User talk:Tom S 48

Welcome!

Hi Tom S 48! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 00:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please not that one of our core policies is Wikipedia:no personal attacks. That includes remarks like "are you learning impaired?". Please treat your fellow editors in a civil, collegial manner. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -Willmcw 02:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't reverted this article today. What are you talking about. According to the rules, unsourced articles and opinions may be deleted by ANY editor. I have simply deleted the unscorced parts to the articls. I have been studying the guidelines and rules for days. Have been reading these articles and researching for days as an editor, and have found that all the resources linked on this pages of CARM, Slick and Ratcliff to be without any resources that are reliable. Have you checked? They were all personal websites, blogs, discussion boards that are NEVER to be used as reliable sources. I have NOT done reverts but have edited one at a timeTom S 48 03:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either adding or subtracting the same material counts as a "revert". It doesn't matter whether the edits were "justified" or not, unless there is actual vandalism involved, which isn't the issue here.

And so on. Please do not keep reverting or you will be blocked. Thanks, -Willmcw

Based on your comments to this page, Talk:Matt Slick, I think that you have previously been warned of the 3RR rule under your IP address accounts. Therefore I'm blocking you for 24 hours. When you return please act in a more civil manner and do not participate in edit warring. -Willmcw 04:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

There were several of us using the account as explained intially and we stated that fact on the discussion pages. We did not understand that doing an edit is considered a revert when we haven't reverted anything. Tom, (spouse, not wanting to use real name because of aarm poster threats) and another CARM supporter. The other two signed on today for their own accounts as directed by you, to get their own accounts as Peggy Sue and Interested Party, as we told you, we are working together on the edits, and you blocked all the accounts. We have a problem here, that the other editors continue to remove our edits, and now all of us blocked. Apology for the misunderstanding but we are separate people working together. We did as you asked and I didn't use my Tom S account. Looks like, there is no possible way to receive fair treatment here as long as aarm users are running the CARM edits.Tom S 48 00:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you had been upfront and honest to begin with then it might be easier. I wasn't born yesterday. Now let me get this straight, Tom S 48 is your spouse? What is the relationship to the other users? Are all of you CARM moderators or users? -Willmcw 00:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

We told you in the initial posts on discussion that we were interested parties and NOT using our names because of threats of law suits from the individuals on aarm and disturbing emails received from the wackos there. That is why we were using the name "Intereted Party and Parties." You then insisted the user get a name. Tom S signed on. Tom S is my husband, and NO he is not a poster on any of the CARM forums or a participant, yes I am and NO, interested party is an occasional user, who is my sister also helping us with this WAR which is ridiculous. We signed on today as requested as instructed by you to each get an account. Peggy Sue, Interested Party and Tom S, and yes we are three people. See message to you from Interested Party on discussions and talk. This is ridiculous. We are trying to learn the rules, reading for hours and hours to what is fair, requiring the three of us because of the aarm users ganging up constantly removing our edits and now we are blocked again. By the way, Interested Party can post, but didn't change the article again, giving you a message since we cannot find your TALK page and left a message for you to verify that she is a different person working with us. Something needs to be done about the aarm atheists and friends continuing to edit and bully in these articles. We do not care if you post 5 or 100 criticisms of Matt and CARM but GET RELIABLE, reputable sources. Matt doesn't care about criticism or disagreement, he debates for a living. But the wackos posted here as links are insults. And we were honest with you from day one, the aarm people are vicious, we didn't want to use our names. We said we were a group, we said we all live on the East Coast. Yes, my husband and I work on this together, as well as my sister.Tom S 48 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here, told you here, we were honest, from discussion page. "Actually this is Mr. and Mrs. Tom posting on an off from this pc. Are you saying that the AARM members decide what is written here to attacking Slick's debate tactics? Shouldn't you prove that? If the AARM members ask it to be removed, will you take it off? "

Also here from discussion....."We are several users posting in good faith and agreement of opinions with just one of us typing at this time and it is our opinion that because there appears to be a biased number of editors to this article, user names from a 'shock site, propaganda' type of website admitting to their writing for this wikipedia article as we have documented."Tom S 48 02:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why, if Tom is your husband, your own username is Tom. And his is Interested Party? If not, why are you using his account? So who is the one I was speaking to earlier, on the talk:Matt Slick page, before anyone of you got usernames? And who is FanofJR? Frankly, none of it would matter except that all of you are editing the same articles, in the same way, using the same aggressive tactics. If you'd all calm down, edit collegially, and follow our rules about personal attacks and edit warring then there won't be any problems. However, if you keep editing as if you were one person don't be surprised if you get treated like one. When your block expires I will unblock the other accounts as well. Be nice. -Willmcw 05:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Urbie edited the page 6 times. When one of us edits more than three it is blocked. Irmgard and others agree that aarm discussion boards should be removed. You said that discussion boards not permitted in the rules. Why are urbie and hyperbole permitted to put the aarm boards back when the boards are being voted out and the consensus is they are against the rules and should be removed. Are you going to block urbie? With six edits?Tom S 48 23:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]