User talk:Tom/Archive5

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

Verifiability and the reliability of the source. Danny 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We should wait for the name to be released before deciding how important it is. Danny 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on.

Hey, Tom/Archive5, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sethmacfarlane.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. --Hetar 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look and commenting on the cultural identity section. Their are two users who are tying to push, in a roundabout way, a really pov view, basically a rant off the talk page, in the section. I don't want to have to do anything drastic but i am getting the idea that my had is going to be forced in the matter. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the Maryland page. There are newbies that just plain will not adhere to NPOV for citing policies. Note their reverts! WillC 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over, seems if we see eye to eye on the pricples of the section. I dont know if sourcing would help any, while it would go to back up their the points they are trying to make, i dont see it being useful in the context as a whole, as it wonl't prove their argument. As for rewording or heavely trimmed, yeah i agree, but basiclay, as i see it, the section would have to be striped down an rebulit, beasiclay removing, the current txt, which as you states was "heavily biased and full of assumption". Also being that it is full of assumptions, regardless of cites or not, would it not also be considered

WP:OR? At the time of this note i havn't had a chance to see any comments in regards on the article talk page --Boothy443 | trácht ar

03:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that I say is in third person so IE its not POV too.

eom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.238.7.182 (talk • contribs) 18:23, May 12, 2006

the reason they feature LAPD SWAT is because they invented the concept, as well as the acronym "S.W.A.T." which is now used by other law enforcement agencies all over the world. they initially came up with Special Weapons Attack Team but later changed it to Special Weapons And Tactics, to make it sound less aggressive.. silly idea if you ask me. having said that, Chicago SWAT or Houston SWAT are mere imitations of LAPD SWAT. in fact, many police agencies, including Chicago PD simply adopt whatever equipments or tactical procedures that LAPD test/implement..

I saw that you moved Burns (disambiguation) to Burns a few days ago, and stopped Burns from redirecting to Robert Burns. I think this was a good move, but it has been switched back by User:Mais oui!, with no explanation (the same user seems to do this frequently on the Burns disambiguation page also). I was going to switch it back the way you had it, but I don't seem to be able to move Burns (disambiguation) to Burns, since Burns already exists. Anyway, it perhaps should be discussed, since there's obviously opposition - I'm attempting to start a discussion on the Robert Burns page. Dsreyn 15:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First, forgive my crankiness in the edits for Jim Risch. It's been a day.

But having said that, don't you think the succ boxes are a bit redundant given the templates in these articles, especially for Dirk Kempthorne? --Faustus37 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not change the picture on Chris Dodd's page. 75.3.15.49 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw you left a message on User:Faustus37 stating that succession boxes are a standard convention on Wikipedia. I had just rescently got into a disscussion with User:Nunh-huh, who claimed that they were redundant an unnessisary. Is there a policy on this?--Rayc 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You (and several others) saved me many keystrokes by reverting the most recent round of trivial/POV H1-B spam. All I had left to do was leave a message on a talk page: see 71.123.40.76. Much thanks -- Paleorthid 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom/Archive5, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I really appreciate the fact that you felt you could support even with a smaller number of edits than you might like to see. Thanks again!

-- Natalya 05:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. --digital_me^(t/c) 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom/Archive5, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering why you deleted what I added to Mr. Duncan's page on this site today. All I did was add to the information you have about his education, addressed some of the allegations you detail, and added some information about his many accomplishments while Executive of Montgomery County.

Basically, prior to editing it today, Duncan's page was a joke. It did not mention any of his many accomplishments in Montgomery, nor did it mention anything about what he wants to do as governor.

All it essentially talked about was the few allegations that have been made against Duncan in the past few months. How is that fair at all?

This is supposed to be an unbias research tool. While I support Duncan, what I added to the page was fact, and I made sure not to try to sweeten the facts, and to present them as a student of politics would.

Now I'm not sure why you channged what you changed. If I did something wrong format-wise, that's fine, and I will correct my error. But other than that, there is no reason why the page should have been changed. I would never accuse you of being bias, but I can't think of any other reason why it would have been changed (other than a format issue).

On the other side of gubernatorial race, Martin O'Malley's page is far more detailed and gives far more information than does Duncan's page. With the growing popularity of Wikipedia as a resource tool, I think it is important that voters in Maryland be presented with detailed and thorough information about BOTH candidates.

For some reason the site will not allow me to verify my email, but please send a response to this message to [email protected].

I am trying to be as diplomatic as possible in this circumstance, but the matter is very upsetting to me, and I will continue to seek answers.

Thank you for supporting my Request for Adminship! I appreciate it and will do my best to maintain the faith you have shown in me! – Ben W Bell talk 07:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's weird. I remember putting a copyright on there. How do I upload a copyright on there now?

Please place an NPOV tag on the protected page immediately and revert it to the version that was there before you protected. Not doing this is obscene. Añoranza 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping a note that I like the new picture, really gives the Presidential Aura to the article ;) Happy editing! Teke 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that I would be able to get permission to use some of the material from Duncan's website.

In regard to your claim that the material was bias, I don't believe that to be true. In fact, a lot of what I was doing was responding with facts to allegations that you described (and that have not been substantiated). How can you describe your article about Duncan as being fair and unbias when you discuss only the FEW allegations that have been made against him in the past weeks, and mention NONE of the many positive things he has done as both County Executive and Mayor of Rockville?

While some information I posted was taken from Doug's website, a lot of it was not, and therefore there is no reason it should have been taken off. I am sorry that you don't support Doug Duncan, but please don't let your political views get in the way of your job.

Who else can I talk to about this? Is there a Wikipedia council of sorts? —The preceding

My RFA

Tomf688, thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for adminship, it passed with a final tally of (65/3/3) - which I find both amazing and humbling. I wish I had time to thank everyone personally, but I'm afraid all I can offer is this token of my gratitude. I hope to live up to your expectations/hopes. If at any stage you need to contact me, for help or a request or to point out a mistake in my conduct, please make sure to tell me on my talk page. --Fir0002 08:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You have an impersonator

I thought you might be amused to know that User:Tomf 688 has recently been vandalising hurricane-related articles. —Cuiviénen 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you noted that you restored a large body of text removed by me, upon which I noticed that it was removed in the first place. For some reason in firefox for me lately, when I have edited things it has removed a lot of the lower content for some reason. It also happened in the Olympia Snowe article a few times, though I caught it then. So I would just like to apologize about it, and Ill be more careful in the future to catch myself if I find it happening again. Rangeley 18:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you uploaded a larger resolution of the png I had at the HWINM article...if you notice on the commons page by clicking on my link that I had painted over the information that it was a reserve, which it no longer is...can you fix this please by reuploading a high resolution map without that reserve commentary? Thanks.--MONGO 02:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...that seems fine--MONGO 07:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Tom. I am sorry for accusing you of being bias. I am just very passionate about Doug, and it was hard for me to stand seeing his profile so bare and filled with only the accusations that have been made against him. He has done so much for my town and my county, and I just want people to know the whole truth about him if they look him up on this site (which I would expect many do).

Despite that, I still maintain that a lot of what I added was not cut from his website. In the future, if I make an edit, I will not use any material from his website (and I hope that you will give it a fair shake when reviewing it despite our discussions).

National Climatic Data Center rainfall reports were used to create the images, which I post to the website at work. So technically, there is a source and it is the government. The fact that I'm the one that created them is incidental. =) Thegreatdr 05:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting! Hello Tom/Archive5, and thank you so much for voting in my recent WP:100 , so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

There are 28 talk archive pages for the 2005 season which is too much trouble to search through. All I can say is that I believe this has been discussed before and the general agreement was to leave the image out, because there was not an image on the 2005 page until we got the track map. If you really want an image there, you can make your argument and draw people to your side on the 2006 talk page... if you want to. --

talk - email

) 17:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I really don't want to make a big deal. Personally, I thought an image would look nice there because it is so blank. Almost all ofther infoboxes like this contain an image, even if it will be replaced later with a permanent one. I'm not going to fight to make it this way, though, becuase frankly it's foolish.

(t)

  19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)