User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

My RfA

Hello Threeafterthree, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński

There is no requirement that sources have to be in English. The fact that this site includes this biography means that they are asserting that he was Jewish.--Runcorn 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Runcom, English sites are preffered per WP:V. Also, my Polish is very weak, but I don't even see that this person is mention on that site. Anyways, can we keep that material out until we have some reliable sources in English? Thanks, --Tom 23:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources have to be in English. I now ask you formally, please, do not delete properly sourced material.--Runcorn 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński‎. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Runcorn 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but asking for sources for material in question in not vandalism/ Please stop pushing your agenda here. --Tom 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Spielberg

Hi, Finally, an editor with the same "allergy" to "fluff" writing in Wikipedia. Like you, I am tired of "fluff" writing, especially in music and arts articles, when we hear that so-and-so band is "the most influential and important rock band in the history of music" and that so-and-so rock singer "is widely considered to have the greatest voice in all of rock history." Whenever I see this style of writing, I purge it!Nazamo 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually believe that there are "others" of "us" out there :). Seriously, I have been only removing material from the project lately since at least 90% if not more, of the material in here is without sources. The project has exploded in content over the last 18 months. Good and bad imho. Most of the material is probably correct or added in good faith, but without references, who should believe it? I surely would not. Anyways, best of luck and let me know if you need assistance with "fluff removal". Cheers! --Tom 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In such circumstances, a better approach--even if only a first step--is to put in an indication that support for the unsourced statement is lacking. If after a period of time none is added, deletion is appropriate.

If there is reliable evidence that supports the notion that the entry is incorrect, or if it is disparaging information--especially of a living person--immediate deletion can well be appropriate.

Otherwise, if one's agenda is to improve Wiki, premature deletion (rather than citation tagging) fails to help us towards our goal IMHO. Epeefleche 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"_____ actress"/"actress from _____"

Sorry, I don't really see the difference here in terms of Kidman being born in the USA(?) The only reason I prefer "actress from Australia" is simply because it is unusual (and I think ugly) to have footnotes in the middle of sentences, and the fn obviously needs to come straight after "Australia". Grant | Talk 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article says "from", a reader might wrongly think she was born there. Anyways, no biggie, cheers!--Tom 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MMM

Please stop edit warring over your apparent wish to delete accurate and verified content from the article, thanks. Gwen Gale 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please advise what your agenda is here? Thanks --Tom 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you revert the article again within the next 24 hours or so you will be in violation of 3rr. Please stop edit warring. If you feel so strongly about this you might want to consider an RfC. Gwen Gale 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

dido to you. --Tom 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate media reports article

What you removed is a summary of the main page on inaccurate media reports of the VT massacre. Not all of them were unsourced. Don't remove them unless you know for sure. If you want to note that sources are needed or that any of the claims are under specualtion that's fine with me, but please don't delete them. -Youngidealist 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Samaha's Lebanese descent

You said: "That material should be removed ASAP. Unless we are going to go into EVERYBODIES ethnic background, it's offensive and unnecessary. --Tom 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)"

It's a stretch to call it offensive when the information is widely circulated: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Reema+Lebanese&btnG=Search WhisperToMe 01:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are adding ethnic background info to ALL victims, then its prefectly OK. If not, then I still think its offensive. Just because its widely published means little. --Tom 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no position on your dispute, but would point out that the fact that it is widely published is of great importance under a Wiki notability analysis. In fact, it is more important than whether either of you in your subjective POV believe it to be notable. Epeefleche 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

You've now twice removed the word "controversial" on the grounds it is POV, and now that it's unsourced. Please read the article itself, which contains multiple sources (as does the sub article). Read before asserting.  ;-) /Blaxthos 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do ANY of those sources SAY that Fox's slogan is "controversial" or are you summizing that on your own? --Tom 12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And you've now reverted a third time. Please be aware that if you revert again, you will be in violation of the three revert rule. Doing so leaves you vulnerable to being blocked for disruption. Please discuss without continuing to revert. - auburnpilot talk 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

NPA Warning

With regards to your comments on Talk:Fox News Channel: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You might also want to consider going easy on the profanity and other behavior that could be construed as incivility. /Blaxthos 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

yadda, yadda, yadda --Tom 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Page Article Vandalism

Hello. I've been watching the Larry Page article over a few months. The "jewish" references have been bouncing in and out nearly every day lately, and at least 2-3 times each week over that entire period. At one point someone had a not-very-authoritative reference, but otherwise they have typically been unreferenced. Anyhow, can we safely assume that this is vandalism, or might some people be adding this with good intentions? I'm wondering if you might be willing to help me research this, and set a solid answer, or do something to curtail this. Any ideas? Jrmski 23:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jrmski, the key point is when you use the word "intentions" above. Some people would like to add this material out of ethnic pride. Some people would like to add this material to prove some anti-semetic theory. Whatever the case, only SOURCED, RELIABLE, RELEVANT material should be added to improve the article and NOT based on anybodies intentions. People from BOTH sides dislike the edits I make so I know I am doing good work :). Bottom line, ANY material that is added to this project should have a reliable source provided AND be relevant to the article. Is this easy? Big no. Thanks for your comment and best of luck with your editing experiences here. Cheers! --Tom 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tom on many of his above points. As he says, no doubt some people seek to insert these references out of ethnic pride (I would add that some try to prevent them out of hostility towards the ethnicity--the opposite side of the coin). And, as he points out, some wosh to "prove" an anti-semitic theory (I would add here as well that some are seeking to provide evidence weighing against any antisemitic theory--this, for example, is one of the avowed purposes of one of the Jewish Sports Halls of Fame).

I also agree with Tom's suggestions that information should be sourced and reliable. This is the same point that applies to all information added to Wiki, however. It does not mean that every reference to the fact that someone is Jewish must be individually footnoted. Any more than there is a requirement to the fact that they are German must be footnoted. But the same level of support is required. And, I would suggest, if there is good faith controversy as to whether the person is Jewish (or German), one might wish to make certain that the external links, at minimum, support that notion. If someone calls for a footnote for each such reference, without any apparent reason to quwstion it, it may well be that the person wishes to quash the appearance of the information for a reason other than their belief it its being accurate.

The last point Tom makes is the only one that I differ on. There is no requirement that, to reflect that a person is Jewish, one need make a case for how that is relevant. That might, perhaps, be the focus of an argument as to whether mention properly belongs in the first para. But I have not seen any Wiki support for the notion, presented by Tom, that that must be proven for reflection within the text of the article. Wiki doesn't require it for saying one is German, or born on a certain date. Nor does Wiki policy require it for reference to the fact that they are Jews. Moreover, repeated references to the fact that a person is Jewish on multuiple sources supports the fact that they are notable for it, as notability is defined on Wiki.

Cheers. Epeefleche 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Original research

I will explain a crucial response to this:

"This is sort of like the nationality issue. Are we going to go into detail about where EVERYBODY was when they were shot. If so, fine, otherwise, does this really needed to be added to a few folks "bios" or whatever we are calling their listing? Just adking for now and will not remove. Thanks, --Tom 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

Here's mine: I-do-not-have-the-information-for-the-others. I-would-gladly-supply-it-if-I-had-the-information. There.

See, the argument above is invalidated by WP:OR and the fact that we have limited information at the moment. Instead of asking for some of the details to be excised, wait patiently for more information to trickle about the fates of the people. See, I can tolerate the reaction with the descents since the details were fairly trivial. With death locations, they are directly relevant to the V-Tech massacre.

I would gladly add the other death positions if I had information for everybody (I.E. maps of the dead) - Until then, deleting the information on the people we have would cheapen the quality of this article.

If you can find a document with the information for the others, I would be glad to have it and thank you endlessly :)

WhisperToMe 03:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Zivb2006's stray comment

Do YOU know what the word outwith means???

Hello Tom, how are you? in continue to the message you sent me i have created myself a username that is called "zivb2006" and i hope i am able to edit wikipedia again.If there is something i would like to ask than i would do so. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivb2006 (talk • contribs)

Good or evil?

Thanks for letting me know. He created the category as an attempt to do an end-run around the deletion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:People_who_have_renounced_Judaism. However, the category he created has also been deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_8#Category:Jews_who_converted_to_Christianity Please let me know if he attempts to re-create it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I would welcome your input at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre

You're very welcome. I don't know why Friday is believed to be significant. I've seen several "fate freeks" who try to get significance that this massacre also happened on Sept. 11. But not the day of the week. But this article has been nothing but a series of edit wars. Unfortunate, it's just one of those subjects people cannot discuss without passion. With that said, I think at this time to convince people one way or the other is pointless and would advise backing off until calmer heads prevail.Davemeistermoab 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just add that while I think the article's marginally better off without mentioning "Friday", it's not going to suffer greatly if the word stays in the lead while we sort it out on the talk page. I think we can come to a consensus fairly quickly if we let the edit war die down. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you believe in the tooth fairy as well :). The owners of this article will NEVER EVER EVER allow "Friday" to be removed from the lead. All I want to know is WHY!! Thanks! --Tom 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over the word "Friday". I will ask for administrator intervention the next time either you or Duke53 adds or removes that word in the lead. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why am I the bad guy here? I have been using the talk page and there does seem to be consensus that the word should not be used in the LEAD. I was also asked if I would compromise and I said "Absolutely"! Has Duke given ANY valid reason for his insistance of this issue? Why is it that an anon ip with no other edits keeps adding it back? Anyways. --Tom 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're both the "bad guy" for edit warring; it doesn't matter who's right. Stop edit warring and you'll be the good guy once more. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the good guy but consensus on the talk page and the quality of the lead means...sqwaut?? How is that improving or adding the the project??--Tom 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, consensus (the principle) means a great deal. But since you have been warring over this with Duke53 and others, it's probably best to let some other editor implement the consensus. You could even ask an editor to do it for you, if you think consensus has been achieved but you see no action on it for a while. But you need to step away from making those changes personally; you are too emotionally attached to the issue at this point. And, although consensus is an important principle, the word "Friday" being in the lead is not a very important issue to be fighting over. This edit war makes me think of two adults beating each other up at a Little League game over an errantly called strike. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine Analyst, I will chill. I was actually gone from the article but checked in every so often. I guess the anoyning thing to me is that an anonymous ip with NO other edits added that tid bit back in with no edit summary and it started all over again. Anyways, I will TRY to not revert it back, but rather keep it here on the talk page. As far as the parents fighting at little league, thats me to a tee :) Cheers! --Tom 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User to keep an eye on

One who is evidently pushing some sort of pro-German or German-American agenda, most recently edited at [1] and [2]. Mainly on the article German American, where he has added stuff like "Others are prominent celebrities and complete the impressive list of famous German Americans", and List of famous German Americans, where he is using a lot of unreliable websites with no credited authors. Cheers, Mad Jack 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Those pesky Germans :). I actually have my hands full with two totally ridiculous edit wars that I can't let go, but I must. This place can be SO dam frustrating sometimes. Anyways, thanks for the note and I will check it out. I could use a PRODUCTIVE distraction from my current nonsense :) Cheers MAdJ! --Tom 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You were reported at 3RR for edit warring on Fox News Channel. Although I am not blocking you at this time, I strongly recommend you take an active role in the discussion on the talk page. Your position may have merit, but edit warring is not the way to get it done. Kafziel ^Talk 17:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel. Thanks for not blocking me. The last edit was just to add a fact tag. I will try to discuss but some folks are very militant and have a real bias/agenda. Anyways, thanks again! --Tom 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel, justed wanted to let you know I'm also done editing Fox News for now and responding to Blaxthos. It really has gotten childish. Thanks, --Tom 14:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear. I think everyone could use a break from that article for a little while. Kafziel ^Talk 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

Why did you revert me? I added a category to the article, together with a good reference to substantiate the category.--20.138.246.89 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Per wp:blp, the individual must self-identify and it must be relevant to the article. don't see either. Please stop with this. --Tom 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP; it says nothing about ethnic categories.--20.138.246.89 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, cut the crap. You have made some good additions, but you have also made some very questionable ones that points to some type of agenda. You are an anon IP that is obviously interested in Jewish issues. Nothing wrong with that except it will raise a BIG red flag around here to certain editors. Anyways, --Tom 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't listen to threats. I have made a properly sourced addition 100% in conformity with Wikipedia policies. If you don't like it, please ask for mediation.--20.138.246.89 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

mediation? The only thing I am going to ask for is a good stiff drink. ENOUGH!!--Tom 16:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Sorry to barge into your talk page (Larry Sanger is on my watchlist), but I'm confused about your post above, and feel it may be taken the worng way. Would you be willing to clarfiy what you meant by editors interested in Jewish issues raising a big red flag for certain other editors? IronDuke 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke, please, no need to apologize, as you can see I've got my hands full with way to many editors dealing with ridulous issues(full moon you know). Alot of time I type responses very quickly and what I'm thinking in my head doesn't come out right in print. What I meant above, is that if an editor, works on say Lists of Jewish folks, or Jewish issues type articles, ect. alot of good faith editors,like yourself and others, will see them because they are on their watch list. I have no idea what this person's INTENTIONS are but I'm pretty sure he has them, be they good faith or more sinister. I was actually blocked by, my now friend, Jayjg because I had been removing "Jewish-American" from the lead sentence of many bios where it had been added out of questionable motivations. Bottom line, when an anon IP, only edits cetain article relating to Jewish persons or topics, its not bad that the community take a look and make sure things are on the up and up. All I ask for is sources. Sources, sources, sources. I hope this helps a little and also please feel free to e-mail me if you would like to take this off line as it were. Regards! --Tom 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. No need to go offline, I think. While I have no opinion on the matter you and the anon are discussing, I wanted to be sure that it was clear to him/her that having an interest in Jewish issues on AP was in no way a bad or suspicious thing. Sometimes editors who get a little too specific, e.g., an editor who only tries to insert negative material into the Donovan McNabb article and makes no other edits, can be looked at askance. But there are plenty of WP specialists in a host of areas, as I'm sure you know. Cheers. IronDuke 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, having a specific area of interest is prefectly acceptable and very understandable. I actually find biographies of living persons to be of interest. As you said, its more an "editing" pattern, if you will. The way I got into this whole thing, a number of editors added "Jewish-American" to the lead sentence of approximately 300-400 bios about 18 months ago. Their intentions?? Not sure, but it didn't really matter since it didn't appear to conform to Wiki standardizations. I reverted literally 100s of these and ended up being blocked for a month for "creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits" editing . Anyways, --Tom 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I can really say on this issue is that there is so much unsourced info on Wikipedia that I wouldn't go around deleting sourced info (well, unless it violated WP:MOSBIO or some other style guide, etc.) Mad Jack 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to be more specific, you should ask the anon exactly what the reference says about Sanger being Jewish. I'd guess it to be a full-length article from the title. Mad Jack 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Brought to this page only because I saw that just made another unhelpful RV, where the Wiki policy refers only to placement of the information, rather than make a helpful move of the information, I see from the above that this is something you say you have done hundreds of times. My thoughts on that are below.

I must say I also share some concern about your reference to those interested in Jewish bios. I read all of your comments here, twice in fact, and other than your reference to drinking and sending out comments that do not reflect your thoughts, is see little to clarify it for me in a way that is comforting. Perhaps you could help us all out and take a moment before hitting the enter button, to make sure that it both reflects your thoughts and does not have a tone that one could read as personally insulting? That would be appreciated, and helpful I would think.

I see nothing in Wiki policy, including that that you have pointed to, to suggest that you should delete references to the fact that the subject of the bio is Jewish. There is no need to gather support for the impact of this fact on their life. Just as we often indicate that a person was born on, say, june 3, or that they are American, without any felt need to support inclusion of that information based on its impact on their life. Same here.

There is a discussion that can be had as to whether the fact that a person is Jewish is properly placed if it appears in the first paragraph of, say, an article about all of the following: Sandy Koufax, Angela Buxton, and Marty Glickman, or only some of them--with that information being more properly presented lower down in the article. But that is the limit of any Wiki-based policy discussion on this issue.

Finally, when the anon made what I thought was a perfectly good point, backed by a (linked, for your ease of reference) reference to Wiki policy, for you to respond by simply saying "cut the crap"--and then fail to engage him in a thoughtful intellectual discussion of the issue, does little to advance your cause. Nor does it match your self-description as one who is only interested in sources. He provided a source. You tried to shout him down. That is not, I would suggest, the most courteous or helpful response. Even anon's can make helpful revisions and thoughtful, accurate, and polite arguments.

Let's all work together here to make this a better product. Epeefleche 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll make it perfectly clear. THEIR ARE ANTI-SEMITES IN HERE. ARE YOU ONE? I CAN'T TELL ANYMORE. --Tom 13:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, I am not an anti-semite. Not in the least. My longest discussions of late have been my attempt to stop one user from RVing the fact that certain chess players are Jewish (he seems to be against people knowing this ... Look at the discussion on the Reuben Fine talk page if this interests you),fending off an attempt to delete "Jewish fencers" as a category by editors who had previously failed to delete Jewish sportspeople as a category (their deletion effort failed), and seeking to stop their effort then to delete "Jewish figure skaters as a category--their effort to my surprise has initially been succeddful, though I am hopeful that its current deletion review will come up with a non-delete conclusion consistent with prior decisions.

Anti-semites don't tend to have a hankering to reflect the fact that accomplished Jewish sportspeople are Jewish. And I'm certainly not one.

I don't know whether you are an antisemite or not, but I am willing to work with everyone as long as they work within the Wiki rules. The effort to make Wiki Judenrein is not supported by Wiki policy, so I'm willong to just work with Wiki policy without bringing into play whether people on the other side of the discussion are anti-semitic or not.

Why are people so emotional on the issue of Jewish sportspeople? Well, all the books and articles about them suggest an interest that I would guess largely stems from pride. Why would others take the opposite view? Can't think of many great reasons, but as Wiki policy suggests that they should not prevail, I guess I don't need to know in order to suggest that their view sgould not prevail.

Have a great weekend!Epeefleche 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, as long as sources can be provided for your additions and SOME effort is made to incorporate the material into the article so it "flows" and has some relevance, I have no problem with that. Anyways, have a great weekend yourself! Cheers, --Tom 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Sources can be provided" is the same requirement as we have for mention of nationality. Makes sense. As to it flowing, that is of course the goal. If it doesn't flow, a "fix the flow" approach does far less damage to the article IMHO than a "delete the accurate material for flow reasons.". At minimum (worst case), it can always go into a Miscellaneous section.

There is no greater requirement for a cite to how being Jewish impacted their life, btw, than there is that there be a cite to how being Russian, say, impacted their life.

Deletion of good material that could be better placed or presented serves only to degrade the quality of the bio.

Btw--any thoughts on this issue? Some editors, for whatever reason, RV edits that x is Jewish, insisting on only saying that x's parents were Jewish. I think this is wrong-headed for a few reasons. 1-the article is about x, not the parents, so the fact that x is jewish should be of greater interest and relevance. And 2-the child usually is the same religion as the parent, but not always (as they grow older and exercise choice). Thoughts?

Test2 warning

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Baxter. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Runcorn 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not vandalism. Its called removing unsourced material from the biography of a living person. Please take it to the article's talk page. Thanks, --Tom 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not unsourced. It is sourced to Who's Who in the World.--Runcorn 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Helpful revisions

Hello. I think it would be much more helpful if you would, when you run into text that you believe Wiki policy suggests should not be part of the initial paragraph of a bio, move that information to a location in the bio that strikes you as more appropriate. For you to instead take the somewhat draconian step of deleting the information from the bio, because of your understanding of an issue of form that speaks only to the proper location of the information, is decidedly less helpful and has a deletirious effect on the article.

Surely, you would not delete information due to a typo, and then point to the fact that the spellin was wrong. It would be great if you would take the same helpful step here that you would with a typo, and "fix" it rather than delete it.

Thanks much. Epeefleche 22:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest Epee, we have crossed swords before as it were :) about this. My big problem is that I see bios where a person's "Jewishness" is inserted into the article in a way that, oh course, imho, looks, feels very awkward. Inserting that material for no other sake than it's own doesn't improve the article. If its a full blown bio, ok, it makes sense, but like I said, I see bios where it looks totally out of place. Anyways, I try to stick to the LEAD sentence of bios per Wiki's manual of style. I am in NO way trying to ethnically cleanse articles ect. In fact, I am trying to battle what I feel are some people's negative agenda of pushing some type of Jewish conspiracy theory about everybody being of Jewish decent, ect. If there are RELIABLE, easily checked sources, fine, whatever, I'm done battling folks over this. Look at the note below. I have NO idea what is up with that but will have to check it out. I'm actually getting VERY tired of editing this project because it just has gotten to be too much battling over what? I really think this project is amazing and enjoy alot of folks around here but I'm closing to leaving for awhile. I took some time of befoe and it might be time to do that again. Anyways, take care and thanks for your note. Cheers, --Tom 12:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you help please

I am delighted to see that you wish to stop users with an agenda. There are a few editors who appear (WP:AGF, I may be misunderstanding) to have an agenda to remove references to Jewishness from biographical articles and to delete names from lists of Jews. They often make incorrect references to WP:BLP (which does not cover ethnic categories). I am sure that you will wish to oppose any such moves.--Brownlee 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No I can't help. I'm very close to the edge right now. --Tom 13:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Schlesinger

Tom, thank you for your message. Schlesinger is an interesting guy for many reasons. One of them -not necessarily the most important - is that he was Jewish, known to be so, and provoked reactions from notable people (including Beethoven) as a consequence. I don't have any agenda in pushing this, it just happens to be a fact. I get the message that you don't like this fact, although I have not yet understood your reasons. But then I am just a WP editor, not a sociologist or psychiatrist. Actually to be perfectly honest I have enough on my plate without even wanting to understand your reasons. It just happens that I know a fair amount about Schlesinger and I had a desire to put in on WP. When I have time I will fill out more stuff about him, which is nothing to do with his Jewishness. But that won't stop him from having been Jewish, and relevantly so for WP purposes. --Smerus 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't give a rat's ass about this guy or his ethnicity. Its about people's agenda pushing in here and Wiki's manual of style when it comes to biographies. Unforetunately anti-semitic editors like to mess with bios of Jewish folks so the best thing to do to aviod this is to standardize the way the bios are treated to minimize this. Please look at the bulk of bios out there. Thanks, --Tom 13:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but I agree that it shouldn't be mentioned that someone is Jewish in the introduction unless it is the essence of their notoriety, i.e. in Moses Mendelsohn's case. Regarding your opposition to my Category:Jewish converts to Christianity, User:JJay pointed out that there was an exact such list published in the Jewish Encyclopedia here and even statistics on the numbers converted and to what branch of Christianity. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gustav, I never made ANY opinion as to the category you mentioned above. Regards, --Tom 14:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you did post a message on the categories talkpage asking if it was "good or evil" and then reported the category to Jayjg which resulting in him deleting the entire category so I assumed you were opposed to it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I posted that because I wasn't sure what the intentions were, though I felt there might be some. Anyways, I am sort of bonked right now so I really don't have an opinion right now. Er, what was the question :). Anyways, carry on :) --Tom 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO if he is Jewsish, and the same support for that fact exists as for the fact of his nationality, it is appropriate for it to go in.

As to whether there are antisemites who wish to stress that bad people are jewish, that may be. Just as they may wish to de-stress that accomplished people are jewish.

All we need to do, I think, is follow the rules, and let the chips fall as they may.

See my discussion above with Tom. Thanks.

Epeefleche 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Furniss deletions

Hello Tom, why delete the links on the Harry Furniss page to external sites? He was an illustrator, so a link to a site that shows his illustrations seems useful. You've deleted all of my other links. Can you let me know why? EC4 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi EC4, per wp:el, blogs are not allowed around here. Nothing personal. Cheers! --Tom 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tom

Me again, couldn't work out how to add to the above post! Thanks for the reply. I've got it now. Is this site definitely classed as a blog? Anyway, I'll defer to your better judgement. I won't put the links back. Thanks again, and apologies for being such a beginner. EC4 19:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi EC4, absolutely NO need to apologize. Everybody was new here once. I have over 3,000 edits and I still have a ton to learn :). I saw "blog" in the url so I think its safe to assume its some type of blog. Also, please try to use the "edit summary" when editing. This allows other editors to view the article history and see what or why you did what you did and your thinking. Keep editing but be aware this can become addicting :). Most folks are very friendly and willing to help. If I can help just drop a line like you did above. Cheers! --Tom 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What do I do with an editor who deletes my comments?

Hi Tom. Given your experience, perhaps you have a suggestion as to how I might best address this issue.

In a discussion on a review of a category deletion decision, a person with views contrary to mine has deleted my comments (without my permission) from the discussion page, and moved them to another page.

I've asked him to RV his change. But he hasn't.

We all dislike edit wars.

What is the most effective way for me to address this, procedurally?

Thanks much. Epeefleche 08:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Epee, the first thing to do is take a DEEP breath :). Seriously, I like to get other eyes involved, as you have done. Can you provide a link to where he "moved" your comments? The only time that is remotely appropriate is if their was some type of personal attack, ect which I would be VERY surprised knowing you or if you posted comments in the "wrong" place ect. There are many places like WP:AIV or WP:RFC to report disruption/problem editors. I usually don't do that because if the person is hell bent on being a jerk, I doubt they will listen to anybody, and I am lazy :) I usually just stay at them and ask for assistance from other knowledgeable editors. You sort of have to pick your battles and decide how much effort is it really worth. Again, if you provide a link I would be happy to review it and add my opinion or revert as appropriate. Cheers! --Tom 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom regarding your opposition to Jewish categories please think about this. Jews did not have their own state until the 1940s after 2000 years of being denied one by the Romans and the Ottomans. The idea that categories related to state and occupation are only related to the geographic area and have nothing to with self identification or a sense of belonging to a people is wrong. If you get what you want in deleting these categories there will seem to have been no Jews who did anything throughout history because they were always citizens (often not even full citizens) of various states. Is that what you want? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Where have I said that I want to delete these categories? I just left a comment about the many other like categories out there. My friend User:Jack O'Lantern, is a voice of reason and very tuned into these issues. I would get his imput. Bottom line, we should only call/list/categorize folks the way they have ALREADY been classified by established, peer reviewed sources. We shouldn't decide or think anything, we should sort of be like mushrooms :). Seriously, just provide sources that back up our material EXACTLY as we want to present it. Cheers! --Tom 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC) ps, for the umptenth time, its not about denying Jewish history or accomplishments, ect. I myself am of Polish Jewish descent. Its about standardization of presenting material, not doing original research, and reaching consenus in a forum open to 6 BILLION editors :) Cheers! --Tom 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the url that you requested ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_3 any advice as to how I might most appropriately address the problem of his deleting my comment from the discussion page (and moving it to another page) would be much appreciated. Thanks. Epeefleche 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustav-as to your above point, just to muddy your impression of Tom, I've actually asked for his advice here where the fellow on the other side is taking a "let's delete this Jewish category" approach. But is doing so in a, let's say "heavy handed" manner. And if u look at thurl I provide above, you will see that my comment which he moved from the talk page included a comment not dissimilar from your own, above, as to the Jewish people. I did this with a trust that Tom, whether we see eye to eye on all issues or not, would care deeply about innappropriate process. Hope that helps. Epeefleche 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Epee, I tried to figure this out. It looks like Radiant moved your comments to the talk page of the project page due to their length?? I don't know if thats the worst crime in the world or what the policy is in regards to that. I have noticed that your comments are pretty long and involved. Unfortuneately, in the get it done yesterday world we live in, folks don't like to wade through lengthy aruguments.discussions. Anyways, I know this dosen't really answer your question. I would just say try to work with folks and take thier advice to heart as best you can, Cheers, --Tom 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Tx. This is just what I needed.

As far as the"I was just doing a public service" argument, I had actually thought it quite opaque.he said that his reason for moving the comments was their length. But I find that difficult to believe.

First, R was not a disinterested person, but someone hostile to the comments that he moved. They were comments that Second, if all he cares about is asked that his admin decision be overturned. And that defended against his (unfounded) charges (which he then reiterated on the talk page, after removing mine). Shortening the page discussion, he is free to move his comments off the page. But he cherry picked those he disagreed with. Third, it is subjective as to what the appropriate length is for an article. I saw no reference to a Wiki policy supporting his action, even if he had been a disinterested party. Fourth, I would suggest that moving the comments off the page makes it more difficult, not less difficult, to follow the discussion. Fifth, the comments were substantive. There were many non-substantive and redundant comments (including his) that were not removed.

In short, I don't see the Wiki policy that support one editor removing another's comments for this reason--even if it were believable that it was in fact the reason. But what makes his action especially innapropriate, it strikes me, is that he is in a lively discussion as to the innapropriateness of his decision, and moves off the page those comments that seek to point out the error in his decision.

This is like it would have been had Clinton broken into Monica's house to take and burn the blue dress, and then claimed it was all just about his interest in spring cleaning.

IMHOEpeefleche 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the Clinton analogy :). Again, I am not sure who did what, but I do agree that "interested" parties should be very carefull when removing/editing material or comments if there is an ongoing dispute. I myself like to keep things as there were to preserve the "history" and not move/remove stuff unless there is a REALLY good reason. Anyways, --Tom 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tx. Would you have any idea how I appeal the review of the deletion ... which was, I would suggest, improperly impacted (see my talk page for someone who missed my comments because they were moved) by what I would suggest was this innapropriate removal? Tx.--Epeefleche 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

Oddly, you removed the tag without correcting the problem. Either cite the claim or leave the tag. Contact me with questions. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like somebody added the referrence about the Duke case being dismissed. Is that what you were questioning or was it something else? Thanks, --Tom 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That was it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I don't see anything wrong with the lead you mentioned. What is the problem with it, as you see it?

Also, you're removing Russian-American from articles, and adding "Russian born American" [3], but the punctuation is wrong. It needs to be Russian-born (compound adjective). And can you say why you're removing "Jewish" once again? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slim, yeah I sort of realized the compound adjective thing a little late into my edit spree. I will go back and correct those in the next day or two. As far as Trude Weiss-Rosmarin goes, what is a "German Jewish writer"? Does she only write Jewish material? In her case, she is involved primarily in Jewish related material from what I can tell, but again this goes back to wp:mosbio. It seems that Wikipedia has standardized on not using ethnicity in the LEAD sentence unless that is what the subject is notable for. Is Weiss-Rosmarin's prime notability her "Jewishness"? Oh course there are exceptions if the person's notability is due to their ethnicity. Examples being Leo Frank. Elie Wiesel has "American-Jewish writer" and again, I find that to be confusing. Its still not about denying ethnicity. Anyways, I should ask my ethnicity guru :) user JackOlantern what he thinks because I find him to be a voice of reason in these matter. I see that Blu Greenberg and all the other ladies in Jewish feminism are standardized. Anyways, the old me would revert you, but I will ask for more input and defer to the community. I an not always as good at conveying my thoughts into the PC as I would like but hope this helps. Thanks for your reply, cheers! --Tom 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A reference to a German Jewish writer, without more, suggests that the person is German and that the person is Jewish.

Not that they are writing about German issues. Or Jewish issues. But the bio can, if either is the case, go on to so point out.

As to wp:mosbio, if you read it, you will see an example presented on Asimov, that mentions in the lead sentence that he is Jewish. While you say that "It seems that Wikipedia has standardized on not using ethnicity in the LEAD sentence unless that is what the subject is notable for," I have discussed at length how the Jews differe from other ethnic groups, as they are a nation. The wp:mosbio model bio is consistent with my interpretation. It is inconsistent with your interpretation (and that of some others), who prefer for whatever reason to abide by their interpretation rather than adopt one that is not inconsistent with the wp model bio.--Epeefleche 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

John von Neumann edits

Tom, it is not clear to me why you modified the reference to what I expect is an historical fact - circumcision. For me, the article should contain all facts pertinent to the person of John von Neumann. That he engaged in behavior now frowned upon, if not during his lifetime, seems not so insulting of the person. John von Neumann was as colorful as he was capable, and I tend to disagree with editors who remove information of this kind. In that respect, the edit you made seems more to limit knowledge transfer to the reader, than any other consideration. So, I would like to understand your justification.

I do not know much about the students of John von Neumann, though I seem to recall there having been only one. Thus, I am not particularly concerned with this edit, as other editors will surely support you in keeping this part of the article accurate. William R. Buckley 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How is mentioning that he had a "ritual circumcision" relevant to the article? Is that sourced and how does that add to the article? Was he also left handed? We don't add every "fact" about an individual to a bio unless it has some relevance/significance. Also, what "behavior now frowned upon" are you reffering to? I see that the article mentions some unsourced material that I will be removing shortly but can you be more specific? --Tom 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A fact about an individual, even if embarrassing, is relevant to an article about the individual, the biography. If the article is about the works of the individual, say cellular automata, then that fact, that biographical note, is likely not so relevant, though I might conjure ambiguity. So, location of expression within Wikipedia is important to a decision of inclusion. Given familial relations, I think it important to recognise von Neumann's Jewish heritage. A ritual circumcision establishes religious convictions, even if non-practiced, and is about the man, not his works; the note is biographical. Of course, agreement exists on the necessity of reference, so if you can establish no reference, then by all means remove the offending content. William R. Buckley 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The behavior mentioned is a well known anecdote about von Neumann's habit of looking at the legs of women. Perhaps today this would get more complaint vis-à-vis sexual harassment, and the like. In any case, a biography should of its nature include facts of the person, even if they be found embarrassing. William R. Buckley 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect some wrangling over the issue of von Neumann's religious sentiments is due more the faith of involved editors, than the faith of von Neumann. See the article talk page for details. Thank you for your kind response. William R. Buckley 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

We go by what reliable sources say; Cantor therefore belongs on the list unless and until these sources are proved wrong. Anything else violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion on his talk page.--Simul8 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You have provided one source, and that source makes pretty clear that his inclusion in this category is very questionable. Based on that, please provide a few more reliable sources that definitively call him Jewish. Thanks, --Tom 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"This method was first studied by Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp Cantor (1845–1918), born to a Jewish Danish father, who converted to Protestantism" Amihood, Amir. "Computer Science." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 129-132.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=114&letter=C&search=CANTOR%20GEORG

IMHO, lets reflect what the sources say, and let them speak for themselves.--Epeefleche 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

--Simul8 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So Cantor wasn't Jewish? Who converted, Cantor or his father? I wish we could just get these folks on the phone and ask them :). --Tom 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

I was questioning that, yes. I know Hoover's article says that, sort of, but I remember seeing a family tree of Hoover that was mostly not German. I don't know if there is a source out there that says he was mostly German. Actually that whole section seems original research-y, to me. Mad Jack 17:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add the fact template back then. His bio says his dad is of German/German-Swiss ancestry? It sounds like he is 1/3?? German whatever the heck that means. These lists and categories are SO problematic. I made a few edits to the List of German Jews and was shot down on Georg Cantor and Boris Becker. Is Becker Jewish? This whole business that his mother was Jewish or grandparents were Jewish seem irrelevant. I know that folks would consider somebody who's mother is Jewish as being Jewish, but what if that individual converted or does not consider themselves Jewish? I just left a note wishing I could just call these folks up and ask them. Also, I am not sure how reliable the Jewish Encyclopedia is since they consider folks to be Jewish based on their own criteria it seems. Anyways, thanks as always! --Tom 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he was maybe 1/4 German based on this family tree,[4] if we assume that "Sarah Burkhart" lady was of German descent. As you can see, he was even less Swiss that he was German! As far as I can remember, Becker said something akin to his mother being "of Jewish descent" or something in some interview in 1999, and since that it has gone around the net and turned into her being flat-out "Jewish". He mentions no Jewish ancestry in his book biography and indeed says that she was of Silesian(?) German ancestry. She was left totally untouched by the Nazis, which means that whatever Jewish ancestry she has, it is fairly distant. Mad Jack 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed Becker for now, since none of the remaining sources explicitly say he was Jewish, and, he clearly isn't (i.e. his book bio), and almost certainly isn't Jewish by Jewish Law (i.e. since you asked about that) Mad Jack 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Under Jewish law (of all sects), if born to a Jewish mother one is Jewish. Under Reform Judaism (which has more adherents in the US than does Orthodox Judaism, btw), if born to a Jewish father one is Jewish. (And even less than that was required by the Nazis to deem someone a Jew ... which qualified them for the crematoria -- though I would not make the jump that Mad Jack makes -- the fact that the Nazis left someone alone does not "mean" that whatever Jewish ancestry they have is fairly distant.). If someone is Jewish for a portion of their life, that is of interest to me, and more than one reference is acceptable ... the same way that we reflect with many people that they were born in country x and moved to country y ... or obtained dual citzenship with country z. --Epeefleche 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for the thoughts. I sort of use myself when thinking/editing these lists. IF, big if, I was famous (very far from it) my grandfather was 110% Jewish. My father is an agnostic and my mother is of welsh ancestry. I was raised as a Quaker. I consider myself an American but I'm also proud of my Polish-Jewish ancestry. Anybody could go back and put me on a list of Polish-American Jews, but I wouldn't consider that correct. That is why I asked the question over on the list of German-Jews(or one of the lists, i forget), is this a list of Gernam Jews or a list of people of German Jewish ancestry. Anyways, have a great weekend guys! --Tom 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tom. Well, if you were famous (and you are to us), I guess that Reforn Jews would view you as Jewish, Orthodox Jews would not (and you could not attain Israeli citizenship by the Law of Return), and the Nazis would surely kill you. Btw, the whole Welsh/Ameican discussion would not be of any moment, as they would not bear at all on whether you are Jewish. Also, the opt out question you raise is an interesting one--do you think you can opt out of being a Polish Americab (if that is the case)? I'm not sure you can. And if not, query whether the same is not the case for being Jewish. What complicates this is that the Jews are a people and a nation, as well as a religion. Njoy the weekend. Epeefleche 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the Reform and Reconstructionist groups consider someone Jewish only if they are raised fully as Jews in the Jewish religion, regardless of which parent was what. They don't really care about ancestry and I believe they view anyone who wasn't raised Jewish as not Jewish, regardless of whether their mother was. So, Tom would not be considered Jewish by the Reform, that is for sure, nor by the Orthodox (unless his maternal great-great-great-grandmother was somehow Jewish without his knowledge), and not even by the Nazis so much, they mostly left people with a single Jewish grandparent alone, and even let them serve in the Nazi army and so on. The Law of Return comment is also wrong. Anyone with a Jewish grandparent (the grandparent's Jewish status is defined according to Jewish law - so if you had a grandfather whose mother was Jewish, that would count) can immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, regardless of which grandparent that was. The only condition is that the person not practice any religion other than Judaism (no religion at all is fine). A person with a Jewish mother who is a Catholic themselves would not be granted citizenship. Although anyone with a Jewish grandparent can get a citizenship, they wouldn't be classified as "Jewish" on it unless they are Jewish under Jewish law, and so on. There appear to be a lot of misconceptions about the Law of Return's policies; I think a lot of people believe that only people who are Jewish under Jewish law can get a citizenship, and that is simply not true; I even saw Democratic leader Harry Reid say that his wife and kids and him can get Israeli citizenship because his wife was born Jewish - he seemed to imply that it was because of the maternal line. Well, they couldn't get Israeli citizenship at all, because his wife converted to Mormonism and his kids were raised, and are, Mormons. If you're using yourself when looking at these lists, then the majority of the people on them don't just have a single Jewish grandparent (and certainly those who do are not practicing Christians). As usual the criteria is or ought to be whether or not WP:RS say that they are Jews explicitly. Mad Jack 07:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So, your understanding is that one could be Jewish per the Orthodox but at the same time not per the Reform and Reconstructionist? And what does the phrase "as Jews in the Jewish religion" mean? First, is that a redundant phrase, or do the two parts of it mean diufferent things? And second, it seems an odd construct -- there must be more to it. To say simply that someone is Jewish if raised Jewish is circular, without a definition as to ehat Jewish is. If you could toss in cites on your comments on "sho is a jew" per the reform, reconstructionist, and Nazis, I would be fascinated to see them. Tx. Epeefleche 14:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, one can be considered Jewish by Orthodox and not by Reform, and vice versa. Yes, I guess "as Jews in the Jewish religion" is kind of redundant. You should read the article Who is a Jew? which explains all that I've mentioned in detail. It's a great read and it shows just how varied the definition of a Jew is, especially today. You can find a briefer version of some of it here: "The 1983 resolution says that "The child of one Jewish parent [mother or father] is under the presumption of Jewish descent...to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people." This generally means that Reform rabbis and communities will consider a person with only one Jewish parent to be Jewish if he or she is raised as a Jew. That means that the child is raised with meaningful Jewish experiences, like having a Jewish naming ceremony (bris for a boy), celebration of Jewish holidays, and attending Jewish religious school.... The policy is often called "Patrilineal Descent," because it allows for Jewish identity to be passed through the father. However, people often misunderstand the term to mean that Reform Jews accept everyone with a Jewish father to be Jewish. That is not the case." Mad Jack 18:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

don't be so quick to afd

I just finished up correcting an article you immediately afd'ed a while back Anthony Johnson (American Colonial). It was deleted before but someone else reposted it and it is a real article now. Don't be so quick to afd without proper warning or giving time for corrections next time. Sfrostee 14 May 2007

I am sorry, you are who and you are talking about what? Thanks, --Tom 12:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Compliance with mosbio

When you remove information from an article, can you please not delete it entirely but reinsert it elsewhere.--Runcorn 14:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Runcorn, I mostly try to edit/correct/work on LEAD sentences in bios to have them follow the manual of style. I am not a fan of insserting material into the article just for its own sake. If their is relevance and the material can be added so it reads/flows well that makes sense. Anyways, please feel free to let me know which bio in perticular should be correct, ect. Thanks and cheers! --Tom 12:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple. If you remove any info from the header, please put it elsewhere in the article; if you don't, you will be reverted and warned. Thanks.--Runcorn 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Runcorn, I wish it was that simple. I hear what you are saying and will try to work with you going forward. If you look at my edit history, I try to help the project with manual of style issues and removing unsourced material. Again, if you feel I have edited in error, please drop me a note and we can work it out. Thanks, --Tom 19:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Maria Menounos

You may want to keep a watch on your old friend Maria's page, as she is being turned into "an Greek American actress" in the opening once again. Cheers... Mad Jack 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It was on my watch list but I took a few days off to enjoy the real world :) Cheers! --Tom 12:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dian Parkinson

Why are you removing the link to the Dian Parkinson Swimsuit Site from the Dian Parkinson entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DPSW (talk • contribs)

Hi, because angelfire.com is not an approriate site to link to. Thanks, --Tom 18:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say angelfire.com is not an appropriate site to link to? Is that a rule that you created yourself or is that Wikipedia rule? If it's a Wikipedia rule please provide a link to where I can see the rule? If such Wikipedia rule does not exist please stop removing the link.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DPSW (talk • contribs)

Hi DPSW, I would refer you to WP:EL. Also, can you please sign your messages with four(4) tildes(~). This lets folks know who signed what and when.

There's nothing in the link you provided that leads me to believe that angelfire.com cannot be used as a link. The fact of the matter is that there are MANY angelfire.com links all over Wikipedia. I don't understand your agenda against Dian Parkinson and / or the Dian Parkinson Swimsuit Site.

According to this website angelfire.com is one of the websites with the most links from Wikipedia. http://www.online-utility.org/wikipedia/top_500_websites_wikipedia.jsp DPSW 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point! I have NO agenda against this article or person. What is your agenda and insistence on linking that site?? Its more about appropriate external links. Feel free to delete the other links you see or point them out to me and I will delete them. --Tom 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom is correct: personal websites (such as those on angelfire) are not generally subject to editorial review or reliable fact-checking and, in the interests of making Wikipedia as reliable as possible, we try to avoid sending our readers to sites with unregulated content. Some of them can be linked to in certain circumstances (not in this case, though), and lots of the ones that shouldn't still slip through. But that doesn't mean we've given up on trying to limit them. Yours is only one of many being removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, so we don't link to other sites for no reason. And repeatedly inserting links to personal websites is a form of spam, even if no monetary gain is involved. You may also want to see our conflict of interest guideline; it's clear that after a year of trying to insert this link, you have a vested interest in its inclusion here. Kafziel ^Talk 18:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Now why can't I be as elloquient? :) Thanks and well said! --Tom 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The insistence on linking that site is quite simple. The site has a lot of information, pictures and video clips about the subject and based on the comments of the site's Message Board anyone looking for information on the subject would find the site extremelly valuable.. but I guess all those people that value the site don't matter because of Threeafterthree's agenda... DPSW 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction: the site has a lot of copyright-violating pictures and video clips. If your visitors find them valuable, that's great. If CBS hasn't sued you, that's great, too. We're not interested. Kafziel ^Talk 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jim Feist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jim Feist.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jordin sparks edit

Hello Tom, This is in response to your “Welcome" message and deleting my edit. I have been doing editing on here for quite some time. I have never felt it necessary to be a user on here until it became so. I never felt the need for taking credit for my edits because they would have been done by someone else who feels that the truth should be reflected in wikipedia. When I made my edits to the article I was signed in, but the server seemed to be having problems, due to mass usage no doubt. I do appreciate your view in trying to correct my last edit as it has been a while since I have done one properly and might not have gotten my thoughts across clearly, however I feel strongly in the matter of the last edit because it is a fact. In your reason for correction you state “Provide reliable sources that states this and it can be added back, thanks!” My reliable source is the show itself. If you watched the show you can see the difference. This was not an opinionated statement. It is a fact that they edited her recap to show a different ending, perhaps if you have a DVR as I do and recorded the show you can see this as well. I am a fan of Jordin Sparks, but this should not be in question. It is about truth, fairness and the facts. I look forward to your response. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R0gue c0wb0y (talk • contribs)

Hi Rogue cowboy. Whats the line? "Wikipedia is not about the truth". What you saw and reported might be absolutely rock solid true fact, but you know what it counts for? Sqwaut, unfortuneately. What you saw and reported constitues original research. I would refer you to WP:OR. Wikipedia is about compiling already established, peer reviewed material. Current events prove problematic since there isn't alot of "established" material right away. If the NY Times or entertainment tonight or ANY reliable source reports what you are saying, you can cite them and add their material to the project. Again, I am not disputing what you saw or said but you need to find WP:RS that say EXACTLY what you want to add to the article. Cheers and have fun tonight :) --Tom 17:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My page

Please keep away from my page. there is absolutely no justification for that insult to be on my talk page. Please do not ever do it again. Thank you. 67.81.154.219 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

yadda, yadda, yadda. --Tom 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your vandalism is very much unappreciated. Cut it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.154.219 (talk • contribs)

The "Yadda yadda" stuff is immature, and testifies to the unjustified deletions mentioned ( and looked up)in the complaints elsewhere on this page. You need to listen to these people, or get a life away from wikipedia, or Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.67.173 (talk • contribs)

Providence, Rhode Island

Editor, I've noticed your contributions to the Providence, Rhode Island article. I've just nominated it for Featured Article status.--Loodog 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool! If you need assistance, please advise. Thanks! --Tom 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've completed some extensive copy-editing to the intro and history sections. If you could proofread these, it would be a great help, as I've been making some ridiculous mistakes. Also, the FA page recommends more "brilliant" writing in general. I've started with this on the demographics section, feel free to add.--Loodog 00:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How To

How Do i source it then?Novanut35 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novanut35 (talk • contribs)

To add a source to the article Pennbrook Middle School, you could use a newspaper or any reliable source. If you find a source, paste it in the talk page and I will insert it into the article. Hope this helps. --Tom 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no source. I am it, it was a first hand account, and I know that it may not be there for it. I read other articles that didnt seem like it had sources either, so whats with them?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Novanut35 (talk • contribs)

Novanut, if there is no source for the material, it should not be added, period. I agree that there is ALOT of material that is not properly sourced, but that material can be removed as well as far as I am concerned. This project is about gathering material that is ALREADY established. What you are reporting is original research and should not be included. Also, please sign your posts with four(4) tildes (~). Thanks! --Tom 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can i source it myself. ANother user said you could. Can I do that, or have a peer source it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Novanut35 (talk • contribs)

No, you can't source it yourself. That other user was incorrect if he told you that. Please read the links I provided above and PLEASE sign your posts with 4 of these ~. Thanks, --Tom 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Source=www.npenn.orgNovanut35 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats a link to the NorthPenn school district?? Does it mention the food fight? --Tom 19:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Providene FAC

After discussion with one of the tenders of the FAC page, he agreed to let me nominate again immediately. As such, here it is. Again, I'd appreciate as much feedback and assistance as you can give.--Loodog 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Will Ferrell

I retained one of your changes (removing the editorializing) but missed the other one (linking USA as American). Sorry about that. Baseball Bugs 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I was just kidding. Cheers! --Tom 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To complicate matters, an IP address immediately starting blanking the page. I think he's been blocked by now. Meanwhile, the user trying to repair it missed part of the article, so I went back to your version. I hope I done good. :) Baseball Bugs 20:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure its fine. Its almost impossible to break things around here :) Cheers! --Tom 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to break things, but admins have electronic super-glue to fix them. With a little help from us chickens, sometimes. :) Baseball Bugs 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

John von Neumann

The source (or one source) for all that material you removed is the Macrae biography cited at the bottom of the article. Robert K S 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any online links we can direct readers to or would we need to go to the library, eeekk :). It just seems that the info about his exploites as a prodigy had grown rather large. As an "ignorant" person on the subject (as pointed out by William Buckley) I was wondering if all that material was true or maybe some of it was made up. Anyways, I am big into making sure that readers can see sources for themsleves and that articles are well sourced. No biggie and thanks for your note. Cheers! --Tom 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To get two quick and simple answers out of the way:

1. What matters is not that users "should have to" go to the library, but that such a trip is in principle possible for verification of material included on Wikipedia. Requiring that all the information included on Wikipedia would need be sourced from another web page would be undesirable for two reasons: first, most of the world's scholarship, even (especially?) its newest scholarship, is in printed form; second, web pages tend not to be scholarly documents that receive the attention of peer review (for journal articles) and public comment (in the form of critical book reviews written by knowledgable individuals for books).
2. Yes, the stories about von Neumann's capacities do seem far-fetched, but then, he was a far-fetched person altogether.

Now then. What you are really asking about is the difference between attribution and citation, and the importance of attribution of information in Wikipedia articles. (For an illustration of the difference, see my rant here.) The proper thing to do for information that is prima facie incredible is to attribute it: "According to a biographer,^[1]..."; "According to close associates of von Neumann,^[2]..." Hope this helps. All the best, Robert K S 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I get what you are saying about sourcing material to the Web. I actually don't believe a DAM thing on the Web anymore :). I am a very jaded, suspect person at this point. Anyways, thanks and yes that does help! --Tom 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Darien, Connecticut

Thank you very much for editing the Gentleman's Agreement section on the page for Darien! I actually stopped logging into Wikipedia months ago because the person who wrote that section was so contentious and disagreeable when confronted about the need for adding a citation that I just didn't want to deal with it anymore. It was quite absurd. :) —Lilly Williams (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2007

Hi Lilly, no problem at all. Yeah, people can get quite heated and adament when it comes to getting their way around here :). I am into deleting material that is not sourced so I have quite a bit to do to say the least. Cheers! --Tom 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don Bailey Rose Bowl

I found this reference to the team going to the Rose Bowl.

http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/1964fbt.htm

J. J. in PA 01:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I double checked at it is listed in the Pennsylvania Manual, Vol. 108, p. 323 (1987). I am re adding it.

J. J. in PA 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Phillies

The information I placed was sourced, and relevant. ----evrik ^(talk) 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You mention a "count down" which was not mentioned in the article. Its also speculation about 10,000 losses. They might never lose again :) --Tom 18:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Listen, please stop being dense, it's going to happen soon, and there are enough sources to clearly see the writing on the wall. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but to say "early July" is orignal research. I have compromised to include this material even though its speculation about a future event. You still have not come clean about what your agenda is for pushing this? --Tom 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is not orginal research, nor is it speculation about a future event. It is a current event. There is no agenda, saying so is obfuscatory over the issue. BTW, this commentary borders on incivility. --evrik ^(talk) 19:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough!! You obviously have an agenda to push here since this is original research to say do the math. WHEN they will reach 10K loses is pure speculation which does belong in a blog. --Tom 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)ps, if they don't hit 10K before the ALL star break, you are now into MIDDLE July NOT early.

Cherry Stoner

Dear Tom. I would like to make some modifications to the article mentioned above, and was wondering what sort of changes you would recommend. I notice you tagged the article for deletion, but I want to save it. Please advise. Thanks! 82.163.151.26 18:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually did not tag it for deletion, but rather I reverted the tag which kept getting removed without an appropriate edit summary. The biggest thing I would like to see is proper sources that show that this term is indeed encyclopediatic as it were. some folks want to delete the article since its more of a dictionary entry type article. Anyways, no biggie as far as I am concerned, I just don't like to see material removed without a proper explaination. Good luck! --Tom 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

Hello, I added Gibson to the Islomaniacs category because he owns Mago island Fiji...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Islomaniac (talk • contribs)

We need a reliable source that calls him that. Thanks --Tom 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

All of these categories were going to be deleted with no replacement category of the persons background being made. I fixed it all I think though. --Anthropocentrism 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Italian-American_journalists {and the others}

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11#Category:Irish-American_singers {and the others}

Ok, I guess. Thanks, --Tom 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

David Vitter

I've initiated a discussion on the Talk:David Vitter#Reaction deletion page. Please come and defend your revert. Thanks!  ∴ Therefore  talk   18:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Tom 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Donaghy

Ok, then I misunderstood. I'll make sure to save the text and ref to an notepad document for later on, if anything happens. FamicomJL 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very good. These "current events" and bios can be tricky inho. Anyways, no biggie. --Tom 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a high profile event, please discuss any substantial article changes on the talk page before making edits just so there are no edit wars. RyguyMN 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks, --Tom 18:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Please see my reply on my talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 23:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied there and have you on my watch list so its fine to continue the thread there. Cheers! --Tom 23:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting that IP troll on my Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, --Tom 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, I may be wrong

You may be right, I may be wrong but how is the deletion of the phonetic pronunciation not relevant (according to the MOS); I could see how it's already there later in the actual body, but I was just thinking for people who just glance at the intro. because I didn't see that until later. I don't know I guess you're right (being as how no other biographies have phonetic pronunciations). þ

Hey Lighthead, Yeah, most bios don't include it unless there is some special reason I guess. I was just trying to have the article conform to other bios. Anyways, no biggie either way. Cheers! --Tom 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

- Yeah that's why I figured you did it..."It's all good..." lol. þ 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Seaman

Tom, I added some sources with lengthy quotes in Barbara Seaman's talk page. none of this has made it into the main page yet but you might want to have a look at it if you're working on that page as well.

Tphyahoo 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

JDL

The Jewish Defence League does not consider themselves to be an extremist organziation, as pointed out on both the talk page and the edit summary, and therefore POV to state so as fact, therefore your continual edits without discussion is being taken as vandalism by me. I ask you stop and discuss why you doing this. Also, they are a vigilante group, meaning "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands," so while I should assume your edits removing it are in good faith, it seemes suspect. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Epson291 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It really dosen't matter WHAT the organization considers itself. What really matters is what reliable sources call them. If reliable sources call them "xyz", then that is how they should be listed/labeled. I am into removing material that isn't properly sourced so imo less is better than more, especially when using descriptive words. Anyways, I will take this to the talk page. Thanks,--Tom 13:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)

As a recent contributor to Robert Prechter, you may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination). THF 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Garcia

Tom: With all due respect, why did you alter my additions to the Garcia entry yesterday, August 1? --Mitchell Wilson24.5.193.2 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mitchell, I reverted it because it was unsourced and also read as original research. I know that 90% of Wikipedia is unsourced, but I am just trying to do my part :). Please do not take my revision personally since I do it to most :) I hope this helps! Cheers! --Tom 19:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for helping out with that Military Brat page, even when I lost my cool. Great job, keep it up.  :-)

N. Skeen--69.255.23.192 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! The only thing is, anybody can revert my edits and add that material back in, so stay cool and keep an eye on the article and stay in touch. Also, have you considered registering here at Wikipedia. You don't have to but it really dosen't hurt, imho. Also, feel free to edit the article as you see fit. Just try to use edit summaries and also use the talk page as you did but keep your cool. That can be VERY difficult at times around here but its the nature of this beast. Cheers and thanks to you and your family for their service to our Country! --Tom 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 05:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Daldry

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed the LGBT Project tag from the talkpage of the Stephen Daldry article? There was no reason to, Daldry is gay, as is mentioned, with references, on his article page. As a result he falls within the scope of the LGBT Project and removing the tag is unhelpful. Also, could you please use edit summaries (with something more helpful than "ce") so people know why you're doing things? Thanks, --Belovedfreak 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beloved, I was trying to edit pages that an anon ip had added the category LGBT Directors without sources for. It happen about 8 months ago and the person hit about 30 pages. Sorry if I reverted in error and sorry about my poor edit summary. It seems that this person had some type of agenda, good or bad, it really doesn't matter. As long as the material is properly sourced and relevant it should stay, otherwise not. Cheers! --Tom 17:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply, no problem. --Belovedfreak 17:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'm just going through some of your recent edits to see if I can restore any more. I agree that articles should not contain contentious statements or categories without sources. There is actually an ongoing mini project within the LGBT project to make sure that everyone with LGBT-related categories, or with statements saying they're gay etc, have proper references. Just letting you know in case you noticed I was editing pages you've just edited and thought I was stalking you! Cheers, --Belovedfreak 17:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Beloved, no problem at all. An extra set of eyes is always welcomed :). Like I said, I was trying to revert articles that this anon IP had hit up pretty hard. I have absolutely no horse in this race either way except that I really don't like to see unsourced material especially when it concerns one's religion or sexual preferences since these are very personal and usually private matters, however not all the time. Cheers! --Tom 18:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dick Morris

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)

Hi GoldenMean, My take on it, just one little editor, is that the description before Mr. Sabato's name is unneccessary, unsourced, commentary, extraneous, original research, take your pick. Readers can go to Mr. Sabato's articvle and decide for themselves on how to describe this gentleman. It seems that there is alot of this type of extraneous editorializing description of events, places and people. My response would be what is the point/agenda of continually readding that descritive word before that man's name? Anyways, I will probably revert it a few more times, take it to talk and then seek consensus. About 2/3s of the articles I edit, I have absolutely no horse in the race or prior interest in the article, just trying to copy edit and maintain wp:mos and wp:npov. Thanks and cheers! --Tom 12:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tara C. Smith

The reason the books were described as popular is that they are meant for the general public, not for professional epidemiologists. They are not best sellers, as far as I know.--Filll 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filll, I read the sources and didn't really see anything to support the claims. Anyways, fluff like that really isn't necessary for an encyclopedia, just neutral facts. Cheers! --Tom 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)