User talk:Tom davy

Welcome!

Hello, Tom davy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Thanks

Dear Tom, Thank you for your inputs preventing pro-Islamofascists in Iran. It is so weard that some people pretend to be impartial while their edits is nothing but allegations in favor of the mullahs.AlborzTaha (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Hi, as PMOI is a contentious article, please make an effort to seek consensus on the talk page of the article before making large-scale changes. Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to ask you to discuss before making large-scale edits, especially wholesale reverts. There have been a large number of reverts back and forth in the past weeks (and earlier) which is not good for the encyclopedia. Thank you. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that you keep restoring to PMOI contains a number of spelling and grammatical errors, and is not supported by its sources. Please refrain from simply hitting the undo button without discussing your edits. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked before, and I am asking you again, to please discuss your changes to the article before repeatedly making them. Antifundamentalism is not a word, and there is cited evidence that they are an Islamic socialist group. Please also review Wikipedia's definition of vandalism before accusing others. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

About these two edits,[1] [2], you have been warned before about calling good faith edits vandalism, your lack of discussion on talk pages and introducing unsupported terms and other content into articles. Please understand that edits like these will not sway article content and taken altogether, if you carry on with them, could be taken as disruption. Please stop doing this. However, you are very welcome on the article talk pages. Even if your PoV on these topics is not with the consensus, there still may be a place for them through the citation of reliable sources. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Tom davy)

Hello, Tom davy. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom davy, where you may want to participate. -- // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not listing this earlier. Regards, // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tom_davy is the straight link. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has received the two signatures and is now listed as active. Just letting you know. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I should have said: what happens now is that people both involved and uninvolved will look at the evidence presented by the filers or by others and you will all try to work this out. If not, it can go to mediation and/or arbitration. Daniel Case (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for that page problem, I suggest you post about it at WP:AN/I with appopriate diffs linked and see what other admins think. Believe me, you'll get opinions. Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC) OK Thanks ! Tom Tom davy (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page

I think you might get something into the header if you would please discuss proposed wordings on the talk page of the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the PMOI opening page : since the present version has deleted all their court victories, one gets a very negative impression about this group which is not fair. I suggest we add this sentence : "On 7 May 2008, the UK Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, against a decision by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission to remove the PMOI from the list of groups banned under the Terrorism Act 2000. Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was no evidence that the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran was currently involved in terrorism. [6][7]"

This is a fact and is nothing to be disputed and is quite balanced. For your information the British Government has implemented the verdict by lodging a written order with the British parliament , seeking to remove the PMOI from the terrorist list. Best wishes, Tom Davy

Tom, please don't duplicate your posts on multiple talk pages, but put a single post on the relevant article talk page. Also, there is no need to address these to me. You should be discussing this with the other editors. Also, it is very important that you remember to sign all of your posts with four tildes ~~~~, please do not forget to do this from now on, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Protest to your pro Iranian regime edit of the page on " Massoud Rajavi"

Please see meta:The Wrong Version. I just protected to the version that was up there when I saw the edit war. Suppose I had protected to your version - perhaps I would get accusations of being impartial from the other side as well. So there's really no way for me to be perfect in this situation. Khoi khoi 04:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message on PMOI

I'm sorry that you see me as a pro-regime editor. Believe me, I don't like the Iranian government any more than I like the MEK. You will probably disagree with me, but I like neither group. However, I try not to let my feelings influence my edits. I don't believe that the other users are editing in order to support the Iranian regime either. We're simply tying to write a good article that presents the facts fairly. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom davy

This RfC has now been archived. The formal outcome decided upon (a caution towards you, of sorts, is at [3]. Wizardman 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]