User talk:NYCTommy

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Paul E. Ester 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Talk:Mark_Levin talk page comments
Please try to keep things civil on the Mark Levin page. I have no beef with you and you have no basis to make accusations for an editor not making good faith edits. Our interactions so far on that page have been civil and I think what we need there is consensus, not more of the revert wars that seem to be the norm on that article. Thank you.FLeeLevin 12:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I indeed have several bases on which to categorically state you are making (albeit subtle) bad faith edits on the Mark Levin page. Your edit history is confined to tamping down criticism of Levin, and dismissing sites that criticize him as "unremarkable blogs" and "press releases."  Your two non-Levin edits (as of yesterday) were to tamp down criticism of Bob Grant and WABC.  Wikipedia has several editors who seem extremely interested solely in burnishing the reputations of WABC radio personalities, and are probably employees of the station, or of PR firms the station employs.  I have reason to believe you're one of them. Eleemosynary 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your accusations are categorically untrue. I registered for this site after being directed here to view some of the controversety and otright vandalism taking place on the Levin artivle.  My *one* other non-Levin edit had to do with reverting an unsubstantiated, POV statement about WABC (where I surfed to fromt he Levin page) only employing White, Male, Republicans (or some such nonsense).  I think any other editor also would have reverted that.  But back to the topic, I have no interest in being dragged down into the flame and revert wars that have held this page hostage (and you always seem to be in the middle of, based on an objective review of edit history).  My question stands - is Wikipedia meant to be a clearing house for *all* blog entries of a personality, no matter how relevant the entry is?  I ask you again to stay civil and don't make false accusations for which you have no basis whatsoever.FLeeLevin 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have *two* non-Levin edits as of this post, one tamping down criticism of Bob Grant, and the other tamping down criticism of WABC. You are posing a straw man question.  Your edit history points toward your true purpose: to dismiss most criticism of Levin as "unremarkable" and "press releases."  My observations about your motives are backed up by a thorough review of your edit history and actions on the Levin page.  Eleemosynary 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask again that you please remain civil and assume good faith. I have made numerous edits to help improve the Levin article (including reverting vandalism and violations of the consensus that only 5 "Levin-isms" at a time be included). I would be fine with a Media Matters link in this article, assuming it was of relevance (and one other editor, above, agrees on this not being the best example to include). I also stand by my question on whether this article need be a clearinghouse for every single mention of Levin in a blog, regardless of relevance. Or should we employ some standard (as used on many other articles) where representative, relevant items are included. My edit to the WABC page that you keep bringing up was to revert blatant POV (I invite any other editors to take a look for themselves). I have never edited Bob Grant's article, so I don't know what you are talking about there. I don't see any edit to that article in my history. Regardless, I find your beligerance and repeated unsubstantiated accusations that I work for WABC or a PR firm to be insulting and against Wikipedia rules. Please refrain from this. I'm here to participate in this communal effort and to help this particular article rise above the flames, revert wars and partisan hostage holding it has been subject to. I have no other skin in the game outside of an interest in the subject of the article and and won't respond in kind to the style of combatativeness that you are employing.FLeeLevin 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is what you need to read. Are you really not an employee of either WABC or Mark's legal foundation? Your username is mighty suspect. I would advise you to come clean about your affiliation with Mark. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I may ask you to change your username later on - would you be willing to? We have a username policy here that forbid picking names of famous living people. I think it would be a good idea if you switched it to something neutral. You don't have to, but it would be smart of you to. WP:CHU is the link. Also, see my entry on talk:Mark Levin. I will try to mediate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:CHU and your name will be transferred with all your contributions intact. Bureaucrat needs to do it. Go. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Levin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Levin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. - crz crztalk 15:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you email me your email address, I will CC you on an email request I will address to Mark. I've gotten images in this way before. - crz crztalk 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why music at all?
What is the purpose of having that section, it does nothing to inform the reader. Levin is about "politics" not his musical choices on the radio show. Please think about your edit, bring it to the talk page. ForrestLane42 13:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
 * See response on article Talk page.NYCTommy 17:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)