User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 6

Jessica Biel
I see that her ethnicity keeps getting restored, even though it doesn't seem to ever be backed by any reliable sources... oh well. By the way, there is an interesting case developing over at Talk:Zac Efron (see the very bottom), which I've noticed you have commented on previously. Cheers, Mad Jack 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey MadJ, I'll check out both, thanks! --Tom 12:12, 13 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)

Tom,

I reluctantly accept your deletion of the complete subsection, but, for the record, you are simply mistaken about it being "unsourced" or "original research". As is apparent from a quick reading of the now deleted section, there were in fact two good sources--so neither "unsourced" or "original research" are accurate descriptions of the smaller portion you previously insisted on removing again and again.

In addition, from a quick examination of the two sources provided, one can see that Mr. Sabato's accuracy is in fact good (by any definition of the word), and furthermore, that he is quite noteworthy for this accuracy. Available, reliable sources unambiguously demonstrate that his accuracy and expertise are well-documented facts--not "commentary".

The reason I felt your removal of the preexisting description of Mr. Sabato as an "accurate" political prognosticator was detrimental is simply that with that introduction removed, some people would not know who Mr. Sabato was, or why they should give any consideration to his thoughts on matters of political prediction. Being that his accuracy in this regard is quite well-established, it would be difficult to argue that including the word "accurate" does anything other than provide the most basic context for his quote.

Concerning your deletion of the entire section, I would just say that I think that is a better solution than deleting only the section providing basic context for Mr. Sabato's statement. I personally feel it would have been--and always is--preferable to seek consensus, and rework content into a more appropriate place in the article rather than to delete it outright.

Should you have a disagreement with someone on such a matter in the future, I'm sure they would appreciate it if you would work with them to address the substance of your disagreement rather than starting an edit war, or accusing them of having an "agenda". We all have biases, even if we are unaware of them. Substantive discussion and reasoned compromise seem to produce increasingly richer and accurate articles whereas edit wars and ad hominem arguments seem to lead to article gridlock and corrosion. I hope you agree.

Thanks,

GoldenMean 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)GoldenMean
 * Hi GoldenMean, Yeah, taking stuff to talk page and trying to seek consensus is always a good deal. I didn't think my edits were that big a deal and I do not want to edit war. Anyways, no big deal and thanks for your response. I will watch the article and try to use the talk page more. Cheers! --Tom 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Katharine Graham
And what are "reliable sources" to you? Those that fit your interests? Be objective, this is not Conservapedia. Dukered
 * Hi Dukered, I guess I would defer to wp:rs. I actually don't believe a thing on the Web :). Anyways, it seems that a few folks have chimmed in on the talk page. Hopefully we can work things out there. Also, I would not label myself as conservative and do not edit from that perspective. Cheers! --Tom 12:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Teton Range
Actually, the origin of the name is disputed (see Grand Teton). Even if the name of the mountains originated from the French word for breasts, the name only applies to the three members of the cathedral group, and not the entire range. I guess it might be suitable to discuss the origins of the name, but the sources from Grand Teton should be re-used to emphasis the controversial origins of the naming. Personally, I think it adds nothing to the article. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Cosmic, thanks for the clarification. Sorry if my edit summary was a bit snippy. I remember from my time spent in the Tetons that the name was derived from the french word for breast so I thought it was relevant. Anyways, no biggie either way. Cheers! --Tom 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Acctualy, téton is slang for breast, so it realy translate as boob, not breast. The fact is that the early french travelers, after months alone, looking for fur, where sometime craving for something else than civilisation... It adds something to the article because, if you read french you may wonder if the name realy means boobs (which is weird), or if the Teton Sioux gave the name to the range. Of course, we gave the name to the Sioux... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.40.42 (talk • contribs)


 * huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs)


 * I once worked with someone whose native language was French (Canadian) and somehow the name of that range came up. She said, "I can't believe they called it that!" That response erased any doubts about its origins. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We have one like that back in Ireland. See "Paps of Anu" (breasts of the goddess Anu) in County Kerry, Ireland for something similar -  A l is o n  ☺ 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I don't know if I should even bring up Rooster Rock in Oregon. As with the Tetons and possibly the Paps of Anu, it suggests the state-of-mind of someone who has been away from home too long. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Last chance
Ok, I've been watching this commentary from the sidelines here and your behaviour has reached the point of being downright incivil and disruptive. Blanking others' comments with with "rm nonsense by agenda pushing baby, whaa, whaaa, whaaa", is completely out of order. Your edit history is replete with examples of personal attacks and snide comments. Next one warrants a block for incivility - A l is o n  ☺ 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - A l is o n  ☺ 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Alison, I am done editing at Rove. I am done replying to Ryan. OK?--Tom 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Are you done being rude and obnoxious with your fellow-editors? Your edit history shows this aggressive tone has been going on for quite some time & it looks like Ryan just happens to be your latest casualty. I suppose an honourable apology to Ryan is out of the question? - A l is o n  ☺ 23:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently so - A l is o n  ☺ 01:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record. --Tom 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Thanks, Tom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that - A l is o n  ☺ 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Angeles City
Thanks for participating in the Angeles City article. We can always use more eyes on that one, which is prone to frequent POV disputes. Please feel free to bring up issues and to contribute in general to this article.

I'd like to see Angeles City reach WP:GA status some day. / edg ☺ ★ 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Science blogs are WP:RS in some cases
Particularly if written by well known notable scientific figures in the scientific community, as is the case of PZ Meyers. Therefore, Pharyngula (blog), Panda's Thumb (blog) and Aetiology (blog) are WP:RS sources, actually. Some science blogs are peer-reviewed and subject to some editorial control. Some are chosen specifically by well known publishing companies like Seed magazine. These blogs I listed are rated by Nature magazine. Some are mentioned by Science (magazine). Some are reprinted in peer-reviewed books, and some are quoted in peer-reviewed journals as sources. So it is not always true that these are not WP:RS sources, for your future reference. I am not going to mess with Rosalind Picard while I am still trying to establish the full back story with other sources, however.--Filll 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Fill, thanks for the response. I visited the blog and did not feel it met wp:rs but will defer to others. Cheers, --Tom 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Talk:Media Matters for America
Do not reinsert the contributions of block evading sockpuppets of banned editors. The editor I reverted, blocked, and tagged as a sock, is a sockpuppet of ; do not reinsert his talk page edits. - auburn pilot  talk  16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Day of the week and the Mountain Meadows massacre
I have proposed a change to the MMM introduction which deletes the mention of the weekday of the killings. I know you have been involved in this discussion previously, and invite you to join the discussion here. Thanks in advance --Robbie Giles 17:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was involved. It was like a huge deal/battle/edit war/blow out over??? I really did try to fleash out the relevance and actually hoped there was some religious or whatever significance to mentioning the day of the week in the LEAD sentence, but none was forthcoming from the folks who argued for inclusion. The matter simmered down but I see its back. I haven't looked at the edit history but I can guess who added it back. I have no idea what this persons agenda or reason for adding it for the life of me. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. I'd like to remind you to please refrain from making any more edits to the lead sentence to remove the word Friday. I appreciate your stepping away from that edit war back in July when I warned you and Duke53 about it, and I'd hate to see the edit war return, even if it involves Tinosa instead of Duke53. I think we should just let the discussion on the talk page run its course, and even if someone sticks the word back into the article lead before it's done, we can hope that consensus will be attained one way or another and the appropriate change made accordingly, if necessary. Is that acceptable to you? alanyst /talk/ 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes thats, fine, no biggie, thanks, --Tom 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is amazing to me. I try to apply logic to the edits and recent comments at MMM, but it is futile. The agenda of some folks seems to be obstruction. (Rant off) Thanks for your comments. I believe until a few people get tired, we are at a standstill over any proposed changes. I've actually begun to wonder if two if the "anti"s are actually the same editor. After three (oops) four glasses of wine, the proposal I made seems less important than it did this morning. --Robbie Giles 04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually had the same suspicions, but not a big dead, thanks, Anyways, --Tom 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "I've actually begun to wonder if two if the "anti"s are actually the same editor".
 * "I actually had the same suspicions".
 * If you are hinting that I might be part of a sockpuppet incident, by all means please report your suspicions to an admin. I will expect an apology after it is determined that this is not the case. Duke53 | Talk 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really worth pursuing. If you aren't a sockpuppet, I do apologize. Cheers,--Tom 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's get the 'if' out of the equation; do the Wikipedia thing and erase all doubt. Duke53 | Talk 14:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I really don't care right now. I feel like I have backed off/away from a pretty minor comment to another user. If you would like to pursue this further, go for it. --Tom 14:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to love it (or else drink heavily). In perspective (balanced against continuing genocide, western forest fires, hunger in North Korea, real estate scams, clubbing of baby Harp seals, etc.) this is such a silly thing. I would respect the point of view much more if it was actually stated. For instance: "I think we should mention the day of the week because it has religious significance for group X." Continued refusal to even state reasons is actually pretty funny in a perverse sort of way. I figure after the holiday weekend, others will weigh in, but we will see. I can actually live with mentioning the day of the week, but was trying to lower the size of the article by paring down. Its just a few bytes extra to leave it in. The aggressive attitude of a few on any proposed edits is so obstructionist. I just don't get it. I do see from the history that they have caused some good editors to leave. The personal attacks became fairly bad. My plan is to engage them as little as possible, while setting limits on what I will tolerate. Usually it escalates and ends up in warnings by admins to the most offensive misbehavors. Oh well, enjoy the day. --Robbie Giles 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I said the exact same thing a few months back when there was an edit war over this issue. The day of the week was removed but it has showed up again and its like starting from scratch all over again, deja vu :). The adament view that it needs to be included really baffles me. I really wonder if there is more to it than there appears to be but who the heck knows anymore. Anyways, I am enjoying the day and wish you the same :) Cheers! --Tom 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

names
Hi Tom - well, I didn't think changing MOSBIO was the way to go for either of you - tweaking policy wording is best done completely separate from any disputes, I think, or we fall into chaos. Nor am I the type to not want to ignore rules. But still I agree with your reading of the original, which has been there for a long time and others have said the same - and most importantly - it makes sense. I think this is an incredibly minor and unimportant point (whether "Freddie" is the first word or is parenthetical a few words later) - but I think some of the reasons given for changing it to the parenthetical are disingenuous. In the long run, guess what, the candidates' chances are not the least bit affected by whether their Wikipedia pages start with their birth names, their nicknames, their legal names or their dogs' names. (Well, maybe the dogs.) The militant way which this well-referenced change was attacked makes me wonder what the real agenda is. Tvoz | talk 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion to include potentially libelous material
I see you reverted the excision I made in the Betty Dodson article about IASHS. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and so can you, right? Well, yes.

I am trying to warn Wikipedia that this issue is potentially very bad. This page has been noticed by people associated with Dodson and with IASHS. They aren't pleased. When I say warn "Wikipedia," this is law suit country, not between me and some random editor, but between IASHS and the Wikipedia Foundation. I am trying to forestall that, and I know it's brewing. If you want to ignore this, go ahead. I really recommend you take this issue a lot more seriously than you are. It is not a kid's game being played in a noisy schoolyard.

But have it your way. It won't take long before IASHS discovers that you have deliberately replaced material that they can claim libels them and one of their graduates. And they did NOT find out from me. Several IASHS graduates have posted material about this to a listserve I belong to -- and they found out about it themselves.

Timothy Perper 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * huh? --Tom 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies, Tom. I had misread the name in the lines in the history section of this page. You had nothing to do with this, and I apologize. Oh well, the Buddha hates perfection... Timothy Perper 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then Buddha must love me :). Hey, no biggie here. Cheers and take care! --Tom 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for catching my error on the NAMBLA talkpage. I reverted the vandalism (I thought), but actually only reverted Sinebot. I should have checked to make sure that foul language was gone. Thanks again. Jeffpw 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your'e welcome, no problem at all. Cheers, --Tom 14:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Sutton
Reverting with an edit summary like "rvv" is probably not the best tactic right now. I had instructed the other 2 editors to stay on the talk page for now while they wait for the comment from the community. It's okay to let the article sit that way for a short while. Leebo  T / C 20:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. I will defer to others. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Jimmy Wales
Hi there. You and User:QuackGuru have been reverting User:Jhurlburt and myself over those little words "Wikipedia co-founder" in front of Larry's name. Now, the recommended practice says be bold, revert, discuss, but everyone's stuck on step 2 at the moment. What's more while the rest of us have been arguing at cross purposes via edit summaries, you've been leaving the default undo edit summary in. The problem with doing this outside of cases of blatant vandalism is that it obscures your motives. Even though QuackGuru hasn't come to the talk page yet, from his edit summaries I can tell that from his point of view he is restoring a verified fact. From your edit summaries, I can't even tell if you're acting in good faith or not. So please, (1) use more descriptive edit summaries when undoing good faith edits, and (2) when you revert a good faith edit, especially after it's been reverted before, move it to the article's talk page. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi ConMan, those "little words", in my humble opinion, are THE most important pieces to this project's credibility. That aside, I could make better use of edit summaries. I actually try to. Thanks for the note. --Tom (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your November 9 edits of Reid Stowe
Hi Tom,

I don't grok pulling the Hudson Channer references. Granted, Hudson Channer isn't entirely my idea of an investigative reporter, but it happens to be the one place where Reid Stowe laid out most of his biography, such as it is. Indeed, editors skeptical of Reid Stowe also have dependency on this reference, since Stowe makes his infamous claim to conning the smallest craft twice across the Atlantic. He states that in the interview. Then there are the current and historical references which refute his claim (some which I dug up myself). Yanking the Hudson reference makes that back-and-forth incomplete. Beside, the article cites the Hudson Channer interview by name, so readers wandering through the neighborhood should have the benefit of being able to pull it up and make up their own minds about what Reid says about himself and the integrity of Hudson Channer's questioning.

And yanking the 'See Also' cross-refs. Don't grok that either. People should be able to find out easily that Joshua Slocum has been there, done that, long before wind generators, GPS, or VHS radio. Or that with Donald Crowhurst, people in small boats out in the open ocean are sometimes given to sea tales. All of that informs the present article one way or another.

I've restored these references and links. Educate me when you have a chance on why you pulled them; I want to know if I'm missing something. Reply here or on my talk page. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Gosgood, I have to run to eat but the quick reply is that youtube should not be used as a source. Also, please refer to WP:GTL specifically the See also section. If you can work those folks into the article, great, otherwise, they should be left out. Its more of style guidleine issue. I will leave the article as is for now but will nuke them latter. Maybe we can get some other eyes involved? Cheers!--Tom (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan to take no immediate action either, and I think more eyes are a good thing. Therefore, lets move this thread to the RS talk page, so that more people can play in the sandbox. Take care, and Bon Appétit. Gosgood (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the restoration work on Reid Stowe references. Keep up the good work and happy editing. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem and the same to you. --Tom (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Main Line
I think that my edit of Pennsylvania Main Line last month (which generally consisted of cutting a whole bunch of stuff) was in good faith, as was your restoration. See the talk page of that article-- I still think that the article is in lousy shape, and could benefit by cutting a lot of the unsourced, contentious stuff such as lists of what communities are or are not in the Main Line. I invite you to respond to my comments on the talk page for the article. Let's not get hung up on the fact that the current version of the article is "stable". Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of room for improvement. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Spikebrennan, Sounds good. I will reply further there. Cheers!--Tom (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

erekat
saw your latest change and agree with it 100%. cheers.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, trying to avoid drama, not easy around here :). Cheers, --Tom 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth?
Nonsense. My edit to SqueakBoxes talk page was NOT an "attack"...I advise you look at older revisions and "attacks" (your code for "suggestions") which where not deleted and SqueakBox actually responded to. Please revert it back, or tell me why it was an "attack". It was certainly nothing of a personal nature, rather a suggestion of how he could avoid POV-pushing on the Thatcher article...and I'll have you know his methods of editing on the Margaret Thatcher article have been disputed several times. Thanks, Fitzy&#39;s Claw (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Fitzy'sClaw, I do consider this to be a form of incivility/attack/whatever you want to call it and unnecessary. If you disagree with an editor, or think they are pushing a POV or whatever, provide links to the edits you question and do so with civility. To say an editor is "whitewashing" ect without examples doesn't help. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to type on of my quotes again:

"...and I'll have you know his methods of editing on the Margaret Thatcher article have been disputed several times."

Want an example? Look at the archives before the current one on Talk:Margaret Thatcher. To say that adressing to him what multiple people have been saying for ages is an "attack" is...debatable, at best. Thanks, Fitzy&#39;s Claw (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipidia by its very nature has disputes all over the place and major differences of opinons. The point is to try not to get into name calling or accusations of bad faith editing. We all edit with a certain bias. Again, the best thing to do is to pull up an editor's edit from the edit history you diagree with and copy the url and paste it here/there/wherever so others can see it. I am not going to go thru the history and figure out who is "right". Anyways, just try to keep it civil and assume good faith as best as possible. Cheers, --Tom 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I did go to the archives and didn't really see much. Somebody wanted to add some negative quote about Thatcher and he and others objected? Anyways, I have spent WAY to much time on this non-issue. Good luck and carry on, --Tom 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm for my actions. I did not speak appropriately according to WP guidelines. Please forgive me and accept my apology. Anyway, there's more to it than him wanting to revert an admittedly libellous quote, he refused that criticism be allowed into the article several times.

No point in using an uncivil attack to counter an uncivil attack...it only hurts both sides of the argument.

Shall we call a truce? We are all meant to be working together on an Encyclopedia, not one side against another.

Please accept my apology.

Regards, Fitzy&#39;s Claw (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fitzy, no problem and really no need to apologize, not a biggie. I just deleted a comment from a talk page and then we corresponded. If in the future, if you feel any editor is doing something you disagree with, the best thing to do is link to the specific edit and ask others to chime in and give their opinion. The more eyes involved the better and don't talk things to seriously or personally. This "hobbie" should be enjoyable even though its very easy to get into tiffs with folks, goodness knows how many I have had :). Regards, --Tom 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
This was done in rather poor taste, and I would advise not making contentious edits in a failed attempt at humor. — <font color="007FFF">Save_Us _ 229 18:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why me, of all people. I'm one of the few who for months now knew who User:!! was. So how is it that the blocked user, the unblocking admin, and now you keep invoking that, when it has nothing to do with anything relating to this dispute. So, again, I ask: why target me? El_C 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * EL_C, I was actually just kidding around. I actually don't know all the sorted details of all the players involved and who did what and why ect. I should have not done that since I didn't know the details and it obviously could hurt feels. It seems that its been talked about alot so I didn't feel like it was that big a deal. Again, I apologize and will revert that, but based on the above warning, it was probably already reverted but I will check now. Regards, --Tom 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)ps I just struck that edit.

your edits to DRV
Please do not disrupt the process. M er cury   22:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply at the project page, thanks, --Tom 22:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

She dated Erik, not Jimmy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who the heck is Erik? Anyways, if she had been dating Wales, then, IMHO, that would be worthy of disclosure. Other than that, nothing to see. Anyways, just one lone voice. Thanks for the clarification for what its worth :) Cheers! --Tom 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your editing
Please stop removing See alsos just because you don't know why they're there. You're doing it in multiple articles; you've been told by others that your view of that guideline is not correct; and it really is becoming disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are these "others"? You seemed more intent on getting your way than improving the article. I consider you instant reverts to be disruptive as well. --Tom 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)ps, again, your characterization of my editing is wrong, imho oh course :) --Tom 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Doppelganger user page:
Mmoes seems to like your user page, but he copies it rather too closely, methinks. Not sure if it matters to you, or if you care, but I thought you should know if you didn't. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats pretty messed up and no I didn't know about it so I appreciate it. I need to go deal with real life issues right now so I will address it lately. Thanks again and cheers! --Tom 14:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks for your note, Tom. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey you are back. Hope all is well. Trust me, you didn't miss a darn thing. The more things change around here, the more they stay the same :) Anyways, cheers and happy holidays to you and yours, regards, --Tom 13:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, to you and yours as well. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil Behavior
- Tom: Civility says an example of an offense against civility is "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")." In Talk:Death_of_Emily_Sander, you said that a tribute to a recently deceased friend, and in fact the entire site it is on, "whatever the hell it is, is junk, period." The article suggests giving the editor who has been uncivil a chance to apologize, which has been done on that section and which you did not accept (when asked if you thought comments like that were civil, you responded "yes" as recorded on that talk page.) It is then recommended that two editors make comments on the person's member page. If that does not resolve the conflict, then "Request comment on users" may be filed. Therefore, I am posting this comment on your member page. Your member talk page has several examples of editors saying they found your behavior uncivil. In fact you received a last notice User_talk:Threeafterthree and were almost blocked for disruption. I would hope that we can resolve this issue peacefully without going that far this time. Toyalla (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Threeafterthree you cut this section out! How on earth can you do this! You like calling people vandals. Well isn't cutting out a section that questions your behavior vandalism? I'm reporting this. Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Threeafterthree)
Hello, Threeafterthree. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Threeafterthree, where you may want to participate. -- Toyalla (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Boas
I may be wrong, but I believe that this is a change to an edit you originally made, if so, you may wish to comment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop.
There have been many complaints about your recent behvaiour, Tom. Now, I'm not terribly experienced here at WP, however I am dissapointed by your recent incivility. I used to have the username "Fitzy's Claw", but changed it here, and, when I wanted to dispute your reversions of one of my comments here, you responded in a very civil, calm and collected manner. Please, stop this as it will only tarnish the reputation of an otherwise highly valuable contributor. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Sporker, thanks for your note and your concern. Actually, my recent talk page looks worse than it really is. There was a flap (whats new) over at Emily Sander about an external link, nothing really to see there. I have actually been chilling out and will continue to do so for awhile. I don't forsee anymore spats in the near future but who knows. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I just scanned my talk page to make sure I am not TOO out of control :) I do see a number of civil, thoughout conversations, so I'll continue on :) Regards, --Tom 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I just saw all the "be civil" and "calm down" comments and got worried. It might not have been on my talk page personally, but God only knows how many of those I've had. Oh, and Merry Christmas! Peace, Sporker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:James_I_of_England
Replied. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

King David Isle of Man
Thanks for the welcome. I had a question though. This may have been a mistake. You removed a verifiable third-party source for David Howe's pedigree. The following was the cited source. ''Ancestry.com. One World Tree, Thomas Stanley II to David Drew Howe, on line database. Provo, Utah. The Generations Network, Inc., retrieved 27, December 2007'' I'm not sure if you objected to the source or not, but I've found Ancestry.com as a source in other Biographies of living persons.--Lazydown (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just wanted clarification from you regarding WP:SELFPUB. You had stated on the discussion page that information from Howe's website wasn't allowed in his BLP. WP:SELFPUBstates that Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves. I think you had objected to citing Howe's website as a source for his pedigree, which, the above OneWorldTree/Ancestry.com citation is the best source, I agree. I just wanted some extra clarification from you and if you feel that anything from Howe's website isn't allowable as a citation. Thanks,--Lazydown (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Lazydown, As far as ancestry.com goes, I am not sure right off hand. You can probably use them as a source but the best thing to do is to try to reach concensus on the talk page as it seems like you have been trying to do which is good. As far a Howe's website, per the policy, you can use it for BASIC non disputed material, ie, when he was born or where he went to school or other BASIC material. Anything, and I repeat, ANYTHING, that is being disputed, or is a claim of fact that others might question, ect, ect should NOT be cited to the subject of the article's self published web site. Questionable/disputed material should be cited to independent sources. Anyways, --Tom 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, thanks. As a point of reference the Anna Nicole Smith biography page has been rated a class B.  Generally the highest rating of a Biography page.  It has at least eight citations for Ancestry.com.--Lazydown (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lazydown, I would not cite other Wiki articles as examples for what is acceptable as far as a source or a manual of style goes, ect since 90% or more, of the articles here are unfortuneatley not the way they should be :( All we can do is to try to improve each article based on the policies and guidelines we are provided with. My own personal editing style is to opt for exclusion of material if in doubt and to highly scrutinize sources. Anyways, --Tom 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry.com as a reliable source?
I can not see how Ancestry.com can be used as a reliable source, but in the end, it's for all of us to decide. From a NYT article on the site, "Ancestry.com — the most widely used — is the flagship site of Generations Network in Provo, Utah, .. has free content, including a family tree maker, but also lets users search immigration, census and military records for fees that depend on the level of records sought."

From All Things Digital, "Each person on a family tree has his or her own page with a life-events timeline and the records that you attach to the profile [emphasis added]."

From Ancestry.com's site, "Note: Ancestry World Tree GEDCOM files are voluntarily submitted by Ancestry users like yourself. We take all files "as is" and cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information contained in this database. We regret we cannot assist you in your personal research or prevent duplication of data. Our goal is to provide these user-contributed files to aid you in finding and/or correcting your family information."

Ancestry.com is clearly a "do-it-yourself" geneaology website. I can find no evidence that there is any peer reviewing of thie information. Collective thoughts? Newguy34 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Newguy34, I agree that this site should not be used as a source based on what you have found. I believe I made the same comment on the Howe talk page. I also commented that the article should NOT use Howe's web site for disputed claims. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 13:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts Tom. Another editor has removed the reference. Best, Newguy34 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your'e welcome. --Tom 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your'e welcome and good luck. --Tom 23:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your incivility
I kindly request you to stop (or at least temper) your recent incivility regarding your imputation of my "pushing an agenda" and harboring sympathies as either a Scottish or Armenian person, specifically at Talk:Alan Hovhaness and other articles, referring to the reversion of the blanking of properly sourced text as vandalism, and this edit summary. This was uncalled for, as were your summary reversions and very rude/judgemental edit summaries--and also including your apparent wiki-stalking to Julian B. Please don't edit in this manner; we are a community and need to always edit in a thoughtful manner. Best, Badagnani (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Badagnani, ok, I will try to temper. I have NO problem with ethnicity in bios. I DO have a problem if ethnicity is placed into the LEAD sentence unless there is a really, really, really, really good reason. Just having it mentioned for its own sake is not appropriate. Also, this is not personal since I usually edit "across the board" in regards to mosbio. I just went through ALL the armenian-americans in regards to ethnicity in the LEAD sentence only. Anyways, --Tom 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You should not have done this in this case. Most of the standard music reference works, and interviews with this composer (Alan Hovhaness) begin with the statement that he is an American composer of Armenian and Scottish heritage. Please restore this information to the article, which is crucial to an understanding of this composer's output. Badagnani (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

4RR
Just to let you know, you appear to have conducted the same blanking of links four times within a 24-hour period, in three different instances. Shall I report you for this, or will you kindly restore the links? Badagnani (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

African Americans
Hi, Tom. I'm actually very glad you drew my attention to the Owen Dodson article, since it was definitely in need of some work. You asked there about general issues regarding African-Americans--race/ethnicity as a whole is not really my forte, but the Harlem Renaissance is something I've done some work on, and I would ask you to be very careful about removing the phrase African-American--and the link to the article--from the lead in biographies of H. Renaissance figures. Those authors, artists, and scholars are really identified first and foremost through the movement as a whole; from a scholarly point of view, someone like Langston Hughes, by his own identification and that of subsequent scholarship, is a black poet first and a U.S. poet second. This is why the term African-American is so important--it contains two significant means of identification in a single term; ethnicity, for these historical figures, is not truly separable from nationality. But don't take my word for it, if you're going to do some large-scale work on these articles, you might want to gather consensus first; a lot of people watch Talk:African American; fewer people, but still a good number, watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora. Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Chick, I was actually asking about that(sic) persons perticular ethnicity and not as a race as a whole, but thank you for the heads up. If I removed a useful internal link, I will try to fix that too. Cheers --Tom 03:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian-American
Hey there Tom. Did you truly intend to call this vandalism? Just sayin'. Happy editing, -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Tom 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Officiousness
Can I ask why you removed an edit to a link I entered on the George Galloway page? The site I linked to (my own) provides all the new media relating to Galloway, much of it becoming viral around the net. So, the question is, why did you think it was wrong when the link had already been there for a year or more and is clearly providing a valuable and relevant resource? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couchtripper (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See that article's talk page, thanks, --Tom 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Using Diane Francis as a reference
Diane Francis as a reference

Please feel free to add your comments on the WP:BLP page linked above.DSatYVR (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table
An editor has nominated Oxford Round Table, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. ColdmachineTalk 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Project Cape Cod
I noticed that you lived on the Cape and Islands. I don't know if you know that there is a project encompassing the Cape. If you are interested on joining, click on this link: WikiProject Cape Cod. Feel free to join. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually born there but now live in RI. Thanks for the invite, I'll check it out. --Tom 19:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions on Criticism of BOR page.
And for your civility. I have replied to your posts (one of which I tried to do with a hint of sarcasm, although now that I look at it fails horribly, so hoping you don't take it the wrong way) and hopefully addressed your concerns on verifiability of the event. (I do think personally that the current citations you removed should be replaced with the cite video one that was mentioned in the discussion page earlier, however, I do not know the exact date it was reported on, so I can't do it myself, and I'm adverse to removing the current cites until the new one gets added, as I fear that some editors might decide to delete the section outright again.)

Thank you again for your opinions, and I hope to see you on the talk page again.

&eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Noian, no problem about the sarcasm. Cheers, --Tom 13:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom (Threeafterthree)
Just a little note. There is an admin user Tom. To prevent confusion (as I was confused about it) you might want to consider distinguish your user name from his, somehow. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't cross paths often, but note taken. Thank you, --Tom 02:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Sarah Palin's water breaking
Please do not reverse the edit.

It is relevant as it is an astonish fact as she reported it. I presented it on the discussion page before editing. I reviewed archives before editing. I saw no consensus for exclusion.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an astonishing fact according to who? On the talk page, it looks like a number of editors would leave it out. Anyways, I would suggest not reverting it again per 3RR, and take it to the talk page further. Also, please don't call it vandalism, its more of a content dispute wjich is much different. Cheers--Tom 15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is in the sources I cited, if they were not deleted.--Dstern1 (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

excuse my attitude
I was not exactly friendly. Please accept my apologies.

I don't agree with your reverting me, however that should not be an issue

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Sennen goroshi, apology accepted and no problem. Also, as I mentioned, I don't have a stance either way about those images being included. --Tom 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bob Enyart
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bob Enyart, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Bob Enyart. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mksmothers (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)