User talk:Tom Morris

This is Tom Morris's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107: 31 days

York meetup

Hi. I was there but didn't make contact with anyone and no-one made contact with me. See my remarks at User_talk:Tagishsimon#York_meetup. Best. --GuillaumeTell 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

my edits

Tom- Joe Masheck is my cousin. He asked me to remove the article. That does not seem to be possible, so I just edited it into non-existence. I would prefer it if you would allow me to remove it.Peter J. Comerford (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Peter J. Comerford[reply]

Hi, Peter. I've put a speedy deletion request. An admin should handle the deletion shortly. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's done! —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A blue shark with tentacles walks into an ADCO

Hi Tom, I thought it might make admin coaching, which Panyd is doing for both of us, even more enlightening if we exchange ideas on our talk pages or wherever. Panyd says that's fine with her, but if you're reluctant or too busy, that's fine also. Sharktopus ^talk 18:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? Sharktopus ^talk 19:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds good. Sorry, was tired after work yesterday. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom – my real life is also tugging hard just now, but I'll see you in mop school! Sharktopus ^talk 21:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Poovathingal

Can you please review your objections to the article 'Paul Poovathingal'. User:Jponnoly Jponnoly (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What objections exactly? I added the deletion discussion into the Bands and musicians category. I have absolutely no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Acton Smith article

Hi Tom,

Thanks for flagging up your concern about the Michael Acton Smith page. I work with Michael and was just trying to update the page with the latest facts about the business and his career development, as he's recently been referenced by many of the UK's national newspapers as one of the most influential people in the digital/new media industry. Please let me know the specific parts of the article which come across as too 'adverty' and I'll try to change the tone.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Alex

Alex77PR (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BB 2011

Please restore the ongoing updates you removed and put back the housemate bold headings and their published details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the edit summary? The descriptions were unsourced and potentially violations of the biography of living persons policy. There isn't an urgency here: we can just wait until after the launch show is done and then use a reliably sourced media report (like this) for the contestant names. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding necessity of Wikipedia should provide various Lists reg.

Hi Tom, I understand that a new topic initiated by me about list of celebrity blogs violates current Quality content policy of wikipedia .

I am a new contributor, can't comment much authentically about this. But I feel that World is looking to Wikipedia for most of the information.Even researchers (Phd) are using Wikipedia as their first reference.

What I observe is that lists in Wikipedia are not enough for people's needs. Starting a group of new lists on various subjects would be useful in this case. Just maintain the quality of content of these pages, over a period of time, these pages will attain maturity and will be useful for mass.

(Jaxo tm (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Wchar.h; Postanalytic philosophy; Ann Leslie; Birregurra, Victoria; Merrill Carlsmith; Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation; Warracknabeal, Victoria; Thomas Gilovich; David Sosa; Instant-off; Bob Hale (philosopher); The Dharma School; Leonard Linsky; Pacific Philosophical Quarterly; Zachry Construction Corporation; Butler Middle School; Old River Control Structure; John Hawthorne; Mark Lepper

Cleanup: Jameah Islameah School; Intisar-ul-Haque; Opal Whiteley
Merge: Submarine simulator; Postal codes in Andorra; Saif Islam Qaddafi Isratin proposal
Add Sources: Donald Trump; The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday; Forenoon
Wikify: Wattala; Texas Tax Reform Commission; Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence
Expand: Lewes Old Grammar School; Erkenntnis; Undefined value

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NIMML

Tom, actually it's a proposed deletion, not a proposed merger. Sorry if that's not clear. I deleted it earlier today per CSD A7 (and previously as copy vio). That deletion was contest and I had a change of heart. See User talk:Ymei for the full discussion. --RA (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David r

Tom. Prompted by David Allen Green's tweet I just read your blogpost. I figure that you should be aware of the discussion of the active account User:Zafio's possible relationship to David r here Yours, almost-instinct 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I do apologise: I've just been looking again at your post and I see that you are already aware of this. I beg your pardon. almost-instinct 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway! —Tom Morris (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari's socks

Hari's sockpuppets tend to behave in certain ways.

Pretty much single-purpose accounts, editing in a very limited area of interests. See User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs
Pro-Hari editing, to the point of being hagiographic.
Long-winded and verbose
Remove anti-Hari Private Eye material, claiming PE is a non-reliable source
Like to mention that libel suits might follow, especially the likelihood of Wikipedia being open to such legal claims [1], as a way of silencing criticism of Hari. This one is especially typical of his socks: "Jess"/User:Thelionforreal was even a legal journalist!
"Accidentally" forget to log in a few times, thereby making the IP apparent. Can then say "But my IP proves I am in X and Hari is in Y therefore we can't be the same person"
As David Rose, editing as an IP, Hari switched IPs frequently, and ISPs less frequently. This makes tracking him difficult.
Often challenge questioners to meet in the flesh, to prove they aren't Hari
Will argue/agree amongst themselves, to create the semblance of "real" people
When editing as IP socks, give a name in free text (rather than autosigning), and seem keen for people to know their identity/personal information about them and their location. Given that most IPs edit as IPs precisely because they want to remain "un-named", this is very unusual. In fact, I've only ever seen it in Hari's socks.

Given Hari's obsessive six year history of editing under various guises on Wikipedia, and his control freakery over his own article, it is not surprising he has not been be able to disengage, despite being found out. 86.152.240.151 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Swami Budhpuri Ji rewritten

As you are aware the concerned article was recommended for sppedy deletion...it has been worked upon again and is open for a review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp....please, leave your review...would be happy to have your suggestions on improvign it further..thanksSvechu (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Astrology

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More specific RfC on astrology

Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [[2]] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I'll have a look, time permitting. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Astrology

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the efforts made in respect of keeping template usages current and appropriate. Also for the work done in ensuring images have names appropriate to their nature. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!


Stubs		Cleanup
	Lotta Engbergs		Contemporary philosophy
	Alexander Pfänder		List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times
	Heathfield Community College		Nigel Warburton
	Stephen Hill (broadcaster)	Merge
	Tideway School		Ehud Goldwasser
	Longhill High School		Contrast theory of meaning
	Robertsbridge Community College		Risk
	Anders Engbergs	Add sources
	Queenwood Ladies' College		Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
	I Love to Love (But My Baby Loves to Dance)		Arda Denkel
	Carolyn		Postcode lottery
	Lotta & Anders Engbergs Orkester	Wikify
	Peacehaven Community School		California Bureau of Automotive Repair
	Frank Jensen		Anthony Owen
	Pamela Sue Anderson		Social Analytics
	Roland de Velville	Expand
	Lewis Stevenson (footballer)		John Lachs
	Lothian and Edinburgh Amateur Football League		Eurovision Song Contest 2011
	Stumpffia tridactyla		April 14–16, 2011 tornado outbreak

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resourceful humans

hi, how does ROWE (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROWE) differ? RH is a similar management strategy. thanks heiko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.152.53 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just wanted to say a quick thank you for the "hello" message. I've had a login for Wikipedia for a while but have only made edits relatively recently so the links to documentation are much appreciated. Thanks. NicolaOsborne (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dom&nic Page

Hi Tom. I am contacting you as I see you have referred the issue of deletion of the page I created to an area specifically regarding filmmakers. I am new to Wikipedia editing. I began a dom&nic page as I noticed there was an incomplete and outdated Dom and Nic page in existence. I am Dom Hawley one half of dom&nic. Can you give me any advice on how I make my page comply with the rules of Wikipedia. I believe everything in the article to be as factual as possible and have included third party references where possible. Do you think I Should continue to try and make the article better or do you think a dom&nic article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Many Thanks for any advice. Dom (Domley (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]