User talk:TomPhil/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[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)
[edit] Please do not block
Tomphil, please do not block this IP address. I'm very sorry about the vandalism that I appear to be doing, but the vandalism is actually a result of several different people's edits. This IP is that of a guest computer in a hotel, and therefore there is no real way to trace vandals from here. Again, my apologies, 192.251.125.85
- Hi. I have no power to block any users; all I can do is to issue warnings where vandalism takes place. You may be best to place a message on the talk page of this IP to the effect of what you wrote above. Hope this helps. TomPhil (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Similar story here
I am trying to find out how the Teasing article got changed. I can see that the edit said something about teasing being used to refer to marijuana but I can assure you I hate all drug users and would never write something like that.
The IP address I have now is indeed the IP responsible for the edit, but the edit happened a few months ago and my IP changes every week or so. It was probably someone who uses the same cheap, slow ISP as me. I always login when I edit articles.
Connor Behan 65.92.53.24 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I've moved your message to what I believe to be a better place on my talk page to keep things tidy. Hope you don't mind.
- With some providers IP addresses do change regularly, and therefore it is very difficult to track who is making edits; obviously sometimes people see messages meant for other people.
- The edit was not concerning drugs use, click here to see the edit.
- It seems to have been the only edit made by the IP address, so I wouldn't worry about it. You are doing the right thing by always logging in when you edit. TomPhil (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Help fight systematic bias
Dear TomPhil,
I would like to draw your attention to the discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Popsicle. If you are interested in helping to counter systematic bias towards North America, and instead establish Wikipedia as an international website, then please feel welcome to contribute with your opinions. Thank you. EuroSong talk 13:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. Glad to see that it's been changed now, but seems like there's a lot of work still to do. Keep up the good work! TomPhil (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Euroskeptic userboxes
I really like your userboxes!!! --Boris Johnson VC 11:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! I loved the one on your page about the EU and the South Pole - but perhaps Pluto would have been more appropriate?! TomPhil (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to modify it if you like...--Boris Johnson VC 16:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:CHSLogo.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 11:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
