User talk:Tom Morris: Difference between revisions

York meetup

Hi. I was there but didn't make contact with anyone and no-one made contact with me. See my remarks at User_talk:Tagishsimon#York_meetup. Best. --GuillaumeTell 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read carefully

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you may call me Tom.

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

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

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

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

Tom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas!

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RfA

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

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

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

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

Re: Gettier problems

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

Occupy Marines AfD

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

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

Deletion Review Occupy Marines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later, Basalisk writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Holiday cheer

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

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)

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. Calabe1992 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)

Redirecting

Hi. When redirecting schools as you did at [6], please remember to include the {{R from school}} template. It populates an important category that is used for statistical purposes. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

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)

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
	The Next Web			Euthanasia in Australia
	Hazard (film)			Euthanasia and the slippery slope
	UV (album)			List of television theme music
	Pamela Sue Anderson		Merge
	Nick Reding			Gardening (cryptanalysis)
	Renaud Denoix de Saint Marc			Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il
	World Affairs			Platonic idealism
	Interrupted gene		Add sources
	Phorward			Kane (wrestler)
	James M. Quigley			Max Black
	Israel Plus			The Undertaker
	Casimir Lewy		Wikify
	Letters to a Young Contrarian			Leon Plantinga
	Brian Skyrms			Everything Good Will Come
	Theodore Drange			Realphilosophie
	Android Apocalypse		Expand
	Martin Kusch			John Lachs
	Absar Ahmad			John F. X. Knasas
	Pierre Darcourt			Stephen Stich

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) 04:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback re Breedlove

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

LFaraone 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening at Additive synthesis.

I had expected some admin to clamp the article down a half hour earlier.

Not that there is any harm in leaving it as is for the time being, would you consider returning the state of the article to the status quo, sometime before the wholesale changes that User:Clusternote made to the article? It's okay if you don't, but since the content dispute is about the changes this editor is making, I think it would be appropriate. And it would begin to send the message to this editor that he actually has to collaborate and seek consensus before rewriting the whole thing. Heck, some of the changes he made may have been good, but he does not understand all of the technical issues and is too insecure to be able to admit that, even to himself. 71.169.179.65 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not intervening in the content dispute and so I'm just going to leave it as it is. I'm going to ask User:Charles Matthews, who is an extremely experienced Wikipedia administrator and mathematician to try and mediate your content dispute. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can live with that. 71.169.179.65 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calvary Chapel

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Calvary Chapel. 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) 04:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Huggle tool problem

Hi, I just downloaded the Huggle anti vandalism tool but I have a problem, I can't access the tool because after I enter my user name and password, a message pops up and says "Huggle is not enabled for your account, check user configuration page." What's wrong? I have the rollback rights which should allow me to use it, but I can't use the tool, can you help me on this issue? I would really appreciated it! Wikih101 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

SoCon and OVC tournament venues

Could you userfy this deleted page from last year, so I can add the information into the existing List of Ohio Valley Conference men's basketball champions while avoiding a DRV? The deletion rationale was that the article information redundant to other OVC-related articles, but the information about tournament venues can’t be found in articles related to the OVC tournament. Relevant AfD is here, and also deals with Southern Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues, which I ask be userfied for similar reasons Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Trenzalor revisited

 Hello tom,

It's me again. Sorry for such a long response to your previous post. You know how hectic the holidays can be.

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

My answer to this still remains that the third party source where I retrieved the information came from "textfiles.com". The instruction on how to retrieve the datafiles that I have made public are describe in my previous posts. Simple click " where are the files" , then click "UFO" in the bottom right corner. Then you will see many files that I had my team filter through to obtain the given information. Like said in previous posts. It took a year of analyzing the wikipedia article structure to get the article to where it was. There is still alot of room for improvement but I personally feel it is a good place to start.

I respect your decision, but If you do not reverse your decision. The deletion review process that you described will be followed until some part of the article is viewable to the public on wikipedia.

I thank you for your time, Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

textfiles.com is not a reliable source.

If you are still unhappy, feel free to go to WP:DRV. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. 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) 20:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Gibson

Not sure why this page was deleted... And what the guidlines are that have been set for someone of interest within the entertainment industry.

Peter Gibson has been on TV, Broadway and Film as an actor and has produced, written and directed for film and television.

There were two references from variety articles written about the subject

Gibson Steps into Limelight

Fashion Label Tries on Reality Series

As well as credits included from Imdb.

Peter Gibson

Please explain how this is not sufficient?

Whateverfilms (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted following the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Gibson. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for keep?

Your closure of WP:Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (2nd nomination) does not have any rationale or guidance with respect to redirecting. It's also not clear whether or not you reviewed the previous discussion which was explicitly referenced. If so, could you please clarify this? Thank you. aprock (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no "guidance with respect to redirecting" because I closed it as keep. I tend to not provide guidance on redirecting unless I'm actually closing it as redirect. I didn't look at the AfD from May 2010: it is up to current participants to decide whether or not the issues in the earlier AfD still apply and for the closing admin to weigh up the current AfD.

There are two arguments being put forward for deletion/redirect: firstly, that it is not notable. The sources disagree, as the keep voters point out. Secondly, that it is a content fork. On any other topic than race and intelligence, this would be utterly uncontroversial: sections in articles about individual academics, scientists, philosophers and so on get expanded into articles about their books and ideas all the time.

It is definitely a borderline case, but I don't see consensus to redirect. Given the headcount, I could possibly have closed it as no consensus, which would have the same practical effect as keeping. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AfDs are not meant to be closed on the basis of head count. As the discussion explicitly made reference to the previous AfD discussion as still applying, I'm surprised that you didn't at least review the closing administrators remarks. Allow me to ask that you please do review that discussion, and reevaluate the AfD (and the previous AfDs closing) on the basis of discussion instead of head count. Thank you, aprock (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I did close it on head count. I weighed up the arguments for deletion/redirection and didn't find them developed or convincing. I'm not totally sure what you think I should see in the previous AfD. There's no doubt that in the previous AfD, there was a consensus to delete as a POV fork. I don't see such a consensus on this AfD, which is the one I was closing. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Head count isn't a factor at all, yet you mention it being a factor. You also noted that the previous AfD was not a factor in your decision despite being explicitly referred to as relevant in the discussion. I'll ask you once again to please review the arguments from this AfD which include the arguments and discussion referred to from the previous AfD. I really don't think that's too much to ask here. If this isn't something you're up for, please do let me know.aprock (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the previous AfD earlier. I stand by my closing. If you feel this is unsatisfactory, request a deletion review. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when you wrote "I didn't look at the AfD from May 2010", you're saying that you've since reviewed the AfD in the context of the current AfD? Your reply above indicates that you didn't ("I'm not totally sure what you think I should see in the previous AfD"). Since you weren't sure how the previous AfD applies, I'll refer you to the fact that the AfD was explicitly referenced as representative of the problems that plague these sorts of articles, with a specific example of how this problem is already taking shape in the current article: [7]. If you understand this and stand by your decision, I'd be happy to take the issue to deletion review to get some more eyeballs on the issue and clarify the relevance of the previous AfD to the current one. aprock (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read the previous AfD and determined how much relevance I should place on it in the context of the second AfD. My closing remains the same. Feel free to go to DRV. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this independently, as an experienced closer. I came to the same result as Tommorris. My rationale might be useful:

The article appears to show reasons it could be notable, and the AFD doesn't seem to be rebutting them. The article appears to be discussing a specific paper of significance, rather than a "point of view", and the paper is capable of neutral discussion and characterization. (For reference, that's not unusual for major papers - for example in physics, the 1964 PRL symmetry breaking papers have their own article and are not just covered under their authors, or under the Higgs boson they predict).

The only question left after agreeing the paper looks notable and capable of neutral characterization, is whether to have that coverage in a specific article or within a larger article, and either are ok, so "per majority" works for me on that, no clear reason not to.

As I wasn't the closer I don't plan to get into a big argument over it - if it helps then I'm glad though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you gave much consideration to the previous RfD. Regardless, I'll wait for the actual admin to comment. aprock (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To save cluttering Tommorris' talk page and to give a bit more explanation, I commented on your talk page. Feel free to ping me on mine if you want to discuss it more, and remember I'm not the closer, you always have the right to disagree and access to deletion review without needing to convince anyone on a talk page. But I hope it helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Thanks for the support on META OTRS For some reflections on the OTRS Workshop, please see Equilibrium is soon established by a stream of volunteers.Leutha (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Tom Morris,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

editing/vandalism

182.183.140.114 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)It is to apprise your good self that I have never been to that page Pollination.How can I be so much irresponsible to do vandalism.I was shocked to see your notice.I have my own account by name of Dr Muhammad Akbar, why I should be expected to do vandalism or for that matter any other irregularity.Please recheck and let me confirm.You can check my account on page Harifal and Sherani district.I write only those two pages and least bother about subject like pollination; neither I am a botanist to have knowledge of those pages.Please once again requested to check who did that and he/she must be punished.Thanks182.183.140.114 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hate to be rude, but I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Katie Harwood

hey tom. i have a question. why did you delete Katie_Harwood's wikipedias page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.61.102 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted following the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Harwood. The article is still available on Wikiversity - see v:Katie Harwood. Feel free to edit it and improve it on Wikiversity which is better suited for original research. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, Tom Morris. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AKS (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dost Garibon Ka

Dear Tom, I have written another article about an Indian movie Dost Garibon Ka. You had made some suggestions to me earlier today and hence if it is not much of trouble to you; can you please check if the article was written correctly? Thanks in advance. Cheers AKS (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It needs more sourcing than IMDB. IMDB isn't a reliable source. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it and on the job. Thanks for the tip. Cheers AKS (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dost Garibon Ka (updated)

Hi Tom, I made some more changes with another ref added. Can you please check (sorry to bother you with this but I just want to ensure that I pick up best practises). Many thanks. Regards AKS (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I can't see any sources (in English, with Google) beyond IMDb and the site you added. There may be Indian language sources, but I can't see them. Generally, the way I approach Wikipedia is to find the sources before creating the article, that way you know there won't be any sourcing issues. The Govinda source is a self-published source, so that might be an issue. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

/* A barnstar for you! */

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		I, SarahStierch, hereby award Tom Morris with this award for your "high brow" contributions related to television programs. Reading the articles make me not only not regret watching television, but also reminds me of what is wrong with the world. ;) And they're often pretty funny and off the wall. Great job! (Seriously!) SarahStierch (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Religion in Africa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Religion in Africa. 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, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. 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. aprock (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Speakers of any Indian languages interested in helping a UK-based GLAM project are needed, either to attend an event in London or to volunteer online from anywhere.

Hi Tom,

I am contacting to let you know that I am more than glad to volunteer helping UK Based GLAM Projects with Indian languages. I am good in speaking, reading ,writing & conversing in Tamil (A language from South of India). I have fair knowledge in Hindi (I can manage, 40%, honestly).

But in Tamil an 100% confident that I can assist you.

Please let me know if there is any assistance that I could lend for this initiative.

Regards, Ade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adethya (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice please

Long ago I started expanding a stub about Strawberry-Rhubarb pie. My edits were kindly reverted and I gave up. Came back a couple days ago and added back some of the historical and scientific information concerning the food ingredients used to make said pie. Those edits were once again reverted. Could you please advise why the inclusion of information concerning where the rhubarb plant came from and the importance of using appropriate food safety techniques is not appropriate for this article?

[[8]]

Any help would be appreciated.

LittleRedWriter (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)