User talk:Tom Morris/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Talkback

Hello, Tom Morris. You have new messages at FleetCommand's talk page.
Message added 14:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fleet Command (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Eton International School

I have restored the article Eton International School so if you want to continue the AFD please reopen it. Apparently not a copyright violation since permission is granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ohio Wing Civil Air Patrol page

Hello,

I saw you visited my wing's page and added some requests for references. It is well, still a work in progress but I'm adding in the references and intend to have more up. I just wanted to ask what else would be required to have the bars at the top removed is all. This is my first wiki article and I'm finding it an interesting experience, haha.

Cheers, OHWGHistorian

Hi OHWGHistorian, that article looks like it is coming on extremely well! Congratulations on your hard work, and I hope you are enjoying it!

As you've put a number of sources in, I've removed the {{unreferenced}} tag and replaced it with {{ref improve}}. These are included both for the benefit of the reader (so they can proportion how much to trust an article to the quality of the references) and for the benefit of other editors, so they can hopefully find articles which have problems and need improvement. I've also replaced the "Under construction" with {{Expand section}} which is the standard template used to note that the template needs expansion.

The other tag on the article is the {{cleanup}} tag. This is because some of the formatting and reference templates could be improved to make them more in-line with the style that Wikipedia attempts to adhere to. Don't worry about that: everyone has to learn, and you are doing a really good job so far, and the prose looks like a pretty promising start. There are people on Wikipedia who spend their time improving people's prose and fixing up formatting issues on all sorts of articles. With a bit of luck, they will swoop in like helpful angels and help improve the article.

A few things you might want to do having written a new article. You might want to post a request for feedback. This will get experienced Wikipedians to hopefully come and have a look at the article and suggest ways to improve it. You may also want to submit your article as a Did You Know?: this is a short nugget of interesting information from the article that gets put on the front page of Wikipedia. I've had a couple now. If you want to do this, you'll need to be quick: you have to do it within seven days of creating the article, and it's a bit fiddly to do it right, so you may want to ask me or another experienced user.

Finally, you might want to look at WikiProjects: these are groups of users who try and improve articles on a particular topic. I added Ohio Wing Civil Air Patrol to both WikiProject Ohio and WikiProject Military History. You can join there, find people who are interested in similar topics and they can help you collaborate on improving the article, and they may be able to help improve yours. They are lots of fun and may just send you further down the very addictive rabbit hole of writing for Wikipedia.

I'm a bit busy until Wednesday, so if you've got any further questions, don't think me rude if I don't immediately answer them. If I don't answer them, some nice person I know might (talkpage stalkers, that means you). Glad you are finding it an interesting experience. All the best, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Tom, Thank you for the prompt and thorough reply. Hopefully this weekend I can tinker a bit more and some of my partners can provide information to fill in the gaps on the page. The "Did You Know?" submission looks like fun, and well, I might as well submit and give it a shot. I'm welcome to have folks help me fix the article up or provide helpful suggestions. Bit by bit it will be cleaned up and hopefully provide the information the general public and future recruits desire :) Cheers, OHWGHistorian — Preceding unsigned comment added by OHWGhistorian (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jupiter (mythology)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jupiter (mythology). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Grats

UoL is not a terrible school! Enjoy your time there, it promises to be better than a hernia in a minefield. 72.75.123.207 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Matt Goetten article

The seven days are up. Should that article be deleted? The creator removed that info giving no reason for doing so, have not responded to questions in the debate about it. The username is interestingly the same as a media firm that specializes in helping politicians. Matt Goetten is a client of that firm. Does not look for Wikipedia when media firms like that can get away with creating promotion.Do excuse me if I'm breaking any rules. It really makes me annoyed when people use Wikipedia for promotion. Goetten is the same guy who accepted a sketch plea deal in a case involving the starvation deaths of dozens of horses. It was reported on numerous websites in the states and I've found articles from the UK and Germany about it. No mention of that there.CamRock85 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2011

This Month in GLAM – Volume I, Issue XI, November 2011 USA report • UK report • Italy report • Spain report • Australia report • France report Mexico report • Russia report • Argentina report • East Asia report • Qatar report • Event calendar Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 13:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Tom. I just deleted E.D.O.T (Gary Houston) for you that you closed as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Houston‎. It was moved by the author during the AfD. You wouldn't have known about it and what you actually deleted was the redirect ;) Happy sysoping! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I had actually seen it, but just forgot to delete it. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

regarding my Page Sahil kaila

Hi sir ,

i had created a page named "sahil Kaila" which is now Deleted . I want to know the reason that why that page has been deleted because i will make new page overcoming that mistakes. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilkaila (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article was deleted for a very simple reason: on Wikipedia, all articles about musicians need to show that the musician is in some way notable. This is done through pointing to chart performance, critical reception and so on. The article you created about yourself makes no mention of such notability. In addition, on Wikipedia, you generally aren't allowed to write about yourself because of our policy on conflict of interest. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan

It looks like this is mostly wrapped up now. I have to say, it has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. It seems some (not, so far, explicitly all) the legal threats on Twitter were withdrawn; none were made against me, here or anywhere, but a generalised accusation was levelled by User:doktorbuk against all of those who opposed the AfD, which includes me. That hasn't been withdrawn. This sort of thing is exactly why I usually stick to adding information to article pages and wikignoming, and avoid aggro and contention and weird threats and having to refer to lots of policies. It is also exactly the sort of thing that I imagine would drive away new editors, such as the handful of SPAs that came to say "Rhys isn't a hoax!" So. What to do. Not sure really. Advice? BrainyBabe (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a drama-monger either. My first day as an admin after telling everyone that I'd stick to wikignoming, and I have to go to ANI? Not ideal!

Sadly, this kind of thing will drive away new editors, although I was trying to welcome some of the SPAs. Other than that, my views on this issue are well-explained on ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He withdrew the legal threats against Rhys and one other (in odd language IMHO); he has not withdrawn the general accusation, placed on my page among others. I suppose I will link to the ANI and try to forget it. He goes in my "editors to avoid" column, and you in my "reasonable people to deal with" one. Thanks; I'll get back to editing. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Tom Morris,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Feel free to contact me if you need anything, and good luck. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try my hardest to not screw this up! —Tom Morris (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Be bold this time! I have sent you something to love with! --Katarighe (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades. Here's an apply pie you can enjoy

Well done! Congratulations, sorry you just missed the wp:100 but its always a bit difficult to get there without enough opposition to pique people's interest in the RFA. There are some bits of code in my monobook that you may find useful - dropdown boxes for block reasons and so forth. ϢereSpielChequers 08:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats Tom. Wear this when you're doing any scrubbing to save getting your Sunday suit dirty! .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung! —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I gave you an apple pie to enjoy! Katarighe (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats and welcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. And another big thanks to everyone who voted in the RfA. A whole day with me as an admin, and the wiki is still functioning and Jimbo hasn't sent the secret wiki-police round to my house, so I can't have screwed anything up too bad. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, you're doing a grand job; keep it up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the administry

I see it didn't take you long to get started - (RPP).--SPhilbrickT 15:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done some CSD, some PROD, some AfD and some RFPP. I still have yet to delete the main page or indefinitely block Jimbo. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done from me too! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I would just like to thank you for clearing some of the backlog of requests at the WP:RFPP, you're doing great so far and keep up the good work. -- Luke (Talk) 03:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from Borkfisch

Thanks for the strawberries! Borkfisch (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great work and perserverance with these vandals. For the past few hours I hadn't noticed anyone else reverting, then all of a sudden you popped up with dozens of reverts. Great work!!! Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 15:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! We so badly need ClueBot NG back! —Tom Morris (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rafic Hariri Bio

Mr. Morris Thank you for taking the time to manage the Rafic Hariri page. While many parts of the bio have some level of accuracy I must say that I am deeply offended and surprised by the section titled "corruption". The facts in it are not accurate and it is heavily biased towards claims (untrue and unfounded) by political rivals of the late Mr. Hariri. I am more than happy to help you correct this information and answer any questions you have, however I would ask that you remove this section or at least reflect both sides of the argument around these allegations. It is not right to try and tarnish the image and reputation of a man that did as much as Mr. Hariri did for his country and people. Regards, AMH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.28.241.20 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to the article on the talk page at Talk:Rafic Hariri to see if others agree with your concerns. I've protected the article to stop you from reverting back-and-forth. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Userpage Shield

		The Userpage Shield
		For his tireless effort protecting my Userpage from vandals I didn't even notice, it is my honor and priviledge to present this Barnstar to Tom Morris Achowat (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Just doing my (Hugglin') job! —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect my Userpage

After giving it much thought and deliberation with some offline Wikipedians, I have come to my own consensus that everyone should be able to Be Bold and edit all parts of the project, I would like to formally request that my Userpage be unprotected. Disruptive edits are par for the course and should be expected, but in an attempt to allow boldness our policy should be reactive as opposed to proactive. Achowat (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 5

December 2011 (UTC)

Outrageous deletion of public bankruptcy record in Landeryou article

The file I uploaded, from the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia (ITSA), is a public search of Andrew Landeryou's bankruptcy. It includes his correct date of birth, his bankruptcy date, and the date that bankruptcy was discharged. There is an address given, although the Kavanagh St address - which Landeryou used to give on his own website. It's a public record because he's a bankrupt. I certainly don't think it should be on his wikipedia entry, but the ITSA record should not be hidden because it includes that detail.

Just searching for it now, it's the registered address of his vexnews website, anyway. http://www.checksitetraffic.com/traffic_spy/vexnews.com

It should be restored. Garth M (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use court records and public records for BLP articles as noted at WP:BLPPRIMARY. I have redacted your edits in good faith, and if you can make a convincing case that using the ITSA records is compatible with our rules on biographies of living people, I'll happily unredact them. But until then, the privacy of the subject must be maintained. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So how is that clearly important and clearly true material to be included? Biographies usually do include a date of birth. And Landeryou's bankruptcy and discharge are matters of public record and highly relevant to an encyclopaedic article about him. The record proves the details. How else to include those details then? Without them, you have a false date of birth, you have the externally-documented bankruptcy but no confirmation that it was discharged (which it was, and which should be noted along with it). Garth M (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, presumably you have to find some other source for it: a newspaper article, magazine article etc. The policy is clear: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I'll start a thread about this on the BLP Noticeboard in a minute. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty absurd if that "rule" requires having an erroneous birthdate in an encyclopedia. I doubt very much that anyone's written a magazine article about when his bankruptcy was discharged, or what his actual birthdate is. But that doesn't mean it should be excluded - or, worse, left in there actually WRONG. Garth M (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very concerned about what I'm reading here. Are we really publishing someone's private address on their Wikipedia article? And on this page also?

This is a clear example of original research being conducted by someone who seems to have a very personal agenda. I read on the article's Talk page, the Garth M write that he'd spent money on obtaining a record and apparently had visited the private address referred to. That itself makes me suspicious that something untoward is going on.

There is from what I see in the previous edits, one source in a newspaper about Landeryou's age, suggesting he was born in 1970. Beyond that, we have one user, clearly with an agenda, making edits only on this one article, in an extremely persistent and apparently agitated manner. If someone could explain why this is going on that might help other users write a coherent, balanced article.

I don't think any user is going to waste their time with an article of this little consequence while users clearly associated with the subject in either positive or negative way are making it impossible to create something worthwhile. --Brandonfarris (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tom, can you please indef semiprotect that article. You can see the level of dispute between his detractors and supporters here, and please look at the History - going back years - and the talk page. IP editing has made keeping that article stable and neutral impossible. Although the problem currently seems to be someone who is a detractor, the ongoing problem has been sanitisation of well-sourced material by IP-hopping editors. I cannot semi-protect as I am involved in editing the article. Fences&Windows 20:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops, you actually raised the level to sysop only. Thanks. Fences&Windows 20:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ariel A. Roth

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ariel A. Roth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

TheRankTank

Hi Tom,

I noticed that you have recently deleted a page I wrote about TheRankTank. Would you mind giving me some feedback as to why the page was deleted,or better still help me re=write the article so it is appropriate? Perhaps you or another Wikipedia editor could proofread it for me?

Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaDigirank (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it had been nominated for speedy deletion by User:Filing Flunky as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". The article contained no references, and based on your username was created with a clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not here to help advertise companies or products. We're not the Yellow Pages! The best thing is to simply let it be, and once the company becomes well-known enough, someone else who doesn't have a conflict of interest will write an article on the company. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Coming Down

Hello. Just curious how you closed this as 'no consensus', given there were no comments whatsoever in favour of keeping the article. Thanks, fish&karate 15:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, nomination plus one !vote after two relistings seemed to not quite be enough to meet any reasonable understanding of consensus. But if you feel I have erred on this, I'm happy to reconsider. Given the lackluster response at AfD, I think it might be an uncontentious redirect to the relevant album page. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the content of the article ("X is a song by Y"), a redirect would probably do it. fish&karate 17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hofstadter

Hello, Tom Morris. You have new messages at Steven J. Anderson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Essentia Page Deletion

I would like to talk about the Deletion of the Essentia business page, I am a new intern at the company and this falls under my realm of responsibility. I am not as familiar with editing in Wikipedia, and was having a hard time adding new information and resources to the View Source prior to page deletion. Essentia is the first company to produce natural memory foam, which is a latex foam. The product has been tested by Columbia Labs, and we would be happy to share the full report as well. Would the page be considered for un-deletion if proper sources were cited, such as media outlet stories on the product. For Example: Founder Jack Dell'Accio was named Ernst & Young Emerging Entrepreneur of the year for his product development (http://www.ey.com/CA/en/About-us/Entrepreneur-Of-The-Year/2010-EOY-winners-Quebec--Link-). Essentia has also been featured on Discovery's Planet Green (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/buying-guides/buy-green-mattresses.html). Would it be possible for you to give me guidelines that I could follow to make the Essentia page follow the Wikipedia standards and have proper notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steffig (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the article because there was a consensus to do so in a deletion discussion because of the promotional tone and sourcing issues with the article. As you work for Essentia, you have a conflict of interest and should probably not be editing Wikipedia on that topic. We have policies against this. Most of the issues are covered in the FAQ for businesses and organizations, which has details about how to request an article - see this section in particular. Basically, once an article exists that has been set up by someone else, you are invited to make suggestions to improve the article. But Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias (Britannica etc.), isn't a business directory. Focus on building the business and once it becomes more well-known, a wiki page will emerge. There's plenty of online brand building you can do: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media sites. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yao Jiaxin

Hi,the name of the article I created is changed incorrectly. The original name is 'The Murder Case of Yao Jiaxin', but is was renamed as Murder of Yao Jiaxin which is not correct since Yao Jiaxin was the murderer, not the victim. Can you rename the article because I cannot change the name myself. Liuyue0916 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it to Yao Jiaxin murder case. Sorry about that! —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!Liuyue0916 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Please, continue the thread I started in the noticeboard(exposing someone's identity), there. Thank you--69.232.73.16 (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable articles in userspace

Hey Tom, what is the policy on pages like this? I belive it is based off a story of the user's own creation. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 14:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:FAKEARTICLE. Pages like this have been nominated for deletion before at WP:MFD. I am at a conference now, but if you ping me later I can have a look at whether it should be nominated for deletion at MfD. Or go ahead and nominate it if ou think the FAKEARTICLE policy is met. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thanksgiving

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thanksgiving. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Europa World Year Book

Do you have access to their online archives?--Antemister (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. But I do have access to the printed editions through Senate House Library. The most recent edition is available for reference in the library, older editions are available by requesting access to the stacks. I will probably either be going on Wednesday or Saturday, so if you want to tell me what you need, I'll try and look it up when I'm next in the library. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2011 (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!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Cornelius Plantinga			Steve Wright (DJ)
	Shakarganj Mills Limited			Botulism
	Araida Corbol			Christmas flowers
	Cuticle (hair)		Merge
	Zarah Garde-Wilson			Christmas Is Almost Here
	American Lycetuff School System			Christmas Is Almost Here Again
	Gila Katsav			Argument from a proper basis
	Kamran Shahid		Add sources
	Eponychium			Bill Landeryou
	Thomas Chubb			Peter Lloyd (ABC correspondent)
	Religious philosophy			Theological veto
	Rauf Klasra		Wikify
	Landmark School			Formal epistemology
	Dogar Publishers			Italian Baseball League
	Jonathan Kvanvig			Orestovia
	Patrick Yandall		Expand
	William Harry Jellema			Kinorhyncha
	Robert Merrihew Adams			2005 Sydney terrorism plot
	@internet			Theories of religion

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) 03:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My thanks

That was very kind and responsive of you to protect my page from the persistent IP vandal. Much appreciated.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, just doing my rounds with the mop. If after the two weeks are done, you get more user talk page vandalism, just request on WP:RFPP. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John of Damascus

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John of Damascus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom

Thanks Tom for your message. If i need some help i will ask you ;). Greattings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diemenzuid (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Amita bajpai

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amita bajpai. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheekubaaj (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review policy states:

Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.

Other than you attempting to delete my user talk page on the grounds that it is "unambigous advertising of self", you have made no attempt—courteous or otherwise—to resolve the issue with me.

I defend my deletion of the article. It fails WP:GNG and it also fails WP:POLITICIAN. The other arguments are perfectly convincing.

The argument you gave, as the only keep vote, was considered when I closed the discussion, but I didn't find it very convincing. Here's why. You said...

this personality is well renowned in bundelkhand area of uttar pradesh,india

Okay, on Wikipedia we need a source to show that someone is well known.

I personally do not want it to be deleted

Wikipedia policy isn't about whether we personally want or do not want an article to be deleted, it's about whether sources exist.

she is not a corrupt person perhaps thats why media is not covering her much

That's a shame. The media does have systemic biases and so on, but because of verifiability policy, we need to make it so that articles point to external sources so readers can check the articles.

she does not have a single criminal case

Irrelevant. Not being a crook doesn't make you notable, it just makes you a good person.

Of the sources you provided, only one of them is potentially useful, the Times of India story. Unfortunately, it only mentions the subject of the article for eight words which makes it a passing mention and does not meet the "significant" requirement in the WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read carefully

There is no other way to word the material that was published. If you could give some tips/direction as to how the article can be worded in a better fashion then the article is on wikipedia and can be edited. Early posts have very important information at the structure of the article. To reiterate the article is set up in such a way that the internal wikipedia links would be able to convey more information about the topic discussed. There are many authors used as references to the material. Please look at George Hunt Williamson, Alice Bailey, Stephen Jenkins, and Nicholas Roerich. Please look into the fact that this user was not apart of the creation these wikipedia pages but merily used them to enhance the article. All the evidence that has been presented is factual knowledge and is present on the "textfiles.com" website.This website will confirm these facts.

I do not have the time to keep going back and forth with you on the matter. If you do not make the corrections soon, I will admit defeat and this information will remain lost from public view, this is something that should not happen. However if "consensus of people at the deletion discussion don't believe that the article as it existed did improve Wikipedia" This valuable data is being read by blind eyes and will forever remain in the shadows of the internet never seeing the light of the general public.Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I've said everything I need to say on the matter clear. My actions have been clearly done in the spirit of Wikipedia policies and accurately reflected community consensus. To be frank, you need to face the fact that however valuable you consider the information, it is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. I try to be fair, neutral and open-minded when it comes to deletion, and sometimes it can be hard to determine consensus. At times, I consult other admins and check policy carefully. 'Trenzalore' was not one of those times: it is so far from reaching the minimal standard expected of a Wikipedia article, and the community consensus so clearly in favour of deletion, that there is no point really discussing how to improve it or word it differently to make it Wikipedia-worthy.

Don't take it personally, and please don't think of it as "admitting defeat". We try not to think in terms of a battle mentality. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom morris, may i call you tom. Your words confuse me. I do not understand the meaning of this phrase. "far from reaching the minimal standard expected of a Wikipedia article" Could you please elaborate on how you came to this conclusion. Normally, references are made to an article to validate this opinion, but the way this is written, my perception is that, you have not even read the article and are using general rejection defense. I understand that you are in a position of authority it is your duty to be "fair, neutral and open-minded when it comes to deletion" Unofficial information can be dangerous to Wikipedia an you want maintain its credibility by limiting the number of unfamiliar articles to the site. This article does not violate any Wikipedia policies. It has been worded to the best of my ability to work well with the internal linking nature of wikipedia.Building upon preexisting Wikipedia articles. Please reconsider and this is what i want you to do undo the deletion of "Trenzalore".Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you may call me Tom.

The words I used are fairly straightforward: the article doesn't reach the standard required for being a separate Wikipedia article.

In terms of notability, a link to a fan wiki and a 16,000 word essay which uses science fiction like Doctor Who and Men in Black to prove that aliens exist is about as likely to convince me (or any other administrator) that the topic is notable as if you wanted to try to prove to me that magic must be real and then citing the Harry Potter movies, or perhaps that a spurious historical article shouldn't be deleted because a Dan Brown novel shows that it is real.

I've explained my reasoning clearly, as have others in the deletion debate: the notability guidelines and the policy against original research simply rule that kind of article out completely.

If you don't think I've been fair, neutral and open-minded, then feel free to take my decision to deletion review. Any administrator would have closed the deletion debate in exactly the same way, so long as they hadn't dropped acid first. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom

To defend the notability of this article I will adress the issues you have presented above. :First,"a link to a fan wiki". The redirection of "trenzalore" to the science fiction world database of List of Doctor Who planetsrecieved their information about the planets from the tardiswikia site. The descriptions are word for word the same.Their time stamps predate that of wikipedia. One of the external links on the the List of Doctor Who planets is broken and the other link just names the planets.This is copyright infrignment but the matter is so ambiguious that no one will care. Your claim that this is"a link to a fan wiki" and therefore compromises the intregity of this article is invalid because my above evidence asserts that the integrity of Wikipedia is itself compromised. The information has been copied and pasted off the tardiswikia site to List of Doctor Who planets.:Second, The point of this article is not to "prove that aliens exist".Whether or not aliens exist is irrelevant to this article. The point of the article is to give an esoteric understanding of events that are currently happening.Which to my understanding is the defintional purpose of what wikipedia stands for. The article decribes the interaction between Doctor Who,Men in Black, and other figures within this Televised Universe. I hope that this is enough information for you to undo the deletion of "Trenzalore".

In a side note; if dropping acids helps in your decision to reverse the deletion i will pay to get you some. This comment was intended to be humorous in reference to your last post. Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, an "esoteric understanding" of pretty much anything smacks headfirst into WP:FRINGE. And even if such an esoteric understanding doesn't fall foul of our policies on fringe theories, there still needs to be sources to establish that the esoteric theory is indeed notable.

I didn't say that the use of the Wikia source "compromises the integrity" of the entry, but rather that it doesn't establish notability. Another wiki cannot establish notability of a subject, it has to be a reliable source.

There may be problems with List of Doctor Who planets, but the topic itself is notable by dint of the relationship to Doctor Who. One cannot go from the notability of Doctor Who to the notability of any individual planet unless one points to reliable sources to establish the notability of that individual planet. This is the same as with musicians and songs, authors and books and many other things besides.

I can guarantee that if you can show there is a copyright violation on List of Doctor Who planets, that will be taken seriously (although if it has been copied and pasted off Tardis Wiki, then it simply needs to acknowledge that fact in the article). None of that changes the notability concerns.

Let me make this perfectly clear: The only thing which will convince me to change my mind on the deletion is simply showing third-party, independent, reliable sources that establish notability of the individual planet. That is what Wikipedia policy requires.

I don't think any further discussion is going to be productive on this matter. If you think I have made a mistake and it is in the best interests of Wikipedia that the article is restored, feel free to make an appeal to deletion review, although don't be surprised if my decision gets upheld. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Tom. Without being cynical or anything, I like to throw you a question. As you probably know, I'm rather concerned about the current RfA system - I don't think it's broken as a system, but I feel it's misused, and that it's keeping some people away who won't sail through like you did recently without any stress. (I had a lot of stress on mine, and I can guess how some candidates may feel). What's your take on questions that might possibly be inappropriate? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a bit of stress on mine, and I think there are certain people who probably shouldn't asking questions at RfA–but I don't think that this is fixable. I think the biggest problem with RfA is that there is far too much emphasis placed on questions and not enough on checking out the user's history... because that's hard work. People will pick through their content contributions (FAs, GAs, DYKs) but won't actually look at their editing as a whole. You can tell far more about the candidate by going to their contribs, filtering it to Wikipedia talk namespace and reading what policy concerns they actually have raised on talk pages, RfCs etc.

I know candidates who have run for RfA who got a lot more support and a lot less opposition than me (I won't name them) but who got some inappropriate questions. When you are in the process, it's tough to sit back and not answer those questions especially if you aren't the sort of editor who keeps up with the political dramas at ANI as you don't know whether the question is being asked honestly and in good faith or as some kind of political grandstanding to prove a point to some other group ("RfA reformists", "content creators", wikignomes, the "IRC crowd", inclusionists/deletionists, cabals etc.)

The only thing I see as potentially helping fix RfA at the moment is tool apprenticeships. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gettier problems

Hey, stop it, you're scaring me :P You're right that the fictional nature of the case is unimportant; what I really meant was, as you say, thought experiment. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Marines AfD

Um...that was a supervote if i've ever seen one. If you had worded it differently, it would have been fine, but you worded it as you analyzing the sources and closing it based on your interpretation of whether they met GNG or not. Silverseren^C 02:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That was not the intention. I could have prefixed every sentence with "As the arguments presented show", but that would have made it needlessly lengthy. The line between "analyzing the arguments presented" and "analyzing the sources presented" is thin, but I can assure you I did the former. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review Occupy Marines

Tom, per wp:drv I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision to delete Occupy Marines. It is clear that no consensus was reached. Instead you did a very comprehensive analysis of the current references and concluded that “delete” was appropriate. The problem is that those references have been constantly evolving. Many of us have been working diligently on the article to make sure we are very conservative about what references we use and which ones we won't allow. If you look at the edit history of the page, you will see the extensive activity that has gone into this. Given the level of good faith effort that numerous editors have made to help the article comply with Wikipedia standards, I'd like to ask you to restore the article with a reason that “no consensus to delete” was reached.--Nowa (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. For the record, I am the original creator of the article but have refrained from voting in either deletion discussion. If a clear "delete" consensus had been reached, I would have been happy to let the article die.--Nowa (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, a noconsensus is just about the best I could have imagined was the result of that discussion. Or certainly a weak keep, but definitely not a delete. -Kai445 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I did a comprehensive analysis of the !votes not the sources. In closing an AfD where the nub of the discussion was whether the article met the WP:GNG, one rather has to point the sources as they are the key piece of evidence in whether or not the policy-based arguments have been made or not. That considerable work has gone into producing an article that fails to meet the WP:GNG doesn't change the fact that it doesn't meet the GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• That close is a joke. Why should I bother participating in AfD if some adminGod is going to supervote a legitimate no consensus outcome? Semper fi, my ass.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  A legitimate no consensus? Would that be based on the basis of all the highly convincing "SUPER DUPER STRONG KEEP because I Like It" !votes that failed to make an argument as to why a source that spent barely two sentences discussing the group could be taken as "significant coverage"? Closers have to weigh up the policy based arguments, and they were firmly on the delete side here. When WP:GNG is the issue, having a bunch of people turn up and say "it meets the GNG because I say so" while others are questioning whether the sources actually meet particular aspects of the GNG, and no adequate response is given to those doubts, the closer can hardly be faulted for seeing a distinct imbalance in the weight of policy-based argument. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• What "distinct imbalance"? In the closing you said "Based on the comments that express some policy-based arguments, we're roughly equally matched." What part of equally matched leads us to believe you thought there was any imbalance? Maybe you want to take a third look at your close, just to be extra sure it was a reasonable outcome? -Kai445 (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  It's clumsy phrasing to say "once you've excluded all the single purpose accounts and obvious canvassed votes, the head count was roughly equally matched". That someone makes a policy-based argument doesn't mean it's necessarily a good policy-based argument. I'll stand by this: just because someone comes along and says "it meets the GNG!" or "it doesn't meet the GNG!" that doesn't mean they've presented an argument. In contentious debates, closers must take a look at the reasons presented why something meets or does not meet the GNG, and rather than just doubling down with more "of course it meets/doesn't meet GNG", it'd be quite useful if people were to engage more with the people who are challenging particular parts of the GNG, otherwise deletion debates will end up looking like this. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold up, I've just noticed something which changes everything. At 16:42 on December 13, User:Basalisk said:

I see your point, and for the benefit of others in this discussion I concede at this point that consensus is to keep. I will not be arguing for a deletion any further.

Later, Basalisk writes:

I will make it clear that I will not be re-nominating the article immediately (I thought I made that clear with my last comment); but I will ask for a review sometime after six months from now

Given that Basalisk is new to AfD (as a few of their other comments make out), it looks like we've got reason here to infer that the nominator has thrown the towel in. I'll undelete the article in a minute and modify the AfD to note that the nominator withdrew, albeit quietly. You can put the pitchforks and nooses down now. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I've been copyediting Wikipedia since July 2010. Until a week ago, I was never involved in an AfD. Occupy Marines gained my attention and I participated in both the AfD discussion and in what user Nowa earlier in this thread calls a "good faith effort that numerous editors have made to help the article comply with Wikipedia standards." As such, it's been a valuable learning experience, and I hope you'll bear with me as I strive to understand your closure explanation dated 00:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

By reclosing this AfD as Keep, you've given us editors an opportunity—for which I thank you—to continue improving Occupy Marines. However, you reversed yourself not on substantive grounds but strictly on the narrow procedural point that the AfD's nominator withdrew his nomination. Accordingly, the shortcomings in Occupy Marines that led you to initially Delete it remain unaddressed. So your guidance going forward will be most helpful.

I am puzzled in particular by your declaration, "The CBS source (which is copied verbatim by ABC) spends the bulk of the relevant section discussing the Sgt. Thomas YouTube video while the underlying group isn't mentioned."

I've done a side-by-side comparison of the CBS source http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20124777/semper-fi-non-active-marines-called-to-occupy/ and the ABC source http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/occupy-veterans-movement-growing/story?id=14848003#.TvBdcvIqi30.

ABC's story—published a week after CBS's account—is more than double the length of CBS's article. Obviously, if ABC "copied verbatim" the CBS source, then ABC either posted all of CBS's words twice or added substantially to CBS's account. I believe it was the latter.

Most notably, a significant event transpired after CBS's post and is reported by ABC. The day following CBS's story, ex-Marine Scott Olsen was seriously injured at an Occupy Oakland protest in California. Olsen, who is of course unmentioned in CBS's story, is named eleven times by ABC.

I've also compared the parts of each article concerning only Occupy Marines. The two sources differ markedly.

• CBS states, "The group was formed online." ABC says nothing about their formation.
• CBS alludes to Occupy Marines as arising "after videos circulated online of a Marine confronting New York City police." ABC mentions that video but doesn't connect it to Occupy Marines.
• CBS devotes 90 words to quoting directly or paraphrasing statements attributed to Occupy Marines. ABC spends 177 words doing the same. However, ABC repeats none of the quotations or paraphrases from the CBS story.

Tom, you'll have to excuse my mental slowness, but I'm genuinely stumped as to how you ascertained that ABC copied the CBS source verbatim. Can you please help me understand? JohnValeron (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you are correct, I made a mistake there. They aren't the same at all. Ignore what I said about the ABC story.

And you are correct about the procedural nature of the reversal: my close wasn't perfect (as you point out with the sources), but I do think that the consensus swung towards delete for the reasons I've given—namely, that the keep !voters didn't adequately respond to the issue of how the sources satisfy the GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As to how to address the issues: simple. More sources. If people keep on Occupyin', there'll be more sources and the problem will be solved. That's really all I can suggest. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)