Dayewalker (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
: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, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] [[User talk:Threeafterthree|(talk)]] 18:16, 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, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] [[User talk:Threeafterthree|(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 Wikipedia 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. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 18:25, 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 Wikipedia 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. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:27, 17 May 2010
Welcome.......
Do YOU know what the word outwith means???
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting four tildes like this: ~~~~ at the end of your post.
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.[1] 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...[2] --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)
- 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:
- 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 latest book just went international, in case you'd like to add that too...[2] --Elonka 19:07, 3 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
- You are wrong. The comment, while acerbic, specifically addresses the attempt by others to add a crit section (frowned upon by Wikipedia 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)