User talk:Thomas.W

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 9 as User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 8 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

THIS USER IS ACTIVE ONLY NOW AND THEN ON WIKIPEDIA, SO REPLIES TO POSTS HERE MIGHT TAKE SEVERAL DAYS, AND EVEN WEEKS.
Please add new discussions at the BOTTOM of the page. Older discussions have been moved to my talk page archive.

Precious again

chasing vandals
Thank you, Thomas, proud for a good reason, for spending most of your "time on WP chasing vandals and socks", for fighting vandalism and misconceptions, for precision in language and linguistic, imagine polychoral praise: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 896th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Time flies, Gerda <sigh>. Or maybe it's just me getting slower and slower... Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Extended content

The Civility Barnstar Thanks for your patience with my erroneous response at AN/I today. You could've snapped at me for completely misunderstanding Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, but you didn't do so. It's much appreciated. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Editor's Barnstar For your expansion of Super 8 film. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For watching my user page while I enjoy the weekend. 117Avenue (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Because some things are tedious, and tea invigorates and soothes. (You know of what I speak, I'm sure.) bonadea contributions talk 21:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I do, and I will have a cup of tea. Cheers, Tom Thomas.W ^talk 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Reduced presence on Wikipedia

For multiple reasons, ranging from health issues to beginning to lose faith in the project, after seeing too much of the negative sides of it for too long, and battling aggressive POV-pushers, PR-people, spammers and what have you too many times, I have decided to reduce my presence on Wikipedia even more than I already have. Trying to fight POV-pushers, PR-people and spammers in a fight that can't be won as long as registration isn't required for editing, and confirmation through a valid email address isn't required for registering an account, has made me see my "work" here as just a waste of time and energy, so for the foreseeable future I will be just a reader of Wikipedia, apart from some minor uncontroversial gnoming on articles that interest me. Thomas.W ^talk 10:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but I do understand what you mean. A break can be a good thing - I hope you can find renewed inspiration for the project, because it needs people like you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W It's quite odd that you claim, above, to be "battling aggressive POV-pushers". On the article "Terry Bean", you are clearly ASSISTING "aggressive POV-pushers". You are threatening immediately to block editors who simply remove biased, contentious, libelous material. Maybe your position depends entirely on the POV? And maybe your POV is somehow related to the "health issues" you mention above? Hint: People like Terry Bean furiously engaged is a lot of health-issue-spreading over the last 40 years. Perhaps you got caught up as well? 67.5.192.83 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm not "assisting POV-pushers", I'm reverting edits by a POV-pusher, you (in your multiple incarnations, repeatedly editing Terry Bean as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and possibly more as I didn't look very far back, all of the IPs geolocating to Portland, Oregon...), first adding unsourced content regarding alleged sex abuse and then repeatedly removing sourced content about it, in an attempt to portray him in as negative a way as possible. Thomas.W ^talk 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your reference to "first adding unsourced content regarding alleged sex abuse" interests me, in part because you did not provide any examples of it in diffs. (despite having cited diffs prior to that, and of those merely claiming that there was "repeatedly editing". Apparently your only objection to the edits you actually listed was that they were negative to Bean; you don't show examples of "adding unsourced content.") Let's discuss this "unsourced content": Question, if somebody tries to make an edit, and while he is preparing the citation the edit is reverted by someone else, does that constitute "adding unsourced content"? Another question: have you looked to see if anything negative about Bean, which was properly sourced, was removed with the (false) claim that it was not properly sourced? You should be willing to admit that your allies (confederates; people of similar POV) are misbehaving. Also, you don't seem to realize that when you accused me of an "attempt to portray [Bean] it as negative a way as possible", that is an unjustifiable accusation: The issue isn't supposed to be whether Bean is portrayed as a child-molester, it is whether the material is verifiable and is cited from reliable sources. If reliable sources say that Bean engaged in child-rape, then neither you nor any other person has a valid objection if that source is cited. Your (and others') mere desire to make Bean look better than that doesn't justify cleaning up the article to remove negative material. Also, notice that the people who want to make Bean look better virtually never use the Talk Page; if they are unwilling to justify their actions on the Talk Page, they should be presumed to be acting improperly. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not say that Bean "engaged in child-rape", they say that he was accused of it and arrested, but the charges were dropped and the case never went to trial. Which should be mentioned in the article, as it is, and Bean's response to it through his attorney, i.e. the material you're repeatedly removing, should also be mentioned. I deliberately ignored the stupid comment ("People like Terry Bean furiously engaged in a lot of health-issue-spreading over the last 40 years. Perhaps you got caught up as well?") you made in your first post, BTW, in order to not feed the troll, but don't push your luck, Wikipedia is not a place to pursue personal agendas, and comments like that could easily be seen as a "personal attack"... Thomas.W ^talk 20:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I just retrieved a properly-cited edit that explains WHY the "charges were dropped and the case never went to trial". Previous edits of Bean's statements and those of his attorney falsely claimed this entirely cleared him of the accusations; at most, they cleared Bean of the official charges, and only for very limited reasons: In no way was Bean exonerated (found actually innocent of the accusations. In fact, Bean's accuser actually hid from the prosecutors, in Los Angeles, so that they couldn't find him to subpoena him for trial.) It was also improper to remove the material from the lede: Like it or not, once those charges were filed, Bean became by far best-known for this accusation, and not anything else he might have done. If you doubt this, think about OJ Simpson: What first comes to mind? And yes, OJ was ACQUITTED of the murder. Bean was never acquitted.

The following is the first paragraph of the lede for OJ Simpson: Orenthal James "O. J." Simpson (born July 9, 1947), nicknamed "the Juice", is a retired American football player, broadcaster, actor, and convicted felon. Simpson played college football for the USC Trojans for the University of Southern California (USC), where he won the Heisman Trophy in 1968. He then played professionally in the National Football League (NFL) as a running back for 11 seasons, with the Buffalo Bills from 1969 to 1977 and with the San Francisco 49ers from 1978 to 1979. In 1995, Simpson was acquitted of the 1994 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman after a lengthy and internationally publicized criminal trial, the People v. Simpson. In 1997, a civil court awarded a $33.5 million judgment against Simpson for their wrongful deaths.

So, Thomas.W, stop playing games, along with your buddies. Stop helping your friends clean up Terry Bean's article. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Lurie2, in the same edit you also removed the text reporting Bean's response to the case, i.e. the same material you have been trying to remove for a long time, probably thinking that noone would notice. Well, I did notice, and your comment about Simpson (referring to a discussion on your talk page a bit over a month ago, a discussion a random IP wouldn't know of) shows beyond doubt that you and all the Portland IPs who have been doing the same thing on Terry Bean since October of last year is one single person. As for your comments about me they're so stupid that they're not worth a reply. The article has been protected now, BTW, so you'll have to find a new hobby. Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop pretending to be a detective. The issue is whether the material being added (or removed) is well-sourced. Not merely whether you happen to like it. The fact is, this article has been subject to intense resistance to adding negative material about Bean from at least as far back as he was first accused (and later charged) with child rape. See, for just one example, this entirely unjustified revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Bean&type=revision&diff=634838295&oldid=634838194 Your foolish comment that "As for your comments about me they're so stupid that they're not worth a reply.", that's a clear sign that you realize they are indeed worth a reply, it's just that you can't figure out what to say without looking foolish, stupid, malicious, or evil. If you guys keep "sticking together", you know what that makes you, huh? 67.5.192.83 (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not just about being sourced, it's also about not giving undue weight, and maintaining a neutral point of view, and that's where your edits fail. As for your moronic childish attempts to annoy me, a quick look at my user page would have shown you that I'm a grandfather (and a happily married one too), but I guess you're not smart enough to look there. My only connection to Portland is that I passed through Portland on my way by car from LA to Vancouver in the 1970s, and as for the guys you say are "sticking together" you seem to know a lot more about that world than I do. So shooo, you're not welcome on my talk page anymore, not in any of your multiple incarnations. Thomas.W ^talk 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't explain why my (and some other) edits lead to "undue weight". Nor do you explain how the cabal trolls (your allies) are somehow maintaining a "Neutral Point of View". Hint: You AREN'T. Yes, you are sticking together in your GANG. That's what it's called, a "gang". A "gang" is a group of people who are willing to back each other up, using improper and (if necessary) even illegal methods. Blocking people improperly is improper. Reverting properly-sourced material is improper. Claiming false violations of copyright is improper. Falsely claiming that somebody else is violating the rules is improper. Don't claim that you, personally, didn't do all these things: The reality is, people acting as if in a gang are backing you up. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

About the second Official website

• Have you tried searching via Internet Archive Wayback Machine? I disagree with you on this matter, but that being said, there is never anything wrong with researching. If you know the url, give it a shot. Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments at Laura Brannigan

In an effort to keep the conversation sensible, I've had to impose really strict rules. I'm sorry that I had to delete your second post in the thread, but as you will understand, I have to be seen to be fair. I'll repost your comment in a new section. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)