User talk:TomPhil/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of my talk page. If you wish to leave me a new message, please click here to leave it on my current talk page. If you post a message to me on my talk page, I will respond on that page unless you request otherwise.


Hello. I'm TomPhil. Please feel free to leave any messages for me here :-)

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Wikipedia:Be bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Crossing flags

Please do not cross flags on your user page. This may offend others and is even considered a crime in many countries. I am sure you are able to express your valuable opinion in a respectful way. Imagine someone crossed the flag of your country - also a union. ROGNNTUDJUU! 21:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to cross the flag of my country they are perfectly entitled to do that. Britain has for many centuries been a beacon for freedom, unlike perhaps the nations you refer to that consider "crossing flags" a crime, and thus while we may not agree with those who may disrespect our flag, we do not seek to ban them from doing so in the expression of a perfectly valid opinion. I also believe that in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted, "crossing flags" is not considered a crime.
In addition to this, you may be aware that the European Union is not a country, merely an organisation, and thus is not comparable with the United Kingdom, which may be a union, but is also a country. I am offended that you compare my country to the corrupt faceless organisation that is the EU, but I do not seek to prevent you from expressing your view. Also, please tell me who exactly it has offended? I have received no complaints, and certainly will not remove the symbol on the basis of possible offence to some hypothetical ultra-paranoid fascist. TomPhil 21:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Vilifying official symbols is considered a crime in many countries. Is it not even more offensive to strike a symbol of many countries than that of just one? Many countries have put a lot of work to make the EU what it is today. There are many good reasons not to support everything the EU stands for, why do you not just express in some detail what you do not like? Anyway, thank you very much for answering and removing the striked flag. ROGNNTUDJUU! 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove the image, and I see that it has now been restored. I refer you to the discussion on the images for deletion page for this image. I have never heard of anyone being offended by a cross through the EU flag. Although I am thinking of removing the image on the grounds that some people may find the EU flag itself offensive... TomPhil 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you clarify for me? If crossing the EU flag is offensive, why have you chosen to create a crossed out UK flag, this, according to you, insulting my country? As I said in our discussion on my userpage last night, I have no objection to you putting a cross through the flag to illustrate your point of view about my country, but I must object if you do it with the intention of insulting my country. TomPhil 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Why I created the image: {{user respect}} I regard it improper to say a flag can be crossed but not if it is intended to insult. It is disparaging to cross a flag and the remark you have in your box is, too. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You are now inconsistent. You have just changed your statement from "crossed flages are inacceptable" to "it depends on the context". So please stop wasting other people's time. Misza13 T C E 20:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Just read: I expressly write that I think it is unacceptable to say it depends on the context. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This whole argument is ridiculous. The man can put (basically) whatever he wants on his own userpage. I mean if people can deny the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide on their userpages, I think that a crossed out EU flag is certainly acceptable. I would never want to live in a country where one would be punished for such an act. Easter rising 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Cheadle, Greater Manchester
ITV News
The Daily Mirror
Veritas Members Association
J. J. C. Smart
East of England (European Parliament constituency)
Roger Knapman
John de Roeck
David Soutter
Cheadle Hulme railway station
Stockport railway station
ORACLE (Teletext)
Men & Motors
East Midlands (European Parliament constituency)
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
One London
Richard Vass
Muslim Council of Britain
South East England (European Parliament constituency)
Cleanup
Alan Ainscow
Tyczyn
Denny Hulme
Merge
Central Independent Television
Top Up TV
Granada Productions
Add Sources
Patrick Eston
Anthony Bennett
Catherine Cracknell
Wikify
Szczecin Voivodship
Church of God, an International Community
Paston Grammar School
Expand
Esther Rantzen
County Court
Bytom

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Good Catch

Good revert on the article Wells, I had to do one just before you. Do you RC Patrol often?Abcdefghijklm 11:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for you message. I have not RC patrolled regulary, but started doing it a few days ago, and will probably be doing it more regulary from now on, at least for the next few weeks. TomPhil 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, TomPhil! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael / 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dont get involved

One warning dont get involved. The admin whos page you restored blocked a page while an edit war was being resolved, then took sides. You want a war, you can get one, otherwise, mind your own business. - 66.252.251.84

Please don't threaten me. Whatever the admin may or may not have done, that does not justify you vandalising a page. Threatening a war also does not help your case. TomPhil 16:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Then don't threaten me either. I'm sick and tired of admins blocking and protecting pages cause they just feel like it. This started as the simple inclusion about a televison character and wether another one likes bananas or not. I agree it's gotten out of hand, but I didn't start this. I will, however, finish it. Go read the whole thread at Tenth Doctor page. Here's how the arguement goes.

1. I make an edit. 2. one person reverts it, without explaination. 3. I re-revert it. 4. They re-revert it saying "oh, its not relevant". 5. I ask for discussion and re -revert. 6. They get a friend who's a member of their editing group to revert it. 7. I re vert it and get banned.

This is vandalism, admin abuse and im not going to tolerate it.....They want to play rough, good. I can do that. You want to get involved, great, ask for trouble. Or, make it known that I can be the most civil guy in the world, but I will not tolerate being blocked withotu discussion.66.252.251.84 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't cause trouble. Deal with your issue in a civil and mature manner. Don't resort to vandalism or threats. If you have a complaint against an admin or any other user then do it through the proper channels. If you act in a mature manner, then I will have no need to get involved. If you cause vandalism and I see it, I will revert it. If you do not want to play by the rules, please leave Wikipedia. Otherwise, I hope that you can resolve your issue and start making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. TomPhil 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What a strange conversation. Well handled TomPhil... good work on keeping your cool in the face of a wiki-version of road rage! Easter rising 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killara High School

Please note that the vandalism is much longer than the last revert you did - it didn't restore a correct version. RickP 11:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I should have checked that the previous edit was not vandalism when I reverted. Sorry about that. TomPhil 11:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for warning (and blocking already?) the vandal and his IP address. RickP 11:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The vandal and his IP address clearly have no intention of stopping. He has vandalised the talk page of his IP address after being given warnings. I have now reported both so hopefully the vandalism to the article can stop. TomPhil 11:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I see new users registered for more vandalism. Can administrators block such registration, or only the users after they vandalize? RickP 12:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for

The revert on my user page. ;-) Netscott 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Happy to help :-) TomPhil 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 207.200 IPs

Cheers for the work on revert and warnings for the AOL es bot, there's a few of us getting stuck in see here. Anyway cheers. Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mate, accidently reported you to WP:AIV you reverted the Market town spam just as I hit report. Porquin noticed it, and I think deleted it, before you got owt. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming?

Hi Tom Phil, I certainly don't want to do anything to hurt Wikipedia, which I think is a really wonderful program, and I wouldn't take anything for the encouraging correspondence I have had with its editors.

Also, I think Wikipedia is lucky to have people like you who look after its integrity.

However, I believe that if my contriubtions are blocked, it would be an injustice. It's true that I have listed my own website, and that Wikipedia's emphasis is on content rather than links. Here's why I believe that my approach is justified: 1. Most of my work is light poetry, not lending itself very easily to Wikipedia's customary article style. (I don't mean that it is light in the sense of being frivolous since the Franklin Institute and other educational bodies link to it.)

2. I have only cited the website where I thought it might help, that is, where it provides material that I believe distinctive from other websites (whether listed as links for the article or otherwise) and germane to the topic.

3. However, my main reason for feeling that a blocking would be unjust is that the only place I have offered my suggestion has been on the "Talk" page, which (I gather from your comments) is the appropriate place for such suggestions. It is true that the suggestions have been transferred from the "Talk" page to the "Discussion" page, but I had nothing to do with that.

I assume that if the website did not suit the editor's purpose my suggestion would either be excluded or removed. This was the case in one instance. After reviewing the editor's decision, I realized that he was perfectly correct. (However, that editor has asked me for continuing suggestions during our mutually stimulating correspondence.)

If Wikipedia adopts a policy that bars one from citing his/her own website in any section -- including the "Talk" page, you needn't block my contributions. I will remove them at once.

I'm certain that your message to me is sincerely well intended, and I hope that I have made my thoughts clear to you.

I feel that in my response, I must mention my website -- www.benandverse.com or www.benandverse.com/writings. However, I have no wish to enter this information where it may be unwelcome. Please delete this information if you believe that it would in any way compromise your position.

With best wishes for your enormously valuable Wikipedia,

John McCall <E-mail address removed to prevent spam>

Hi. As you can imagine, I have reverted a large number of edits over the past few days, and as you used an AOL IP to post your message to me, I am unable to track which edit/s it is that you are referring to. I apologise if I have accidentally reverted a legitimate edit, or if I have not dealt with you fairly. I can assure you that I try to assume good faith at all times and only revert edits where I am reasonably confident that they are not in the interest of Wikipedia. In addition, I always try to make sure that any warnings left are appropriate to the edit that has taken place and, again, always try to assume good faith.
Again, as I said above, I am not sure which edits you refer to, so I can only talk in general terms. However, as you are using an AOL IP, it means that it is very possible that warnings intended for other people may have appeared on your shared talk page. This problem can be avoided by registering for an account. When giving a warning, I take into account previous warnings so that I can see if the editor has a history of vandalism. Obviously, where a long history exists, this may lead me to treat a questionable edit more harshly, with the previous warnings adding to the chance that the edit is of a vandalism or unhelpful nature. Finally, it may help if you leave edit summaries when you make a change to Wikipedia. The absense of one often makes it difficult to see whether an edit was done in good faith or not. Even a short note in the edit summary can help to show that the edit was intended to be helpful.
If you could refer me to the particular reversions and articles that you are referring to, and also to the user page that the warnings were placed on, I would be pleased to review my edits and to respond to you in greater detail.
In the meantime, you may find Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.
Best wishes, TomPhil 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/m/User_talk%7ETomPhil_archive1_c6e0.html"