User talk:Threeafterthree

Welcome.......

Do YOU know what the word outwith means???

Tom's Archives
December 7th, 2005 – May 16th, 2006 May 17th, 2006 – July 24th, 2006 July 25th, 2006 – August 31st, 2006 September 1st, 2006 – April 19th, 2007 April 20th, 2007 – August 10th, 2007 August 11th, 2007 – September 17th, 2008 September 18th, 2008 – November 20th, 2008 November 21st, 2008 – March 28th, 2009 March 29th, 2009 – xx/xx/xx

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting four tildes like this: ~~~~ at the end of your post.
Start a new talk topic.
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting a new topic. I will respond to you in here AND copy and paste the thread onto your talk page as well unless your talk page asks me to keep it here only. If I posted a comment on your talk page, please reply there as I will watchlist your talk page and reply there as well. Thank you. - Tom

Sarah Palin

Please see Talk:Sarah Palin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

I'm gonna poach your agenda userbox! Madcoverboy (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it :) Maybe can form a new secret "agenda" cabal :) Tom (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if we get to endure accusations of having a secret agenda. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your work on Douglas Feith. I had quite given up on the article as an irredeemable mess, but then I saw the way you rolled up your sleeves and dauntlessly plowed into it. All my respect, RayTalk 04:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The funny(not really) thing is you know it will get summarially reverted with some snarky edit summary :) Also, look at the bios of the men that preceeded and suceeded him, its a hoot :) Anyways, I was so tempted to take a chainsaw to the whole thing but thought better :) Anyways, I did a little, but as you suggested at the BLP board, it could use a major rewrite. Anyways, I am done for now :) Cheers and thanks for my 1st Barnstar, whaa whooo!Tom (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously edited articles related to residential colleges at Rice University. There is an RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wassermann

Thanks for letting me know. He's just skirting the edge of a new, lengthy ban. Time will tell if he has finally decided to take WP:BLP seriously or not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tomboy article

This part that you changed is sourced. I do not see why that source has to be right there at the top of the beginning statement for people to see that it is connected to the next sourced line about it, but I went ahead and added it there as well. As you stated on the talk page, there has been much talk about that statement. All that talk about it is why it was left there...because it is a valid statement. I can add better sources to it, though.

I will reply on the Tomboy talk page to your request. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer

Judaism is religion not ethnicity. Being Jewish and pro-Palestinian is a notable characteristic of the subject. Jewish-American but pro-Palestinian is a rare combination in the Is/Pa conflict. "Sponsors" are a secondary source which give the subject added notability. Henry Delforn (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is consensus for inclusion, ok. Otherwise, leave it out of the lead. Also, can we contain this to the article talk page? TIA, --Tom (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just given him a 3RR warning. He doesn't understand what we mean by notability at all. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Not even sure if this article meets notability standards. Editor is blanking his/her talk page and edit warring over including Jewish-American in the lead. I sort of know how this will end. Anyways, will step back for now. --Tom (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your last removal

Since you're taking it quite offensive if someone else removes your edits (in their user space) [no, no need to give a dif as I don't intend to "attack" you at all] you shouldn't do the same on your talk page but rather remove it (if you wish so) with a more neutral edit summary. I guess you will take my comment the wrong way anyway and probably remove my good faith input with a similar edit summary so let me say one more thing: I don't care what the issue is in this case, but I care about your treatment of editors as they seem mostly just based on your mood at the time and it would suit you well if you could change it just a little bit. Honestly. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Its ok to calling trolling trolling. Tom (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Basically you're right but that wasn't a respond to my comment (and I don't expect you to do so and there is no need for). Just think about it; That's all I'm asking for. Anyway (as you like to finish your comments :) ), --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And I believe its... Anyways, Tom (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyways :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting comments

Excuse me, but if you are going to do things like this, you will need to apply that same rule to all "forum-y" comments on that page, including the comment I was responding too that was a bunch of sarcastic crap about Media Matters and Olbermann. Let's not have any sort of double-standard, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any comments that are off topic there. I will take another look as well. Also, please don't speak of double standard as you know you wouldn't allow the type of comment you made to stay on the Obama talk page. Thank you, Tom (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that section, since you decided to be a bit of an ass about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine. Calling me a bit of an ass is not appreciated. Tom (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you were being a bit of an ass about it. Despite WP:FORUM, there is plenty of idle chit chat on talk pages. Singling out my comment in particular was unreasonable. I'm sure your skin is thick enough to cope. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't single out your post. I have that page watchlisted and I do remove quite a bit of blather from talk pages when I see it. Anyways, Tom (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)ps, how thick my skin is doesn't excuse your rudeness.Tom (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reily

Seeing as you were a participant in this discussion earlier, you may wish to know that the criticism page is being looked at again. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out the main article bio. An editor just reverted another editor saying that consesus was reached about including the "widely considered a conservative" material in the lead when it was discussed by 3-4 folks and the lead had been stable for a while? Its pretty laughable at this point. Anyways, Tom (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not A Troll

I'm not a troll, remember no personal attacks and assume good faith right?--E tac (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)