User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 John Clary 2 Maria 3 Sorry about the wholesale revert 4 Inventors 5 Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people 6 Potentially controversial edits 7 Changing names 8 Jason Marquis 9 Mel Gibson and User:Researchfellow 10 John Mark Karr 11 National Nitwit 12 Reckless deletions 13 Thanks for reverting vandalism on my Talk page 14 Blank page - FYI 15 Gibson Humanitarian 16 John Mark Karr article 17 [2] 18 NAS 19 NAS 20 Hi there Tom 21 User talk:Epeefleche 22 terrorist question on goldstein 23 Jewish-American

John Clary

Hi, Tom. You don't know me, but I was asked to help with the Johnny Clary story. I have created a temporary category for articles to be merged at Category:John Clary merge.

I can't do it all by myself due to lack of time, but I've been with Wikipedia for nearly 5 years. I know the ropes. :-) --Uncle Ed 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Maria

Ah, you're back! Thanks for the revert. I'm not sure what that user meant. Menuonos (spelling?) is 100% Greek, not "Half Greek half American". But either way it doesn't matter... Mad Jack 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the wholesale revert

Dear Tom: Thanks for your work on the Luther page. Sorry I put that error back into the article that you removed. --Dave,Drboisclair 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

No problem, sir.--Tom 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ps, It was actually user Bailan who changed that quote so no apology was needed but thanks anyways. Cheers! --Tom 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Inventors

Hi, sorry for the delayed response. I noticed your comments on some inventors pages, and certainly we need to define precisely who counts as an inventer and who doesn't. For example, does someone who leads a team of scientists to invent something qualify as an inventor; does someone who invents a mathematical principle count as an inventor? Etc. etc. LaGrange 13:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi LaGrange, Your question actually points out a major problem Wiki seems to be having. We/you/I/Them should NOT be doing any figuring out of ANYTHING. If we/you/I can SOURCE that the person is CALLED an inventor, then include them in the list and referrence that source. If we/you/I can't find a source that calls/lists the person as an inventor, leave them out. This whole idea of "defining" who should be on ANY of these Wiki lists is mute, IMHO. As per Wiki policy, just stick to all ready established research/facts. Hope this helps and doesn't make things worse :) Cheers! --Tom 13:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

True. But then that begs the question, what if a source says "so and so" INVENTED "this" but never calls the person an inventor. Technically we wouldn't be allowed to call them an inventor either. LaGrange 13:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy/guidlines are just that. If 10 REAL GOOD sources say "Joe Blow invented bubble gum", go for it. List Joe Blow and link the sources. If one bad source says "Joe Blow fooled around with this sticky pink stuff and blew bubbles" leave it off. I wish things were black and white but that aren't. MY feeling is, if in ANY doubt, leave it off. Also, use talk pages to gain concensus where possible. I am a serious rookie to this project and I am just one VERY VERY VERY small voice :). Good faith editing goes along way it seems so carry on and enjoy. Thanks!--Tom 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I'm an enormous fan of this "no-thinking only reporting what other people say" policy. Example: I'm sure that the vast majority of online sources don't call Isaac Newton an inventor, despite him founding classical physics - but inevitably there will be one that calls him an inventor. Well then per this "don't think about it" policy we would report him as an inventor, despite the good chance that whoever wrote that on the source wasn't using the term correctly etc. Then there's the argument over what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't. It gets excessively complicated. Anyway, I saw you wanted some 'serious nukkage' done on List of Jewish inventors (and even moreso on List of inventors). I'll help if/when you want. LaGrange 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people

They can't delete the Category:Anti-Semitic people so they are trying another tactic !

Your vote is requested: [1]

Potentially controversial edits

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Omarthesecound 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, my edit, imho, was pretty tame and had little chance of being mistaken for vandalism, anyways, carry on! --Tom 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My change was discuss on the Talk Page. If you had a problem with it why did you not discuss it before you remove it? Omarthesecound 15:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find it but couldn't. I went back again and its pretty difficult with the amount of talk written in such a short time. It really wasn't that big of an edit. Most current events are unclear and undetermined, it sort of goes without saying, imo. There are also forks in the article as well as differing opinions and evaluation of the "facts" so far. Anyways, no biggie. --Tom 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Would you kindly put back my edit?, thanks Omarthesecound 16:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think your edit was needed in the article, that is why I removed it. Also, it's bad Wiki ettiquette(sp) to delete conversation from your talk page unless its vandalism. Cheers! --Tom 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, If you feel the edit was not needed, please discuss it in the article's talk page. Omarthesecound 17:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing names

Article names can indeed be changed. What would you suggest as a replacement name for "Malcolm Ross (anti-Semite)", since that's the trait for which he is notable and the trait which distinguishes him from at least three other Malcolm Rosses? DS 12:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi DS, no need to change. I realized/discovered after the fact that was the reason for the parentheses(sp). Thanks for the note anyways! Cheers --Tom 13:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good. Incidentally, the plural of "parenthesis" is indeed spelled "parentheses"; you got it right. DS 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jason Marquis

I re-added the information about Jason Marquis being Jewish. This isn't just random trivia, he along with Shawn Green have faced controversy over playing baseball (or in Green's case, not playing) on Jewish holy days, which I think is relavent to the WP articles. The other active jewish baseball players... the information is probably not so relevent, I agree. I'll try to add something specific about it to the Marquis article. Thanks. --W.marsh 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi w.marsh, thanks for adding the reference. I would probably prefer to see Green's Jewishness discussed further into the article per WP:MOSBIO but if it really is so noteworthy. It seems that sometimes ethnicity is pushed into articles per agenda driven motives. Anyways, thanks again for making the Marquis article better by sourcing it. Cheers! --Tom 14:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson and User:Researchfellow

I don't like User:Researchfellow's edits in that they seem like overly exhaustive commentary, and possibly (as suggested by the user's name) is original research. This article isn't the place to go into such detail about a medical/psychological disorder. Care to comment/revert/advise? - CobaltBlueTony 19:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is changing VERY quickly due to its media promenence and contraversey. If you feel that some material is WP:OR or NOT properly WP:CITE then delete it and note such in your edit summary. If the editor can SOURCE his material, then maybe it should be added. Anyways, if you want to cite me a certain example or edit change I would be happy to comment on it. Thanks! --Tom 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

John Mark Karr

I respectfully disagree with your deletion of the link on the breaking news of John Mark Karr seeking a sex change operation. A site's status as a blog is not a reason to disqualify; the author is a national journalist. Also, in the future be so kind as to offer a replacement, instead of merely deleting the material. Thanks!Historymike 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, Michael Borooks is a "national journalist"? Are you serious? Seriously? Anyways, blogs are frowned upon in this project (especially in WP:BLP), trying to reach a little higher. See WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NOT. Thanks...--Tom 19:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to be rude, Tom. Yes, "national" journalist, thank you very much.Historymike 20:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to be rude, sorry if you took it that way. Its just that I don't believe ANYTHING on the Web these days :). Seriously though, its a Wiki no-no to write/edit your own biography. I would suggest using the talk page for clarification as needed. It seems that its hard to remain NPOV when writing about one's self. Anyways....--Tom 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

National Nitwit

Again, I take issue with your removal of the link to the e-zine's website. If the article itself does not survive the review process, the link will be deleted. If, however, the article stays, then the link to the blog in very much in keeping. BTW - I am beginning to suspect that this user has some unknown issue with me for some reason, as Tom has been making numerous petty changes to work I have edited. If I am mistaken, my apologies are in order.Historymike 02:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike, seriously, nothing personal. If I hadn't made the changes, somebody, eventually would have. I would recommend that you review some of Wikipedia's policy, guidelines and FAQs at WP:HELP. Also review the messages I have left on your talk page. Thanks...--Tom 14:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Reckless deletions

This user, Tom,is not only is making pointless deletions to work I have edited, he is also deleting material that is completely relevant that I DIDN'T edit. Case in point - he deleted all references to the John Gunckel memorial pyramid in Toledo because I linked to a photo I took of the mausoleum. There are at least five other edits I made in which this user not only took issue with a link, but wantonly erased valuable information, damaging the purpose of a collective project. Again, Tom, if you have some personal beef with me, I would like to know what it is, otherwise - find a better use for your time. And I also repeat - if you are going to delete something, find a legitimate replacement. I linked to an interview I did with activist Mike Ferner that Tom deleted. The material was relevant, added to external links, and appears only to be deleted because Tom does not like information located on blogs. Am I missing something???Historymike 02:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike, see above. Also, you probably aren't really "missing something???", I would chalk it up to the Wiki learning curve. Anyways, this project can always use improvement so keep at it. Cheers --Tom 14:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Again - if you are going to delete a relevant link, be prepared to replace it with another. You deleted material on several occasions that had nothing to do with the links I placed. Perhaps, instead of chasing me around Wikipedia, you might work on citations for your own article creations, such as the Exum mountain guides ad (whoops - I mean "article").Historymike 19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my Talk page

. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus, No problem, my pleasure....Also, as an aside, do I have to go through speedy deletion to delete one of my own user pages, specifically Old watch list page? Or can I just delete it myself since I created it as a subpage? I am not sure if I will ever learn all that Wiki entails :). Aside #2, User:Historymike has written his OWN bio and has added HIS own blog site to about 20 articles. I deleted these "sources" since MY understanding is that blogs should be avoided unless there is a very unusuall situation. I have referred him to many Wiki policy pages and will remain civil and encourage him but wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Anyways, I always appreciate constructive imput. Cheers! --Tom 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIR, you may delete your own subpage only if no one else contributed to it. In case of doubt, WP:MFD.

We do have criteria for notability. LMK if you need help. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Want to disclose your own affiliation with Exum, Tom? Or do Wiki guidelines only apply to other people?Historymike 22

34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, I tried to be civil....Sure Michael I will disclose my "affiliation" with the Exum guides. I climbed The Grand and Mt. Owen with their assistance 23 years ago you NIMROD! I was reading about the Tetons and didn't see mention of them. They are a well know climbing service with many distinguished climbers and their two founders ARE notable unlike some "national" journalists I have come to know quite recently. Oh course Wiki guidelines and policies apply to me and I have tried to follow them. You have accused me of vandalism like 5 times and I've been like whatever. As I pointed out earlier, alot of other editors would have taken that as a personal attack and let you have it. There are so many places on Wiki to take greviences to and report abuse. HAVE AT IT. My edits (1,500+) and conduct over the last 8 months speak for themselves. I have an agenda on WIKI that is spelled out clearly on my user page. What is yours?? I'm like a spec of sand on a HUGE WIKI beach and we happen to bump into each other. I'm a serious NOBODY in here. So get over it, geesh...anyways...(taking breath) please review the different WP: links I mentioned if you are serious about contributing constructively to this project. Cheers! --Tom 00:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Blank page - FYI

From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Not vandalism, as you accused me of doing to a page I authored. Thanks! 72.240.144.166 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the next line it goes on to say...Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author.....You were NOT the only author to edit that biography so YES, it WAS vandalism, but I would assume good faith and chalk it up to being NEW...I would imagine that we BOTH have better things to do?? -Tom 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gibson Humanitarian

I reverted the removal of the humanitarian link because I felt it had been removed out of spite. There was no edit comment.

Does not Gibson's charity work qualify him as such? Even if there's no mention of it in the article, somebody can add it later. That's why there's no need to remove the link.

Just my opinion.

Fwend 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No spite involved, just Wiki policy. Provide sources calling him a humanitarian and then add him back. No different than how any other category should be treated. There was a section on his humanitarian efforts but it was poorly sourced so it got x nayed...anyways...Lets avoid opinions and just stick to facts. People were trying to add Mel to category anti-semitic people but that too could not be sourced..Thanks! --Tom 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

John Mark Karr article

Thanks for being thorough, and discovering that the text was indeed supported by the source. I don't know if I could have made myself add that back in another time.  ;) --Dan East 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, sorry if I caused you extra work/time. I am on a mission to try to get material sourced and referenced if its going to be included on this project. Cheers! --Tom 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[2]

If the author of the image did not argue that it is new anti-semitism, then why is the image on an article about anti-semitism? --Gmaxwell 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How the hell should I know? just kidding...The picture/poster, content aside, is pretty cool, imo. The creator is wasting their time with that garbage...anyways...--Tom 02:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NAS

Okay, no worries. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NAS

You've changed a quote in NAS. Please revert yourself. We don't change quotations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually changed it to reflect the actual quotation. I'm I missing something? If my edit wasn't correct I apologize and oh course will revert it, but I believe I am corrct....--Tom 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Tom

I noticed that you said on the talk in Johnny Lee Clary that you would be willing to help with an article or perhaps help with getting it out of its deletion tag. Any help would be appreciated. I have drafted it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary Nick. Potters house 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Potters. Sure I can try to help. I read the asrticle. It looks like a good start. If I were to edit, I would probably cut the article length in half to only include sourced material. It seems to read as a commentary. Anyways, isn't this the guy that was giving me fits over at the Tom Metzger article? Overall, looks good. I think I did see one editor who said it was to soon to re-add, but keep at it!! --Tom 16:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Epeefleche

You may want to keep an eye on this user. Fond of adding "Black Jewish" to a number of articles in the header of the article, which we know is a no-no. Mad Jack 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey MadJ, at this point I need eyes in the back of my head with all the users I am trying to keep track of :). Keep up the good work of requiring sources for inclusion of material in this project. Cheers! --Tom 14:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

terrorist question on goldstein

perhaps the better term will be murdered terrorist since he was classified as murder. Amoruso 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The only "claim" that Goldstein was murdered was here when somebody said his death certificate listed his cause of death as murder. This has yet to be verified. Thanks --Tom 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see . thanks. Amoruso 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I do remember reports that his death was after he was disarmed and no longer a danger, but I thought it's already established there. Amoruso 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish-American

Hi Epeefleche, just to echo the conversation above, the term Jewish-American should not be used in the intro/first sentence on bios unless, big unless, their ethnicity is what makes them notable. I/we see alot of.."Joe Blow was a famous Jewish Painter"...what does this mean? Is Jow Blow Jewish? Does he only paint Jewish subjects??...WP:MOSBIO is a very good guideline. Also, I see where alot of bios have the persons ethnicity added into the article in a very ackward way. I am in NO way trying to deminish anybodies ethnicity or censor it or whatever. Just trying to have sourcing and WP:MOS guidelines followed as best as possible and maintain article uniformity. Thanks! --Tom 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I hear you. Thanks for your note. I agree that the thing to do is to follow wiki guidelines. The rub appears to be what falls into the exception category.

Also, I think that we have an odd situation with the Jews specifically. With other religions, often the religion is distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not protestant, or buddhist, or christian, or hindu nation per se.

And when it comes to nations, we do indicate that in the first line.

With Jews, oddly, they are not just a religion. They are also a nation, dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years. Call them the Hebrews, or the people of Israel, or the Jewish nation, or Israelites....

So query whether this special consideration does not call for a special approach.

We have categories, and we try sometimes without much grace to force entities into them, and then apply the rules, but happily Wiki left an exception here and happily we are all bright enough to recognize exceptions and discuss how we might address them.

Thoughts?

--Epeefleche 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Epee. First off, thanks for the civility. I hear what you are saying about the Jewish people being a "tribe"/nation. There will always be exceptions to the rules so a case by case approach is a good way to go. The GENERAL guideline is to say "Joe Blow is an American bubble gum blower". Ethnicity should/CAN be mentioned further into the article if it is relevent. Should EVERY Jewish person have their ethnicity mentioned in their article?? I don't know. Some editors believe it should be. If it is, it shouldn't just be shooved into the article just for its own sake. I see too many article where the ethnicity has been inserted without care for how the article reads/flows.

As far as categories and lists on WIKI go, do NOT get me started. They are VERY problematic/POV/original research/unsourced/ect. There seems to be ALOT more leeway on these so have at those as you see fit. My last point would be do NOT take anything personal on this site as far as editors go and assume good faith. Most people are trying to improve the project. Anyways....--Tom 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)