User talk:Tom/Archive5

Deletion
Verifiability and the reliability of the source. Danny 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We should wait for the name to be released before deciding how important it is. Danny 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Sethmacfarlane.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sethmacfarlane.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading 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 have uploaded other media, consider checking 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maryland
Would you mind taking a look and commenting on the cultural identity section. Their are two users who are tying to push, in a roundabout way, a really pov view, basically a rant off the talk page, in the section. I don't want to have to do anything drastic but i am getting the idea that my had is going to be forced in the matter. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest in the Maryland page. There are newbies that just plain will not adhere to NPOV for citing policies. Note their reverts! WillC 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking it over, seems if we see eye to eye on the pricples of the section. I dont know if sourcing would help any, while it would go to back up their the points they are trying to make, i dont see it being useful in the context as a whole, as it wonl't prove their argument. As for rewording or heavely trimmed, yeah i agree, but basiclay, as i see it, the section would have to be striped down an rebulit, beasiclay removing, the current txt, which as you states was "heavily biased and full of assumption". Also being that it is full of assumptions, regardless of cites or not, would it not also be considered WP:OR? At the time of this note i havn't had a chance to see any comments in regards on the article talk page --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

AbrahamLincoln24
Why was I deleted this is full of fatcs...... Are you right winged. Why are you deleteing my posts. Name one fact that is wrong... Nothing that I say is in third person so IE its not POV too.

Thanks
Thanks for stopping the disrespect of my good friend Dr. Ruckman. I have met the man several times and he clearly towers above most in his wisdom.

Olz 06
Who do you think you are?

time for an update to GWB approval rating graph
eom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.238.7.182 (talk • contribs) 18:23, May 12, 2006

LAPD SWAT
the reason they feature LAPD SWAT is because they invented the concept, as well as the acronym "S.W.A.T." which is now used by other law enforcement agencies all over the world. they initially came up with Special Weapons Attack Team but later changed it to Special Weapons And Tactics, to make it sound less aggressive.. silly idea if you ask me. having said that, Chicago SWAT or Houston SWAT are mere imitations of LAPD SWAT. in fact, many police agencies, including Chicago PD simply adopt whatever equipments or tactical procedures that LAPD test/implement..

Burns / Robert Burns
I saw that you moved Burns (disambiguation) to Burns a few days ago, and stopped Burns from redirecting to Robert Burns. I think this was a good move, but it has been switched back by User:Mais oui!, with no explanation (the same user seems to do this frequently on the Burns disambiguation page also). I was going to switch it back the way you had it, but I don't seem to be able to move Burns (disambiguation) to Burns, since Burns already exists. Anyway, it perhaps should be discussed, since there's obviously opposition - I'm attempting to start a discussion on the Robert Burns page. Dsreyn 15:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Kempthorne and Risch
First, forgive my crankiness in the edits for Jim Risch. It's been a day.

But having said that, don't you think the succ boxes are a bit redundant given the templates in these articles, especially for Dirk Kempthorne? --Faustus37 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris Dodd
Do not change the picture on Chris Dodd's page. 75.3.15.49 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes
I saw you left a message on User:Faustus37 stating that succession boxes are a standard convention on Wikipedia. I had just rescently got into a disscussion with User:Nunh-huh, who claimed that they were redundant an unnessisary. Is there a policy on this?--Rayc 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
You (and several others) saved me many keystrokes by reverting the most recent round of trivial/POV H1-B spam. All I had left to do was leave a message on a talk page: see 71.123.40.76. Much thanks -- Paleorthid 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!

Cool3 talk 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

 * Thanks for your support
 * In my RfA, which passed!
 * Wise I'll try to be.

I really appreciate the fact that you felt you could support even with a smaller number of edits than you might like to see. Thanks again!

-- Nataly a 05:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold talkcontribs 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there
Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Doug Duncan
I was just wondering why you deleted what I added to Mr. Duncan's page on this site today. All I did was add to the information you have about his education, addressed some of the allegations you detail, and added some information about his many accomplishments while Executive of Montgomery County.

Basically, prior to editing it today, Duncan's page was a joke. It did not mention any of his many accomplishments in Montgomery, nor did it mention anything about what he wants to do as governor.

All it essentially talked about was the few allegations that have been made against Duncan in the past few months. How is that fair at all?

This is supposed to be an unbias research tool. While I support Duncan, what I added to the page was fact, and I made sure not to try to sweeten the facts, and to present them as a student of politics would.

Now I'm not sure why you channged what you changed. If I did something wrong format-wise, that's fine, and I will correct my error. But other than that, there is no reason why the page should have been changed. I would never accuse you of being bias, but I can't think of any other reason why it would have been changed (other than a format issue).

On the other side of gubernatorial race, Martin O'Malley's page is far more detailed and gives far more information than does Duncan's page. With the growing popularity of Wikipedia as a resource tool, I think it is important that voters in Maryland be presented with detailed and thorough information about BOTH candidates.

For some reason the site will not allow me to verify my email, but please send a response to this message to Jmbarr@emory.edu.

I am trying to be as diplomatic as possible in this circumstance, but the matter is very upsetting to me, and I will continue to seek answers.

Thank You


Image: Dead
That's weird. I remember putting a copyright on there. How do I upload a copyright on there now?

US invasion of Panama
Please place an NPOV tag on the protected page immediately and revert it to the version that was there before you protected. Not doing this is obscene. Añoranza 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison
Just dropping a note that I like the new picture, really gives the Presidential Aura to the article ;) Happy editing! T  e  k  e  06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Doug Duncan
I am sure that I would be able to get permission to use some of the material from Duncan's website.

In regard to your claim that the material was bias, I don't believe that to be true. In fact, a lot of what I was doing was responding with facts to allegations that you described (and that have not been substantiated). How can you describe your article about Duncan as being fair and unbias when you discuss only the FEW allegations that have been made against him in the past weeks, and mention NONE of the many positive things he has done as both County Executive and Mayor of Rockville?

While some information I posted was taken from Doug's website, a lot of it was not, and therefore there is no reason it should have been taken off. I am sorry that you don't support Doug Duncan, but please don't let your political views get in the way of your job.

Who else can I talk to about this? Is there a Wikipedia council of sorts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmbarr (talk • contribs) at 05:39, June 12, 2006.

You have an impersonator
I thought you might be amused to know that User:Tomf 688 has recently been vandalising hurricane-related articles. —Cuivi é nen 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd
I noticed you noted that you restored a large body of text removed by me, upon which I noticed that it was removed in the first place. For some reason in firefox for me lately, when I have edited things it has removed a lot of the lower content for some reason. It also happened in the Olympia Snowe article a few times, though I caught it then. So I would just like to apologize about it, and Ill be more careful in the future to catch myself if I find it happening again. Rangeley 18:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey
I see you uploaded a larger resolution of the png I had at the HWINM article...if you notice on the commons page by clicking on my link that I had painted over the information that it was a reserve, which it no longer is...can you fix this please by reuploading a high resolution map without that reserve commentary? Thanks.--MONGO 02:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...that seems fine--MONGO 07:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Our Discussion
Fair enough, Tom. I am sorry for accusing you of being bias. I am just very passionate about Doug, and it was hard for me to stand seeing his profile so bare and filled with only the accusations that have been made against him. He has done so much for my town and my county, and I just want people to know the whole truth about him if they look him up on this site (which I would expect many do).

Despite that, I still maintain that a lot of what I added was not cut from his website. In the future, if I make an edit, I will not use any material from his website (and I hope that you will give it a fair shake when reviewing it despite our discussions).

Rainfall images
National Climatic Data Center rainfall reports were used to create the images, which I post to the website at work. So technically, there is a source and it is the government. The fact that I'm the one that created them is incidental. =) Thegreatdr 05:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
--Pilot| guy 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Samuel Bogley bw photograph.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Samuel Bogley bw photograph.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum
Please see the talk page of the article for what I'm removing from the article and why. I welcome discussion there, but I did re-remove the material because I don't think you understood why I removed it when you re-added it. -- SCZenz 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season
You were unable to point me to the descussion you had regarding the images located in the active season template. You also failed to give a good reason why an image is hurtful in that spot. Maybe this is because you didn't see my message. Please respond. Thanks. → &ensp;J ARED &ensp;(t)&ensp; 17:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 28 talk archive pages for the 2005 season which is too much trouble to search through. All I can say is that I believe this has been discussed before and the general agreement was to leave the image out, because there was not an image on the 2005 page until we got the track map.  If you really want an image there, you can make your argument and draw people to your side on the 2006 talk page... if you want to. --tomf688 (talk - email) 17:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I really don't want to make a big deal. Personally, I thought an image would look nice there because it is so blank. Almost all ofther infoboxes like this contain an image, even if it will be replaced later with a permanent one. I'm not going to fight to make it this way, though, becuase frankly it's foolish. → &ensp;J ARED &ensp;(t)&ensp; 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Van Hollen Article
I have tried to change this as the bias is obvious, but each time someone changes it back. The part I made bold especially needs some type of backing as it is little more than a small minioritys opinion. As People in this district or those who were in the district would say, she would still be elected had it not been for the redistricting. The problem is this article focuses way too little on that fact, but rather on the opinion that Democrats decided to not reelect her. The article fails to mentions that the most conservative parts of Montgomery County were removed from her district and replaced with heavily Democratic areas. The bias in this article is stupid, and as shown through other Maryland politicial articles I doubt you change this or do anything but as I said it is just "stupid."

"In the November election, Van Hollen narrowly defeated Morella by about five percent of the vote. Some pundits thought the 8th had been drawn in a way to make it impossible for Morella to win. Indeed, Van Hollen trounced Morella with 79 percent of the vote in the new Prince George's portion of the district. However, Van Hollen narrowly defeated Morella in the Montgomery County portion of the district, most of which Morella had represented at one time or another during her 16 years in Congress. It is more likely that the unpopularity of the Republican congressional leadership finally proved too much for Morella to overcome. Van Hollen was reelected in 2004 against only token Republican opposition. Given the 8th's heavy Democratic tilt, it is very unlikely he will face a serious or well-funded Republican opponent in the near future." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justin082005 (talk • contribs) at 08:13, June 25, 2006.