User talk:TomNativeNewYorker

VAW-126
VAW-126 no longer flies the Hawkeye 2000. They converted back to Navup aircraft. No east coast squadron with the exception of VAW-120 fly HE2K's. This is varifiable with VAW-126's own website and I can walk outside of my door and touch thier aircraft. They are Navup Aircraft. Yes, 126 has flow HE2K's but has not for a while now. "From VAW-126's website. Since December of 2010, the SEAHAWKS transitioned from the E-2C Hawkeye 2000 aircraft to the E-2C+ Group II aircraft. VAW-126 has maintained their battle readiness with CARRIER AIRWING THREE and CARRIER STRIKE GROUP TEN in preparation for the support of overseas operations wherever and whenever they are called." Hughespj1 (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

They are not called navup aircraft, they are called E-2C+ Group II aircraft, so I edited it to show the proper nomenclature of the aircraft. since you say you can walk out you door and touch them, have you actually really touched them?TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

prototype
here TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks
Any time :) - oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Grutness...wha?  00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talisa Soto
Hello TomNativeNewYorker, how you doing? As the person who created the article and who is proud of his Puerto Rican heritage, I would like to express my opinion in regard to the edit warring going on. When I first joined Wikipedia I also believed that a person's heritage should be mentioned in the introduction, however policy has changed a lot since then and we must follow what policy dictates. I fully agree with All Hallow's Wraith and TJRC that Soto's Puerto Rican heritage is not relevant to her notability and should not be in the introduction. Her Puerto Rican heritage is clearly stated and understood as such in the first paragraph where it is stated that her parents are Puerto Rican. Besides that she is listed in the List of Puerto Ricans which appears in her bio. and in which she is listed, therefore making obvious her heritage. Only if her heritage were part of her notability, should it be mentioned in the introduction: Example "First person of Puerto Rican descent to become an Astronaut, General, Supreme Court Justice, etc." I hope that I am clear in my position and that you will understand and refrain reverting and from being involved in a possible edit-war. Instead of reverting go to Talk:Talisa Soto and discuss the situation. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Netalarm  talk  03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. That was something that totally slipped my mind at the moment. When I realized what I had done I immediately went back so I could edit my username signature into my last edit. Funny thing is that the sinebot got there one minute after my initial edit. Oh my, thank goodness for sinebot being on the ball and fixing it for me less than a minute later, and your timely reminder three days later.TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooops
You did a revert on the article Manuel Noriega. I'm guessing it was an accident when you restored other vandalism in the process. :) Niteshift36 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Backronym
Hi Tom--

The point is, you posted something, it was reverted, and the WP:BRD procedure is to go to the talk page, as was twice suggested, and discuss why the material you added improves the section, rather than simply re-reverting -- that's the direction of crossing 3RR and edit-warring. You were also told to have a look at the hidden comment, which points out the long history of over-expansion for this section (in the past, it has really imbalanced the article). Finally, your addition is uncited. If it's to be included, it needs WP:RS DavidOaks (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a reference, since that is what I saw when I went to the talk page. I did not see any 'hidden comment' and am not a magician, and not going to try and pull something hidden from thin air. And who made you the boss of how many items can be placed on the page to begin with?


 * Naw, I'm not the boss of anything, just trying to work within wikipolicies and guidelines, including WP:BRD. The comment requires no magic -- when you edit, you see it (for instance, if you edit the section you're now reading, you'll find a hidden comment right after the asterisk * .  That section became unwieldy and overshadowed the article; there seemed to be no criteria except an editor liked a particular item (so we had a lot of airlines, a lot of cars, a lot of sports teams) and the lack of good citations was rife (usually none at all; often just a blog). So that was consensus. However, see WP:CCC -- if you feel that your addition substantially contributes to the section/article, by all means make the case on the talk page. If you feel that the section on jokes and pejorative meanings needs expansion, that too is something to visit with other editors about. We got it down to two cars and one airline. The others are really questionable, as there's v little evidence for wide distribution. I think abbreviations.com is in the same class with dictionary.com -- unauthenticated, essentially like using wikipedia as a source for wikipedia. DavidOaks (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus on the talk page about limiting the amount of bacronyms, only you dictating what should be done without any previous discussion.

As far as the overload you seem to be so concerned about, I notice there are three entries pertaining to the automotive industry, three for computers/electronics, and one for the airlines. I didn't happen to notice ANY for the military in that section. Is that another one of your hidden entries?


 * Yes, I think the section could use some cleanup. Will get on it. The justification for the additional auto-items (not my contribs, BTW) was that one was non-US and was in fact already an acronym before being made into a humorous backrronym; the "Ford" entry was supported by the number of variations, each with a great many independent (i.e., not mirrored, not pasted) attestations. I'm inclined to think we could cut down some more, and I'll take your note as support, although this really should be happening on the talk-page. So in the same way, "Navy" could use some discussion, as well as a source besides visitor-built sites. Are you having trouble reading hidden comments? Nothing secret about them, if you'll look above your edit window, you'll see the button fifth from the right; it works exactly like the "ref" tab -- just delete the word "comment" and supply your own text. The use at Backronym is exactly what it's intended for -- to provide some background for editors who may be visiting that page for the first time, may not have visited the talk page, and may not know the history of a particular section. DavidOaks (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

please don't take my comments as support for your justification of the article being glutted. I only pointed out that YOUR solo consensus is pretty much flawed.

Not for nothing my bacronym is not made up it is something I witnessed personally while in the Navy.


 * No doubt. But that's WP:OR, and what we need is WP:RS. I have now provided this for your item. It was in fact your responsibility to do so (WP:Verifiable --"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"). Now, you may want to have a look at WP:Consensus as well. There really isn't any need for any specified number of editors to participate, and there certainly isn't any problem with what happened in Backronym, where the conversation consisted of edit-summaries, a synthesis of which was inserted into the comment and on the talk page, and which has been operational for a long time without anyone taking issue with it (that would have created a situation where consensus required elaborate conversation, even third-party mediation. Have a look at the talkpage for Homeopathy, and you'll see what can happen.) Most of the additions have been contributions from editors who otherwise never had anything to do with the page, which is why I assume they didn't participate in discussion. DavidOaks (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

George Lopez
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

I happen to agree with you on this one, but just FYI. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Tom? Pick your venue, please: ::the MOSBIO talk page, or the George Lopez talk page. Where would you like to discuss this refusal of yours to allow the George Lopez lead to say that he's American?


 * I assume you want to resolve this via discussion—You weren't expecting to revert you again, were you? :) SamEV (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the MOS, George Lopez's ethnicity is allowed in the opening paragraph because it is indeed relevant to his notability. No where am I trying to say or lead anyone to believe he is not an American. If you notice, he is referred to as a [| Mexican American]. The word 'American' has not been deleted. As far as the second mention of his ethnicity in the same paragraph; that was added because another editor felt it something should be added to justify that it indeed was relevant to his notability.

It should be pretty obvious to most people with common sense that should lead one to believe that the person is an American of Mexican decent. If it isnt quite so obvious, the term '[| Mexican American]' links to the wikipedia page with a description of what a [| Mexican American] is including this comment 'Mexican Americans are Americans of Mexican descent' as the first sentence of the article.

As far as discussing whether or not it should be a part of the article, I don't think there is much to discuss. The MOS allows for it to be there, and your claim that it shouldnt be there has nothing to do with his ethnicity not being part of his notability. It appears that for whatever reason, you want to remove it even though the MOS contradicts your feelings. I think you need to address the MOS for wikipedia to be rewritten if you feel ethnicity should not be included in any articles whatsoever.

Between January 26th and February 28th of this year, you made at least 12 edits or reverts to the page, and none of the edits involved removing his ethnicity from the article. Did the MOS change for wikipedia all of a sudden and you are the only one with the latest secret revision?


 * So you're interpreting the fact that MOSBIO allows it as meaning that it mandates it?
 * And what does it matter that I never took an interest in the issue till now?
 * There was no "second mention" of his ethnicity. Where it reads "the Mexican culture", I rewrote "his own Mexican American culture", as a way of mentioning his ethnic heritage, in an even more accurate way, since I'd taken it out of the first sentence.
 * I grant that "Mexican American" does include nationality within it . But the issue for me is that the inclusion of his ethnicity is not mandatory as you seem to insist, and that I identified a better way to deal with these facts about him. Reducing certain people to an ethnicity right off the bat in the first sentence may seem good to you, but is it fair?
 * Quite Quit acting as if you're doing what MOSBIO asks us to do, Tommy; you're doing what it allows because it suits your preference, for whatever reason.
 * I'm leaving the matter there. See you around. SamEV (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC); 23:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC); 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)