User talk:Tom
| Welcome to my talk page.
Please click here to leave me a new message, and I'll respond soon. |
Deletion
Verifiability and the reliability of the source. Danny 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- We should wait for the name to be released before deciding how important it is. Danny 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just another RFA thank you note
|
Dear Tom, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)
| Hey, Tom, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... |
|
Image Tagging Image:Sethmacfarlane.jpg
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Sethmacfarlane.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look and commenting on the cultural identity section. Their are two users who are tying to push, in a roundabout way, a really pov view, basically a rant off the talk page, in the section. I don't want to have to do anything drastic but i am getting the idea that my had is going to be forced in the matter. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest in the Maryland page. There are newbies that just plain will not adhere to NPOV for citing policies. Note their reverts! WillC 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking it over, seems if we see eye to eye on the pricples of the section. I dont know if sourcing would help any, while it would go to back up their the points they are trying to make, i dont see it being useful in the context as a whole, as it wonl't prove their argument. As for rewording or heavely trimmed, yeah i agree, but basiclay, as i see it, the section would have to be striped down an rebulit, beasiclay removing, the current txt, which as you states was "heavily biased and full of assumption". Also being that it is full of assumptions, regardless of cites or not, would it not also be considered WP:OR? At the time of this note i havn't had a chance to see any comments in regards on the article talk page --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
AbrahamLincoln24
Why was I deleted this is full of fatcs...... Are you right winged. Why are you deleteing my posts. Name one fact that is wrong...
Nothing that I say is in third person so IE its not POV too.
Thanks
Thanks for stopping the disrespect of my good friend Dr. Ruckman. I have met the man several times and he clearly towers above most in his wisdom.
Olz 06
Who do you think you are?
time for an update to GWB approval rating graph
eom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:23, May 12, 2006 (talk • contribs) 74.238.7.182
LAPD SWAT
the reason they feature LAPD SWAT is because they invented the concept, as well as the acronym "S.W.A.T." which is now used by other law enforcement agencies all over the world. they initially came up with Special Weapons Attack Team but later changed it to Special Weapons And Tactics, to make it sound less aggressive.. silly idea if you ask me. having said that, Chicago SWAT or Houston SWAT are mere imitations of LAPD SWAT. in fact, many police agencies, including Chicago PD simply adopt whatever equipments or tactical procedures that LAPD test/implement..