User talk:Tom/Archive4

Bush approval ratings
Hi Tom, I found the Bush ratings graph to be really well done, congratulations. Perhaps it would be useful to display a bold line at the 50% threshold to improve readability ? Just a thought. -- Ze miguel 14:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * With the State of the Union done and other factors contributing, it may be a good time to update your image. Thanks! &mdash; Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto Twilight Realm 01:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do update the approval rating graph. --James S. 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do update. Tat 16:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just came here to say the same thing, but I don't think my requesting it as well will make much of a difference, so I'll leave it at, "Nice graph, thanks."&mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Shell logo
Thanks for swapping the Shell photo with the logo. The proportions of the logo fit much better with the ITN feature on the main page. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ted_kulongoski.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ted_kulongoski.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Question on deletion vandals
A while ago I reported a vandal (137.222.10.57), but you did not block him, because he "has not vandalized w/in past 24 hours". Does it mean that if somebody vandalizes just once in 2 or 3 days, they are safe? By the way, this vandal attacked a newbie's user page (first time on 9 Dec. 2005), who has not contributed since. I think these attacks can be the reason and that is something which must be fought against. Jan.Kamenicek 00:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explanation. Jan.Kamenicek 16:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Question
Can you find out for me if a Stephen Rosen or Stephen I Rosen ever taught at the U. of Maryland? He may have been a biologist or anthropologist. He may have retired in the mid 70's, but not sure...regardless, you're doing good work as always!--MONGO 03:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom...I found him...or at least a reference to him.....thanks anyway and I'll see you around.--MONGO 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Biography stuff
Tom, we've been around on this before...but don't you think the succession boxes get kind of lost down at the bottom of articles with all the references and templates. I know that's the way they are mostly done, and I followed that course for a good while, at your recommendation, but really think they work better up in the pertinent part of the article, or at least at its very end. I can't find any policy or standard that says they have to go at the end. Can you live with me experimenting with this other placement?

BTW, I went to battle a couple of weeks ago over the generic politician infobox that you also convinced me of the value. I see you've been arguing that as well. I'm pretty happy with how the politician infobox has ended up, and am hoping the generic vs. specific office issue is now settled.

stilltim 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state deletion?
Hi Tomf688. I was going over cfd closings I had done recently, and noticed this one. While that discussion was heading to no consensus, you upmerged the above category and deleted it (around jan 28th on your contributions log, that discussion was closed on the 30th with the earliest it could have been done being the 29th). Can you point me to the discussion where consensus was reached for that upmerge? Thanks! --Syrthiss 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

?
If you are refering to my Mr. Smith contribution I don't seem how it wasn't NPOV

(though it was poorly written). 132.241.245.49 02:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * was the title not npov or was it the link? 132.241.245.49 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Accepted. That was over the top. 132.241.245.49 03:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediamatters ..does a good job of being factual. Have you read the article? 132.241.245.49 03:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Baltimore Sun reported November 13 that "[n]ewspaper articles and television news reports" from the night of the gubernatorial debate made no mention of the alleged Oreo cookie incident, and "representatives of the news departments at television stations WBAL, WJZ and WMAR and Maryland Public Television said they have no video of the incident."

132.241.245.49 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Quarl
Hi Tom, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 11:46Z 

Image Tagging for Image:Quentin_Tarantino.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Quentin_Tarantino.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon comments
I thought the premise of this site was for all to be involved. But it seems like only a few people have real power. One admin or regular messages another and they decide to revert someone additions or bash them. It seems counterproductive and completely wrong. It is group dynamics gone wild. I wrote U2 is the biggest band in the world because most critics have said or written it; the assertion is well supported. I changed JAP because I am one. And it is not really an ethic slur because Jewish is not ethic. But Janizary went and changed that even though the piece was full of grammar errors. She didn’t fix a thing. I fixed a few at the beginning since then. I hope they at least stay. Don’t become the monsters trying to fight the monsters. Anyway, thanks for the time. And take care... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.56.132.116 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Unfortunately your actions were misinterpretted as vandalism. Wikipedia is regularly vandalized, and any time an anonymous IP adds what can even be mildly construed as vandalism, the IP is reported at WP:AIAV, as you were.  However, you did not provide an edit summary or any reasoning for your additions, and you have violated the three revert rule by continuously adding the same POV statements.  Please view this article on POV and understand that Wikipedia is designed to remain completely neutral, and edits such as yours may be POV.


 * Also, please use the talk page of an article or of other users next time to discuss changes rather than continuously re-add them, as that is not constructive. If you want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, please consider registering an account since people's IPs sometimes change and these messages may be received by multiple users.  Thanks.  -- tomf688 {talk} 13:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply and insights. I now hold an account as you see.  As far as 3 reverted edits go, the people that reported me were doing the same thing.  Anyway, thanks again.  And take care... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amy4truth (talk &bull; contribs).

My RFA
Hello Tom. I wonder if you might reconsider your 'weak oppose' against me in my RFA. You have been with the project since 2004 and are an admin. I have been with the project for a few months and only heavily active for just under 3. And yet, I have 878 project space edits versus your 288. My talk edits across the namespaces add up to around 950 versus your ~1200.

If you look at my edit history, you will see that since Christmas I have been working on Wikipedia pretty much full time. I would say this equates to at least a year of part time editing, as my edit count comparison illustrates. I might not hang out in the same venues as you, but I can't get everywhere. I have my interests and my places to hang out, and 48 other editors I've met on those travels think I am worthy. Assuming no last minute piling in of opposition, I will be an admin in a couple of days - and it would be nice for me if I could do it unopposed. We all need a little cheering up after all :-)

If you don't feel you can support me, that's fine, thank you for reading and I hope you don't object to my writing to you. --kingboyk 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies...
Tom,

My apologies for dropping the template. I was working on my first article and thought that I had wikified it. I didn't know how to make it go away. How does my new article become available to the masses? Jimmie

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y  Arktos 02:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

AIAV
Thanks - I was confused by the wording of the criteria, will explain on the discussion page over there. --Calair 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, no, what I misunderstood was your comment on my Talk instead. Don't mind me, apparently I haven't woken up yet. --Calair 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Tomf688 - this is Lee Bradley - I intend to write about the programming language Mouse and just about 15 minutes ago posted a one line page that indicated I would be doing this. When I then came back to look for my entry it was not found, possibly due to not waiting long enough to be indexed in the database. Clicking a purge link was suggested. I was not sure what this would do but since this was only a stub page anyway I did not think losing it would matter. I clicked purge. I then looked at the recently purged pages and it seemed to indicate that one Tomf688 deleted this page. Which I found hard to believe, but, hey, in this virtual world who knows? Anyway, if you have any insight into what's going on here, let me know.

I realize people are discouraged from experimenting live like this and are encouraged to use the "sandbox," which I guess is what I'll do next. I am a newbie. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Bradley (talk &bull; contribs).

Re: biography
Oooops!! I thought Wikipedia was my personal webspace. Will never happen again!! &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cstone777 (talk &bull; contribs).

Richard Nixon Bowling Perfect game....
Okay I will.... but I am switching it back to say * Nixon was an avid bowler and allegedly once bowled a perfect game. which is what it said before I improved upon it... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.94.26 (talk &bull; contribs).

Shared IP blocks
My mistake; sorry! --InShaneee 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on my page. Note that I short blocked because of just that eventuality, and undid my block only because a more experienced admin had got there first. Furthermore it wasn't tagged 'shared' at the time. I am always very careful when it comes to shared IPs, and usually either refrain from blocking at all or issuing a very short block. My contribs to Administrator intervention against vandalism and my block log will confirm this. Cheers! --kingboyk 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Smurf: The Movie
Hey that was an article about a movie me and some freinds are making for a film contest. It is a real movie why did you deleter the article? —This unsigned comment was added by El Dude (talk • contribs).

Joe Hollywood
why is my page being delted. its about me. and i am famous. —This unsigned comment was added by JoeHollywood (talk • contribs).

dont sing it bring it
yeah knock knock tommy boy

Jack Beasley
The image is PD and I have retagged it accordingly. Adam 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
I don't understand at all why you deleted the Powow River Poets article. Could you explain?MaggieT 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me try again. I've been working with Stumps filling in gaps in the poetry entries, particularly with regard to New Formalism, and I truly don't understand why this one was deleted.MaggieT 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Potomac River for the U.S. Collaboration of the Week
Hey Tom, I noticed your recent addition of the image to the Potomac River article and wanted to let you know that the Potomac is a candidate for U.S. Collaboration of the Week! A much needed collaboration could bring the article up to featured status. Feel free to vote or add your two cents! --Caponer 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrews Air Force Base
I am taking the time to write to you over your comment to me on my talk page. I don't often write at such length, but considering that you are an administrator, I decided to talk a couple of minutes to write my reply in full.

Why I reverted your original comments: I take your point that if I had the time, I could have examined the page before and after your edits, but I did not. However, the one point I did note was your removal of the item about Andrews Field. My understanding (which could be wrong) is that it is better - if information is found to be incorrectly located, as you suggest the information on Andrews Field is - to create a new article or put that information in a better place. Your edit deleted this information under the reasoning that it was not relevant to the article itself. This was why I reverted your edits - it seemed that you were deleting otherwise good information without finding a better home for that information. Information that is in the wrong place should be found a better home and not deleted - this is my assumption of one of the Wikipedia rules, and - not having immense time to delve into the official Wikipedia rules - it remains an assumption on my part, so apologies if I am wrong and I have irritated you on this score.

Why I am writing to you: I object to the tone of your comment to me - specifically the suggestion that I am "rather irresponsible". I refute this entirely. I do not think it appropriate for administrators like yourself to - at the first instance of talking to another user - make such suggestions. With vandals, there is the 3 or 4 stage approach, with the first approach being "I saw you were playing around, please use the sandbox instead". Whatever the original reasons for my edits, and my comments on my reversions, and whatever the rights and wrong of your and my editing, I am disappointed in the use by an administrator of such a direct assumption of irresponsibility - which is what I read in you directly infer in your comment.

I am not overly sensitive, but I am writing this now to you because, simply, I wish to convey my disappointment. I don't wish to debate the rights and wrong of the editing of the page, perhaps your are right, and if so, I admit in advance my wrongs and now apologise for them. But I believe, however, that most users would not want to receive, in the first opening of a conversation with another user, a message that infers that they are irresponsible, when perhaps they are only misguided.

Thank you for reading this.--jrleighton 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Treasurers
I actually did not create the template, someone else did and placed Schafer into it. Just like he did Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Alan Hevesi, who are also comptrollers. I was just placing the template in the articles, which had not been done. Prez2016

Can you upload?
Can you upload the revised version of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season track map (on Wikimedia Commons)? I have the newer version, but uploaded it in the wrong place (on Wikipedia at Image:2005 Atlantic hurricane season map rev.gif). (Not sure if you're an administrator, but if you are, can you delete my image after?) Also, your PNGs turn out at a much higher quality. By the way, how did you get it at such a high resolution? Thanks! &mdash; Super-Magician (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count ) &#x2605; 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:2005 Atlantic hurricane season map.png
It seems that we both had the same idea, looking at the upload history of that image... Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, very! I was just about to comment on that.  Thanks for deleting my (obsolete) image.  &mdash; Super-Magician (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count ) &#x2605; 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your comments saying the map looks strange at max resolution: is your browser shrinking the image? (If it is: in IE, hover over the image until a button appears in the lower-right, then click that button; in Firefox, hovering over the image should produce a magnifying glass with a + inside it, then click the image.) --AySz88 ^  -  ^  04:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Mexico Supercenter images
Yo, I'm putting my image of the Puerto Vallarta store back in the Wal-Mart article. My image is sharp, shot in broad daylight on a clear day, with well-saturated colors, and shows off the immense size of the SuperCenter format. Your image is blurry, shot in low contrast on an overcast day, with muddy colors, and is too close to the subject. Please don't take this personally&mdash;I just feel that Wikipedia should have professional-looking images as much as possible so that it will be taken more seriously. If you have an issue with this, please discuss on the Talk:Wal-Mart page. --Coolcaesar 04:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

update bush approval rating
could you update the george bush approval rating please? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.78.213.2 (talk • contribs).
 * Could you possibly make the numbers a bit bigger so that they will be legible on a thumbnail?--Nowa 22:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal)
For helping clean up the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. Much better. Anagrammarian 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add
Hey, Not for bias of the person, but please for respect of the Oval Office please refer to the President as President Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.87.55 (talk • contribs) 02:03, April 23, 2006

Ripping off user page
I have shamelessly ripped off your user page. Very nice and clean. LegalSwoop 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

george w. bush disapproval rating
when you get a chance can you update george w. bush's disapproval rating chart? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.142.177 (talk • contribs) 03:13, April 25, 2006.

President
Hey, Thanks for the quick reply, I mean that it adds more viability to your graph if you say "President Bush's approval/disapproval rating" instead of "Bush's approval rating". Not only is it proper form and shows proper respect for the Oval Office, but it is more specific to who you are talking about. The same would be true of President Clinton were he in office. It is best to refer to a President with thier title.