User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

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

The dark side

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

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

New proposal for wording

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

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

Requesting help at article you recently edited?

Hi,

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

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

Hi 74.51.82.241, Sure, I'll take a look. If someone is trying to push an agenda there, be it promote or disparage, then it should be pointed out and dealt with. More eyes/imput is always good, as well as using the talk page. Anyways --Tom (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
ps, I have to admitt that there is also/an "advanced medical" disagreement going on which I won't get into since 1) I have zero medical knowlege and 2) I faint at the sight of blood :)...--Tom (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

William Connolley

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, William Connolley, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at 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)
No need to apologize. Yeah I do about 40% gnome work, 40% article improvement, and 20% "yue talking to me? yue talking to me? lets...rumble" work :).....cheers! --Tom (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Max Warburg not jewish?

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

I would refer to WP:MOSBIO, specifically to not mention ethnicity in the lede. Is his ethnicity the reason for his notability? Its fine to discuss what you mention, I would just not do it in the lede. Thanks--Tom (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I can see that. No, his notabilty lies in his enormous success with his bank. But Jewishness was very important for the family. Max' older brother Aby Warburg caused a minor scandal, when he married outside the faith, --Radh (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I would cover/discuss his ethnicity, ie being Jewish, and related material under a "family" type section. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks.

Hey Tom (that's my name too! :)

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

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

edits

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

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


Personal comments

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

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

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

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

Tea Party Movement

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

Editing the comments of others

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

Hi Scjessey, I would be happy to remove other forum type comments as well, not just yours. Please try to comment about improving the article rather than using the page to express your opinions about others, the subject of the article, ect. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. The comment, while acerbic, specifically addresses the attempt by others to add a crit section (frowned upon by 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)
Again, using others bad behavior to justify one's own isn't the best thing. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
posted comment here:::::::::::::::@TheiGuard, after an edit conflict - That's a load of old cobblers, quite frankly. Obama has been among the least controversial of presidents by any legitimate measure. His policies and actions have been entirely predictable and mainstream. Just because a tiny band of ill-educated racists and a few political opponents regard Obama as controversial, this does not make it so. While there are indeed legitimate criticisms one can make against Obama, they are minor in scope and have attracted little notoriety. Certainly there is nothing substantive enough to warrant a criticism section. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Advice:- do not touch other editors comments unless there is some massive major issue, if there is not, which is the case in this instance then do not touch them, have a quiet word with the editor and say, keep it on topic mate. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Off2riorob, thanks for the advice. Actually, I delete quite abit of talk page posts since they go against WP:FORUM. This user could easily comment about improving the article, ie, don't include a criticism section, which I agree with, without commenting about other poeple and their education levels and racism, ect. I did communicate with this user, see above, but without much success. Also, I don't know all the sorid details, but I believe this user already had a 6 month topic ban from Obama articles, so, anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Virtually all of the WP:FORUM-related deletions you make are directed toward points of view you obviously disagree with, and your "activist editing" is apparent from your contributions and block log. The topic ban you refer to expired many months ago, and was the direct result of a campaign by a now-banned editor. With respect the comment itself, it is absolutely clear that the predominant group referring to Obama as "controversial" are ill-educated ("our taxes have gone up" - no, they haven't) racists. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
"activist editing", thats a good one :) Again, saying it is absolutely clear that the predominant group referring to Obama as "controversial" are ill-educated is not needed on the talk page, even if true :). Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
No Tom, you need to quit altering other users comments and self-revert. This is not helpful to the project at all, and using the excuse you are using(notaforum) is not backed up by the facts. Just stop deleting other editors comments unless there are grievous violations(BLP etc). Dave Dial (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Its too bad that you support offensive and ill educated comments, oh well, I guess that says alot about you. --Tom (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted your comment on my page [3] because it seemed to dump the entire forum section on my talk page. We can keep the conversation here. I'm in agreement with the editors above, please leave comments by other editors where they are. If you find something questionable, it would probably be better if you took it to another editor for clarification. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem and sorry for the "dump" :) --Tom (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Substing Welcome Templates

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

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

Notice of Discussion

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

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

Karl Rove

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

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

S. E. Cupp

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

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

Hello

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

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

It's all about ME (Arthur Rubin)

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

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

Rand Paul

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

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

Abruptly

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

I am sure there are plenty of RS that don't use the subjective word "abruptly", so no need here. Users can determine the time frame and decide if it was abrupt or not. --Tom (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
One can say of every sentence in that article that there are plenty of RSs that do not use any particular word. That's no reason to delete it -- it's RS-supported, by many articles. It's a major part of the story. The reader does not otherwise know whether it was a retirement that was being considered, for example That's why you have 150,000 ghits here. Removing RS-supported verbiage such as this is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A reader would need to be brainless or dead in your above example. Is that the case? --Tom (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. A reader does not know whether the 89 year old is otherwise contemplating retirement. That's perhaps why the 150,000 ghits appear. Please stop deleting RS-supported material.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, Thomas spews/rants, shit storm insues, she resigns/retires. But one has nothing to do with the other? Brainless or dead still. --Tom (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Your POV may be that the authors of the 150,000 entries were saying the obvious. They, by their actions, would appear to disagree. As do I. This is RS-supported, many times over. You've expressed no cogent reason -- just an apparently fringe notion as to what is obvious, which is at odds with the evidence before us. This is RS-supported, referenced, and verifiable. Please stop edit-warring, and revert your deletions. IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient reason for your deletions, nor are bald unsupported statements at odds with the RSs. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Rabbi Nesenoff

Hi Tom, I have started an RfC on the external link issue. You might want to comment. — Regards KeptSouth (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I also moved your comment from the article space to the talk age, hopefully that's ok with you. Maybe we/you/I should consult the EL board for others input. Also, do you know about any copy right issues? Also, isn't the video at the rabbi's site? --Tom (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The video is not on the rabbi's site - I see that I did not respond to you directly and I thought I had - but you could have easily checked it yourself. I do not think there is a copyright violation because the video is posted to YouTube by Shalom TV and they conducted and recorded the interview. My only question to you is: Why did you raise your objections to the external link sequentially - in 3 separate communications rather than all at once? Perhaps the overly contentious and often illogical nature of the discussion on these Arab-Israeli related pages got to you. Regardless, you have been polite and not at all disruptive. I probably should have continued the discussion with you for a few more sentences, rather than file the RfC. I am sure we could have reached an agreement and that my RfC was premature. - Regards KeptSouth (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi KeptSouth, no problem either way. I am not a fan of youtube links and I am a deletionist/minimalist (if it didn't show) Also, thanks for your comments about my indefinite block, I am actually in shock right now since things were pretty low level, in mind at least, until I got nuked late last night/today??. Was this on the ANI board or somewhere else, or did an admin just indef block me and the case is closed? Anyways, I am going to go soak my head in a tub of ice water and maybe return in the future. Thanks again and cheers! --Tom (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, I will re-add youtube interview. Here is the link you were wondering about.[[4] In case the link is dead, the complaint was that you "vandalized" - it was an ANI vandalism "alert". Only one person commented - he said you had not committed "vandalism", that the disputes were about content, and then you were blocked. A minute or two later, a bot removed the entire discussion.- Regards, KeptSouth (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, I found the AVI report which was marked as a content dispute and closed. I believe your analysis below about why I removed a user's comments (only 2 I believe) from the talk page are pretty accurate and reflects my thinking as well. You are also right that this is pretty chilling. The comment that the blocking admin wants support when "all hell breaks out" also baffles me to no end and makes me wonder if he knew his actions were over the top. I am not into the drama, so this also amazes me. Anyways, I will chill for now :) and maybe return down the road to see if this can't be reviewed/rectified/fixed/yaddda/yadda :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive Editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 01:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the block

The indefinite block seems extremely harsh, and I don't even see where Threeafterthree deserves to be blocked at all. He has been contributing to Wikipedia since 2005 and appears to have a good track record especially considering that he has made 16,000 edits and often works on contentious political articles. There were several blocks in 2008, but that was 2 years ago. If these long ago blocks do count against him, shouldn't we also consider the track record of those who filed the "vandalism"complaint that got him blocked last night? Regardless, the case that has been started against him has no merit. If one ignores the hyperbole of the complaint and reads the diffs that supposedly support the complaint, it's pretty obvious.

If the block is not a mistake, then it is pretty chilling that an experienced editor can lose their privileges for toning down emotionally laden and arguably POV words such as "abrupt" and "outrage", and for removing obviously improper article talk page content. That is all this case against Threeafterthree appears to be. The block is either a mistake, or the pillars of Wikipedia and policies of Wikipedia have been completely broken down. KeptSouth (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, apparently things are so bad that...

The request to block indefinitely was granted with minutes, and I cannot find a place to comment on it. Interestingly, the initiator of the request, remarked to the admin that granted it "one down", and perhaps less ambiguously, the admin who granted the indefintie block remarked that he or she expected problems. See [5] and[6]

Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 01:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One down; it's a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Anyway, here are my comments on the request to block.

Here is the complaint [7]

The complaint involves Threeafterthree's removal from the Helen Thomas talk page of inappropriate comments made by Epeefleche,[8] The comment that was removed contains 4 objectionable and inappropriate parts:

  • a reference to a "wetdream.org"
  • a personal attack on another editor: "Your comment ...is ridiculous"
  • a thinly veiled allegation of sockpuppetry "its curious how you and your pup are making the same incorrect statement", and,
  • a statement that the subject of the biography is a "racist".

It was not "vandalism" to remove this statement, in fact, WP policies virtually required its removal.

The other talk page comment that Epeefleche says was "vandalism" to remove was comprised of unsourced and factually incorrect statements which were laced with assumptions that could not possibly be included in a BLP article. Therefore, they are improper for a BLP talk page, and Threeafterthree correctly removed them and gave the correct reason, "not a forum":[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=368621442 ]

  • "The Arabs say that the Jews never lived in the Holy Land, neither in antiqity nor in the modern age, but came in 1948 and stole their land....That is .... what Helen Thomas believes and said it outright. She knows that she has company to such views, but resigned anyhow, why, because of outrage"

There may be one or two more remarks that Threeafterthree removed or disputed on the Helen Thomas the talk page and the article. But we have to assume that these two examples given by the person who filed the complaint, are his best examples. I have looked over some of the discussion Threeafterthree wrote, and it seems to me that it was all content dispute, and his discussion was reasonable and measured in tone. Other editors on the talk page agreed with him - all of this is obviously content dispute or ginned up. I say all of this even though I have just had a content dispute with Threeafterthree! KeptSouth (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) KeptSouth (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reblock notice

Threeafterthree, I have change your block to 72 hours. Removing talk page comments is disruptive, but an indef block was disproportionate. You may appeal the block using the {{unblock}} notice. Fences&Windows 21:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fences and windows, thank you for your assistance. Not to create more drama, but is this really acceptable/to be tolerated? Anyways, thanks again and I'll continue to soak my head :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
"Not to create drama": don't be disingenuous. I'd leave Epeefleche alone if I were you, I see nothing wrong with that statement of his. If you are disruptive again after this block expires I expect you will be blocked again by community consensus, and it will be a lengthy or even indef block; I think you've had enough notice that edit warring, removing others' talk page comments, and other disruption is not acceptable behaviour. Fences&Windows 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
F&W, I seriously wasn't trying to be disingenous and apologize if it came off that way. I will try to take your advice and try not to interact with this user going forward. Hopefully that will reduce drama. Anyways,--Tom (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Your should avoid that user 100 percent and do not ever touch another editors comments on talkpages again, don't do it ever, if you have an issue with some comment then report it, if you come to a noticeboard again for removing content of another user I will support the issue against you. As Fences mentioned, show some constructive contributions as the community has only so much patience. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rob, 95% (I'am obviously not perfect like most folks on this project) of my contributions are contructive and I take offense that that is somehow not the case. I will try to improve on that per your advice. --Tom (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No offense meant at all, I myself am also at around 95 percent. I am just avin a go, just up above I gave you advice about other users talkpage comments, you remember that? and it has happened again, please don't let it happen again.Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) ok, sorry Rob for biting then :), especially since you were nice enough to support me at ANI. This whole "episode" has me on edge I guess. I follow the ANI board, but more for laughs than getting involved, and the amount of total BS/nonsense there is beyond mind boggling. I feel like the 5% on my edits which are contensous are so minor, its laughable, but I am the first to admitt that bad behavior doesn't justify other "behavior". Anyways, Cheers, --Tom (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, your seem to be getting on ok, try to stay out of trouble, there are still requests from some editors that you should be blocked for a much lengthier period. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, Thanks and I'll try. Maybe I'll take a wikibreak soon. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no support for a longer block , no one is going to come back to you and go, you have been editing ok but half a dozen editors want you blocked for longer so I am blocking you for longer. It is one of the worst cases of beating a dead horse as I have seen on wikipedia. Take a break if you want that is up to you but if you edit within policy no one will be able to object to anything. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, --Tom (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Stay out of trouble this time you naughty boy. 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am I allowed to comment at the ANI board? I wanted to advise all that I will NEVER touch a user's comments again and that I do GET IT. Anyways, thank you, --Tom (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You're perfectly entitled to comment on the AN/I thread, yes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That is up to you, its up to you. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know really where to begin. What a sh@t storm I've seem to generated. Maybe sorry would be a good start....--Tom (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see you back Tom. I really don't think you were wrong on the substance - people like to add rumors and even libelous statements to BLP talk pages all the time. You were right in removing the comments; "wrong" to mess w/a Wall St lawyer w/too much time on his hands. — Best regards — KeptSouth (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
lol, thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Greg Caton

As a prior editor on this page, would you take a look at the current dispute. A wp:rfc was posted in bio, however, your previous edits were helpful in maintaining wp:npov and wp:rs. Thanks Jettparmer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jettparmer, sure. I would be happy to comment on the talk page, but I would rather not edit the article directly if there is a current content dispute. Good luck. --Tom (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

If both of the parents are born in Mexico, a person gets automatic citizenship from Mexico. Thats why alot of U.S. born boxers do fight for the Amateur Mexican National team, Oscar Molina is just one of the current U.S. born members of the Mexican team. Thats why most Mexican American boxers have so many fights in Mexico --Polvo (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, thank you for replying. 2nd, I see that you removed the nationality from a bunch of the bios which isn't the best thing. If the person "really" has dual citizenship/nationality, then I guess "Mexican-American" might work? Have you read WP:MOSBIO where it discusses ethnicity in the lead? Wikipedia tries to avoid the "hypenated" American thingy in the lead. Anyways, maybe somebody more farmilar with how we handle the ethnicity/nationality in the lead of Mexican-Americans could help us out. I am going on a wikibreak so happy editing :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Dual citizenship is a big reason for alot more MMA events now being held in Mexico. Many U.S. born Athletes just fill out a short form and give copies of their parents Mexican Birth Certificates. Most MMA fighters do it just for tax breaks but it's a bigger deal for the Boxers, Jose Benavidez was filmed by TV Azteca while he was getting his Mexican I.D. --Polvo (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean their any less American--N2492004 (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Diaz

Please correct Nick Diaz nationality —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2492004 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi N2492004, I have "corrected" the nationality per MOSBIO and also commented on the talk page. Another editor has been reverting my changes, and I haven't really felt like getting to into it. I would keep my version unless a specific citation is provided that shows his dual citizenship. Hopefully this works and isn't that big a deal. I do a ton of nationality MOS editing, so this is not in any way intended as a slight to our friends to the south :). Anyways, cheers, --Tom (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Retirement

Actually, I was pretty damn close for awhile there, but I think I'll stick around for now. Soxwon (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have felt the same way many times. Now I simply try to avoid wasting my time on situations that simply don't seem to be worth it anymore. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
@Soxwon, cool, do stay :)
@Arzel, I hear yah. I was going to edit the FNC's lead, where it says "Many observers" back to "Critics and observers" but it is so not worth it. The FAQ on the talk page got snarked on some fake consensus line. Anyways, I appreciate your efforts as well. Cheers, guys :) --Tom (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton schools

Sorry about making last edit without responding to yours - I had mine in edit screen and didn't realize you had reverted the public schools bit. I think we should indicate that her early schools were public because we make a big deal about her high school being private. The Clintons say they chose private high school not because they're elitist, but because they felt it was a more protected environment for her in terms of safety and shielding from press, paparazzi, etc. So saying that her lower schools were public addresses the point. IIRC, one of the sources makes the connection - I'll try to dig it out and add it. Does that help? Tvoz/talk 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, Sounds pretty good, not sure if I am totally "sold" :) but I am a deletionist/minimalist so go figure. I would not "fight" over this based on that explaination. Also, no need to apologize and thanks for repling here...I have serious real life crap (well nothing too serious), so I am out of here for awhile. Again, I will defer to your judgement on this and cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Carnegie

You mentioned he built libraries in the US and UK. He also built them in Canada...even small towns (There's one in my town Kincardine, Ontario Pop. 6000)24.244.124.152 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Laura Schlessinger EL's

Hi Tom - just wondering what you think is wrong w/the EL to the video of Dr. Laura's one woman show? [9]

I put it back, but can be persuaded there's something wrong with it, but it is her own stage self, her own words, and slightly relevant to the current controversy. KeptSouth (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi KS, it wasn't opening before, but I just tried it again and it worked? I usually keep ELs to a bare minimum, ie offical page, twitter, blog and that's it, but I am a minimalist, so go figure. If you feel it complies with ELs, then I will accept that. Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Paralympiakos

Please do something about Paralympiakos he keeps changing Ulysses Gomez flag icon to Mexico even after I have proven he was born and raised in the United States. Thank you--N2492004 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi N2492004, I can try to edit the article and use the talk page, but not sure about "do something" about an editor, accept report them to one of the many admin boards available to all users. Anyways, I'll try :) Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest looking at this user's contributions. They're squarely aimed at me. The person is Mexican as is said in sources. Not once source proves his American "nationality". He was born there and has CITIZENSHIP. I suggest you do not remove this information again without sourcing for American NATIONALITY. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't looked at either of your contributions, since that shouldn't matter in regards to "getting this right". I will have to look at this further and try to do my own research I guess since I have been reverted. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem and I understand where you're coming from, but we can't remove Mexican to be replaced with American without sourcing. This individual who made you aware of the situation seems to make up stories in sources to attempt to delude. All that is known is that he was born to Mexican immigrants in America. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
ah, ok, so he was born in the US, so he has American citizenship, correct? Can we please try to find a source that shows he has Mexican citizenship? If that is All that is known, then just leave the bio as is for now. Again, I will try to see if I can find other sources or get other folks opinions on how to handle this. TU --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have weighed in on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Nationality vs ethnicity in the lead. The short answer seems to be this: children born to one or more Mexican parents in the US would be considered both Mexican and American according to the laws of both countries. A source that establishes both the place of birth and the nationality of the person's parents would be sufficient to support the existence of both nationalities. All persons born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, and all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again this time with Cain Velasquez--N2492004 (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Because he's Mexican! Check the source! You're violating rules by removing sourced additions in favour of non-sourced. Now quit your moaning N. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because he has Mexican heritage doesn't mean he's not an American anymore. This is all just a big joke to you isn't it?--N2492004 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke. I'm getting mightily frustrated at seeing your name. The sources say he's Mexican. His Brown Pride tattoo is further proof. He has American CITIZENSHIP FROM BEING BORN THERE! NOTHING MORE! Paralympiakos (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So then I guess there are no Americans according to you?--N2492004 (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly--N2492004 (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed a completely pointless back-and-forth and replaced it with another message..... Paralympiakos (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather the thread be left as is. I really do hate these bios where nationality is "complicated". Has Cain lived in Mexico or have a residence there, ect? also can we please take this to his bio page? Tia--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We can tomorrow. It's stupid o'clock where I am. I'm just sticking around for a few more minutes to see how this plays out, without contributing too much. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify with regards your last message at Talk:Cain Velasquez, I think you've misread. You've told "us guys" to cool it. It's only Polvo who has insinuated you're xenophobic. I merely quoted him to show my disdain for that argument. Chill out man, internet is srs business etc. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I then did misread it, thank you. Also, not sure who mentioned it, but if Velasquez does spend time in Mexico, especially at his parent's house??, then that would definately help the "Mexican-American" "cause" it seems. Anyways, I usually measure how good a job I am doing at being NPOV by if both "sides" of a POV issue are pissed off and accusing me of "stuff". Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert

I haven't checked the history but I might have accidentally scrapped your edit. Apologies if I did.Cptnono (talk)

No worries.--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi again. Just wondering what you meant by this edit summary. I didn't see the point in splitting parts about his personal life. However, I don't know why I'm being told to go to the MMA project page. I'm one of the most active there and I'm towards the top in terms of content experience for the project... I know how things are usually laid out. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again back :) I was specifically refering to this layout of bios. I do alot MOS editing, ie, lead sentence of bios, see also section and external link compliance, yadda, yadda, yadda. Though wikipedia has a bizziolion rules/policies/guides/mos/ectect, I am thankful for alot of it, becasue it does spell out "standards" that help maintain some sense of uniformity and a guide when disputes arise for how the article should "look". Anyways, again, hopefully this isn't a big deal and something we can work out, especially since I left before saying I didn't care :). Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just to clarify, I'm not criticising, as I know that a lot of our conversations have been unfortunate thus far, so I wanted to make that known; I was just wondering what gave with the quoting of something I work in. I don't know if you've ever taken a look at my userpage, but I've made a fair few dozen articles and they all pretty much follow the same standard; a standard which I'd also noticed in a few articles prior to my additions.
From my own point-of-view, I'm not a fan of "personal life/early life" etc just above the MMA record, as it's something that is always left below something that is constantly expanding. MMA info, I think, should be above the MMA record. Nor am I a fan of a == == as it looks ugly having a single sentence right above Mixed Martial Arts career and the like. Aesthetically unpleased in my mind.
Not that everyone has to keep to this template, but my preferred method is:
Mixed Martial Arts career
Background
Early career
Promotion + notable stuff
Mixed Martial Arts record
Personal life (if not in the background)

What do you reckon? Paralympiakos (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I really appreciate that Wikipedia does have quite a bit of "standardization" regarding article style/layout. That helps so all articles are written to a certain "standard" and there are not alot of "preferred" versions out there. I do probably 70% of my work on bios across a wide variaty of individuals. It seems like you have contributed alot of time to MMA bios which is cool. I would suggest you look at sports bios that have reached the highest level/rating and see how they are layed out. Having "Early life" right after the lead makes sense, becasue we learn, where the person was born, what their ethnicity is, parents and sibling info and how they grew up. If the articles are going to improve, the aerly life section will need to be expanded upon eventually, and should be. Where folks "came" from is a very interesting part of hte bio, imho. Then we go into their career ect. This makes sense from a cronalogical sense. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cause of death of Allan Bloom

Dear Threebythree: at your invitation I have responded to your edit to the Bloom article on that talk page. Looking at the list of your many and valuable Wiki-contributions I see a pattern in what seems to interest you: Glen Beck, "Restore Honor Rally," Fox News, Bill O' Reilly, Tea Party, and so forth. I take it that if you were to call yourself something, you would not call yourself a liberal? I wonder, if it is not too intrusive to ask, would you more likely describe yourself as a mainstream Republican, or as a Tea Partier? I'll watch this page, and the Bloom discussion page, and look forward to your response.ElijahBosley (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ElijahBosley, do you know how many times I have stated "what I am" in 18K edits to this project? Maybe 3-4 if that. But here goes. I am pro choice. I am against the death penalty. I am pro gay marriage. I am pro drug legalization. I pro gun control. I think Palin is a freaking *&^^%*&head. I think Bush is a freaking $#@%*^ &^%%&. I worked in the 4WTC and have zippo problem with Park51 I have attended over 400 Dead concerts. I have droped more acid than youv'e had hot meals. OK. Got the picture. No I am not a mainstream Republican. No, I am not a Tea Partier. Anything else? --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. No need to get excited. Take deep breath. Relax. The acid will clear out of your head soon. Those are not evil squirming caterpillars, they are your fingers typing on the keyboard. Typing I hope a cogent reply to the question of why whitewash Allan Bloom's cause of death, on that talk page?ElijahBosley (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
whitewash? And you are telling me I am tripping out? :) Seriously, do whatever you will with Bloom's bio since it only reflects upon yourself. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd much rather get it right, with your help. But not right now--have a dinner party to go to (one liberal, one libertarian, one conservative, one tea partier, and a very confused spaniel). LaterElijahBosley (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Have fun. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Threeafterthree/Archive_10&oldid=1190229633"