User talk:Tomlillis

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 23:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Tacky clothes

You asked "The Tacky Clothes Incident?" How long has that been sitting there unnoticed?. Per the history page, five minutes. Thanks for fixing it. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian X of Denmark

Hi. I see that you're updating the article on King Christian X. If you understand Danish, I can recommend Tage Kaarsted (1968): "Påskekrisen 1920", Århus: Universitetsforlaget . It has a good coverage of the dismissal of the Zahle cabinet. --Valentinian 16:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. It should always be encouraged when a foreigner wishes to learn more about one's own country. Påskekrisen 1920 is the most comprehensive work on the "Easter Crisis of 1920" (in any language) and Danish historians consider it to be the "definitive work". You might find it interesting that we also had a smaller "Easter Crisis of 1948". Following the Soviet coup-d'état in Czechoslovakia in February 1948, the Danish government was extremely anxious and convinced that Denmark was next on the Soviet menu. You can imagine what happened when the government suddenly received rumours that a Soviet invasion of Denmark was imminent. According to one of my old professors, the government got as far as giving a cabinet minister full powers to set up a government in exile, soldiers' leave was cancelled and trenches were dug near the garrisons on Zealand (or was it Lolland?, probably Zealand). A small story to illustrate; Prime Minister Hans Hedtoft spent the Easter on Gjorslev Manor in the country. One morning, he woke up Colonel Lunding, a Danish intelligence officer, also residing at the manor. The PM had seen lights and heard noices and was convinced that Soviet paratroopers had landed to capture him. In fact, neighbouring farmers had just started work pretty early.

Well, this second "Easter Crisis" is almost known exclusively by Danish historians. The event played a key role in making Danish politicians abandon Denmark's traditional policy of neutrality and Denmark became one of the founding members of NATO in 1949.

Påskekrisen 1920 is the doctoral dissertation of Professor Kaarsted, a very well-respected historian, who unfortunately died in 1994. If you get stuck, feel free to send me a message, I own a copy, and might be able to help. Btw, since you're writing about King Christian X, you might want to include a reference to Kongemærket (literally, the King's Mark). This was an small silver ornament showing the Danish flag and the insignia of the King. It was introduced in 1940 when the King celebrated his 70th birthday and was worn by a great number of patriotic Danes throughout the German occupation. You can see a (probably copyrighted) image on [[2]], right coloumn, first image. This picture shows the "proper" Kongemærke from the silversmiths of Georg Jensen. Georg Jensen also made it in gold but that version is pretty rare. Another company also made a cheaper version in brass, just an oval with the CX insignia. Since the German authorities accepted the King remaining on the throne, they could hardly deny his subjects the right to wear the royal insignia. Regards. --Valentinian 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hey, not coming to your talk page to tweak you, I promise, but I just wanted to make sure you knew about the "move" button on the top. In a new article like OSM, the page history isn't THAT important, but when you use the move button to put articles in their right name, it preserves the prior history of that article. Just tohught I'd fill you in if you weren't aware, hopefully we'll be able to keep the PM article looking sharp --badlydrawnjeff 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:My user page was vandalized

Hey Tom! I can't believe you noticed it! I appreciate your notice. Cheers -- Svest 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Interesting bio

Interesting bio. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomillis changed the NPR logo to PBS

It was him who did this to the article.

Becoming bilingual

I agree, all of the stuff that author is posting does appear to be original research. Perhaps it should all be nominated for deletion? Some guy 05:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overland nonsense.

Good Sir:

As a High School history teacher I am greatly offended by your dismissal of Dr. Overland as a mere "hoax". It seems as if people like yourself have been leading a coordinated attack against the good doctor. Please cite your reasons to disbelieve this fact so as I may counter them.

Communication goes on the talk page, thank you.

re: Uniformity of your edit summaries

Administrators have a "rollback" button that appears when viewing page differences. Using this rollback feature automatically leaves the edit summary you see. Users without administrator privileges can add rollback functionality by modifying their monobook.js pages. Please see this link for the script. Your monobook.js is located at User:Tomlillis/monobook.js. —Wayward ^Talk 09:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page you labelled with a CSD

I deleted Wc3forum.tk. User:Iopq recreated it. You tagged it. I deleted it. It has been recreated again. I would appreciate it if you might drop by that user's talk page to explain why such an article is unacceptable. Thanks. Jkelly 02:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you had your page vandalized in return. Sorry about that. Thanks again. Jkelly 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: American terrorism, thanks

Thanks for your generous comment on my talk page. I look forward to working with you on the article. It's always easier to edit with someone who reads between the lines, understanding what I was unable to articulate myself. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musicology

Hey, thanks! I appreciate it! Wikipedia is simply the most fun I've had yet on the internet ... I find it dangerously addictive. Happy editing, and hello from a fellow (mostly) Irishman. Enjoyed your userpage by the way. :-) Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance needed

I am afraid I need to ask you for another favour. Judging from User talk:Iopq seems to think that ysterday's events were funny. I am therefore considering opening a user conduct WP:RFC. I cannot, however, do it without the certification of someone else who tried to "resolve the dispute". Since everyone else involved simply blocked the IP sockpuppets on sight, you are the only other user who tried to "resolve" the issue through talk. I'm sorry to have to ask you to go out of your way again, but, if I were to go through the process of gathering the evidence and writing the RfC, would you be willing to certify your attempt to resolve the problem? Thanks for considering it. Jkelly 01:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iopq, you need to certify the dispute. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#General_user_conduct you need to move it to "Approved pages - have met the two person threshold". Please feel free to edit the description summary, and add evidence or other applicable policies. Also, thank you. Jkelly 03:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assumed from your rollback-like edit summaries (and your cool-headed protectiveness of Wikipedia) that you were an administrator. Perhaps I should have consulted WP:LA. Jkelly 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered eventually becoming an admin? Jkelly 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I hope that you do not, in fact, wait for another whole year. Jkelly 21:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Creation of Aragon High School, Lists

I intended the page to give information to perspective students and their parents, as well as for the current students within the school who seek the relative success of each teacher / class. As such, I believe that the recent history, as measured by the list of scores, may be helpful for such parties. Just as a list of ACE of tropical cyclones would be appropriate for pages on Hurricane season, scores (the easiest measures, like catagories or ACE of hurricanes) would be for schools. To distant 3rd observer, any lists of numbers would not be inherently "informative," but to parties seeking for such information, such lists are valueable. The list also needs to be recent, as students and staff of most institutions are relevant to such institutions for limited period, and because Wikipedia, unlike other encyclopedias, has the benefit of constant updates to keep any information, including lists, relevant to the time of access, the nature of the list are suited to Wikipedia, in which subsequent concerned student may update from time to time and maintain the page's informative nature. In addition, I had various commentaries that perhaps you had missed with your reverse edit. Would you comment on the notes that I had written? My hope was that they complement and expand upon the information the list may imply.SiriusAlphaCMa 08:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rv vandalism on CP

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on CP (the blanking). I noticed that a number of people have appeared from out of nowhere with no other edit history and started editing that page, so I presume that they are users of the talker, and hence would make good contributors to the article. I would therefore like to see it given a week to see how it goes with its editing, to see if they can sort things out. One user added a lot of useful information, and I think that if they work legitimately towards the project then they should be able to use their combined knowledge to get somewhere. However, I disagree that ignoring individual incidents that were referenced explicitly as cause for people abandoning talkers is a good way to go. These things are historically significant. If they are ignored, then the page may as well not be there. It's not like its a popular talker or anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that a lot of people commented that it should all be merged, and I can see the merit to that. On creating the CP article by itself, I questioned to myself whether it was individually sufficiently notable. Its not the first of anything or the most popular of anything. Indeed, its only claim to fame is the controversy part. I could have written that whole thing in the PoE part, and not written CP at all. And indeed, I could have merged sleepy's, fantasia and lintilla all in to lintilla. If someone wants to suggest a merge in that manner, I won't object. Fantasia and CP are not notable in their own right, and, if it weren't for alexa telling me that sleepy's was the 3rd most popular talker in the world right now, sleepy's isn't notable in its own right either. lintilla is though.

They are good candidates for merge, and if you want to suggest that, then we can do that. And since the bits are duplicated anyway, its really already merged. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that had my PoE article not had an AFD notice slapped on it 30 seconds after creation, I probably wouldn't have created the CP article separately, and it was created in a large way to verify notability for the PoE article. Similarly with sleepy's and fantasia's used to verify notability for lintilla. Sleepy's and fantasia's are direct spin offs from lintilla, so a merge is sensible. Whilst esoterically CP has nothing to do with PoE, since the controversy links directly, then it is.

I could very easily combine the 5 articles there in to 2. That might make things easier. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is it bad form for me to nominate for deletion articles that I was the primary contributor to? I don't see a point in having CP as an article now. All of the relevant notable parts are included elsewhere. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to laugh at the latest development. Apparently one of the anon IP addresses that was vandalising the page has now filed a Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection asking that I not be permitted from editing the page! I found this to be most amusing, since my editing was related to removing vandalism and trying to reach a diplomatic compromise. They have launched several personal attacks on me not only in the article's talk page, but also in the request for page protection itself! Oh, I also tried what you suggested, with merging the pages. The redirect was reverted, and they are now trying to claim that it is sufficiently notable in its own right, and have made a lot of incorrect assertions about its notoriety (such as it being "unique" in combining MUDs and talkers - sorry, then what's a MUSH?) I would just put an AFD flag on it straight away, but I thought I'd let them fight it out first. I would be interested to see if they can provide a single piece of evidence to support their point of view. To date, they have not included a single one, and have admitted that it is all just their personal opinion and belief as to what happened. Their evidence, it seems, is that the person who runs the place told them so (yet didn't even write it on a web page anywhere). I wonder if that really counts as evidence. I would be very surprised if it did. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I would let you know that these people, as part of their protest, put in an AFD on PoE, and have made sure to have a number of new people create new accounts so as to make sure that it gets voted delete. They actually did this before you put the Crystal Palace page up for deletion, and I had thought to wait until that one was over first. From what I can gather, since it was nominated for deletion just 2 weeks ago, and was voted 7/3 to keep, and since they put it up for nomination so as to prove a point, I imagine that it fulfils the criteria for a speedy keep.

It seems that these editors are not interested in editing anything else besides things related to CP, and have gone to lengths to change articles so as to "clear their name". I have tried to be diplomatic with things, but they are basically changing history. This has included the Talker article and I imagine will later include Nuts (Talker) as well as zoophilia, all of which reference it (I didn't put it in to the zoophilia page, FH2 did, because he thought that it was relevant to zoophiles as it destroyed their community, something which was well documented within the zoophile community - and caused all of the zoo talkers to shut down because of it). I imagine that they might also attack the lintilla (talker) page which also indirectly references it.

It reminds me a bit of that guy who was going around trying to change history to make it look like Adolf Hitler was a good guy, by wiping out huge chunks from lots of articles that talked about him being a bad guy. I am happy to reword it so that it looks very neutral, but I don't think that it should be allowed to be removed. That's my opinion at least. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I am happy to merge all of the talkers. In a lot of ways its already been done. What I am not happy to do is to delete history. We can present 2 sides to the story if they like, but we can't just delete history. How to merge them all? All in to talker? Or perhaps have them split by code base, half in ew-too and half in nuts? Or maybe just split them by relevance. I can put in all of the ew-too talkers under Foothills (talker) since historically that is the main one (even though its not the most popular one, it is the most influential one), and wipe 4 of the NUTS ones - CP, Crossroads, Ncohafmuta and Lighthouse, and then merge PoE in to lintilla, since it was based on that. Then we'd be left with 2 talkers. As a comparison, so you know, there are 46 articles about individual MUDs on wikipedia, 2 articles on individual MUSHes (which are virtually the same as talkers), 1 article on an individual MOO and 2 articles on individual MUCKs (although MUCK doesn't have its own article for some bizarre reason - its a redirect to MUD). Now, from my understanding, talkers were much more popular than MOOs or MUCKs, and were a little bit more popular than MUSHes, but nowhere near as popular as MUDs. However, the top 2 talkers (resort and surfers) would have both been listed in the top 5 MUDs of all time, if they were MUDs. Number 3, foothills, would struggle to make the top 20 MUDs, and none of the others beyond that would have been as popular as any of the 46 MUD articles. So perhaps 2 articles is fair. Or do you think that it should all be merged in to the code bases?

Also, as to the controversies. There's 5 major ones. Other than the first, which is the university one (that the university where foothills and resort were hosted banned them, and then universities all over the world followed suit), none of the others have any kind of independent source. But yet those 5 major controversies (only 2 of which involve CP, and only 1 directly) were unbelievably important to the history of talkers, and indeed you could describe the entire history of talkers purely by talking about those 5 controversies, and not even mention anything else. So do I list them? Or just the university one and then just make general statements about the rest? I thought that NPOV said it was okay to mention them so long as we put forward both sides of the argument. I thought that I'd done that. Yet their version of NPOV seemed to be to wipe out the whole lot of them and then make something up. So what is the answer? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to CP nomination

I'm not going to delete this, but I suggest you take the writer's comments with a grain or two of salt. Tom Lillis 10:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My word, you are exceptionally familiar with WP policy for someone who joined yesterday. Good research. Unfortunately, I think you may misunderstand certain policies.

Probably because I didn't join yesterday as even a cursory look at my contributions would have shown. I've been an active contributor for well over a year. However, I've only been registered under this name for about 6 months and often don't bother to log in for simple edits. Pardon me for being bold here, but you've shown a lot of distain toward everyone involved in this process, especially everyone you consider to be a newcomer (even if they aren't). You've even copped a superior attitude with me with your very message, which I strongly object to. I, on the other hand, have been doing my best to keep everyone in their respective corners and give everyone, including newcomers, an equal voice.

As for misunderstanding policies, I disagree. We might have different interpretations, but that's what the AFD discussion is all about. The AFD procedure specifically says that we should use the policy in our arguments and I've done precisely that. You are free to come up with an opposing opinion and post it in your own argument. In fact, I encourage you to do so.

Perhaps I should have been clearer: I find the reams of material on talkers to be overkill, and this is where I'm choosing to start. Here's why:

1.) The size of each individual community suggests to me that, while talkers as a phenomenon are certainly worthy of documentation, different articles detailing these communities is probably not valuable.

I am not necessarily in disagreement with this. However, you picked out only one of over a dozen articles of that type for your AFD. Unless you are willing to open up AFDs on every single one of them, I have to vote to keep ALL of them in the spirit of fairness. Otherwise, it appears you are making a focused attack on a single article simply because people are interested in that particular one. So, the question is this: Is the real reason because of the article itself, or because of the actions of some of the newcomers? Your conversation with Zordrac make it appear to be more the latter than the former. However, if suddenly an AFD is opened on every single one of them, you might find that I'll change my vote.

2.) The discussion of the internal politics of the talker doesn't meet the standards for notability in my opinion. If we aren't accepting biographies of local political candidates in jurisdictions many times larger than the entirety of the talker universe, then I can't justify the inclusion of details of the talkers' politics.

I agree. However, all references to internal politics have been removed from the Crystal Palace entry, even before you opened the AFD on it. Therefore, this argument is completely moot and bogus.

3.) The discussion of the internal politics and many of the nitty-gritty details of a given talker's history relies on inherently unverifiable facts. There are no real records of substance; I suspect that has a great deal to do with the fact that it is not a topic of substance.

4.) You cited a number of items listed under problems that may not require deletion. However, demonstrating multiple problems from that category are legitimate matters to consider when debating deletion.

Then I would propose this would make a good candidate for stubbing or request for cleanup. If we killed every article that needed cleanup only days after its inception, Wikipedia would be very very small.

5.) The list of problems that are potential causes for deletion is not definitive or complete.

Until an alternative comes along, I'll stick with the current policy. Otherwise, the process becomes completely ad hoc.

6.) The policies are wonderful, but the golden rule for inclusion is this: "Would this same type of material normally be found in a print encyclopedia?" The answer is no, not unless we were discussing the most esoteric single-subject encyclopedia in existence--"The Encyclopedia of Internet Chat Mechanisms," or something.

Then Wikipedia is chock-full of stuff that needs to be deleted, including detailed descriptions of every Star Trek episode to the meaning of Midi-Chorlorians from Star Wars. Wikipedia has always served niche markets. You know as well as I do that Wikipedia is big enough for everyone, including us.

I hope this clears up what I meant. An addendum to this effect will be made to the AfD discussion relatively soon.

Until that addendum is put in, I'm sticking with the current policy. I have no desire to discuss this with you further. I've made my vote and I'm sticking to it for now. I have no wish for you to continue to berate me on my talk page because you disagree with my vote or my reasons for it. Please do not contact me regrading this again, Tom. -- Shinmawa

Shinmawa

I too found this to be odd. I woke up the other day to see all of these masses of vandalism on CP page and these were reverted by yourself and Shinmawa. You have a huge userpage, while his was totally empty. I checked your respective edit histories, and yours was extensive while his had like 4 entries. It just seemed to be very odd.

It just seemed to me as if he was someone with a vested interest either with me or else with the article in question. Whilst they did revert edits, I had more than a few questions about whether they were personally biased about it. They basically took a rather irrational view supporting the anon IP edits as well, and seemed to have a knowledge of my conversations on other talk pages around here, as if they knew me.

I wrote them a message, and not only didn't they respond, but they also wiped it off their talk page. I guess that you are allowed to do that, but it just seemed a bit odd to do that. I noticed that they did the same thing with yours as well.

My first thought had been that it was an admin who I'd had a disagreement with who was trying to use a new account to avoid detection, but I am not so sure. I thought perhaps that it was a friend of the folks who were using CP, but just that this person already had a Wikipedia account. After all, they didn't write a lot of messages to each other, yet seemed to have a lot of coordination.

I don't want to be seen to be falsely accusing people, because I am really guessing as to what is going on. It could be any one of a number of things. But it seems that Shinmawa is trying very hard to protect their identity, so that we don't know who they are, or who they were, or why they have suddenly taken a huge interest in the topic. Nor why they have a very odd view of what NPOV means.

At this stage I am feeling pretty disillusioned about the whole thing, because of the weight of time I spent on those articles all being removed in just a few minutes basically, and especially because of the factual inaccuracies. Whilst I would have thought that judgements by admins in the matter would be pretty obvious, I guess that its not necessarily so. So I guess that I will go back to the whole merge idea.

As for the disputes about the reliability of sources etc, I thought that perhaps one way of doing it is to not mention specifics. They all agree that these things happened, and that they had a major impact, the dispute is as to the specifics of what happened. So I thought perhaps I would generalise them a bit. I had a go at that on talker and I hope that that is a good compromise. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them all

I saw your note to merge lintilla (talker) in to talker. As I said before, I think that this would be difficult in still maintaining continuity (you should check out what happened to MOO if you want to see why), but I could try. I have also put up Crossroads (chat site), Ncohafmuta and Lighthouse (chat site) for deletion, all articles that I created as part of compiling the history. I am just not convinced that either of those 3 is suitably notable. I plan to merge the rest all together, in to 2 articles, or possibly 1. I think that it has to be done in stages though. I guess it is a matter of perspective too, as there is no question that all of the articles I created are notable, but they might not be sufficiently notable for an article in their own right. Except for the 4 that I think I always knew weren't really notable. So I am asking for them to be deleted. Its damn hard to figure out how to do the deletions though. I stuffed it up again. LOL. The rest other than those 4 can be happily merged. I am not convinced that CP should be merged though, IMO it should be outright deleted. I can still refer to it with a link to their web site though, which is what I planned to do in the brief mentions it warrants. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Going to attempt to be polite about this:

Thank you. I appreciate this. I'm rather tired of being attacked, insinuated that I'm pretending to be an admin (I've never even implied it), that I'm orchestrating things, etc.

1.) I'm curious as to what IP address you made your unattributed edits with.

Well, no one particular one. Depends on where in the world I am at the time. I travel a lot. However, some of the artciles I've taken an interest in are Sadako Sasaki (I'm very proud of this one), hedcut, Virgin Mary in Islam, and the Hiroshima Peace Park. There are others of course, but these are some of my personal favorites.

2.) Making sweeping statements about what is and is not policy tends to draw my ire, especially when those statements are misleading or inaccurate. Your initial contribution to the AfD discussion was, while very dramatic, not entirely accurate. That deserved addressing and I addressed it.

My intention was not to draw your ire. I apologize if I have. However, you made just as many sweeping statements as I did. For example, you brought up WP:POINT. However, my 'dramatic' vote on AfD pretty much did all the applicable 'dos' in that article. Bottom line, I think we have a different philosophy is all. There's nothing wrong with that. I'll respect your philosophy if you respect mine.

I'm glad you did respond to my point of view with your own. I encouraged you to do so. Open debate is a positive thing, as long as it is kept where it belongs. I liked that you responded to my point of view on the AfD page, but disliked that you challenged me on my talk page with the implication that I was a know-nothing newbie. That draws MY ire.

3.) I deny being condescending to newcomers. I also missed your handful of earlier edits. I think you misunderstood the intent of the apparently very offensive statement: the "newcomers" seem remarkably adept at citing (or mis-citing) Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Either this article attracted a lot of very quick learners, or someone is feeding them material.

Well, no one is doing any "feeding" as far as I know. I've certainly not seen anything of the sort. There's been only a single announcement made to the community about the article followed by a plea from me to NOT vandalize the pages (which was eventually heeded). I don't think these people have a higher-than-usual learning ability either. I think that these people are familiar with the system. Since I don't know who they are, I can't say for sure.

4.) If you know who is sending people to the AfD debate from Crystal Palace in order to vote no, I would like to speak with that person. I have no connection with the community and I assume, by the way you've referred to CP as "us," that you do. If I am to believe that all of these relatively wellspoken new folks arrived at the debate on their own... well, I don't. (You may want to inform whoever is arranging the campaign that votes from brand new users are frequently discounted.)

If you want to find out if there is a campaign, you might want to start with asking if there is one rather than just making an accusation. Such things lead to people to believe that you are assuming bad faith, which I'm sure you are trying to avoid.

However, there is no campaign that I'm aware of. There's been no announcements to the community about the AfD at all. In fact, the community has been silent about the whole matter for days. If there WAS a campaign, it would have been formed by Virus himself who would have encouraged people to vote to DELETE it, not the other way around. Virus has made his opinion quite clear on that in his original announcement and I think that was what spawned the initial rash of "blanking" vandalism (which you and I both reverted). I'm afraid those are legitimate votes, Tom. Again, I don't know who any one involved in this is, other than myself, so I can't say for sure. If there is orchestration of any kind, it hasn't appeared on any message boards or any other community-wide communication channels that I've seen.

Last time I checked (last night), the votes were pretty much tied between delete, keep, and merge. I would hardly call that much of a campaign at any rate.

5.) "Until that addendum is put in, I'm sticking with the current policy. I have no desire to discuss this with you further. I've made my vote and I'm sticking to it for now. I have no wish for you to continue to berate me on my talk page because you disagree with my vote or my reasons for it. Please do not contact me regrading this again, Tom. -- Shinmawa " Debate and discussion are how we work here. Unilaterally declaring that you're done with me is somewhat meaningless and entirely unhelpful.

I won't be dragged into a deterioring debate that has no constructive outcome. I have the right not to be contacted if I don't wish to be. If you wish to debate, feel free to debate it on the discussion forums, not my talk page. I shouldn't have to defend my vote to anyone.

6.) AfD is half policy, half ad hoc; it'll probably be that way forever, as something new not covered by policy shows up with astonishing regularity.

I agree, but its what we've got.

BTW, I've noted your merge tags on the other entries. I said before if this was done, I would change my vote. I'm a man of my word and agree that merging is the best option. My vote is changing from "keep or merge" to just plain "merge". Just FYI. -- Shinmawa 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said: I hate to do this, but I'd ask you to consider working with Zordrac on the merge process. You seem to know what you're talking about and he has done his homework; you were also on opposite sides of the delete debate. It seems to me that, if you're both willing, you'd probably produce the fairest and most balanced result of a merge process by working together.

I have no problem with this. Sounds like a good idea if Zordrac is willing. -- Shinmawa 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The merge has already been done. All that it needs is for CP to be deleted and PoE to have a REDIRECT put on it. And if people REALLY insist on having CP in the talker article, in spite of having no historical significance, then I suppose it can stay. But then there's a whole host of others that could go in as well, and we would keep going forever. Want to add Snowplains as well? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

talker

I have taken the steps to merge all of the talkers in to talker, a task which has now been completed, bar the AFDs for PoE and CP. All that needs to be done now is to put a REDIRECT talker on those two articles. By the way, I believe that I am permitted to do the merge myself on the other articles without consultation since I was the only contributor. I have speedy deleted Crossroads (chat site), Ncohafmuta and Lighthouse (chat site), and am requesting also for Crystal Palace (chat site) to similarly be deleted. The reason to do so is because I cannot find a way to merge it from a historical perspective, except with relation to the controversy, and they have requested for their names not to be explicitly mentioned, so I have instead listed them as "a talker" and not mentioned specific details. I will do the same for the other 4 major controversies if they are challenged. I also note that the anon IPs voting on the 2 articles (PoE and CP) probably fall under the definition of a wikipedia:sock puppet, or at least a meat puppet, and their votes probably should be ignored. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The merge is done. All that remains is for CP to be deleted and for PoE to have a REDIRECT sign on it. That's it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, CP has no claims to notoriety, other than things which are not true. Is nowhere near the most popular in history (over 100 talkers have had over 100 users on at a time, their peak is 50), has never even briefly been number 1, has nothing unique about it, and hasn't influenced anything or led to anything. I mean there hasn't been another talker that was based on CP, they haven't released their code publicly, nobody else tried to copy them. There were about 10 talkers before them that had a mix of MUD and talker code, and indeed the MUSH from 1989 was really the first one to do that (and a lot of people refer to MUSHes as talkers...) The biggest claim to notoriety is the controversy, especially surrounding their owner, Virus. Now, if they are determined that they don't want his name mentioned or the talker, then they quite simply aren't notable. They were the 5th, or possibly 6th place to have multiple worlds (there was also Ancient Realms that was the first all-ages place to have multiple worlds). I mean their code is unique, no doubt about that. But every talker's code is unique (apart from lintilla, sleepy's and fantasia's which were identical to each other). Is it more unique than any others? Let's see. Other claim to fame is that they had A, B, C for the 3 different kinds of BDSM. But Iron Rose did that first, and I think maybe 10 other BDSM places had that first. Okay, so they added Vanilla, which the others didn't have, but I don't see that as a big change. Credits? Far from the first to do that. They weren't even the first to use credits in a BDSM setting. First to make their own code? Nope, lots of places did that. First to claim that their code was entirely unique and different from any others? Well, they probably did that with more certainty than anyone else had ever done - even Ncohafmuta concedes that it is based on Iforms which is based on NUTS. Its actually a bit of a joke where they pretend that their code was created from scratch, when it obviously wasn't. But probably not a joke to them. Probably to them they honestly believe that. I just find it odd that you could create something from scratch yet it ends up looking like it would if it was based on something else. I mean I really struggle to find any uniqueness there. But look, for the sake of peace, keep it, but then for the sake of fairness, we are going to have to add 100 more equally notable ones. Those are the 3 options really - 1) add 100 other equally notable ones 2) delete it 3) include the controversies and specifically list them. The thing is that it's not just that they don't want the controversies displayed in a certain way - they want them wiped. They've admitted and agreed that they happened pretty much exactly as I first said, they just don't want the world to know about it. So I dunno.

As for creating a rift, I'm not all that worried about that. These people will stay here for a few days, get bored, and then leave to do whatever they were doing before. There's no real possibility that they will become actual editors. They are just here to try to make it look like Virus was a good guy and CP has never had any problems. That's all that they care about. Another reason why deletion is the best option. If Virus himself wants it deleted, then I don't see why we should disagree. It'd be a lot easier if we did that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am quite confident that these people have no genuine interest in Wikipedia. In the 4 days that they've been editing, only 1 has made a significant number of editing, all of them personal attacks on me. Check out some of the edit messages. So I am sure that it is just goading, and that if I leave them alone, then they'll go away, get bored and so forth. I think that it is at the stage where we just have to accept the demands, so I am just going to let them do that, even if it means them advertising their site, and writing about it like an advert, and getting rid of "my" talker, the PoE one, plus any other ones that they don't like (apparently they've got a problem with surfers as well, since it "claims" to be the most popular ever - and they actually dispute that - they must be the only people in the world to dispute that). And they will write down that CP is the most popular in history. I actually saw that written there at one point, and had to revert it. But I guess we just have to accept that that is what they will write. So really this is just not worth it. Hostility, nastiness. I wonder why anyone would go to their talker if thats what they are like. lol. It seemed to me like they were trying to "ban" me from their talker, and that that's what they thought that they were doing. lol. There was apparently an order from Virus to do all of this, and the coordination is on their talker. So someone who is a wikipedia regularly obviously went to their talker to help to organise it. Who that is is speculative. But anyway, whatever. I for one think that the talker article as it is now is very close to perfect. I guess that there are tiny little fiddly bits that could be done, but I am quite proud of it. It looks better than the Peter Falconio article. And yes, the merge idea worked well in the end. I was reluctant at first, but I think in the end that it looks good like that, and I managed to do it without ruining the article's flow. By the way, do you want to look through the MUD articles? I heard from somewhere that they probably need pruning. By the way, I did just make a (stubby) article for Aardwolf MUD, which is statistically the most popular mud in the world for the past 9 years straight. Somewhat surprised me that that was not one of the 46 articles. But maybe popularity isn't enough. That one only gets 500-1,000 people on at a time, with a highest ever of just on 5,000. Not much really. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Numerals

Thanks for your message , but I had taken this up on the talk page many times if you would check that. The recent additions were simply a bunch of original research after the deletion of credible supporting material to the prior version of the article. If you would challenge any part of the version I reverted , then please follow your own advice and take it up on the talk page.--Astriolok 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace (chat site) and related issues

I've posted my reply here. Owen× ☎ 02:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. I've decided to leave them be now. I think that I have contributed enough there, and I will just have to stay out of it. I think that I'll have to use Eventualism to just say that eventually they'll get bored of harassment etc (unless I get wikistalked in to other articles) and either start editing properly, or else just up and leave. So I will go off and do other things now. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MC

WP:MC/S copy one of those for a template in posting your nom correctly. Cheers, R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medcom

Hello. The medcom is filled up with cases, and I have no open mediators other than myself, and I'm only getting 20 minutes a day on a computer lately. Meanwhile, the medcom wants more to judge you on. So, you may take a case of your choice in the first section at WP:RFM, and update Template:MedComOpenTasks, writing in deputy mediator near your name. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 10:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

(West Azerbaijan province of Iran)

Hi and Thank you Tomlillis. I try answer your questions in a clear way:

1 .)

a) Kurds are majority (about 80%) in West Azerbaijan province by the population and land.

b)

Credible sources regarding Kurds are majority in West Azerbaijan province of Iran:

[3], [4], [5],[6],[7],[8],

Status of the Kurds in Iran and West Azerbaijan province of Iran:

[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], Warning: Might Offend, A Kurdish activitist in West Azerbaijan province

Despite of all of the above mentioned political, religious, ethnical, cultural... etc. reasons (and there are thousands other ones like those) even official sources do not (or can not) claim kurds are minority or even a significant minority but as a main group:

[14], [15],

2. ) The user user is trying to push that the majority of the population in the province is not kurdish but turkish and keeps deleting a credible map (the only one) which is clearly showing the borders of the province.

Thank youD iyako Talk + 15:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds in West Azerbaijan Province of Iran

Request mediation for article West Azerbaijan. User:Zereshk keeps putting unverified (+ protected) tagg for no acceptable reason regarding the Kurds in Northern part of the province, despite of numerous credible sources. Thank you. D iyako Talk + 01:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Random user you have targeted

Excuse me, but your comment here:

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Your edits to Muhammad are inherently subjective, point-of-view-pushing, and inflammatory. Please stop. Tom Lillis 22:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:*****"

Is inaccurate. I was editing the Shenmue Online page at the time, I have not made any changes to the "Muhammed" article whatsoever, nor have I visited it. I was not posting "nonsense" of any kind.

I believe you got IP Addresses mixed up, or you are just being a prick to random people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.187.68 (talk • contribs)

Update

Yes, and you called me a rasict. GOOD DAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.187.68 (talk • contribs)

beckjord

I removed my threat to trash wiki a week back.

Please note.

beckjordBeckjord 06:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sliderule history

Not removed, just intended to move it to the top, & had to save the page to get back. If you reverted, check again; I saved after moving. Don't need 2 history sections. Trekphiler 10:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, fast response! Feel free to delete these posts at your convenience... Trekphiler 10:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reply to reply

Thanks. Good on you staying on top of it! I'm in complete agreement, there's enough ignorance (not to mention stupidity) to go around, which is why I've been posting questions, comments, & rare edits. As for deleting, we disagree. Unless it's substantive, or contains something of interest, I'll pull it after 2-3 days, so you'll be gone soon.... Trekphiler 10:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

While some people's behaviour is still uncivil, I think the main issues on West Azerbaijan have been resolved last night. So I guess your mediation is probably irrelevant now. Refdoc 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the person you name but I did the articles based on extensive coverage he receives in the Scottish printed press & television, not just "on a bit of protest coverage by the BBC". Winning Parliamentary debates which turn into successful legislation & changes in regulatory rules, helping users of a required service - that of a solicitor is on the whole, more than 'a bit of a protest'.

You can delete the articles if you like. It is your privilege to do so.

For the avoidance of doubt, in the short statement left in the blanked article, there was no one identified by name who "demanded " that the article be removed.

i note the matter & issues arising. Based on this, I am no longer interested in wikipedia.

Lawscottie 00:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Beckjord

I'm not hellbent on keeping the critical stuff out. Since so many ppl want to trash him, I just like for ppl to take a second look before they add stuff. I realize what you are saying that he is not popular due to his research, but rather the entertainment value. In fact, I've said that several times to others. I just get a kick out of him.

You seem to be a fairly reasonable guy, so I'll just defer to your judgement as to whether to restore those additions. --DanielCD 15:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV ?

How can "an advoacte of NPOV" made the edit you made (without it seems bothering to understand the whole background) is beyond me. If you indeed read the whole relevant talk page and indeed think that you have contributed to NPOV I apologize in adavnce on this comment (but I would still disagree with you about the edit being toward NPOV) Zeq 15:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what "provocative comment in the article text" ? Zeq 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean the comment "In fact, even describing the dispute is very much disputed, so someone will probably remove this text not before too long " ?

If so let's break it to two parts:

"In fact, even describing the dispute is very much disputed" - true but irelevant "so someone will probably remove this text not before too long " - indeed occured but also iralvant

Nither of them are my original text ( a left over from someone else) so I don't have a problem with removing them.

Is that all you object too ? Zeq 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did not understood your last message at all. (all 3 parts of it)

Is that all you object too ? Zeq 16:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I agree it is not a solution and not even a step toward solution. But the text you have revereted to is LESS NPOV. so I suggest: Remove the part you object to otherwise restore the slightly more NPOV text.

An alternative: Detele the article all together from wkipedia while both sides as part of mediation workout a brand new NPOV text. Not having an article on this subject in wikipedia will be a catalizator for encouraging cooperation by the Pro palestinian side. I will comit not to intreduce undue delayes. Zeq 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but I must inform you that your request to join the Mediation Committee has been denied. The Committee has a policy of denying requests where two or more mediators oppose the nomination, and unfortunately, your nomination was opposed by two members. Please feel free to reapply in the future, and to take on informal mediation tasks as the opportunity presents itself. You may also be interested in the Mediation Cabal. Again, my apologies.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

If you're going to be changing a lot of puncatuation you may want to have a look at what the manual of style has to stay about that subject: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Qutezuce 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hugh O'Neill disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hugh O'Neill disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Hugh O'Neill disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]