User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Query

Hi Three, is this you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slim, no that isn't me but I do know him. I told him that he should register with Wikipedia. I actually know a few editors from here in Rhode Island. Cheers!--Tom 12:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Tom. As a matter of interest, how could you know who someone is based on the IP address? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This editor asked me to look at some articles he has edited and I have actually stood over his shoulder while he edited. Hopefully his recent blocks will slow him down but knowing him personally, I doubt it. He actually reminds me of myself when I first started on her a year ago. Like I said, I told him he needs to register and not wheel war but he told me to pound sand. I am glad to be back but will not be editing as much. Take care. --Tom 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for sockpuppeting and evading blocks. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive149#User:Threeafterthree for more detail. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Oh hi! BTW, if you were working on stopping users with agenda, this one (and he has a few similar IPs) is cooking up a foul storm with the "Jewish American businesspeople" list and the like. Mad Jack 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Again, we need to provide more sources around here and less opinion. Anyways, I am going to try to be very low key,,,, for awhile at least :) --Tom 18:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem

Just cleaning up, no implication that you did anything wrong. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That page has been unvandalised and at a low activity level for months, which is why I just added the note about the information being unconfirmed (anyone could have made it up), but deleting the history was a good idea just in case. NoSeptember 10:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Gratuitous remark about Rutgers

There's no call for snide remarks about Rutgers, and I would appreciate it if you'd remove the remark you made at Talk:University_of_Pennsylvania#Admissions_Selectivity. No, I'm not a Rutgers alum. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was more of a response to the user talking about idiot offspring at Penn; people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. --Tom 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Tom, is it? You emailed me, right? Sorry for the lack of response; I didn't have an anonymous email set up, so I was concerned with giving out my email. Thanks for the comment in any case. Best, Mackan79 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I see that you have been getting into it with SlimVirgin. I would suggest not getting into battles with her or anybody since its almost always a no win situation. I would suggest trying to get as many other editors invloved so "consensus" can be reached. Certain articles are always going to have people who have a certain POV even though everybody will claim to be neutral, its just human nature. Many articles are very frustrating because people feel very strongly about their position even though Wikipedia's prime directive, if you will, is that you should NOT have one :) Anyways, don't get into revert wars if possible. This is just one very small editors opinion so feel free to totally disregard it and do what you will/want. Cheers!--Tom 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Kidman edit

That's the kind of stuff I'd immediately revert; that wasn't the kind of stuff you were removing, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was. You should really go back and take a better look. You were 110% wrong about myself and my comments about the Shipman article and it would big of you to admitt so. This is what I objected to and and tried to say so here. You are involved with so many POV warriors that I got swept up into that net, imho. Anyways,--Tom 02:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If I've misjudged you then I apologize. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jay, I really appreciate that. Like I said, I see you battling people who want to insert their POV into many articles you edit. If somebody wasn't doing it, these articles would be trashed, imho. Anyways, I want to be a help to this project and not a detractor so any advice or comment is always welcome. Have a great New Years and 2007! --Tom 14:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Jim Feist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jim Feist.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

==Elonka Dunin==

As discussed on the section you started on the talk page, Talk:Elonka Dunin#Original research/unsourced claims there is an excellent source right in the section you deleted. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is according to the subject of the article. Any other sources? Thanks.--Tom 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

removing Geocities links

Greetings!

There is nothing wrong with pages hosted on geocities. What's your sanctimonious reason for taking upon yourself the crusade of removing these pages? Bo Basil 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Just the kind of guy I am I guess??--Tom 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing chocolate cookie recipes? I am putting them back on. Confine your puerile editing to other forums. Bo Basil 07:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"puerile"?? They didn't teach me that at Penn, sorry :)--Tom 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Childish/silly?? Moi??--Tom 13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sicilian American

You left me a message on mentioning ethnicity. I understand you (and others?) have established a rule that ethnic background should not be mentioned in the first place, but nationality. I do not quite understand the rationale behind that (what is wrong with ethnic background?), but maybe you can explain it to me. Once you establish a rule, you are bound to have exceptions. It is not mentioned in the article, but the person we are speaking of was born in Sicily, and returned to Italy and Sicily during his life. He hardly spoke English. Anyway, as a member of the Mafia and looking at his background, I think it makes sense to mention he is Sicilian-American. As you can see, there is a whole article on the subject. - Mafia Expert 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I would refer you to WP:MOSBIO specifically item #3. This is a policy/guideline rather than a hard fast rule(also I wasn't involved in its creation but fully support it). Also, this applies to the just the LEAD sentence and discussing ethnicity further into the article is perfectly exceptable and encouraged. The problem is many articles were calling people Irish-American or Polish-American or Jewish-American or, well you get the idea. I will admitt that people who were born outside the US present more problems. I see alot of "Joe Blow was a Russian born American gum chewer" ect. This seems to be a middle ground on a very touchy subject. I have found that 90% of ethnicity additions are based on nationalist pride which is understandable but not appropriate. 10% are done out of some form of nasty agenda pushing which is also not appropriate. Anyways, my revision was nothing personal, but rather my attempt to see Wikipedia reach some sort of biographical standization of a very tricky and emotional issue. Cheers!--Tom 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Grateful Dead, Mydland's Passing

Hey man, saw you recently removed un referenced material regarding the death of Brent in the Grateful Dead article. You surely know that Brent's wiki states: " Mydland died of a drug overdose after taking a speedball at his home on "My Road" in Lafayette, California, on July 26, 1990, shortly after completing the band's summer tour." I think that there is a reference needed, however I think it is pretty common knowledge, I don't know of how widely the reporting of a suicide is/was and I think it was definitely correct to remove that part, the details of Brent's sad, untimely, but possibly forseeable passing is perhaps important to include in the main GD wiki. Just wanted to engage a bit of conversation, as a head myself, I think we all know brent did pass away like so many other greats from a Speedball. Curious as to how we can come up with a better way to include this in the GD wiki about brent, and also curious if you plan to change the Brent Mydland article that states the above claim. Peace out- Testerer 06:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Testerer, Its not what we know or believe or "common" knowledge. It isn't even about the "truth" here at wikipedia. Its about gather already established material that is based on verifiable and reliable sources. If you can provide citations for ANY material, please feel free to add it. If not, its just best to leave it out. Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source believe it or not. Just because material is in a wiki article doesn't mean it should be propagated to other articles unless of course it has references. Anyways, peace to you as well. Man do I miss "the men from Marin" as Mr. Graham once put it :) Cheers!--Tom 17:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Surprised

I just noticed, to my surprise, that you have delete all reference to ethnicity in many entries that I made.

I find that odd, for a few reasons.

First, given your tendency towards civility, it was odd that you would engage in many changes, which will require further changes, when you know that there is an issue to be discussed that might require further revisions. Indeed, possibly reverts.

Second, the Wiki policy as we have discussed has an exception, which I have indicated I believe these fall withing.

Third, in support of that notion, many of these athletes are in Jewish American or Jewish Sports Halls of Fame.

Fourth, even if you felt that it would be better to indicate ethnicity in other than the first line, you failed to move it down -- but simply deleted the reference -- which I find especially unusual given your character.

I would expect that you would have acted differently, and that if you are looking for violations of Wiki policy there are more clearcut ones to address if you have the time than my revisions -- which I do not believe are violations, cause no harm, and do not fit into the cateegory that you are protecting against.

Thanks.--Epeefleche 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, sorry if I surprised or shocked you with my mass revert/edits/deletion of ethnicity, but the more I lool at it, the more I feel in the right here. I went back and looked at all the Jewish basebaall players. Do we note every Catholic player? Do we note every atheist? Oh course not. I hate to say it, but I fell that you are doing a disservice to these folks. I can't speak for them, but would they want to be known for their accomplishments on the diamond of for their ethnicity. Like I mentioned on your talk page, if they are some REAL notabilty due to their ethnicity, great, lets include that in a way so the article flows. Many of the bios have the feel that thier being Jewish is just being shoved into it to without a feel for how the article reads. I am sure many of the players take/took great pride in thier ethnic background and there is no reason it can't be incorporated in a sensable fashion. Anyways, my biggest beef currently is in the lack of sources being provide on Wikipedia and the huge amount of original research/personal analysis being presented here. Please provide reliable sources for any material being added. Please don't take this personally, like I mention, you seem to being adding alot of material to the project and have been civil in the past and I hope we can continue that trend. Anyways I am sure we will discuss this further. Cheers --Tom 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thoughts are reflected on my page.--Epeefleche 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

T0m, there is nothing creepy in my edits.

Furthermore, if a player is banned from partaking in the Olympics because of putative anti-semitism, his religion is notable.

And if he is voted to the Jewish Hall of Fame, or listed in a book of Jewish Sports Legends, his Jewishness is notable.

Your support for someone deleting such references goes way beyond your narrow reading of what belongs in the lead line, in which you and I have a difference of opinion as to what the meaning is of the exception that Wiki policy calls for.

Please, if you agree with me, straighten her out. I would rather this be done civilly. Though her language suggests that this may not be possible.--Epeefleche 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Epee, but I agree with Pschemp and here analysis of your edits. Anyways, I only reverted one article and will leave the rest to others. No matter what the agenda, I still don't appreciate when people push them in here. --Tom 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Pschemp is just deleting Jewish ... not only from the lead. There is no Wiki support for that. Many of the references are where people are voted to Jewish Halls of Fame. If you look at Wiki notability standards, that would militate for inclusion in the lead para, not only in the body, but she and you are deleting it from the body. From precisely the format that MadJack suggested! Plus, I sought to respond point by point to your above comments, without response for much of my points, and you simply fell back on creepy edits (of others), notability (but not using the Wiki sense of the word), and supported deletion of national/ethnic info from the body (no Wiki support from this; goes beyond your original points; in the Hall of Fame revisions is totally in context; and you delete--rather than come up with a better way to include -- which is IMHO vandalism, where the info is sourced).--Epeefleche 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Epeee, do what you will. It seems that a few editors have now weighed in on the issue and disagree with you. As I suggested, maybe you can get some other folks/eyes involved. Again, it isn't about removing that somebody is Jewish from their bio but about how the biograpghy flows and the relevance of how the material is inserted into the article. Again, you seem to be doing this out of ethnic pride, however, their our other editors who do the same thing out of anti-semetism. Anyways, I really don't want to get into this anymore and will not try to revert any more edits you make. Please take a step back and try to listen what a few different edits have being trying to say. Peace. --Tom 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material in football referees

Hi. As an interested party, can I just thank you for your help so far in this direction. I have been very cautious so far in what I do to existing articles, which I find tend to border on the opinionated (the more controversial a person is perceived to be, the worse it gets). For instance, take a look at Neil Warnock (football manager) if you would!

Although not notable as a referee (he has a formal qualification, but then so did I once), one editor makes sure he remains included in the Category by tagging. More to the point, because of the subject's outspokenness, bluntness, call it what you will, his article has attracted a raft of unsourced descriptions of incidents, for which I have added citation tags.

Anyway, I'd actually just popped in to drop a word of thanks! Best wishes Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I am actually very disturb at the huge amount of material on this project that is unsourced, especially the nasty critical personal stuff in bios. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Libby page

I'm about to take a break from this whole Lewis Libby thing, as it's gotten a bit out of control. I would appreciate if you would weigh in on whether you think NYScholar's latest edits constitute original research. I'm getting the feeling that both I and NYScholar are starting to lose a little perspective on the whole thing so I'm hoping some others with diverse views will chime in. Thanks either way. Notmyrealname 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Notmy, To be honest I haven't watched this that closely. I was just trying to add Libby's ethnicity to the article, thats it. If somebody is going to say that Libby's action's are effected by his ethnicity, they better have very good sources that say the exact same thing, or yes it is original research. My advice would be to not to take this too seriously or personally and to also step back and take a break. I know this is easier said than done. Also, getting other folks involved is always a good idea as well. Anyways, good luck! --Tom 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity often, or even usually, isn't mentioned. To pull someone out at random, I don't see Julianne Moore's ethnicity mentioned. How do you see Libby's ethnicity as relevant to his bio? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Her ethnicity is mentioned at the bottom of the article, under categories.--Tom 13:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree. From my wonderings, I have found ethnicity, specifically Jewishness, mention in 90% of the bios. Is it ok to remove these references? If so, there is a ton of work to be done, especially with Jewish American Baseball players. I am not in the camp that says that Libby's actions/policy are based on his ethnicity, but in a full bio, it could be mentioned. It seems that an effort to keep his ethnicty out of his bio is odd. --Tom 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know some people are obsessed by Jews. Looking at other ethnicities, however, they're often not mentioned. You used to go around removing Jewishness from articles, [1] and now you want to add it? I'm confused. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, Its simple. If somebody wants to add ethnicity due to an agenda, I want it removed. If somebody wants to keep ethnicity due to some agenda, I want it removed :) No, but seriously, if I had my preference, I would not mention ethnicity unless it was really relevant, and that is where the subjectivity comes in. In full blown, 10 page, soup to nuts bios, it probably deserves mention and can be work into the article in an acceptable fashion. In other bios I see it jammed into the article for what reason? As I explained before, I did and will contine to remove "Jewish-American" from the lead sentence of bios since this does not seem to confirm to WP:MOSBIO which seems to be a good format and policy. I believe that standardization(sp) of bios is a good thing. Finally, I have no problem deferring to my frined User:Jack O'Lantern since he has spent a huge amount of time on this subject and strikes me as being very even handed. Anyways, your imput is always welcome Slim, thanks! --Tom 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for stepping into this discussion in a civil manner. I'm going to refrain from commenting on the Lewis Libby page for a while as I've pretty much stated my case and continue to see unfounded personal attacks by NYScholar (most recently on the WP:BLPN page. Just wanted to make two comments here--the first is that given the lack of consensus about this issue, it might be helpful to make comments on the talk page (to try to get the discussion back to earth). The other is to say that there doesn't seem to be a strict standard on mentioning religion, even for notable public officials. Look at Ann Veneman (although Dan Glickman has an akwardly placed reference to ... his parents' religion). I think the bias should be towards privacy in biographies, as "beliefs" and sexual preference are singled out for special consideration in WP:BLP. Best, Notmyrealname 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity in bios

It depends on whether their ethnicity was notable or relevant, particularly to them. For example, even though Albert Einstein was not particularly religious, nor did his work involved Jewish topics, he was a Zionist, he was forced to flee Germany because he was a Jew, the Nazis tried to remove references to his work because he was a Jew, and he was also offered the post of President of Israel, because he was a Jew. Moreover, his Jewishness is regularly cited in reliable sources. That's notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Mike Lieberthal?--Tom 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty out of place to me. Notmyrealname 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't try removing that material because the owner of that article won't allow it. My interest in bios began when I noticed that "Jewish-American" was added to the lead sentence of approximately 800 Wikipedia biographes. It seems that this was done out of some sort of ethnic pride I am guessing but darker forces could have been involved as well, who really knows. The problem is that certain editors then wanted to add the Jewish-American tag to every criminal of Jewish decent. Then certain editors wanted to add every Jewish person to the list of Jewish-American business people to prove that the world is controlled by Jews or something. I am going to take my own advice and not edit this article for a while and step back. It seems that folks have an agenda either for inclusion or exclusion of Libby's ethnicity. Anyways, good luck! --Tom 13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "Then certain editors wanted to add every Jewish person to the list of Jewish-American business people to prove that the world is controlled by Jews or something" -- I resent that you believe that my intentions on the List of Jewish American businesspeople were malicious. I simply sought to expand the article because I have an interest in American and Jewish businesspeople, and I did a good job I might say. Also, it is clear that the page was unfairly targeted for deletion, even though most of the other lists of Jews (and most of the articles on Wikipedia) aren't sourced at all. I might try to restore the list in the coming days; if this is blocked by those users that for whatever reason are trying to prevent it, I might have to start blanking other lists of Jews (even though I of course don't want to) in the interest of consistency and fairness. --WassermannNYC 06:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wasserman, I apologize if I offended you. I believe I was referring to an anonymous editor but no matter. As long as you provide references and the people are of notability, please add them. I totally agree that there is alot of hipocrisy around here. I was actually blocked for an entire month for "creepy anti-jewish edits" by an Admin who I feel totally misread my intentions. Anyways, apologies again and good luck going forward. --Tom 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems sort of a perversion of Wikipedia that people can bully their way into being "owners" of articles. Also, the category part at the least, seems to be in contradiction to WP:BLP regarding privacy and relevancy. Personally, I find the whole thing rather creepy, but I'm just trying to edit in accordance with the rules. I've worked on several highly contentious pages, but I've never encountered such bullying and personal hostility as I did with the Libby page. Seems a pity, that's all. Notmyrealname 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was sort of being facesious(sp) about owning the article. Oh course people aren't suppose to take over articles but again, people become very personally involved and end up taking it that way. Good for you to try to stay within policies and remaining civil, that really does go along way. Sorry that you encountered any nastyness. I mainly work on bios since they are of interest of me. I have not made one edit about politics or George Bush, but that must be nightmare. Anyways, take care and best of luck going forward!--Tom 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

Hi Threeafterthree, Unfortunately, your observation about conflict carrying over is often true, though WP generally lets us sort more out than not in the end. As for your compromise, I'm afraid it is has the same problem, since the same Arab Israelis that don't identify as Palestinians, don't identify as Palestinian people. It would be like labelling the population of N. Ireland Catholic or Protestant - neither fits both. That some Arab Israelis identify as Palestinian is represented in the text, but such a disputed description should not be applied across the board as a category (per policy). Cheers, and thanks for your help in any event. Tewfik^Talk 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Thanks for the explaination. Cheers! --Tom 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tom. I noticed you joined the talk on this issue too and had wanted to thank you for your input and comments (we need some lightning up on those pages so desperately!). In any case, I don't think policy supports Tewfik's position as the talk page comments there currently reveal. Speaking as a Palestinian citizen of Israel myself, I don't think his opposition to the inclusion of this category has anything to do with respecting how I or other Arab citizens in Israel feel about our identity. Almost every academic study I have seen on the Palestinian people includes mention of the population that stayed behind in Israel and adopted citizenship. People looking for information about Palestinians in Israel in a category search would begin at the Palestinians category and continue down from there. It would be ridiculous not to include the article just because less one-third according to the latest polls, do not identify as Palestinian as a primary identity. You can take at look at these articles, [2], [3]. Anyway, I thought I would pass ony my two cents, in case you were interested in getting involved in the editing of the article. Thanks again for your input. Tiamut 11:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Your assertion that British people dont know how to spell is an attack. Please remain civil, SqueakBox 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lighten up, its Friday :) I was kidding, gesh.--Tom 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were to buy a dictionary it would be British but paper dictionaries are horrible things anyway that cause eye strain with all that peering for the right word, much better using an online one (not that there are any English dictionaries for sale where I live anyway). Have a nice w/end, SqueakBox 19:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Take care as well! --Tom 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

NI

Hi Tom.

Nope, I'd prefer to keep out of that particular "discussion", but as far as I am aware there is not currently an official flag for NI. -- Mais oui! 13:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, to answer the question at the top of your page here: yes, I do know what "outwith" means. In fact, it is part of my standard vocabulary, although it is uncommon for it to be used by English speakers outwith Scotland ;) -- Mais oui! 13:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent bits

Hello Tom, weighing in with you on the recent discussions about this whole subject matter. I agree that in the smaller size bios ethnicity mentions look very much out of place, especially when there is little to no other info on the person's personal life. As for the BLP section on religion, first of all, it does not apply to mentions of religion, much less ethnicity, in the article itself (if you notice, it says "categories" only, not article text), so removing it and citing BLP is misleading (although not when the information is unsourced, in which case WP:A is really the policy to cite). I'm about disenfranchised with both users Crockspot and Notmyrealname, who seem unable to accept that being Jewish is a matter of ethnicity as well as religion, and thus the categories are not covered by that section of BLP either (and especially since Notmyrealname is only removing Jewish categories and info from people quite obviously and publically Jewish like Joshua Bolten or Heidi Fleiss, oddly enough the only religion he is picking on, and the only religion as well that is also an ethnicity). The solution to some of this is, for the betterment of all Wikipedia, expansion. For example, the Mike Lierberthal mention (which Notmyrealname removed citing BLP, although that is simply incorrect, as it was an article text, not a category, as well as specifically about ethnicity and not religious belief, and it was cited, thus being in full compliance with both BLP and A) definitely looked out of place. The solution? That whoever wants to include it should create or expand a personal life section in which it would not look out of place. For example, the personal life section of Catherine O'Hara looks decent, mentions ethnicity and religion, cites it, and it doesn't look that out of place with the rest of the info, including her birth place, spouse, etc. IZAK is correct that most of this information is totally irrelevant, but so is, of course, every other bit of personal life or early life info that has nothing to do with why, how, or when a person became notable. This includes birthplace, date, parents names, occupations, (usually) what high school they went to, who they are married to, dating, their love of rollerblading in their free time, and so on. The important thing to make sure is that it fully complies with WP:A (i.e. cited to a reliable source) and is placed in good writing and in context with a section that focues on the person's early or personal life - preferably a decent enough sized section. Anyway, I don't know how all this effect specifically your current edits, but here it is. Mad Jack 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mad Jack, nice to see you. OK here is the low down. My family is out of town so of course I here and people say I have no life :) Anyways, the Lewis Libby article got things rolling again. I can't even keep the players straight anymore, but some folks wanted to label him as Jewish, probably to show some type of Zionist Occupation Government crap ect. Oh course then people wanted ethnicity removed to counter that. Anyways, the article now has an itsie bitsie mention that Libby belongs to a Temple in Virginia. Unless you were looking for it, you would probably miss it. This actually for me works best because its sourced, flows in the article and doesn't seem to disruptive. Your comments above, as usuall, seem very reasoned and well though out and I tend to agree. I actually realized after I posted that I had referenced the wrong guideline for removing some material and had the damnest time trying to find what IZAK had referenced earlier. Have you read this? Anyways, its sort of funny you stopped by since I was thinking of you today since you have always struck me as the voice or reason on this topic. Would you mind looking at my current contributions regarding my edits to players found in the Category:Jewish baseball players. I left user:Epeefleche a heads up about my plans and would not mind if you checked them out. I am trying to only remove ethnicity where it seems really out of place in the flow of the article and is of questionable relevance. I am also not removing them from the category so their ethnicity is not being disputed or denied. Also, what is your take on Epee's ranking players based on where they stand in comparision to other Jewish players? Again, Koufax, Greenberg, ect I wouldn't touch but not sure where to draw the line. Anyways, I always appreciate your imput and if ANY of my recent edits don't seem right please let me know and I will try to fix it or feel free to revert them, not like you need my permission :) Cheers! --Tom 00:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen IZAK's proposal, but obviously it's in very bad taste to have a proposal explicitly pretaining to Jewish people articles on Wikipedia. On the other hand, some general policy on ethnicity, religion - i.e. lists and categories - not necessarily a bad idea. Actually, there was one such mass nomination lately and you may or may not want to vote on it - over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans. I did not vote on it myself because I personally am not sure if I want these lists kept or not. List of African Americans has been deleted, though, separately. But really, any policy that forbids mentions of things like religion and ethnicity in the article more or less promotes censorship and goes against Wikipedia's core WP:A - i.e. if a reliable source says something, we can, and if no reliable source can be found for something, we can't say it. It's best to deal with these mentions in individual cases, when they look out of place, and especially when they are unsourced, in which case they should definitely be removed on Wiki's basic principle. As for Jewish baseball players, I haven't made up my mind about the individual removals you've been doing; the first thing, of course, is that many were totally unsourced, which means they should be removed in any case. Most did seem out of place because the entry they were in was so small and disorganized as is; if they could be properly sourced and worked into a much a larger personal life section then I wouldn't see a problem with them (especially if we're keeping the category, because I think every category on Wikipedia should have a rational explanation for it in the article itself); some of the entries where you removed it had already mentioned the player being Jewish in another pargraph, so obviously those removals were due. As for "ranking players based on where they stand in comparision to other Jewish players" - well, that would be a blatant violation of the old WP:NOR (and now WP:A) policy. If he was making an argument that hadn't been previously made based on existing data, i.e. "this player compared to that one" if no reliable sources had made the same rankings. Even if a source had made those rankings, it does seem like a little too niche for a general info encyclopedia. Maybe on a list of Jewish sportspeople he could do something like that, not sure. Hope that helps, 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the vote. I voted keep. I can't freakin believe I did that, but I did. I hate lists/labels/categories since they are so problematic and ripe for abuse and contreversey but I also hate nuking things unless there is a really good reason. Hopefully the common sense of the community will prevail. I finished editing all the players from the category Jewish Baseball players. I probably hit 2/3s of the folks on the list and left the other 1/3 as is. Epee is actually getting his "Jewish rankings" from a Jewish sports encyclopedia I think. I agree that this seems too niche and would somebody really want to be remember for being ranked say 5th all time on that list vs how is ranked against all players? It actually strikes me as being offensive but I left all that stuff in. My bigger issue is that the articles read like, er, sorry Epee, crap. I am assuming that Epee made his additions out of some sort of ethnic pride, but I could easily see those additions being made by somebody with a more sinister motive. It seems like you can't win either way :) It should be about consistency, verifiablity and article flow it seems. Anyways, I think we are on the same page per your comments above or close enough that its a good thing. I suggested that Epee get more folks involved/imput on this issue. Anyways, I gots to get to sleep, I lost an hour somewhere this morning :) Cheers MJ --Tom 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Albert Axelrod is getting better, but there's a pretty redundant mention of him being Jewish a couple of paragraphs down, after it has already been established that his parents were Russian Jewish immigrants - so it becomes kind of pointless. I don't think Marty Glickman should have "Jewish American" in header, for the usual reason - it doesn't tell me anything. It could say "He was subject to anti-Semitism during his lifetime" or something similar summarizing that situation. I'm sure anyone would agree that that tells me more, and summarized more, than a random "Jewish American". Mad Jack 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

like whisper down the lane

Just wanted to say that's a nice turn of phrase. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was on quite a tear :). 8 hours straight on this site will definately do that to you :) --Tom 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hello, Threeafterthree. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Hu12 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

--Hu12 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why remove a C-SPAN video of Frank Luntz lying about Katrina oil spills?

I don't understand why you felt authorized to remove an external link to a documentary which shows a clip of Luntz using the "red herring" logical fallacy, and "big lie" techniques on C-SPAN. It is a powerful, short documentary now pointed to by educators and at least one elementary logic class about logical fallacies. Is it because you created the Luntz category and are editing out critical information? Can't assume good faith on this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.145.213 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I actually went to school with the guy and know first hand what a scumbag he is. He rigged a UA election I was invloved in, in the spring of 1984. He was also found in violation of campaigning to close to the polling staitions the year before. He tried to blame it on some lame excuse that he saw his girlfriend waving to him, when in fact no girl at Penn would be caught dead with this loser. He hasn't looked back since. So, yeah, I am removing material to protect the guy. --Tom 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Apology extended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.145.213 (talk • contribs)

Don't worry about. Please read WP:AGF going forward even though most people on here are jerks j/k :) --Tom 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Popper

Tom: we have someone who knew him very well describing him as Jewish to Albert Einstein. We have this fact quoted by someone who also knew him well, and would no doubt have known if this was false, in his official obituary for the British Academy. How much more reliable a source could you find? Whether he converted or his parents did, I don't know. All that matters is that he is described as Jewish by a reliable source. Being Jewish had a profound effect on his life, so is highly relevant. Why is it so important to delete this category? Both his parents were Jewish by anyone's reckoning. You, however, are 25% Jewish.--Runcorn 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats awesome! %25 Jewish, I love it! Runcorn, seriously, the source states that Popper did not consider himself Jewish. Again, the real source in this story is from a letter(sp) from the friend of his sister n law? I still having trouble figuring out her relationship. And it does matter about his parents and himself. That stuff should be fleashed out by reliable sources and included. This should be removed from the categories unless it can be established 100%. I should get user Jackerlantern over here asap. Do you know him? He is awesome at this stuff. I'll drop him a line now. Cheers, --Tom 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say on Popper, but it is true that his Jewishness had a major effect on his life - i.e. being unable to remain in his home country because of it. Plus, the Encyclopedia Judaica is indeed a reliable source on who is or is not a Jew. If he didn't consider himself Jewish, that is a good factor (but for example, you can find sources that say Michael Richards considers himself Jewish, as well as plenty of sources that say Richards is not Jewish regardless of what he considers himself to be). Considering he isn't a living person, I think it's probably notable enough to mention with a category (and the deciding factor seeming to be that his technically being Jewish was a major influence on his life). Still, I wish all debates on the Jewish category were on the line of this one, because I'm growing tired of seeing the ones we have right now at Talk:Joshua Bolten, where someone is petitioning to remove the category from a person who is clearly and publically Jewish for no apparent reason other than they have nothing better to do with their time on Wikipedia, it would appear. Mad Jack 01:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

MMM

Friday! Nya nya! :) Gwen Gale 00:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, when I posted that, I didn't know Tinosa had made this edit. Gwen Gale 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Head's up to go see comment I made on QG's talk page re: co-founder

Hi there, I added a comment to QuackGuru's talk page under the "Thank you, Thank you, Thank you" section that I thought you might want to take a look at. Basically, I feel a proprosal that was on the 'Essjay controversy' talk page might be a good compromise and would like to see it become policy if possible. -- Kavri 04:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied on Quack's page.I am out today. Thanks for your civil imput, cheers! --Tom 12:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Head's up about my comment on the Essjay talk page regarding re-vert squabble.

I thought I'd point out that I've posted a 'series of events' and made mention that I thought you were unfairly singled out. I wrote a longer more documented version, but felt perhaps that it would be too partisan to post...but I have kept a copy in my 'notes' section on my talk page, if you care to look at it as well. I wanted to keep my research results, in case the 're-vert squabble' re-ignites. I do think the proper thing would be for Gwen to apologize, however, telling someone else to apologize isn't really good policy. And, to some degree, AGF, she seems to have been more hasty then harsh...if she took Glen's revert (who I think needlessly started the whole incident again) as cannon, then she probably didn't realize your revert was to the actual consensus, and well, you didn't actually comment something like 'reverted critic's section to consensus form' or such. However, many people's summaries seem rather slap-dash to me anyway, and frankly Gwen's summary and comment in talk didn't specifically mention her revert to Glen's version, which I'll take on good faith was considered not necessary, however it would also mean that she didn't follow a fair bit of talk discussion from when the consensus was agreed upon (ie Denny's solution and the number of people that agreed, including my call to make it policy, but wasn't sure where to post such a point). Still, there is such huge volume of chat, and so many edits/re-edits, it can be fairly confusing to follow what the current consensus is.

I write all this to let you know that while I understand your strong feelings, that perhaps there wasn't as much ill intent as it may have appeared, and to may make it known that I at least, would like you to continue to contribute, if you feel that it wouldn't be detrimental to you (I fully comprehend the need to 'walk away' sometimes for one's own well being). -- Kavri 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kavri, thanks for the response. I actually saw the continued back and forth between yourself and Gwen but have decided to stay out of it for now. No big deal actually. I am alot better at not taking this stuff to seriously which is important or you'll blow a gasket over this stuff. I actually just met Gwen in the last 2 days and we have been getting into it over at Mountain Meadows massacre. What got my goat is that she accused me of stalking, vandalism, err what else? Anyways, we sort of made up. I was just getting very frustrated dealing with her so enough. Anyways, thanks again and good luck with the whole co-founder issues, I have a sneaky feeling its far from over :) Cheers! --Tom 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Zombie's youtube videos

Hi. I notice that you just removed an external link to "zombie's videos] at YouTube" from zombietime "per wp:el". My understanding is that ELs to YouTube are OK if no copyrights are infringed, which should not be a problem here since these videos are shot and edited by 'zombie'. (See the third box at the top of WP:EL.) Would it be OK by you if I put that EL back? Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I am still trying to get clarification of youtube links. But feel free to add it back if you think it complies with Wiki guidelines. I am just one little editor but I appreciate your civility and posting here before reverting. Cheers, --Tom 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I appreciate you mischaracterizing mine... Where did I say I reverted that edit because of vandalism? --Shamir1 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shamir, I mistook rv for rvv or rv v. Please accept my apologies. May I suggest adding more detail to your edit summaries? Anyways, no hard feelings? Peace, --Tom 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln

We shall discuss the inclusion of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln in the See also section of Abraham Lincoln in the appropriate talk page. Lotusduck 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okie, dokie. --Tom 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Malcolm Barber.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Malcolm Barber.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to WP:AN

I put a few diffs up atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mackan (talk • contribs) i'll try to get more later, but i'm at work right now. I remember him complaining about someone stalking him last week as well. It's a shame, because Mackan seems to be fairly knowledgable in some areas, but if he can't control his anger and work together with others, Wikipedia probably isn't a great place for him. Let me know if there's something I can do to help build a consensus. Just H 19:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

MOSBIO

Was wondering if you could help me out with Kelly Hu and Maggie Q, someone keeps inserting ethnicity into their headers. Cheers, Mad Jack 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mad Jack, I left notes on their respective talk ages and have both on my watch list. Any shananagans will be delt with post haste. Thanks for the heads up. Its the least I can do after all of your insightful and level handed additions to this project. Cheers! --Tom 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mad Jack 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed ethnicity

Hi I saw your edits in an Armenian related articles. You removed everything that mentions about Armenian ethnicity, but I don't any reason for the ethnicity do be removed from the article. ROOB323 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi ROOB323, I removed mention of ethnicity from the LEAD sentence per WP:MOSBIO paragraph #3. I got into this about a year and a half ago when some editors added "Jewish-American" to the LEAD sentence of about 400 biographies of famous Jewish-Americans. Please feel free to add mention of individuals ethnicity to the article under the appropriate sub section, ie early life or family background, ect. Indivuals born outside the US who moved here later in life are more problematic then folks born on American soil. I am going to revert your edits accept for folks born outside the US. Again, please feel free to add ethnicity back into the article, just not in the lead sentence UNLESS their ethnicity is what makes then notable. Thanks! --Tom 12:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Castle @ Penn

• If you went to Penn, as I do now, you would understand the significance of the castle on campus. Maybe its time for a new visit. 128.91.128.104 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I was a Phi Delt, class of 87'. If you want to keep the article, provide sources that make the case that it is notable on its own merits. This project does not have an article on every fraternity chapter in the US. Anyways, best of luck with your studies! --Tom 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

It strikes me that it is you who is pushing the agenda. This page has been repeatedly protected because of undiscussed, nonconsensus changes in descriptions of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. The discussion of their respective roles in Wikipedia's origins is appropriately taking place on each of their articles. The current version is accurate, and there is no way that everyone is going to be perfectly satisfied with any version. Consensus often means that nobody gets exactly what they want. Risker 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Risker, you are absolutely correct that I'm pushing my agenda here. Why is so important that Wales and Sangers co-founding wikipedia be bastardized with revisionism? Thanks --Tom 15:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are at risk of violating the 3RR rule, having made three reverts alread. Please stop the edit warring and discuss on the talk page. Risker 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Agenda? Tell me, have you heard WP:AGF? I haven't got an agenda, as I recall, Jimbo is the sole founder of Wikipedia, and Larry was the employee who quit. What agenda is required to ensure accuracy in articles? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dev, go check your memory, because its faulty. Wales has been called "co-founder" by the media numerous times. The agenda required to ensure accuracy is noted on my user page. Again, why is SO important to label Wales founder and NOT co-founder?

The media also consistently claims that the world is about to be decimated by global warming/AIDS/bird flu/world war 3, but that doesn't mean it is. Jimbo has consistently said that he is the sole founder. And I don't think it's important - but it is true, so I don't really see the point of your question. Importance is irrelevant to truth, surely? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of this project is to collect reliable, confirmable, established material. What somebody says of themselves does not make it true/fact. Anyways, cheers!--Tom 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note

Please see my comments on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you desist from being a lone ranger dispensing rogue justice and stop your fixation on my talk page from here on in. I will report you if you do not (1) stop (2) TALK with me (instead of arbitrarily vandalizing my page). Thank you. 67.81.154.219 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, blanking your talk page is not appropriate, period. Report me please, make my day, thanks! --Tom 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would revert NYC's edits, I would think that your comment is made in good faith. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I have the right to remove vandalism from my talk page. Everyone does. That is because it is disruptive. The blanked comments were inappropriate and I removed them. If you are doing this as a matter of policy, I urge you to go after everyone else. If you don't, leave me alone, or I will report you for vandalism. 67.81.154.219 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See above.--Tom 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why did you remove the pharagraph I added in the History of the Jews in the United States

In the section History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States#American_Revolution_--_Sephardic_Jews:_First_Wave, I added this pharagraph:
"In September, 1654, shortly before the Jewish New Year, twenty-three Jews of Portuguese ancestry from Recife, Brazil, arrived in New York, which at the time was under Dutch rule and known as New Amsterdam. This arrival was the beginning of Jewish-American history. Sephardic Portuguese Jews were also the early settlers of Newport (where the country's first synagogue was founded), Charleston, Philadelphia and Baltimore"
You removed it stating "unsourced material". I wonder why are you so arrogant. Okey, my pharagraph did not have any reference; now I have added two (I could have added a thousand more). But, what I do not understand is why do you say that it is unsourced material. The same pharagraph has got various links such as to the Touro Synagogue, and there you can read "The Jeshuat Israel congregation itself dates back to 1658, when fifteen Spanish and Portuguese Jewish families arrived". So the same pharagraph contains links to other articles where you can verify the information that the same pharagraph is saying. In addition, you just have to search google to realize that is truth. In fact, every book talking about the history of the Jews in the United States mentions this date, 1658, as the date of arrival. So please, don't be so arrogant removing the contributions of the other people, because since there was not any reference to the pharagraph, it was easily verifiable through the links appearing in the same pharagraph, and if you wanted a reference, you could have searched google and added it yourself. Onofre Bouvila 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, as long as you provide sources, go for it. Not trying to be arrogant, just trying to remove material that is not sourced. Also, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, go figure, so links to other articles are not considered the best references. Cheers!--Tom 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ok NPOnofre Bouvila 10:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Adler

If you look at the Robert Adler article there are abundant good references proving that he was an inventor.--Runcorn 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Runcorn, the way you changed his entry looks better. Thanks, --Tom 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

multiple ancestries

could you please tell me what multiple ancestries means, iv been puzzled over it for days, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr monday night (talk • contribs)

say what? --Tom 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

on your page you have this thing {user ancestry multi}

Oh, that thing. Its sort of a cool user box I thought. Multiple ancestries means (I assume) that one comes from multiple ethnic backgrounds. In my case I'm part Polish Jew, Germany, Welsh, Irish, Scottish and English. In other words, I'm a MUTT!! Cheers and welcome to the project. If I can be of assistance, please let me know. Thanks! --Tom 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Myles Brand

Why did you remove my reference to Myles Brand being from Carle Place, because of no attribution, but you left the Matt Snell reference in there, which also has no attribution. Both of them went to CP High, and both graduated about the same time. I don't understand the logic. No, I can't find a reference supporting that Brand went to Carle Place, but everyone in this town knows people who were his classmates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.20 (talk • contribs)

Maybe I'll remove the other name, it was that I saw your recent addition just now. Wikipedia is required to provide reliable sources for ALL the material here believe it or not. Nothing personal. Also, use 4 tildes (~) to sign your posts going forward. Thanks! --Tom 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Snell

Tom, sorry, I don't know how to reply to your note back to me except to start a new talk post. But the proof on Matt Snell can be found here: http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=SnellMat01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.20 (talk • contribs)

Hey, no problem. Trying to figure out this place is harder than rocket science :). Anyways, you can use a colon(s) (:) to indent your post so the thread is readable. Also, you still need to "sign" every post with four tildes. That will automaticall add your signature to your post. There is also a tool bar when editing that will also add your signature. Please keep exploring wikipedia and also consider registering so you can create articles and join the community as it were. Cheers! --Tom 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)