User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bio style

Hmmm.... I think the best answer would be to look at how other bios describe that person. Someone who came here when they were 4, most likely should be described as "American" off the bat. But like you said, people who came over when they were 20, etc. are a bit more problematic. So you could do a Google search or something - see what other websites described that person as - i.e. if most described them as "American" or went the extra mile and said "Polish-born American", etc. (but beware, a lot of sites are actually Wikipedia copies, so they are likely to repeat exactly what our article states. :) ) If you have a question about a specific person, though, don't hesitate to ask. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh btw, you mentioned the lists being out of hand. Well, I've spent the past week fixing a large number of them (making them confirm to Wikipedia policy). The large majority should be in top shape fairly soon. I think you saw me source part of the Jewish actors list. Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there haven't been any presidential candidates who were actually religious Jews. Just Goldwater and Kerry - who had Jewish fathers, but were raised something else. There may well be reliable sources that describe some of these people as "Jewish" - especially Clark - I think he's called himself Jewish - but I'm not sure. Anyway, feel free to delete anyone right now. I may make this page my next sourcing target, and if I find good sources I'll restore some of them. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the Jewish list is just like any other. If a person is either referred to as "Jewish" in a good source, or refers to themselves as "Jewish". It doesn't matter which, really. There's some family history on Goldwater here,[1] and here [2]. Yes, his father was originally Jewish, but converted away. Oh, and by the way, I haven't yet web-search either Goldwater, Kerry or Clark to see if any good source called them "Jewish", or if they called themsleves that. I'm not sure, but like I said I may source the whole page later today and perform the searches on the three then. Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing accurate information from bios

Hi--I noticed that you removed the information that Frank Wilczek is "of Polish and Italian origin" from his bio. Looking at your recent contributions, I see that you also edited out the Polish origin of several other Wikipedia subjects because you're "Trying to use standard biographical format." IMO, accurate information about ethnic origins is something that other people might well find of interest in Wikipedia. Therefore I don't see why "standard biographical format" should exclude that information, or why Polish origin in particular should be singled out for excision. I'm Frank Wilczek's wife, though I don't think that's relevant to my point here (and I'm of French and Irish origin, if you want even fuller disclosure). betsythedevine 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Betsy, First, it IS relevant that you are Frank's wife in a GOOD way :). Second, I meant NO disrespect to Frank's ethnicity and it SHOULD be included in the article, the only question is WHERE. I will go back and re edit and also leave a note on the talk page so we can discuss it there for ALL editors to chime in. I actually got started on my bio edits due to Mr. Edward Teller and his ethnicity. It seems that a LARGE number of biographies had Jewish-American added to the headers/first sentence and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) this seemed inappropriate UNLESS the person "Jewishness" or "Polishness" or "whateverness" is what made them notable. It would seem that Frank's Noble Prize deserve's mention BEFORE his Polish descent wouldn't it? Anyways, again, I am NOT trying to "de-ethnicitize" (is that a word?) ANYBODY, just trying to make biographies more "standardized per Wiki guidelines (not rules set in stone). Ethnicity SHOULD be included in each article. I actually plan on working on Greek Americans and Italian Americans next :) If you look at the 1,000s of bios out there, there are many different styles, especially for less notable individuals. It seems that ethnicity should be mentioned under "early life" or family backgroung ect. Just for disclosure, I am of Polish-Jewish descent and my father is also an extremely respected physicist...NOT that it matters. Also please excuse my terrible spelling, I wish Wiki had a spell check, I really do have a higher education.. :) --Tom 16:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tom--You're right--moving the ethnicity further down in the bio is an improvement. I just didn't want it to disappear. IIRC, the history of its inclusion was that somebody mentioned his Polish roots and I added the Italian for completeness. So, thanks for making a good change. betsythedevine 17:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Betsy, any time. A happy Wiki ending...FOR NOW until somebody edits it , just kidding :). What does IIRC mean? "In regards to recent conversation or comment or??" I am sure once you tell me I'll be slapping my head saying "of course!" Have a pleasant day until we meet again. Also, I appreciate you posting your reply on both our pages, I just started to do that since SO MANY talk pages are impossible to follow the thread since most editors don't do this. Its like trying to figure out a mystery novel or something and always leaves me so curious but I don't bother to flip between the pages...Cheers! --Tom 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom--IIRC means "If I recall correctly." Happy editing! Betsy betsythedevine 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Another ethnicity question

Hiya, I noticed that you edited out the Polish part from the bio at Stanley Dunin. In my opinion, his Polish-American status should stay, as follows: He was born in Poland, and to the Polish noble class. He also has several notable elements in his bio that deal with his Polish background. Can you please explain why you feel that it should be removed from the opening paragraph? Or were you just doing bulk edits? --Elonka 19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, yeah I was doing bulk edits and I have struggles with non US born American citizens and how their bios should read. I have been using WP:MOSBIO as a guide. When did he become "notable" before he came to US or after?? I hate the bios that read..."born in Wimbabway of french candian jewish descent American actor" ect. I am really trying to deal ONLY with American citizens who are born ON American soil since these should have VERY little wiggle room. Anyways, I am VERY open to suggestions since I am trying to "correct" as many bios as possible. I personally feel that ethnicity/desent/birth place/ect. should go DOWN further in the article under "early life" or family bachground ect UNLESS his/her ethnicity is what makes him/her notable. From my other threads you can see that I DON'T want to remove/ignore/insult anybodies ethnicity, just trying to put it in it's correct perspective per established biographical styles. Please edit ANY bios you see I changed but maybe leave a note on the talk page so all editors can discuss it there. Thanks! --Tom 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey! That Dunin guy is your dad!! Cool. Seriously, I actually like the way the bio now reads. It shows that he was born in Poland (in the header) and there is a section on his early life where his background can be discussed in full as it is. It looks like your dad came to the US at the age of 12?? I would consider him an American of Polish descent. Again, I don't like to see ANY mix nationalities in the header but people like your dad are a tough call since they weren't born in the States. I've seen a number of bios that would read...Joe Smoe is an Italian born American actor, ect. but I don't really like those but WHO am I to say what is right or looks good. Your bio is well writen imo. Cheers! --Tom 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well granted, I'm biased, but I believe that if anyone deserves to be called "Polish-American", it's someone who was born in Poland. As for me, since I was born in the U.S., but one parent was born in Poland, then I could probably be described as "an American of Polish descent", but in my particular case, it wouldn't really apply since my Polish heritage isn't part of my notability. In my father's case, I believe that it is, because of birthplace, and the noble class heritage. It's standard Wikipedia guidelines that nobility qualified as notability.

In terms of editing other people's bios, I agree that there are some bios on Wikipedia that go overboard in terms of specifying ethnicity. Especially where it's a potentially pejorative term, like finding a notable scientist and then putting in his lead paragraph that he's a Jewish-American scientist or something. But I still think that it's appropriate to list some people as dual nationality, especially when they were born in one country, and live in another. Hence, someone who was born in Ireland but lives in Canada could be listed as "Irish-Canadian" without a problem, in my mind. And bottom line, yes, I still think that the Stanley Dunin bio should list him as "Polish-American". I would appreciate if you would change it back to the way that it was, thanks. --Elonka 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, ahh here is the rub. You say that Jewish-American is a pejorative term but alot of folks would argue and funny that you mention it because that term is exactly what got me into editing bios. Edward Teller was a featured article awhile back and people took offense to removing Jewish-American from his header. If you read it today, his Jewish descent, imo, looks silly where its placed in the article. Is Mr. Teller's Jewishness really what makes him notable and should it be place so HIGH up in his article?? I am not going there. Anyways, you Dad's Polishness(is that even a word?) is notable and IS discussed in the article. Lets take your example above of somebody born in Ireland and living in Canada...WHEN did they come to Canada? 2-3 years old or AFTER they achieved notoriaty? Are they STILL a citizen of Ireland?? Again, I use WP:MOSBIO as my GUIDELINE not set in stone rules. Natalie Portman is listed due to her DUAL citizenship. Wikipedia has 1,000s, no 10s of 1,000s of bios out there. The ones of extremely famous persons are usually well written because of the level of scrutiny.

Finally, as far as changing Dunin's bio back, I would suggest that I/we/you work on his talk page on an introduction/header that is agreeable and THEN edit the article or you can just tell me to take a flying leap and edit it yourself j/k :) I will start something on his talk page now.Anyways, excuse my rambling and bad spelling. Cheers! Ps, I am of Polish, Irish, Welsh, German, English, Jewish Descent...MUTT, AMERICAN!! --Tom 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's use you as an example. You identify as American, correct? Now suppose you moved to France, and then invented a cure for cancer or something. Would you want your bio to say that you were a French scientist? In that case, I think the appropriate way to describe it would be say that you were an American living in France, or maybe a French-American. But to say simply that you were a "French scientist of American descent" would be absurd (IMHO). In my father's case, he is Polish. He was born in Poland, he grew up speaking Polish, he continues to speak with a Polish accent today, and he takes pride in his Polish heritage. To say that he's simply an "American" is denying a very rich heritage, and is just plain wrong. He is Polish, and he is American. He is a Polish mathematician, and he is an American mathematician. The term "Polish-American" is correct. Please do not change the article again to say that he is just an American who happens to have Polish roots, because that is incorrect. --Elonka 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, first off, I do NOT want to offend and it seems that this thread might be turning in a direction that neither of us, I would assume, wants it to go. Computer converse is difficult because we can't see or hear each other and you now seemed perturbed which REALLY is the last thing I want to do. PLEASE edit the Dunin article as you see fit and then we/you/i/the wiki community can discuss it further on the talk page. Its never a bad idea to just reach out to another WIKI and say "hey, whats your take on this?" and see what comes back. I really don't want to make this more of an issue than it should be or offend in ANY way. --Tom 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greeks

Thanks for the backup on the Greek page. I'm going to be away for two weeks starting tomorrow night, but feel free to drop any questions on my page and I'll get back to you when I get back. (If I get back... :) ) Mad Jack O'Lantern 03:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anytime! Have a great trip! Working on the Greek bios, I can't get the movie "My big fat Greek wedding" out of my head :). Awesome movie.... Later, --Tom 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks tom

Im getting tired of this witch hunt! Lutherian 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding this edit: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 00:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Inshaneee, I posted the following on User talk:Lutherian: [3] in response to you posting [4].

....and then you leave me a note on my talk page saying not to make personal attacks?? Was asking if you were joking a personal attack?? I don't know all the templates on Wikipedia but I assume you used on here. Can you please let me know how you feel I personally attacked you? I actually don't agree with User:Lutherian on his stance regarding the Armenian Genocide but I found your statement that "Wikipedia is not a place to voice your personal opinions and points of view, especially when they are attacking the points of view of others" to be contradictory. Anyways, sorry if you felt I was attacking you, I defineately did NOT mean to, rather just to question your comment. Thanks and carry on! --Tom 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What I said is true; wikipedia is not the place to express your personal opinions. If you read WP:V, Wikipedia only accepts verified facts. This includes on talk pages; these are not for discussion of topics in articles, but rather for discussion of article content, formattion, and other writing concerns. --InShaneee 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee, please re-read WP:V. It states "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace." Talk pages, see Help:Talk page, are the PERFECT place to for personal opinions like, "I think it would be better if we used this source rather than that source" and the like. I TOTALLY agree that civility and WP:PA are essential, but to say that Wikipedia should be totally devoid of opinions is, err, well, you decide....Thanks! --Tom 20:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing, just misunderstanding each other. I wouldn't consider a "this source is better than this source" debate to be expressing an opinion, since you'd want to back up your stance with evidence, and ideally it becomes a fact that your source is better. All I meant was that you can't express opinions such as "I think Bush should be impeached" or "I don't think you're a good editor" or even "I don't think I'm voting democrat this year". See what I mean? --InShaneee 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee, sorry for the delayed response. No, in my OPINION, we are NOT saying the say thing. My OPINION is that we are saying TWO different things. If you would like a nice side project about Wiki civility, would you mind puting User talk:The Mad Bomber on your watch list?? Thanks and have a pleasant day :) --Tom 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have zero interest in any 'civility side project'. If you have any concerns about this users' actions, please take them up through the official channels. --InShaneee 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okie doukie. --Tom 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove my header (shown below) from my talk page.

{{User talk:The Mad Bomber/header}}

Thanks!

--The Mad Bomber (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that picture copy righted or does it belong to you? :) --Tom 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom the picture used in my header (shown below) is in the public domain. So I am free to use it on my talk page.

[[Image:Prince Albert Piercing.jpg]]

I appreciate your concern.

--The Mad Bomber (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How does that picture have anything to do with discussion concerning Wikipedia? I think I am in violation of feeding the trolls so I am going to have to reign things in abit. --Tom 00:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it's your edit(s) I'm disagreeing with...

... you will almost certainly want to weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Nationality_and_ethnicity.2C_redux. - Jmabel | Talk 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, thanks for the heads up....--Tom 00:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion over there. You really don't have 30 something archives of talk pages?? WOW!! --Tom 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Catagories and Isabella of Castile and Martin Luther

Hi Shamir1. Your talk page has you listed under the Native American Actors category. This should probably be removed from your talk page. I also see that you added the two folks above to the anti-semetic category. I am going to remove them until this can be sourced. Thanks.--Tom 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

TOM, you have got to be kidding me! Isabella of Castile played a very strong role setting up the Spanish Inquisition. She ordered Jews to be executed or expelled. Martin Luther was fiercely anti-Semitic. Please see Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies. Shamir1 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shamiri, I kid about alot of things, but I really wasn't trying to be funny above. I saw that you added a number of people to the category of anti-semitic people and just thought more consensus was required, thats all. I find the entire list to be problematic but did vote to keep it. You are obviously very convinced about these people being on that list but this project is about compiling facts/information that isn't original research, POV, ect. Sorry, my spelling sucks...--Tom 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom, none of this is "original research" it is ALL on WIKIPEDIA. it is not my opinion, these are all facts that are on this site. please look at each of the articles I showed you, including Isabella of Castile's. thanks. Shamir1 21:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read both articles. I have actually learned alot about Luther mainly because of edit wars here. I had actually never heard of him before. Also, I'll be honest, I hadn't heard of Isabella before now. However, I don't see anywhere in the article where they are labeled anti-semites. Luther wrote some nasty stuff but it amounted to 1/100th of his overall work and came during the last 4 years of his life. I am not defending the guy or what he wrote, I am just saying that we should find multiple verifiable reliable sources that call him an anti-semite before adding him to the list. Same for Isabella. Maybe there are sources out there that say they are anti-semites. If so, lets referrence them and gain consensus. Anyways, I got to run now, later..--Tom 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

I'd appreciate your comments on this latest dispute. Can't this guy just take a win and run? (I put this proposal forward, against the strong opinion of SlimVirgin, argued with reluctant editors to allow specifically quotes from mailing lists, only to have him replace the comprimise text with his own that ignored those opinions. I've now revert him a few times. If you find me not crazy, would you say so there? --CTSWyneken 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi CTSW, sure I'll take a look and comment. From reading Doright's edits/comments/ect. he strikes me as being, hmmm, how do I say this, militant and agenda driven :). Sorry not to assume good faith but that's my take on it. I really have to commend you on how you have handled the whole "Luther" thing since my head would have exploded along time ago trying to deal with all the different POVs and agendas and edit wars and err, what else? Unfortunatley ALOT of articles on this site are contraversial and editing so EVERYBODY is happy is VERY VERY difficult. There is defineately an evolution to how one views this project and edits in it. I really am trying to be NPOV in my editing. It seems the best way to do that is to edit articles you have ZERO "attachment" to, but where is the fun in that case. Also, if you did that, we would lose your expertise in the article you seem to edit the most. Anyways, enough of my rambling, I pop over to WP:RS and chime in. Cheers! --Tom 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wolok needs help

[5], maybe you could tell him that AN/I is not for asking for help, that you only gave him that link so he could see that people were talking about him? Better still, maybe you could help the guy. He needs someone to walk him through Wikipedia process, and didn't you say that you would love to work with this strange character? -lethe ^{talk +} 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lethe, I am not sure if I said I would LOVE to work with this guy, but what the heck. Anybody that calls Jimbo's cell phone during diner you gotta love I figure. Anyways, let me try to help this guy. Thanks! --Tom 01:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Your exact words were: "I would be HAPPY to work with this guy". Sorry for the misquote. Anyway, I think it was you who brought him to AN/I (the wrong place), so I think you ought to help him find the right place. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Also, you are right, this guy is a character :) Cheers! --Tom 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, since Michael will probably see this, I did mean the above in a nice way, please note smiley face....--Tom 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

Hi Michael, I just found this page. Maybe you can tap one or more of these more experienced users for assistance. I have been here 6 months and have over a 1,000 edits and I feel that I am still VERY VERY "green" and I am still feel like I have a TON to learn. The point is slow down. Its to bad there are "sides" to some articles but there are. Some users have less patience and maybe have forgotten how frustrating this project can be at times to new contributors. Cheers --Tom 13:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good suggestion, and I thank you for taking the time to look into ways to help the lamentable Michael D. Wolok. However, as you may see here, Wolok has already contacted the AMA. In fact, I pointed out to him all the methods of dispute resolution including AMA, RfM, RfC and RfAb already on the many worlds talk page, which is probably how he found that page. I really don't know why he keeps asking for help, after an advocate and a mediator have both responded to his requests. I guess I will just ignore any further requests on his part. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lethe, yeah, I didn't know that you already had made those suggestions, so very good. I also received and sent back an extended e-mail to Michael with some further suggestions. I sort of got my nose into this because it seemed that this editor was sincere (also the Jimbo diner call) and I am a newbie still myself. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom 13:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC) ps I love that painting on your talk page and what does Lethe mean, is that french or Italian? and yes, I am university educated believe it or not :)....Never mind, I just Wiki serached "lethe", I like it :)...

outwith

I notice that you had a tussle over the usage of the word "outwith". Coincidentally, I removed that word from the article Scotland when I was a newbie, because I was an American who had no idea what it meant. I was later convinced by the Scottish speaking contingent to let them use Scots English in Scottish articles, so that a year later, when I discovered that that particular Scotishism had been deleted again, I restored it. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the good old days, when my battles were so much smaller and insignificant :). Actually, after a full education on that words usage and history, it really is "old" Scottish and was/is used more in legal documents. The best meaning I found was to be "outside of" ie. Glasgow's rail system is the largest system outwith London's......Looking back I can't believe I really spent as much time on that but hey, I did learn something new and I am still amused by it :)...--Tom 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here it is If I ever do decide to be an admin, I guess I can use this for my Did you ever have an altercation with another user question  :) --Tom 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reuben Sturman

Why is it SO impotant to label this person as "Jewish-American" in his bio header? Thanks --Tom 14:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it's every bit as relevant as the fact that he was American and I can only see that it adds to the article. If it weren't for the notion of a very strong Jewish identity when reading about Sturman, I wouldn't be insisting on it. And being Jewish is no more a label than being American, and I don't se you protesting the latter. Why are you so determined to have it removed?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I added Jewish-American back to the article...Cheers, --Tom 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Some contributions help needed

Hey Tom. Do you have an email or something by which to contact you? I don't want to waste your talk page space with small talk. Thanks, if you rather I give you mine. Tell me. LaGrange 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lagrange, no waste of space and it is better to post here about the project for transpancy sake. I actually like this format. If something is sensitive for my/our eyes only we can then email. OK? Thanks! --Tom 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)