This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I see that her ethnicity keeps getting restored, even though it doesn't seem to ever be backed by any reliable sources... oh well. By the way, there is an interesting case developing over at Talk:Zac Efron (see the very bottom), which I've noticed you have commented on previously. Cheers, Mad Jack 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Three,
I am writing concerning your repeated removal of certain content from the 'Dick Morris' Wikipedia article.
I understand you are under the impression that the item you continue to remove is 'commentary' or part of an 'agenda'. Please understand that I did not place it in the article myself. If you had looked at edits previous to mine, you would see that the introduction of Mr. Sabato as an accurate predictor of elections for the sake of coherence already existed in the article for quite some time. The change I made was in response to a 'citation needed' tag placed next to that fact. I inserted two citations for the fact. All the rest of my edits were attempts to rearrange the sentence for the sake of clarity, not to change the substance of the existing sentence.
Perhaps the article would be better off without the sentences on Mr. Morris's accuracy or lack therof altogether. However, it would seem clear that your repeated attempts to remove this fact are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and certainly do not reflect well on your claim to be anti-agenda. I would appreciate a full response to this message prior to any attempt to delete or alter any further content from that article.
Thank you. --GoldenMean 19:46, 07 August 2007 (UTC)
Tom,
I reluctantly accept your deletion of the complete subsection, but, for the record, you are simply mistaken about it being "unsourced" or "original research". As is apparent from a quick reading of the now deleted section, there were in fact two good sources--so neither "unsourced" or "original research" are accurate descriptions of the smaller portion you previously insisted on removing again and again.
In addition, from a quick examination of the two sources provided, one can see that Mr. Sabato's accuracy is in fact good (by any definition of the word), and furthermore, that he is quite noteworthy for this accuracy. Available, reliable sources unambiguously demonstrate that his accuracy and expertise are well-documented facts--not "commentary".
The reason I felt your removal of the preexisting description of Mr. Sabato as an "accurate" political prognosticator was detrimental is simply that with that introduction removed, some people would not know who Mr. Sabato was, or why they should give any consideration to his thoughts on matters of political prediction. Being that his accuracy in this regard is quite well-established, it would be difficult to argue that including the word "accurate" does anything other than provide the most basic context for his quote.
Concerning your deletion of the entire section, I would just say that I think that is a better solution than deleting only the section providing basic context for Mr. Sabato's statement. I personally feel it would have been--and always is--preferable to seek consensus, and rework content into a more appropriate place in the article rather than to delete it outright.
Should you have a disagreement with someone on such a matter in the future, I'm sure they would appreciate it if you would work with them to address the substance of your disagreement rather than starting an edit war, or accusing them of having an "agenda". We all have biases, even if we are unaware of them. Substantive discussion and reasoned compromise seem to produce increasingly richer and accurate articles whereas edit wars and ad hominem arguments seem to lead to article gridlock and corrosion. I hope you agree.
Thanks,
GoldenMean 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)GoldenMean
And what are "reliable sources" to you? Those that fit your interests? Be objective, this is not Conservapedia. Dukered
Actually, the origin of the name is disputed (see Grand Teton). Even if the name of the mountains originated from the French word for breasts, the name only applies to the three members of the cathedral group, and not the entire range. I guess it might be suitable to discuss the origins of the name, but the sources from Grand Teton should be re-used to emphasis the controversial origins of the naming. Personally, I think it adds nothing to the article. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Acctualy, téton is slang for breast, so it realy translate as boob, not breast. The fact is that the early french travelers, after months alone, looking for fur, where sometime craving for something else than civilisation... It adds something to the article because, if you read french you may wonder if the name realy means boobs (which is weird), or if the Teton Sioux gave the name to the range. Of course, we gave the name to the Sioux...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.40.42 (talk • contribs)
Ok, I've been watching this commentary from the sidelines here and your behaviour has reached the point of being downright incivil and disruptive. Blanking others' comments with [3] with "rm nonsense by agenda pushing baby, whaa, whaaa, whaaa", is completely out of order. Your edit history is replete with examples of personal attacks and snide comments. Next one warrants a block for incivility - Alison ☺ 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - Alison ☺ 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in the Angeles City article. We can always use more eyes on that one, which is prone to frequent POV disputes. Please feel free to bring up issues and to contribute in general to this article.
I'd like to see Angeles City reach WP:GA status some day. / edg ☺ ★ 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Particularly if written by well known notable scientific figures in the scientific community, as is the case of PZ Meyers. Therefore, Pharyngula (blog), Panda's Thumb (blog) and Aetiology (blog) are WP:RS sources, actually. Some science blogs are peer-reviewed and subject to some editorial control. Some are chosen specifically by well known publishing companies like Seed magazine. These blogs I listed are rated by Nature magazine. Some are mentioned by Science (magazine). Some are reprinted in peer-reviewed books, and some are quoted in peer-reviewed journals as sources. So it is not always true that these are not WP:RS sources, for your future reference. I am not going to mess with Rosalind Picard while I am still trying to establish the full back story with other sources, however.--Filll 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Do not reinsert the contributions of block evading sockpuppets of banned editors. The editor I reverted, blocked, and tagged as a sock, is a sockpuppet of MagicKirin (talk · contribs); do not reinsert his talk page edits. - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to the MMM introduction which deletes the mention of the weekday of the killings. I know you have been involved in this discussion previously, and invite you to join the discussion here. Thanks in advance --Robbie Giles 17:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Tom. I'd like to remind you to please refrain from making any more edits to the lead sentence to remove the word Friday. I appreciate your stepping away from that edit war back in July when I warned you and Duke53 about it, and I'd hate to see the edit war return, even if it involves Tinosa instead of Duke53. I think we should just let the discussion on the talk page run its course, and even if someone sticks the word back into the article lead before it's done, we can hope that consensus will be attained one way or another and the appropriate change made accordingly, if necessary. Is that acceptable to you? alanyst /talk/ 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tom - well, I didn't think changing MOSBIO was the way to go for either of you - tweaking policy wording is best done completely separate from any disputes, I think, or we fall into chaos. Nor am I the type to not want to ignore rules. But still I agree with your reading of the original, which has been there for a long time and others have said the same - and most importantly - it makes sense. I think this is an incredibly minor and unimportant point (whether "Freddie" is the first word or is parenthetical a few words later) - but I think some of the reasons given for changing it to the parenthetical are disingenuous. In the long run, guess what, the candidates' chances are not the least bit affected by whether their Wikipedia pages start with their birth names, their nicknames, their legal names or their dogs' names. (Well, maybe the dogs.) The militant way which this well-referenced change was attacked makes me wonder what the real agenda is. Tvoz |talk 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you reverted the excision I made in the Betty Dodson article about IASHS. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and so can you, right? Well, yes.
I am trying to warn Wikipedia that this issue is potentially very bad. This page has been noticed by people associated with Dodson and with IASHS. They aren't pleased. When I say warn "Wikipedia," this is law suit country, not between me and some random editor, but between IASHS and the Wikipedia Foundation. I am trying to forestall that, and I know it's brewing. If you want to ignore this, go ahead. I really recommend you take this issue a lot more seriously than you are. It is not a kid's game being played in a noisy schoolyard.
But have it your way. It won't take long before IASHS discovers that you have deliberately replaced material that they can claim libels them and one of their graduates. And they did NOT find out from me. Several IASHS graduates have posted material about this to a listserve I belong to -- and they found out about it themselves.
Timothy Perper 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my error on the NAMBLA talkpage. I reverted the vandalism (I thought), but actually only reverted Sinebot. I should have checked to make sure that foul language was gone. Thanks again. Jeffpw 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverting with an edit summary like "rvv" is probably not the best tactic right now. I had instructed the other 2 editors to stay on the talk page for now while they wait for the comment from the community. It's okay to let the article sit that way for a short while. Leebo T/C 20:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. You and User:QuackGuru have been reverting User:Jhurlburt and myself over those little words "Wikipedia co-founder" in front of Larry's name. Now, the recommended practice says be bold, revert, discuss, but everyone's stuck on step 2 at the moment. What's more while the rest of us have been arguing at cross purposes via edit summaries, you've been leaving the default undo edit summary in. The problem with doing this outside of cases of blatant vandalism is that it obscures your motives. Even though QuackGuru hasn't come to the talk page yet, from his edit summaries I can tell that from his point of view he is restoring a verified fact. From your edit summaries, I can't even tell if you're acting in good faith or not. So please, (1) use more descriptive edit summaries when undoing good faith edits, and (2) when you revert a good faith edit, especially after it's been reverted before, move it to the article's talk page. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tom,
I don't grok pulling the Hudson Channer references. Granted, Hudson Channer isn't entirely my idea of an investigative reporter, but it happens to be the one place where Reid Stowe laid out most of his biography, such as it is. Indeed, editors skeptical of Reid Stowe also have dependency on this reference, since Stowe makes his infamous claim to conning the smallest craft twice across the Atlantic. He states that in the interview. Then there are the current and historical references which refute his claim (some which I dug up myself). Yanking the Hudson reference makes that back-and-forth incomplete. Beside, the article cites the Hudson Channer interview by name, so readers wandering through the neighborhood should have the benefit of being able to pull it up and make up their own minds about what Reid says about himself and the integrity of Hudson Channer's questioning.
And yanking the 'See Also' cross-refs. Don't grok that either. People should be able to find out easily that Joshua Slocum has been there, done that, long before wind generators, GPS, or VHS radio. Or that with Donald Crowhurst, people in small boats out in the open ocean are sometimes given to sea tales. All of that informs the present article one way or another.
I've restored these references and links. Educate me when you have a chance on why you pulled them; I want to know if I'm missing something. Reply here or on my talk page. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that my edit of Pennsylvania Main Line last month (which generally consisted of cutting a whole bunch of stuff) was in good faith, as was your restoration. See the talk page of that article-- I still think that the article is in lousy shape, and could benefit by cutting a lot of the unsourced, contentious stuff such as lists of what communities are or are not in the Main Line. I invite you to respond to my comments on the talk page for the article. Let's not get hung up on the fact that the current version of the article is "stable". Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of room for improvement. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
saw your latest change [4] and agree with it 100%. cheers. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. My edit to SqueakBoxes talk page was NOT an "attack"...I advise you look at older revisions and "attacks" (your code for "suggestions") which where not deleted and SqueakBox actually responded to. Please revert it back, or tell me why it was an "attack". It was certainly nothing of a personal nature, rather a suggestion of how he could avoid POV-pushing on the Thatcher article...and I'll have you know his methods of editing on the Margaret Thatcher article have been disputed several times. Thanks, Fitzy's Claw (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to type on of my quotes again:
"...and I'll have you know his methods of editing on the Margaret Thatcher article have been disputed several times."
Want an example? Look at the archives before the current one on Talk:Margaret Thatcher. To say that adressing to him what multiple people have been saying for ages is an "attack" is...debatable, at best. Thanks, Fitzy's Claw (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm for my actions. I did not speak appropriately according to WP guidelines. Please forgive me and accept my apology. Anyway, there's more to it than him wanting to revert an admittedly libellous quote, he refused that criticism be allowed into the article several times.
No point in using an uncivil attack to counter an uncivil attack...it only hurts both sides of the argument.
Shall we call a truce? We are all meant to be working together on an Encyclopedia, not one side against another.
Please accept my apology.
Regards, Fitzy's Claw (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This was done in rather poor taste, and I would advise not making contentious edits in a failed attempt at humor. — Save_Us_229 18:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not disrupt the process. Mercury 22:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
She dated Erik, not Jimmy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing See alsos just because you don't know why they're there. You're doing it in multiple articles; you've been told by others that your view of that guideline is not correct; and it really is becoming disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Mmoes seems to like your user page, but he copies it rather too closely, methinks. Not sure if it matters to you, or if you care, but I thought you should know if you didn't. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Tom. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tom: Wikipedia:Civility says an example of an offense against civility is "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")." In Talk:Death_of_Emily_Sander#Continued_vandalism_to_external_links, you said that a tribute to a recently deceased friend, and in fact the entire site it is on, "whatever the hell it is, is junk, period." The article suggests giving the editor who has been uncivil a chance to apologize, which has been done on that section and which you did not accept (when asked if you thought comments like that were civil, you responded "yes" as recorded on that talk page.) It is then recommended that two editors make comments on the person's member page. If that does not resolve the conflict, then "Request comment on users" may be filed. Therefore, I am posting this comment on your member page. Your member talk page has several examples of editors saying they found your behavior uncivil. In fact you received a last notice User_talk:Threeafterthree#Last_chance and were almost blocked for disruption. I would hope that we can resolve this issue peacefully without going that far this time. Toyalla (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Threeafterthree. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Threeafterthree, where you may want to participate.
-- Toyalla (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I believe that this is a change to an edit you originally made, if so, you may wish to comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There have been many complaints about your recent behvaiour, Tom. Now, I'm not terribly experienced here at WP, however I am dissapointed by your recent incivility. I used to have the username "Fitzy's Claw", but changed it here, and, when I wanted to dispute your reversions of one of my comments here, you responded in a very civil, calm and collected manner. Please, stop this as it will only tarnish the reputation of an otherwise highly valuable contributor. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I just saw all the "be civil" and "calm down" comments and got worried. It might not have been on my talk page personally, but God only knows how many of those I've had. Oh, and Merry Christmas! Peace, Sporker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Replied. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I had a question though. This may have been a mistake. You removed a verifiable third-party source for David Howe's pedigree. The following was the cited source. Ancestry.com. One World Tree, Thomas Stanley II to David Drew Howe, on line database. Provo, Utah. The Generations Network, Inc., retrieved 27, December 2007 I'm not sure if you objected to the source or not, but I've found Ancestry.com as a source in other Biographies of living persons.--Lazydown (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I just wanted clarification from you regarding WP:SELFPUB. You had stated on the discussion page that information from Howe's website wasn't allowed in his BLP. WP:SELFPUBstates that Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves. I think you had objected to citing Howe's website as a source for his pedigree, which, the above OneWorldTree/Ancestry.com citation is the best source, I agree. I just wanted some extra clarification from you and if you feel that anything from Howe's website isn't allowable as a citation. Thanks,--Lazydown (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I can not see how Ancestry.com can be used as a reliable source, but in the end, it's for all of us to decide. From a NYT article on the site, "Ancestry.com — the most widely used — is the flagship site of Generations Network in Provo, Utah, .. has free content, including a family tree maker, but also lets users search immigration, census and military records for fees that depend on the level of records sought."
From All Things Digital, "Each person on a family tree has his or her own page with a life-events timeline and the records that you attach to the profile [emphasis added]."
From Ancestry.com's site, "Note: Ancestry World Tree GEDCOM files are voluntarily submitted by Ancestry users like yourself. We take all files "as is" and cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information contained in this database. We regret we cannot assist you in your personal research or prevent duplication of data. Our goal is to provide these user-contributed files to aid you in finding and/or correcting your family information."
Ancestry.com is clearly a "do-it-yourself" geneaology website. I can find no evidence that there is any peer reviewing of thie information. Collective thoughts? Newguy34 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I kindly request you to stop (or at least temper) your recent incivility regarding your imputation of my "pushing an agenda" and harboring sympathies as either a Scottish or Armenian person, specifically at Talk:Alan Hovhaness and other articles, referring to the reversion of the blanking of properly sourced text as vandalism, and this edit summary. This was uncalled for, as were your summary reversions and very rude/judgemental edit summaries--and also including your apparent wiki-stalking to Julian B. Please don't edit in this manner; we are a community and need to always edit in a thoughtful manner. Best, Badagnani (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You should not have done this in this case. Most of the standard music reference works, and interviews with this composer (Alan Hovhaness) begin with the statement that he is an American composer of Armenian and Scottish heritage. Please restore this information to the article, which is crucial to an understanding of this composer's output. Badagnani (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, you appear to have conducted the same blanking of links four times within a 24-hour period, in three different instances. Shall I report you for this, or will you kindly restore the links? Badagnani (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Tom. I'm actually very glad you drew my attention to the Owen Dodson article, since it was definitely in need of some work. You asked there about general issues regarding African-Americans--race/ethnicity as a whole is not really my forte, but the Harlem Renaissance is something I've done some work on, and I would ask you to be very careful about removing the phrase African-American--and the link to the article--from the lead in biographies of H. Renaissance figures. Those authors, artists, and scholars are really identified first and foremost through the movement as a whole; from a scholarly point of view, someone like Langston Hughes, by his own identification and that of subsequent scholarship, is a black poet first and a U.S. poet second. This is why the term African-American is so important--it contains two significant means of identification in a single term; ethnicity, for these historical figures, is not truly separable from nationality. But don't take my word for it, if you're going to do some large-scale work on these articles, you might want to gather consensus first; a lot of people watch Talk:African American; fewer people, but still a good number, watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora. Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Tom. Did you truly intend to call this vandalism? Just sayin'. Happy editing, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why you removed an edit to a link I entered on the George Galloway page? The site I linked to (my own) provides all the new media relating to Galloway, much of it becoming viral around the net. So, the question is, why did you think it was wrong when the link had already been there for a year or more and is clearly providing a valuable and relevant resource? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couchtripper (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to add your comments on the WP:BLP page linked above.DSatYVR (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Oxford Round Table, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. ColdmachineTalk 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you lived on the Cape and Islands. I don't know if you know that there is a project encompassing the Cape. If you are interested on joining, click on this link: WikiProject Cape Cod. Feel free to join. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
And for your civility. I have replied to your posts (one of which I tried to do with a hint of sarcasm, although now that I look at it fails horribly, so hoping you don't take it the wrong way) and hopefully addressed your concerns on verifiability of the event. (I do think personally that the current citations you removed should be replaced with the cite video one that was mentioned in the discussion page earlier, however, I do not know the exact date it was reported on, so I can't do it myself, and I'm adverse to removing the current cites until the new one gets added, as I fear that some editors might decide to delete the section outright again.)
Thank you again for your opinions, and I hope to see you on the talk page again.
ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note. There is an admin user Tom. To prevent confusion (as I was confused about it) you might want to consider distinguish your user name from his, somehow. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not reverse the edit.
It is relevant as it is an astonish fact as she reported it. I presented it on the discussion page before editing. I reviewed archives before editing. I saw no consensus for exclusion.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I was not exactly friendly. Please accept my apologies.
I don't agree with your reverting me, however that should not be an issue
Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bob Enyart, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Enyart. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mksmothers (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)