User talk:Tom Morris/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Deletion review for Occupy Marines

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Occupy Marines. 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. Kai445 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, I've changed my mind and will undelete the article imminently. I'll ask another admin to close the DRV. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you've taken a closer look. -Kai445 (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you made a correct decision there and you should have stood by it. The nominators comments that he felt there was a consensus to keep were no reason to close with the mass of additional editor input after that , I don't see as his comments had any weight at all. Your close is very messy indeed imo. Do you really see his comments overriding the mass of additional comments that followed it? Please link me to the policy or guideline that supports such a closure, thanks - Where does it say he is even allowed to withdraw it after multiple delete votes? Youreallycan (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominators always have the right to withdraw their nominations. Sadly, policy is unclear here: WP:WITHDRAWN only says that you can't use nominator withdrawing to justify a speedy keep if there have been substantive discussions following, and withdrawing cannot be used as a way to short-circuit discussion. Neither of those cases apply. The withdrawal of the nominator doesn't always undermine the consensus for deletion, but in this case, I'm afraid it does.

Pragmatically speaking, the answer is simple: let's leave it as it is, wait a few weeks and see if the sourcing issues get resolved. If not, someone can make the case for deletion again. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Very messy Tom - You closed it as delete and only overturned on a vague comment from the nominator, perhaps you could have asked him to clarify his intention. "Old AfD multi and MiszaBot config as this article seems to be here for the long haul now" - dude - you appear all over the place with this. - Never mind we'll see how the facbook pages notability goes forward and get back to it later. As you closed this AFD as nominator withdrawn I reserve right to nominate it again without reference to the last one as technically it is not a Keep close but a withdrawn and as such is void in regards to a time line objection. Youreallycan (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Marines

Hi Tom. I just wanted to clarify some things; it seems that you restored the article on the basis that I apparently withdrew my nomination. This is not the case; if you look at my comments both at the AfD and on my talkpage (when asked to withdraw by another editor) I made it clear in this edit that I would not be withdrawing the nomination. I decided to step away from the discussion after receiving feedback that I was becoming too involved and becoming too combative over the issue, but though I conceded (at the time of the comment) that consensus appeared to be leaning towards keep I did not withdraw the nomination. This was indeed my first AfD, but I know how to withdraw the nomination formally and would've non-admin closed it as a withdrawal if that was my intention.

If you feel that the article still should stand, then fair enough. But I feel you made the right decision to delete, based on policy. It was to be expected that some of the keep !voters would come straight at you, pitchforks in hand, but you made the right call according to policy. Please reconsider the restoration; don't keep this article on my account. I did not withdraw, and feel the original result should stand. If any editors want to contest it, they can take it to DRV. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Given this clarification Tom would you please consider reverting back to your Admin close and the user that objected to that close can open their DRV discussion again? A cleaner option might be to simply revert back to prior your closure and we'll ask at WP:AN for a completely new close? Youreallycan (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the latter option seems sensible: I've created a thread at WP:AN asking for an uninvolved admin to either let it stand as it is now or to reclose as appropriate. (I will now go and get myself utterly drunk to try and forget what a ghastly mess I've made of this.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom go get drunk if you like, but in celebration not in sadness. Your efforts here have been fine, we all make little missies occasionally. We are all volunteers and here to help and enjoy a little bit. Thanks for your willingness to look and look again at this. Best regards. - Youreallycan (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you've allowed yourself to be bamboozled. The controlling comment in this regard by user Basalisk should not be one at his personal Talk page, which few participants in the AfD debate bothered to follow, but this one on the project page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines (2nd nomination):

"I'd like to point out that the requirement that the subject be the main topic of the cited sourced comes from WP:WEB, rather than WP:GNG. However, 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. Regards (User:Basalisk on the 13 December 2011)

JohnValeron (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I like to think I haven't been "bamboozled". I took a comment to mean one thing. The author of the comment said it means something different. Rather than attempt to be a psychic, I'll step out of the way and let an uninvolved admin look over the whole mess and see what they can make of it instead. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section)

Please be advised I have added a comment that concerns you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Occupy_Marines_AfD. JohnValeron (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I apologize for removing the foregoing message. As I told you above, I've been copyediting Wikipedia since July 2010 but am new to AfD. I supposed it was my responsibility to clean up after myself by deleting messages that had obviously been responded to. But I see your point: I have no business scrubbing messages from your Talk page. Please forgive me. JohnValeron (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I just like to keep everything because I'm an archivist packrat.

—Tom Morris (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised I have added a new comment concerning you time/date-stamped 01:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Occupy_Marines_AfD. JohnValeron (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lift Ban?

Tom, For reasons that are obvious from the fundraising discussion, could you look into how one would go into lifting the indefinite ban on editing by Douglas Youvan? That assumes you agree the argument he was having with Hrafn was unfortunate and not representative of his advocacy for the WMF. He is still active on Commons as "Doug youvan". Thanks. It's more than OK to decline. LadyJosie (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what the nature of the dispute you refer to is. I may risk failure to assume good faith here, but would the village pump thread be a convenient excuse to get User:Doug youvan unblocked by any chance? —Tom Morris (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The individual in question operated a number of socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nukeh/Archive, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nukeh & Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nukeh (2nd)) and made numerous bizarre and incoherent claims (including that I am a cabal of Kansas public school teachers). I have no extreme sentiment against his reinstatement -- but don't really expect him to contribute anything to the project. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just sayin

Hi Tom, I saw some of that "occupy" stuff and just wanted to drop by and say "Don't beat yourself up over such trivial matters". Everything I've seen of your work here has impressed me as thoughtful, considered, and always done with the best interests of the pedia at the forefront. Months from now nobody is gonna care about that AfD (save for those few vested individuals who wish to lay wp:ownership claims on said article.) Keep doing what you're doing, be yourself, and enjoy what you do here.

By the way .. have a great holiday season. (and Merry Christmas too if you don't object to a touch of politically incorrect best wishes.)

Cheers :) — Ched : ? 10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The way I figure it is there is only one way to learn on Wikipedia and that is to do, which means there will be mistakes, blunders and right royal screw-ups. But the alternative is only to close safe discussions. Thanks for the holiday cheer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed as keep

Hi Tom User:Causa sui has closed it as Keep now. I just wanted to say. - Your gut feeling and comment assessment of delete was imo the correct close and moving forward don't let this stop you making similar well judged policy driven assessments of consensus - regards - Youreallycan (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Except when YRC wants a keep result.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I always err on the side of caution in such case and wouldn't ever on the Keep side in similar situations. Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The default is to keep unless there is consensus to delete, though. AfD is structured to be in favor of keeping articles at the margins.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur you were correct in closing as delete. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Thanks for your kind info. Would surely do that from future. Thanks! -- Karthik Nadar 14:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merchandise

The sell hard disk idea was a "let me profit" by arranging a loan idea. I pointed her to where she could get the data. The sales tone was just too much. There is so much low quality material here, the focus should be on that, not selling PCs. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 23 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
	Hitch-22		Nigel Warburton
	Modern Moral Philosophy		This Is Not Happening
	Ellen McLaughlin		University of Queensland Intercollege Council
	Dysteleology	Merge
	History of Islamic Philosophy		A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq
	Kenneth Allen Taylor		SAP AG
	Thomas Jefferson: Author of America		Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures
	Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man": A Biography	Add sources
	Robin Shepperd		Dustin Rhodes
	Treatment group		Giovanna Borradori
	Ned Block		Dignitas (assisted dying organisation)
	TC Beirne School of Law	Wikify
	Karl Ameriks		Environmental Waste Controls
	Futarchy		PAMELA Project
	Connie Mulder		Closer to Truth
	Richard Milward	Expand
	David Papineau		Economy of Chile
	Bob Hale (philosopher)		Jerrold Katz
	Ernest Sosa		Christopher Hitchens's political views

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christmas Eve

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christmas Eve. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Stallion article

Dispute Resolution started on the "Stallion" article. 83.77.224.215 (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving files

Would the File mover capability have helped me avid the clumsiness of the links as in Talk:Global file system and Talk:Global filesystem, etc.? If so could you grant that capability to my account please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how the ability to move files would help with the situation you describe. If you have to articles that discuss the same concept but have different names, you merge them and then redirect. The only benefit of having file mover is that it lets you move files. The guidelines on file movers states I can hand this out at my discretion "to trusted users who regularly work with media files and have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines surrounding renaming this type of media. There is no set requirement but users should be well-versed in Wikipedia's image and media policies". Demonstrate that you meet those requirements to me or to another administrator at WP:RFPERM and I'll happily grant file mover. The fact that you think that file mover will help you with article namespace redirect issues hardly fills me with confidence.

Until then, if you need to move files, use the {{Media rename}} template. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I guess I am not smart enough yet for that.... I thought that allowed for file deletion as well... History2007 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and ever thanks

I am flattered that my casual copy-edit tweak should have elicited so warm a welcome. The Guild of Copy-Editors sounds like a very good institution and I look forward to joining it as soon as I complete the mechanics of retiring from doing this sort of thing for a living. I could not agree more with the thesis that if a thing is worth saying, it is worth saying as intelligibly as possible, with its corollary that the bracken of typographic errors, misplaced modifiers, and other shortcomings of the less-than-immaculate prose we all write from time to time is perennially ripe for the keen sickle of a sharp (or just plain fresh) pair of eyes. (As to purple-prose extended metaphors, that's another matter. It's a fair cop, m'lud.) I look forward to becoming a part of this ongoing process soon, in a more systematic way.

NHumez (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fluffymoose_disruptive_editing. Thank you. Calabe 1992 19:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File mover

I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisted

Hi Tom. I'm just curious to know why you relisted this. AFAICS, there is a clear consensus, and the comments are mainly from experienced editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

An absent-minded mistake. I opened it in a new tab to close it as keep, then someone distracted me and I clicked relist rather than close. I'll close it as keep in a moment. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Things happen. I made a similar mistake myself last week for a similar reason :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I apologize: I know that this is not a question or request. I just had to thank you for your kind congratulations; would you believe that I specifically wanted to create the first article of the new year? Oh, and I am so happy it worked. Thank you again, and happy New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twozenhauer (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Good stuff! —Tom Morris (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Menashe Lustig

Want the back pag menashe lustig

I want to know why you deleted this the page

What can be done, the page will appear back

And if I want to see what was written on the page, where could I see פרחי (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the article because there was a clear consensus at the deletion discussion. If you can show some reliable sources that establish notability, the article can be recreated. If you want to, I can also userfy the page, so you can work on it and then resubmit it when it is ready. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I want to work on it, userfy it, if possible, tell me, what is called a reliable source, for example.

Thanks for the answer, and I will work on it, to grant databases, about today's young comedians פרחי (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, my sources are times in Yiddish times in Hebrew, then, it would be a good source? פרחי (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

שם העט שלו, 'קאפ-שטיק', באתר
His pen name, Cap shtick, at blog 'IVELT' [[1]]

His pen name, "Danzigar, on a blog site, 'IVELT' [[2]]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by פרחי (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 January 2012‎

Both of those links are to forum/blog sites, which aren't reliable sources. Reliable sources are things like newspapers or books. If you would use it in a coursework project at university, that's roughly what a reliable source is. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AND THET? [[3]] פרחי (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks more likely to be a reliable source, although it is worth remembering that you should probably try and get coverage from outside the Hasidic community to establish notability. See WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Basically, to convince the community that the person is notable, you need sources that are reliable and meet those criteria. The aforementioned links and WP:RS should tell you what's needed. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

is this good? [[4]]פרחי (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2011

This Month in GLAM – Volume I, Issue XII, December 2011 USA report • UK report • Italy report • France report • Spain report • Netherlands report Australasia report • Russia report • Israel report • Africa report • Event calendar Read this edition in full • Single-page
Headlines
USA report: Cultural Partnerships co-ordinator for the US, fine art editathon and QRpedia case study UK report: GLAM Ambassador visits Germany; Wikinews given tour of Scottish National Portrait Gallery re-opening Italy report: Creative Commons conference France report: GLAMcamp in Amsterdam, Wiki Loves Monuments in the National Museum of Middle Ages Spain report: GLAM-Wiki conference in Girona; Catalonian painting donation Netherlands report: GLAMcamp Amsterdam Australasia report: Australian Paralympic Committee and other Australian and New Zealand GLAM efforts Russia report: Wiki Loves Monuments in Russia Israel report: Wrapping up 2011 Africa report: WikiAfrica: Cultural institutions contributing to African knowledge on Wikipedia
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustfall (band)

Hi. An IP has rolled back a couple of versions of an AfD you closed, [5]. I would fix and warn the IP myself, but I don't have rollback rights and don't want to screw it further by trying to correct manually. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've rolled it back and warned the user. Thanks! —Tom Morris (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Secular humanism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Secular humanism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion sorting split

Hello. You have a new message at WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA Policy

Tom, I apologize if you have better things to do then deal with a question like this, but as someone who I trust and is familiar with the RfA Process, I feel like you might be the best person to help me out. On the active RfA, I had posted a Neutral comment, essentially pending approval until the candidate had cleared up his WP:Clean start issues. He has done so, to my liking at least, and I would now like to move my !vote to Support. I'm just iffy on how to handle my comments in the Neutral section. It seems as though moving or deleting those comments would only muddy the picture of how the RfA went for the closing Crat, so should I <st> the statement, add a note under my Neutral !vote, simply note my change of heart in the Support !votes, or is there some other format I should use? Thanks, Achowat (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just indent the comment with a colon, then put a comment after it saying "moving to support" or something like that. I wouldn't strike it out. There's plenty of examples of how to do it in other RfAs. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. Achowat (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of early Christian thought on abortion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of early Christian thought on abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)