User talk:Tom Morris/Archive 14
 | 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
A barnstar for you! times two
On ANI: RE: Keep because the ARS sent me. (Wait, this isn't an AfD?) —Tom Morris (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Good Humour |
| This barnstar is for User:Tom Morris
For a laugh out loud comment, thanks for making my day! Spoildead (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC) |
This Month in GLAM: November 2012
| ||||||
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) 01:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Cofie Bekoe Muluk
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Cofie Bekoe Muluk. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Cofie Bekoe. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Cofie Bekoe – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. -- Patchy1 09:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a bit in Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars about not templating the deleting admin? —Tom Morris (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those edits
Can you please look at Phan Huy Ích too? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Protection at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Hi there. I wondered if you intended to apply both semi-protection and pending changes to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. There's nothing in the policy that I can see about it, so I don't think there's a problem, but I'm not sure that it's the most effective method. The fairly high edit rate on that article might indicate that just semi-protection is the way forward. Anyway, just thought I'd raise it. Cheers GedUK 14:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, the pending changes policy allows for use when there's vandalism, BLP concerns or edit warring. There's nothing in policy saying that one cannot apply both. There's no reason why one can't use both: semi-protection for short periods of intense editing and then pending changes for longer term protection. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but with both applied at the same time as now, IPs can't edit at all, and registered users have to have their edits reviewed by reviewers. This seems like double protection. To be honest, I'm slightly more concerned about the PC because of the edit volume on the article, PC isn't supposed to be used for high-volume articles (as it requires review). Exactly what is 'high-volume' is a separate debate of course. I think I'm going to raise this on the PC talk page. Not about this article specifically, but about the double protection. I'll post the link here when I've done it. Again, not a criticism of this protection, I just think I need some clarity. GedUK 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there, it's at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes#PC and semi-protection. GedUK 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but with both applied at the same time as now, IPs can't edit at all, and registered users have to have their edits reviewed by reviewers. This seems like double protection. To be honest, I'm slightly more concerned about the PC because of the edit volume on the article, PC isn't supposed to be used for high-volume articles (as it requires review). Exactly what is 'high-volume' is a separate debate of course. I think I'm going to raise this on the PC talk page. Not about this article specifically, but about the double protection. I'll post the link here when I've done it. Again, not a criticism of this protection, I just think I need some clarity. GedUK 15:09, 19 December 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) 02:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a friendly note for future reference relating to your procedural close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kijong-dong as being the wrong venue, directing the request to RfD instead. While you are correct that this wasn't an AfD matter, RfD was not the correct place either. If the reason for the request is to allow a page move then Wikipedia:Requested moves is where it needs to be listed, as that is the process set up to determine whether a page should be moved or not. RfD handles discussions regarding whether redirects should be deleted or retargetted for reasons other than being in the way of a page move. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, silly me. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
... Why did you hastily close this? The RIANZ does not permit any reproduction of the yearly chart material and explicitly states this on their website. This should actually be deleted as a copyright violation under G12. Till 02:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't so much hastily close it as just close it. But, yes, I did somehow overlook that. If there is a copyright violation issue here (and I'm not sure about that...), surely it'd affect all the RIANZ articles? I'm thinking the solution is to probably discuss it on WP:CP. I'll sort that out in the morning, unless you want to do that now. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Someone already pointed out the copyvio in a previous deletion discussion of these "Top 50" articles and was completely ignored. I'm not sure what time it is there, but here it's 2pm...Till 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've listed it on WP:CP. You may wish to add comments there. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know where it is, sorry. Till 12:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've listed it on WP:CP. You may wish to add comments there. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Someone already pointed out the copyvio in a previous deletion discussion of these "Top 50" articles and was completely ignored. I'm not sure what time it is there, but here it's 2pm...Till 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#New Zealand Top 50 Singles of_2004 and put some background to it. :) I've also clarified the CP board instructions. I'm afraid with the backlog breaking the page, it is no longer obvious how listings are done. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, I hope you don't mind but I have taken the issue to WP:Deletion review. Till 06:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Change from PC to semi
Hi Tom, would you please have a look at this request. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Editor Review
I am currently cleaning up the backlog over at Editor Review and I found this in the backlog. As it is no longer posted on the main page at Editor Review, I was wondering if I should remove it from the backlogs and put it to rest or if I should repost it for community review. I will remove it from the backlogs three days from now if I am not given a response.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2013 23:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- There probably is very little point restarting it now. Archive away! Thanks for asking. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will remove it now.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2013 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Auto-generating a list of articles
Hi Tom. I wonder if you would help on a question I have. I'm not a newbie, but have never done anything like what I'm asking you about here.
I noticed that your user page has a list of articles created with the following code:
- === Articles ===
- {{/Articles}}
I've noticed this on some editors user pages over the years, but have never tried to do or have something like it myself.
Question: are there any Wiki-tools to help a long-time user go back through the logs and look through ones' own list of articles created? Or maybe even articles for which very significant contributions were made?
I can see that you have a page named ":User:Tom Morris/Articles:", and that you have, from time to time, manually edited that page. My question is whether there might be some tool that would allow me to go back through my "User contributions" logs and auto-generate some candidates to look over, or even autogenerate a list of articles created that have withstood the test of time in the emergent world of Wikipedia.
Thanks. N2e (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- So, the Toolserver has a 'pages created' tool created by User:TParis. Your page is here: N2e. Incidentally, given you've created very close to 50 articles, you should probably apply for autoreviewed at WP:RFPERM. I'd grant it, but I haven't got time to go through and check your articles. Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tom, for the very quick, and very helpful response! I'll look over that page you created, and the pages created tool, very soon.
- On the other item, I've never much figured out the sorts of WP-editing-privileges someone like me, as a trusted long-time editor with a good reputation, should have, and which would be useful. So with you as an experienced admin, do feel free to suggest such things to me. In the meantime, based on your suggestion, I'll take a look over at WP:RFPERM. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, autopatrolled (sorry, I said "autoreviewed") just means that if you create a new article, it doesn't appear as needing review on Special:NewPages (or Special:NewPagesFeed). That way, one of the new page patrollers can spend their time working on reviewing and improving/deleting/tagging (etc.) articles by newbies that don't need it. It just reduces the load on new page patrollers. If you don't get around to it, I'll have a check and assign it to you if everything checks out. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for that extra effort, Tom. I'll probably just let it run its course in the great spontaneous order of Wikipedia. Someone may give me that additional editor characteristic when the time is right. In the meantime, I certainly have no problem with someone checking over my new articles to ensure they are kosher. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:33, 8 January 2013 (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) 01:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2012
| ||||||
You wanted some fish with that?
As requested at Category:Wikipedia articles with German sources, here's your
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Fram (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Much appreciated.
—Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Proposed deletion for user page User:Nick2crosby
Hi Tom, I wanted to let you know I deleted Vermont,Virginia,and Maine off of the user boxes. I just put those on because I used to live there. So I just took them off. Also I was born in China. So therefore I am native to that land. - Nick2crosby (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.100.23 (talk)
No Moar Dramah
Tom Morris, I wanted to commend you for your post on the WP:NPOV WP Administrator's noticeboard. [1] Adding to the motivation for that discussion, I have to wonder about your motivation for getting on your WP:SOAP soapbox & making your statement: "This might lead one to think that Didymus Judas Thomas is a paid advocate working for Burzynski. Or not." You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not based on "facts," but just your inaccurate speculation. I would suggest that if you have to put "Or not" after it, it probably was not worth bringing up in the first place, because WP doesnt need moar dramah, & no, i didn't mumble when i typed that. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/20/2013
- Let's see: Burzynski has lawyers/PR folk who have been known to spend their time, oh, suing critics. And someone who seems to be using the same persona as you spends a lot of time posting blog comments defending Burzynski. One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to suggest that the glove might fit the hand... —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tom Morris, thank you for your biased WP:SOAP soapbox comments. Let's see: I note you provide no cite(s) for your "Burzynski has lawyers/PR folk who have been known to spend their time, oh, suing critics" comment. In the past I have requested that WP post information not exactly flattering to SRB & that has not been done as well, nor any reason provided as to why it has not been posted: "Please add: (Inspection section?) 6/7/2001 Inspection of clinic, Dal-DO/San Antonio Resident Post, HFD-47, Good Clinical Practice Branch II, Division of Scientific Investigations, CDER (FACTS #213702) [37]. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas. Please add: 10/18/2012 Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 Injections MA #1.[39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC) DJT, it's not enough to post links, you have to argue why (and how) they should be added to a page. Where would, for example, the Form 10-K be a useful source? What statement could be sourced with it? --Six words (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 6/7/01 doc lists what issues the FDA inspection team had with the clinic and recorded everyone present, questions that were asked and answered, and data on the patients. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/7/12. 10/18/12 this doc is important because it shows the results of the FDA's review of the business' web-site and the information that needed to be changed. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/7/12"
- Therefore, your biased comments serve no purpose since you do not know if I'm retired or not, where I live, what I do, cite no WP policy relevant to what I do on my own time, you have no idea if I just enjoy debating people who do not support their assumptions with "facts," & you would be a liar were you to rely on any non-fact-based assumptions. Nor have I made biased statements like some of the editors: "We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)"
- WP:CONS indicates: "This page documents an English Wikipedia "policy." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous re WP:CONS being a "policy." WP:NPOV indicates: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other "policies" or guidelines, or "by editors' consensus." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous that WP:NPOV is "not" "coequal" with WP:CONS, but "supreme" to it, & that WP:NPOV "cannot" be superseded "by editors' consensus." . Yet volunteer & Admin editors are attempting to do just that. There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this "policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/20/2013
- "No, I'm not a paid shill of Stanislaw Burzynski and have no conflict of interest" is all you need to say if you aren't a paid shill of Stanislaw Burzynski and don't have a conflict of interest. I said that it is a reasonable supposition given your behaviour and given Burzynski's clinic have a history of making legal threats and attempting to make smears on social media.
- I'm perfectly familiar with the NPOV policy, but thank you for reminding me of it. I wonder if you are familiar with WP:MEDRS. To further the implementation of both, I've suggested that you be topic banned from the Burzynski Clinic article. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tom Morris, I live in America & will respond as I see fit, though thank you for suggesting how I should respond to meet with your approval. If you are familiar with [[WP:NPOV] I'm wondering why my WP:NPOV grievance on the Administrator's noticeboard was not addressed, but was blocked. My posts on the Burzynski Clinic reflect that I know WP:MEDRS as indicated in thie links I provided as part of my grievance. I have not posted anything additional on said Article as I was expecting my grievance to actually be addressed in a professional manner. However, feel free to continue you on with your topic ban as this may contribute from they voluntary editors making more inaccurate comments; like Sgerbic (12/9/2012), Arthur Rubin (12/10 & 26/2012), JzGIGuy (Guy / JzG) 12/24 & 26/2012, & Rhode Island Red (12/2012), for example. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Dear Tom,
Thank you so much for being such a great collaborator last year! I really enjoyed working with you on our editor engagement projects and I hope we'll get a chance to continue this relationship in coming years. Your guidance and insights mean a lot to me. :) If you would like to keep in touch more often, I invite you to join our editor engagement mailing list, where we discuss initiatives that support new users and experienced editors on Wikipedia. We recently opened this list to the public, so we could have more frequent conversations with valued community members like you. To join us, you are very welcome to sign up here. And if you feel so inclined, I also encourage you to contribute to the current discussion on whether or not to deploy Article Feedback v5 widely on the English Wikipedia (see RfC). Because of your familiarity with this tool, which you helped design, you are in a unique position to present an informed perspective on its potential benefits. Note that we are adding a few final features recommended by the community, such as simpler moderation tools and better filters (see project update). Thanks again for being such a wonderful advisor -- I look forward to more collaborations with you, to help make Wikipedia better for all of us! Regards as ever,
|
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) 02:59, 23 January 2013 (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) 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)