User talk:Tom Morris/Archive 6

Deletion review for Occupy Marines
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Occupy Marines. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kai445 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I've changed my mind and will undelete the article imminently. I'll ask another admin to close the DRV. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to see you've taken a closer look. -Kai445 (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you made a correct decision there and you should have stood by it. The nominators comments that he felt there was a consensus to keep were no reason to close with the mass of additional editor input after that, I don't see as his comments had any weight at all. Your close is very messy indeed imo. Do you really see his comments overriding the mass of additional comments that followed it? Please link me to the policy or guideline that supports such a closure, thanks - Where does it say he is even allowed to withdraw it after multiple delete votes? Youreallycan (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nominators always have the right to withdraw their nominations. Sadly, policy is unclear here: WP:WITHDRAWN only says that you can't use nominator withdrawing to justify a speedy keep if there have been substantive discussions following, and withdrawing cannot be used as a way to short-circuit discussion. Neither of those cases apply. The withdrawal of the nominator doesn't always undermine the consensus for deletion, but in this case, I'm afraid it does.
 * Pragmatically speaking, the answer is simple: let's leave it as it is, wait a few weeks and see if the sourcing issues get resolved. If not, someone can make the case for deletion again. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very messy Tom - You closed it as delete and only overturned on a vague comment from the nominator, perhaps you could have asked him to clarify his intention. "Old AfD multi and MiszaBot config as this article seems to be here for the long haul now" - dude - you appear all over the place with this.  - Never mind we'll see how the facbook pages notability goes forward and get back to it later. As you closed this AFD as nominator withdrawn I reserve right to nominate it again without reference to the last one as technically it is not a Keep close but a withdrawn and as such is void in regards to a time line objection. Youreallycan (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Marines
Hi Tom. I just wanted to clarify some things; it seems that you restored the article on the basis that I apparently withdrew my nomination. This is not the case; if you look at my comments both at the AfD and on my talkpage (when asked to withdraw by another editor) I made it clear in this edit that I would not be withdrawing the nomination. I decided to step away from the discussion after receiving feedback that I was becoming too involved and becoming too combative over the issue, but though I conceded (at the time of the comment) that consensus appeared to be leaning towards keep I did not withdraw the nomination. This was indeed my first AfD, but I know how to withdraw the nomination formally and would've non-admin closed it as a withdrawal if that was my intention.

If you feel that the article still should stand, then fair enough. But I feel you made the right decision to delete, based on policy. It was to be expected that some of the keep !voters would come straight at you, pitchforks in hand, but you made the right call according to policy. Please reconsider the restoration; don't keep this article on my account. I did not withdraw, and feel the original result should stand. If any editors want to contest it, they can take it to DRV. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Given this clarification Tom would you please consider reverting back to your Admin close and the user that objected to that close can open their DRV discussion again? A cleaner option might be to simply revert back to prior your closure and we'll ask at WP:AN for a completely new close?  Youreallycan (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the latter option seems sensible: I've created a thread at WP:AN asking for an uninvolved admin to either let it stand as it is now or to reclose as appropriate. (I will now go and get myself utterly drunk to try and forget what a ghastly mess I've made of this.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom go get drunk if you like, but in celebration not in sadness. Your efforts here have been fine, we all make little missies occasionally. We are all volunteers and here to help and enjoy a little bit. Thanks for your willingness to look and look again at this. Best regards. - Youreallycan (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, you've allowed yourself to be bamboozled. The controlling comment in this regard by user Basa lisk should not be one at his personal Talk page, which few participants in the AfD debate bothered to follow, but this one on the project page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines (2nd nomination):


 * "I'd like to point out that the requirement that the subject be the main topic of the cited sourced comes from WP:WEB, rather than WP:GNG. However, I see your point, and for the benefit of others in this discussion I concede at this point that consensus is to keep. I will not be arguing for a deletion any further. Regards (User:Basalisk on the 13 December 2011)
 * JohnValeron (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I like to think I haven't been "bamboozled". I took a comment to mean one thing. The author of the comment said it means something different. Rather than attempt to be a psychic, I'll step out of the way and let an uninvolved admin look over the whole mess and see what they can make of it instead. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section)
Please be advised I have added a comment that concerns you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Occupy_Marines_AfD. JohnValeron (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, I apologize for removing the foregoing message. As I told you above, I've been copyediting Wikipedia since July 2010 but am new to AfD. I supposed it was my responsibility to clean up after myself by deleting messages that had obviously been responded to. But I see your point: I have no business scrubbing messages from your Talk page. Please forgive me. JohnValeron (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I just like to keep everything because I'm an archivist packrat. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be advised I have added a new comment concerning you time/date-stamped 01:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Occupy_Marines_AfD. JohnValeron (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lift Ban?
Tom, For reasons that are obvious from the fundraising discussion, could you look into how one would go into lifting the indefinite ban on editing by Douglas Youvan? That assumes you agree the argument he was having with Hrafn was unfortunate and not representative of his advocacy for the WMF. He is still active on Commons as "Doug youvan". Thanks. It's more than OK to decline. LadyJosie (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have no idea what the nature of the dispute you refer to is. I may risk failure to assume good faith here, but would the village pump thread be a convenient excuse to get User:Doug youvan unblocked by any chance? —Tom Morris (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The individual in question operated a number of socks (see Sockpuppet investigations/Nukeh/Archive, Suspected sock puppets/Nukeh & Suspected sock puppets/Nukeh (2nd)) and made numerous bizarre and incoherent claims (including that I am a cabal of Kansas public school teachers). I have no extreme sentiment against his reinstatement -- but don't really expect him to contribute anything to the project. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just sayin
Hi Tom, I saw some of that "occupy" stuff and just wanted to drop by and say "Don't beat yourself up over such trivial matters". Everything I've seen of your work here has impressed me as thoughtful, considered, and always done with the best interests of the pedia at the forefront. Months from now nobody is gonna care about that AfD (save for those few vested individuals who wish to lay wp:ownership claims on said article.) Keep doing what you're doing, be yourself, and enjoy what you do here.

By the way .. have a great holiday season. (and Merry Christmas too if you don't object to a touch of politically incorrect best wishes.)

Cheers :) — Ched : ?  10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The way I figure it is there is only one way to learn on Wikipedia and that is to do, which means there will be mistakes, blunders and right royal screw-ups. But the alternative is only to close safe discussions. Thanks for the holiday cheer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed as keep
Hi Tom User:Causa sui has closed it as Keep now. I just wanted to say. - Your gut feeling and comment assessment of delete was imo the correct close and moving forward don't let this stop you making similar well judged policy driven assessments of consensus - regards - Youreallycan (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Except when YRC wants a keep result.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I always err on the side of caution in such case and wouldn't ever on the Keep side in similar situations. Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The default is to keep unless there is consensus to delete, though. AfD is structured to be in favor of keeping articles at the margins.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur you were correct in closing as delete. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Thanks for your kind info. Would surely do that from future. Thanks! -- Karthik Nadar 14:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merchandise
The sell hard disk idea was a "let me profit" by arranging a loan idea. I pointed her to where she could get the data. The sales tone was just too much. There is so much low quality material here, the focus should be on that, not selling PCs. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christmas Eve
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christmas Eve. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Stallion article
Dispute Resolution started on the "Stallion" article. 83.77.224.215 (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving files
Would the File mover capability have helped me avid the clumsiness of the links as in Talk:Global file system and Talk:Global filesystem, etc.? If so could you grant that capability to my account please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how the ability to move files would help with the situation you describe. If you have to articles that discuss the same concept but have different names, you merge them and then redirect. The only benefit of having file mover is that it lets you move files. The guidelines on file movers states I can hand this out at my discretion "to trusted users who regularly work with media files and have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines surrounding renaming this type of media. There is no set requirement but users should be well-versed in Wikipedia's image and media policies". Demonstrate that you meet those requirements to me or to another administrator at WP:RFPERM and I'll happily grant file mover. The fact that you think that file mover will help you with article namespace redirect issues hardly fills me with confidence.
 * Until then, if you need to move files, use the Media rename template. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I guess I am not smart enough yet for that.... I thought that allowed for file deletion as well... History2007 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and ever thanks
I am flattered that my casual copy-edit tweak should have elicited so warm a welcome. The Guild of Copy-Editors sounds like a very good institution and I look forward to joining it as soon as I complete the mechanics of retiring from doing this sort of thing for a living. I could not agree more with the thesis that if a thing is worth saying, it is worth saying as intelligibly as possible, with its corollary that the bracken of typographic errors, misplaced modifiers, and other shortcomings of the less-than-immaculate prose we all write from time to time is perennially ripe for the keen sickle of a sharp (or just plain fresh) pair of eyes. (As to purple-prose extended metaphors, that's another matter. It's a fair cop, m'lud.) I look forward to becoming a part of this ongoing process soon, in a more systematic way.

NHumez (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fluffymoose_disruptive_editing. Thank you. Calabe1992 19:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File mover
I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see File mover. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisted
Hi Tom. I'm just curious to know why you relisted this. AFAICS, there is a clear consensus, and the comments are mainly from experienced editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An absent-minded mistake. I opened it in a new tab to close it as keep, then someone distracted me and I clicked relist rather than close. I'll close it as keep in a moment. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Things happen. I made a similar mistake myself last  week for a similar reason :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I apologize: I know that this is not a question or request. I just had to thank you for your kind congratulations; would you believe that I specifically wanted to create the first article of the new year? Oh, and I am so happy it worked. Thank you again, and happy New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twozenhauer (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. Good stuff! —Tom Morris (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Menashe Lustig
Want the back pag menashe lustig

I want to know why you deleted this the page

What can be done, the page will appear back

And if I want to see what was written on the page, where could I see פרחי (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted the article because there was a clear consensus at the deletion discussion. If you can show some reliable sources that establish notability, the article can be recreated. If you want to, I can also userfy the page, so you can work on it and then resubmit it when it is ready. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I want to work on it, userfy it, if possible, tell me, what is called a reliable source, for example.

Thanks for the answer, and I will work on it, to grant databases, about today's young comedians פרחי (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, my sources are times in Yiddish times in Hebrew, then, it would be a good source? פרחי (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * שם העט שלו, 'קאפ-שטיק', באתר
 * His pen name, Cap shtick, at blog 'IVELT' []


 * His pen name, "Danzigar, on a blog site, 'IVELT' []

— Preceding unsigned comment added by פרחי (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 January 2012‎


 * Both of those links are to forum/blog sites, which aren't reliable sources. Reliable sources are things like newspapers or books. If you would use it in a coursework project at university, that's roughly what a reliable source is. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AND THET? [] פרחי (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks more likely to be a reliable source, although it is worth remembering that you should probably try and get coverage from outside the Hasidic community to establish notability. See WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Basically, to convince the community that the person is notable, you need sources that are reliable and meet those criteria. The aforementioned links and WP:RS should tell you what's needed. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

is this good? []פרחי (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2011
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Trustfall (band)
Hi. An IP has rolled back a couple of versions of an AfD you closed,. I would fix and warn the IP myself, but I don't have rollback rights and don't want to screw it further by trying to correct manually. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've rolled it back and warned the user. Thanks! —Tom Morris (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Secular humanism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Secular humanism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion sorting split
— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've responded. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA Policy
Tom, I apologize if you have better things to do then deal with a question like this, but as someone who I trust and is familiar with the RfA Process, I feel like you might be the best person to help me out. On the active RfA, I had posted a Neutral comment, essentially pending approval until the candidate had cleared up his WP:Clean start issues. He has done so, to my liking at least, and I would now like to move my !vote to Support. I'm just iffy on how to handle my comments in the Neutral section. It seems as though moving or deleting those comments would only muddy the picture of how the RfA went for the closing Crat, so should I  the statement, add a note under my Neutral !vote, simply note my change of heart in the Support !votes, or is there some other format I should use? Thanks, Achowat (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just indent the comment with a colon, then put a comment after it saying "moving to support" or something like that. I wouldn't strike it out. There's plenty of examples of how to do it in other RfAs. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will do. Achowat (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of early Christian thought on abortion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of early Christian thought on abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback re Breedlove
L Faraone  22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening at Additive synthesis.
I had expected some admin to clamp the article down a half hour earlier.

Not that there is any harm in leaving it as is for the time being, would you consider returning the state of the article to the status quo, sometime before the wholesale changes that User:Clusternote made to the article? It's okay if you don't, but since the content dispute is about the changes this editor is making, I think it would be appropriate. And it would begin to send the message to this editor that he actually has to collaborate and seek consensus before rewriting the whole thing. Heck, some of the changes he made may have been good, but he does not understand all of the technical issues and is too insecure to be able to admit that, even to himself. 71.169.179.65 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not intervening in the content dispute and so I'm just going to leave it as it is. I'm going to ask User:Charles Matthews, who is an extremely experienced Wikipedia administrator and mathematician to try and mediate your content dispute. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can live with that. 71.169.179.65 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calvary Chapel
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Calvary Chapel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Huggle tool problem
Hi, I just downloaded the Huggle anti vandalism tool but I have a problem, I can't access the tool because after I enter my user name and password, a message pops up and says "Huggle is not enabled for your account, check user configuration page." What's wrong? I have the rollback rights which should allow me to use it, but I can't use the tool, can you help me on this issue? I would really appreciated it! Wikih101 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

SoCon and OVC tournament venues
Could you userfy this deleted page from last year, so I can add the information into the existing List of Ohio Valley Conference men's basketball champions while avoiding a DRV? The deletion rationale was that the article information redundant to other OVC-related articles, but the information about tournament venues can’t be found in articles related to the OVC tournament. Relevant AfD is here, and also deals with Southern Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues, which I ask be userfied for similar reasons  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Trenzalor revisited
Hello tom,

It's me again. Sorry for such a long response to your previous post. You know how hectic the holidays can be.

I quote a single part of your last argument. Let me make this perfectly clear: The only thing which will convince me to change my mind on the deletion is simply showing third-party, independent, reliable sources that establish notability of the individual planet. That is what Wikipedia policy requires.

My answer to this still remains that the third party source where I retrieved the information came from "textfiles.com". The instruction on how to retrieve the datafiles that I have made public are describe in my previous posts. Simple click " where are the files", then click "UFO" in the bottom right corner. Then you will see many files that I had my team filter through to obtain the given information. Like said in previous posts. It took a year of analyzing the wikipedia article structure to get the article to where it was. There is still alot of room for improvement but I personally feel it is a good place to start.

I respect your decision, but If you do not reverse your decision. The deletion review process that you described will be followed until some part of the article is viewable to the public on wikipedia.

I thank you for your time, Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * textfiles.com is not a reliable source.
 * If you are still unhappy, feel free to go to WP:DRV. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Gibson
Not sure why this page was deleted... And what the guidlines are that have been set for someone of interest within the entertainment industry.

Peter Gibson has been on TV, Broadway and Film as an actor and has produced, written and directed for film and television.

There were two references from variety articles written about the subject

Gibson Steps into Limelight

Fashion Label Tries on Reality Series

As well as credits included from Imdb.

Peter Gibson

Please explain how this is not sufficient?

Whateverfilms (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted following the consensus at Articles for deletion/Peter Gibson. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS
Thanks for the support on META OTRS For some reflections on the OTRS Workshop, please see Equilibrium is soon established by a stream of volunteers.Leutha (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Tom Morris,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for keep?
Your closure of WP:Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (2nd nomination) does not have any rationale or guidance with respect to redirecting. It's also not clear whether or not you reviewed the previous discussion which was explicitly referenced. If so, could you please clarify this? Thank you. aprock (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no "guidance with respect to redirecting" because I closed it as keep. I tend to not provide guidance on redirecting unless I'm actually closing it as redirect. I didn't look at the AfD from May 2010: it is up to current participants to decide whether or not the issues in the earlier AfD still apply and for the closing admin to weigh up the current AfD.
 * There are two arguments being put forward for deletion/redirect: firstly, that it is not notable. The sources disagree, as the keep voters point out. Secondly, that it is a content fork. On any other topic than race and intelligence, this would be utterly uncontroversial: sections in articles about individual academics, scientists, philosophers and so on get expanded into articles about their books and ideas all the time.
 * It is definitely a borderline case, but I don't see consensus to redirect. Given the headcount, I could possibly have closed it as no consensus, which would have the same practical effect as keeping. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * AfDs are not meant to be closed on the basis of head count. As the discussion explicitly made reference to the previous AfD discussion as still applying, I'm surprised that you didn't at least review the closing administrators remarks.  Allow me to ask that you please do review that discussion, and reevaluate the AfD (and the previous AfDs closing) on the basis of discussion instead of head count.  Thank you, aprock (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I did close it on head count. I weighed up the arguments for deletion/redirection and didn't find them developed or convincing. I'm not totally sure what you think I should see in the previous AfD. There's no doubt that in the previous AfD, there was a consensus to delete as a POV fork. I don't see such a consensus on this AfD, which is the one I was closing. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Head count isn't a factor at all, yet you mention it being a factor. You also noted that the previous AfD was not a factor in your decision despite being explicitly referred to as relevant in the discussion.  I'll ask you once again to please review the arguments from this AfD which include the arguments and discussion referred to from the previous AfD.  I really don't think that's too much to ask here.  If this isn't something you're up for, please do let me know.aprock (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the previous AfD earlier. I stand by my closing. If you feel this is unsatisfactory, request a deletion review. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, when you wrote "I didn't look at the AfD from May 2010", you're saying that you've since reviewed the AfD in the context of the current AfD? Your reply above indicates that you didn't ("I'm not totally sure what you think I should see in the previous AfD").  Since you weren't sure how the previous AfD applies, I'll refer you to the fact that the AfD was explicitly referenced as representative of the problems that plague these sorts of articles, with a specific example of how this problem is already taking shape in the current article: .  If you understand this and stand by your decision, I'd be happy to take the issue to deletion review to get some more eyeballs on the issue and clarify the relevance of the previous AfD to the current one. aprock (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read the previous AfD and determined how much relevance I should place on it in the context of the second AfD. My closing remains the same. Feel free to go to DRV. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this independently, as an experienced closer. I came to the same result as Tommorris. My rationale might be useful:

The article appears to show reasons it could be notable, and the AFD doesn't seem to be rebutting them. The article appears to be discussing a specific paper of significance, rather than a "point of view", and the paper is capable of neutral discussion and characterization. (For reference, that's not unusual for major papers - for example in physics, the 1964 PRL symmetry breaking papers have their own article and are not just covered under their authors, or under the Higgs boson they predict).

The only question left after agreeing the paper looks notable and capable of neutral characterization, is whether to have that coverage in a specific article or within a larger article, and either are ok, so "per majority" works for me on that, no clear reason not to.

As I wasn't the closer I don't plan to get into a big argument over it - if it helps then I'm glad though. FT2 (Talk 13:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't sound like you gave much consideration to the previous RfD. Regardless, I'll wait for the actual admin to comment. aprock (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To save cluttering Tommorris' talk page and to give a bit more explanation, I commented on your talk page. Feel free to ping me on mine if you want to discuss it more, and remember I'm not the closer, you always have the right to disagree and access to deletion review without needing to convince anyone on a talk page. But I hope it helps. FT2 (Talk 02:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

editing/vandalism
182.183.140.114 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)It is to apprise your good self that I have never been to that page Pollination.How can I be so much irresponsible to do vandalism.I was shocked to see your notice.I have my own account by name of Dr Muhammad Akbar, why I should be expected to do vandalism or for that matter any other irregularity.Please recheck and let me confirm.You can check my account on page Harifal and Sherani district.I write only those two pages and least bother about subject like pollination; neither I am a botanist to have knowledge of those pages.Please once again requested to check who did that and he/she must be punished.Thanks182.183.140.114 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I hate to be rude, but I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Katie Harwood
hey tom. i have a question. why did you delete Katie_Harwood's wikipedias page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.61.102 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted following the consensus at Articles for deletion/Katie Harwood. The article is still available on Wikiversity - see Katie Harwood. Feel free to edit it and improve it on Wikiversity which is better suited for original research. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
AKS (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dost Garibon Ka
Dear Tom, I have written another article about an Indian movie Dost Garibon Ka. You had made some suggestions to me earlier today and hence if it is not much of trouble to you; can you please check if the article was written correctly? Thanks in advance. Cheers AKS (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It needs more sourcing than IMDB. IMDB isn't a reliable source. See External links/Perennial websites. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it and on the job. Thanks for the tip. Cheers AKS (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dost Garibon Ka (updated)
Hi Tom, I made some more changes with another ref added. Can you please check (sorry to bother you with this but I just want to ensure that I pick up best practises). Many thanks. Regards AKS (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult one. I can't see any sources (in English, with Google) beyond IMDb and the site you added. There may be Indian language sources, but I can't see them. Generally, the way I approach Wikipedia is to find the sources before creating the article, that way you know there won't be any sourcing issues. The Govinda source is a self-published source, so that might be an issue. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Religion in Africa
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Religion in Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?
An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Speakers of any Indian languages interested in helping a UK-based GLAM project are needed, either to attend an event in London or to volunteer online from anywhere.
Hi Tom,

I am contacting to let you know that I am more than glad to volunteer helping UK Based GLAM Projects with Indian languages. I am good in speaking, reading ,writing & conversing in Tamil (A language from South of India). I have fair knowledge in Hindi (I can manage, 40%, honestly).

But in Tamil an 100% confident that I can assist you.

Please let me know if there is any assistance that I could lend for this initiative.

Regards, Ade. - Tom,

Please reply to the above note.

Thanks, Ade. -

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adethya (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice please
Long ago I started expanding a stub about Strawberry-Rhubarb pie. My edits were kindly reverted and I gave up. Came back a couple days ago and added back some of the historical and scientific information concerning the food ingredients used to make said pie. Those edits were once again reverted. Could you please advise why the inclusion of information concerning where the rhubarb plant came from and the importance of using appropriate food safety techniques is not appropriate for this article?

[]

Any help would be appreciated.

LittleRedWriter (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've posted on Anna Frodesiak's talk page asking her to explain her reversion. Wikipedia by policy doesn't allow recipes: the best place to put recipes is in the Wikibooks Cookbook. But even so, that doesn't justify reverts without explanation like that. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the recipe I was concerned about. I did a bit of research and discovered rhubarb probably came from Mongolia and added more info about the potential poisons found in the plant. The Mongolian history was removed and some of the plant info was retained. Thanks! LittleRedWriter (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reinserting it and perhaps discussing it with Anna Frodesiak. She's generally nice and friendly, and probably knows more about food related articles than I do. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi LittleRedWriter. Again, sorry. If you really feel strongly about having that info in the article, fine. I won't revert. Please add it. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)