User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Re: Question regarding edit wars over use of "foreign" word vs more standardized word??

Thank you for your message; I'll take a look at the page now and provide either my opinion or links to relevant pages. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad you solved the problem! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Moses Brown

Yah. I saw what you were trying to do. I guess, in this case, because the distinction is so obvious, you could simply split it, and create a disambig page (or, in fact, create Moses Brown (school) and have Moses Brown as the person. Standard procedure is to use {{split}} or {{splitsection}} though. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

{{split}} {{splitsection}}

Nippoo 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When you edited the Narragansett Bay article you called it an estuary. Will you please explain to me why it is an estuary and not a bay. I disagree with you calling it an estuary. Please go to the disscussion part of that article to see why you made that small mistake.

Turkey

Hi,

The problem is 600 years of Ottoman history is summarised in a couple of sentences. Therefore to add extra detail about the plight of the Armenians in WW1 would seem very selective. If the Ottoman history is expanded then perhaps it should be included. But some time ago i did write a section unde foreign relations concerning the political consequences of the Armenian issue, but this seems to have been lost when it was rewritten. It is obviously a controversial issue, and from the state of the current article, which is not that good, i dont know where or how to fit it in. --A.Garnet 16:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Grateful Dead

Your listing yourself in the Grateful Dead Catagory. Cool that your a deadhead but, sorta irrelevent to the subject matter? Bart 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bartmc, Thanks for catching that my user page was linked to the Grateful Dead category list. I removed it since it is inappropriate.Tom 23:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Tom 00:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RFMF - Tom Metzger

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tom Metzger, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Tom 14:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have decied to drop this since it probably won't work and I haven't asked to comment from 3rd party ect.Tom 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC TheKingOfDixie

I should have been a librarian. I went through and worked up material for the RfC. I also have never done one, and the interesting ones (e.g. Monicasdude) get so messy you can't tell how they should _really_ be done. Since my text with context duplicated some of your citations I replaced some of yours with mine. Check it out and see if it was okay. Bet you didn't know how bad it really was, huh?

The key thing for me (and I wish I could've put this somewhere in the RfC) is that such long-term fixation is going to be noticed eventually by someone (or several). No matter what the particular text, pushing it so unreasonably is going to cause you to get attention, and not in a good light. Shenme 23:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Frank Luntz

As far as SOPs go, I believe what I did was correct – although I'm not claiming to be infallible. It was listed as a copyvio, the standard practice is to investigate if there was indeed a copyright violation and if so delete it. I spent considerable time searching to find what source (and as turned out sources) the text seemed to be lifted from. A lot of the text was identical to that in a copyrighted MSNBC article.

Regarding "nuking" Tom Metzger: That's a completely different situation. It's listed as an article for deletion and as of 19.43 UTC the vote is to keep it. --Mark83 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Narragansett Brewing Company

Are you going to take on the Narragansett Brewing Company article? --AStanhope 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No - no rush at all. We'll keep chipping away at it. --AStanhope 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Americans

Well it's pretty simple. There shouldn't be any ethnicity in the header of the article - not Jewish American, not African American, Irish-American, Italian-American, etc. By header I mean the first sentence/paragraph of the article. The exception should be when that person is notable for being Italian/Jewish/etc. - so we could say, in the first paragraph, for example, "Robert De Niro is known for playing Italian American characters", or "Woody Allen is known for his Jewish characters" or something like that. Otherwise, all ethnicity/religion/etc. should go under "Early life" or whichever. So, something like "Scarlett Johansson was born in New York City to a Danish father and Jewish mother", "Rudy Guliani was born in New York City to Italian-American parents", etc. I think that fits the manual of style we have somewhere. Anyway, I hope that answers your question - if you see anyone described as a "Jewish American writer" or "African American actor", just remove the ethnicity part and move it down to later in the article. Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it's a comic book character - my name - who was sometimes known as Jack O'Lantern and sometimes as Mad Jack. This is the best compromise in names between the two that I could find. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you. Basically what Jack says is right- we should avoid putting any ethnicity or religion in the header or things just get stupid with people putting Jewish-Greek-Irish Catholic convert etc. etc. Arniep 00:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, don't necessarily remove xxx born American (as in David Rose) as they are often dual citizens. Cheers Arniep 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure that you can't be a dual citizen (maybe it was a recent innovation?). Anyway if people are born somewhere else it is usually significant enough to mention it in the header. Take a look at this article to see what happened when someone was incorrectly labelled as Jewish by one of the Jewish conspiracy theory troupe. Arniep 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

It amounts to maybe one volume out of the 100+ in the comprehensive Weimar edition. Outside of the Nazi Era, his comments had little effect. But it is an emotional issue for the Jews in the light of the Holocaust and for Lutherans, because as prepared as we are for Luther to be a sinner, we do not like the dark side of the Reformer. You'll notice we haven't been able to get the thing reduced any further than one line. Anyway, welcome aboard! Do expect a vigorous response. --CTSWyneken 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I've been trying to diversify a bit, but am bound to the Luther articles by profession. (meant in both senses of that word). Perhaps when we settle the Luther and the Jews issue (again) I can do more work with the rest of the Luther page. Anyway, see you around. --CTSWyneken 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comments about the Martin Luther article, and as a Luther scholar myself I appreciate them. You can be of help on this website to bring balance, so I welcome your presence and input anywhere. Drboisclair 12:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Drop by again. Discussion ensues. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edits

Hi Three, I'm a bit concerned about your edits deleting that people are or were Jewish from their bios. I have mixed feelings about the addition of this, particularly as it often isn't sourced, accurate, or relevant, but I'm also worried about the systematic removal, because sometimes it is sourced and is relevant. Can you say what criteria you're using to decide whether to remove it or leave it in place? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned user

The IP ranges he uses are known, as are his style of writing, the typical content of his posts, and the pages he posts to. He actually makes no effort to hide himself, because he enjoys being irritating. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

I see you added a {{POV}} tag to the page. You didn't leave a note on the talk page explaining what it was in particular that led you to this decision. Accordingly, it useful to hear your opinion, if you can actually edit the talk page, what with all the sockpuppetry, personal attacks and trolling that it attracts. Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. Perhaps some of the persistent problem editors will be convinced by your appeal to reason. We can at least hope for the best. Thanks again ! Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)