, I sympathize with your edits, but his Jewishness (and this he was proud of, like nearly all of his family; Aby Warburg a bit of a possible exception there) really was the only reason he had to sell the bank and emigrate.--Radh (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would refer to WP:MOSBIO, specifically to not mention ethnicity in the lede. Is his ethnicity the reason for his notability? Its fine to discuss what you mention, I would just not do it in the lede. Thanks--Tom (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see that. No, his notabilty lies in his enormous success with his bank. But Jewishness was very important for the family. Max' older brother Aby Warburg caused a minor scandal, when he married outside the faith, --Radh (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would cover/discuss his ethnicity, ie being Jewish, and related material under a "family" type section. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks.

Hey Tom (that's my name too! :)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I appreciate you reaching out. You might think it's overstating it, but I truly believe wikipedia is one of the greatest contributions our society has had. The more I learn about it and participate in it, the more impressed I have been. It's one of the great models for building a civil, participatory culture. Sometimes I wish we could find a way to make our government work more like this. So thanks. --Izauze (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, the compilation of the world's entire knowledge base since the begining of time, which is editable by 6 billion humans is pretty heady stuff :)...I sort of relate it to the Grateful Dead and how Bill Graham (promoter) put it - "they might not be the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do"...Cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

edits

Concerning your recent edits to Peter Schiff, your edit summary is simply "ce". Can you explain what that means? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ce is copy edit. I removed "remarkable" and "well recognized" from the body of the article, so I guess that is more than ce ing, anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal comments

Please don't make negative personal comments in edit summaries:

• rm poorly sourced non notable nonsense introduce by agenda driven bad faith POV editors

"Nonsense" isn't ideal either, but it's the second half which is the problem. WP:AGF is a policy.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try. --Tom (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

Please go to the talk page on TPM and vote for a new title for the "Reports of Racism, Homophobia, Vandalism" section. We need a consensus to stop the edit warring. Thanks. Malke2010 21:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing the comments of others

With all due respect, leave my comment alone. It is a perfectly legitimate response to specific requests for a criticism section. I will accept the entire section being collapsed, but selectively removing my comments will not be tolerated. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey, I would be happy to remove other forum type comments as well, not just yours. Please try to comment about improving the article rather than using the page to express your opinions about others, the subject of the article, ect. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. The comment, while acerbic, specifically addresses the attempt by others to add a crit section (frowned upon by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines). Furthermore, your 3RR claim is ridiculous. I have reverted your edits twice; however, you have violated 3RR yourself by removing my comment 3 times. If you are unable to count to 3, may I respectfully suggest you are not qualified to be deleting anything anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scjessey's comment does deal with the criticism section, and it doesn't seem any more off-topic than some of the earlier comments. If you're interested in cleaning up forum-style comments on a contentious article, only the most egregious and obvious trolling comments should be removed. Picking one comment from a larger section, and then removing it three times seems one-sided. In any case, Scjessey's comments do actually address the article. Dayewalker (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, using others bad behavior to justify one's own isn't the best thing. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

posted comment here:::::::::::::::@TheiGuard, after an edit conflict - That's a load of old cobblers, quite frankly. Obama has been among the least controversial of presidents by any legitimate measure. His policies and actions have been entirely predictable and mainstream. Just because a tiny band of ill-educated racists and a few political opponents regard Obama as controversial, this does not make it so. While there are indeed legitimate criticisms one can make against Obama, they are minor in scope and have attracted little notoriety. Certainly there is nothing substantive enough to warrant a criticism section. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Advice:- do not touch other editors comments unless there is some massive major issue, if there is not, which is the case in this instance then do not touch them, have a quiet word with the editor and say, keep it on topic mate. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Off2riorob, thanks for the advice. Actually, I delete quite abit of talk page posts since they go against WP:FORUM. This user could easily comment about improving the article, ie, don't include a criticism section, which I agree with, without commenting about other poeple and their education levels and racism, ect. I did communicate with this user, see above, but without much success. Also, I don't know all the sorid details, but I believe this user already had a 6 month topic ban from Obama articles, so, anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Virtually all of the WP:FORUM-related deletions you make are directed toward points of view you obviously disagree with, and your "activist editing" is apparent from your contributions and block log. The topic ban you refer to expired many months ago, and was the direct result of a campaign by a now-banned editor. With respect the comment itself, it is absolutely clear that the predominant group referring to Obama as "controversial" are ill-educated ("our taxes have gone up" - no, they haven't) racists. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"activist editing", thats a good one :) Again, saying it is absolutely clear that the predominant group referring to Obama as "controversial" are ill-educated is not needed on the talk page, even if true :). Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No Tom, you need to quit altering other users comments and self-revert. This is not helpful to the project at all, and using the excuse you are using(notaforum) is not backed up by the facts. Just stop deleting other editors comments unless there are grievous violations(BLP etc). Dave Dial (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Its too bad that you support offensive and ill educated comments, oh well, I guess that says alot about you. --Tom (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted your comment on my page because it seemed to dump the entire forum section on my talk page. We can keep the conversation here. I'm in agreement with the editors above, please leave comments by other editors where they are. If you find something questionable, it would probably be better if you took it to another editor for clarification. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem and sorry for the "dump" :) --Tom (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Substing Welcome Templates

Just a quick note, can you make sure you subst welcome templates when you add them to a users talk page? Thanks =] ·Add§hore· 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. The "system" used to warn/correct me when I didn't do that. So if I want to add the welcome template to a "new" user talk page I should type...subt:welcome between the {{s?? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.

P.S. I have written nothing negative about you there. It is merely breaking down the conversation, and as such, you are mentioned, so I'm required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Karl Rove

I reverted Chhe's edit. He often reverts on Karl Rove. He never adds content, just reverts. The edit is a WP:BLP violation and has been removed from the Bill Moyers page for the same reason. It is a scathing attack on Rove that forces him to attempt to prove a negative. Rove rarely addresses his critics, so for him to complain to the PBS ombudsman says alot about how upset he must have been.Malke2010 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the material to be more relevant to the Moyer's article, if notable at all. Anyways, hopefully this can be worked out on the article talk page. --Tom (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

S. E. Cupp

I really know nothing about this person beyond what little involvement I've had recently helping sort out these BLP issues, but I'm curious: Do you have any idea why people seem so interested in ensuring she's not described as an atheist, or in inserting suggestions that this is just some sort of phase she's going through? I find it strange, but maybe there's some context I'm missing. — e. ripley\ 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I also know little/nothing about the subject of this article, except she appears to be a conservative and has written about her those views? That is probably enough for the militant, partisan, agenda pushing, crowd. Anyways, if there is more to it than that, I would find it strange as well and would be curious myself. Good luck with this and cheers! --Tom (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I am Dasani. I forgot to log in! 75.4.235.233 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 75.4.235.233 (talk)User:Dasani —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

No problem :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all about ME (Arthur Rubin)

I probably shouldn't comment, but I (Arthur Rubin) did run for state assembly on the Libertarian ticket, which is sourced in my article, although the source is a search result at the moment. There's no source as to my current political affiliation, but I would think that would be enough for a category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, no problem. Maybe I'll take this to the article talk page. It dosen't seem like your bio goes into detail about your politics/affiliation, that is why I removed those categories. Maybe if the bio is expanded, those can be readded? Not a huge deal either way. Anyways, thank you, --Tom (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Don't you think that one sentence controversy section should be removed? Truthsort (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now? Yes. I will comment on the talk page as well. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Abruptly

You deleted the word "abruptly" in two places from the Helen Thomas article. But it is ref'd to RSs -- kindly revert.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there are plenty of RS that don't use the subjective word "abruptly", so no need here. Users can determine the time frame and decide if it was abrupt or not. --Tom (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

One can say of every sentence in that article that there are plenty of RSs that do not use any particular word. That's no reason to delete it -- it's RS-supported, by many articles. It's a major part of the story. The reader does not otherwise know whether it was a retirement that was being considered, for example That's why you have 150,000 ghits here. Removing RS-supported verbiage such as this is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A reader would need to be brainless or dead in your above example. Is that the case? --Tom (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. A reader does not know whether the 89 year old is otherwise contemplating retirement. That's perhaps why the 150,000 ghits appear. Please stop deleting RS-supported material.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Thomas spews/rants, shit storm insues, she resigns/retires. But one has nothing to do with the other? Brainless or dead still. --Tom (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your POV may be that the authors of the 150,000 entries were saying the obvious. They, by their actions, would appear to disagree. As do I. This is RS-supported, many times over. You've expressed no cogent reason -- just an apparently fringe notion as to what is obvious, which is at odds with the evidence before us. This is RS-supported, referenced, and verifiable. Please stop edit-warring, and revert your deletions. IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient reason for your deletions, nor are bald unsupported statements at odds with the RSs. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we just keep this at the article talk page and get others involved? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've referenced this discussion there, so I would think we might keep this discussion intact and static for reference, and continue discussion there unless some other reason presents itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your deleting of my comments

Your deleting my comments on the Helen Thomas talk page is unacceptable. Please don't delete comments you don't like or I'll report you as a vandalizer. My comments were legit, and your action is pure antagonism. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Helen Thomas‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)