Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:38, 23 February 2010

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 – October 18th, 2009 October 19th, 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 so please watchlist this page. 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

Incivility

Hi there,

Please try to keep your comments more civil than your recent contributions to Talk:Sarah Palin. Especially on an article like that, it's critical to keep the tone of the discussion respectful and focused on the content, rather than the contributors. I understand getting frustrated, but expressing that frustration on the talk page through attacks does not accomplish anything. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are right. Maybe I should refer the matter to the "troll" notice board. If the trolling continues,I will head there. Thank you. --Tom (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nola Kaye

Hi, regarding the removal of this. I'm in agreement that it's trivia which should not be in the lead. However the information is sourceable, if you'd choose to re-add it elsewhere:

• Dunin, Elonka (2009). "Kryptos: The Unsolved Enigma". Secrets of the Lost Symbol: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code Sequel. Harper Collins. p. 319. ISBN 9780061964954. Dan Brown himself has admired Dunin's work and paid her the stellar compliment of writing her into The Lost Symbol as Nola Kaye . . . {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Taylor, Greg (2009). "Decoding Kryptos". In John Weber (ed.) (ed.). Illustrated Guide to the Lost Symbol. Simon & Schuster. p. 161. ISBN 9781416523666. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

These two should probably also be added to the "Books" section of the article, but I'll leave it up to you as to whether you think they're worth including (or whether you have time to do so).

• Dunin, Elonka (2009). "Kryptos: The Unsolved Enigma". Secrets of the Lost Symbol: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code Sequel. Harper Collins. pp. 319–326. ISBN 9780061964954. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Dunin, Elonka (2009). "Art, Encryption, and the Preservation of Secrets: An interview with Jim Sanborn". Secrets of the Lost Symbol: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code Sequel. Harper Collins. pp. 294–300. ISBN 9780061964954. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

FYI, --Elonka 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, Yeah, I can add that first part back into the article somewhere, as well as the two books, just need to finish up the Holidays first :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the latest book just went international, in case you'd like to add that too... --Elonka 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that book was added to the article as an inline citation from amazon.com? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the "Nola Kaye == Elonka" link is picking up steam. I keep finding more books that are mentioning it. For example, if it's useful:

• Haag, Michael (2009). The Rough Guide to the Lost Symbol. Rough Guides. ISBN 9781848360099.

--Elonka 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The dark side

Use the force, hilarious, thanks for the laugh Tom, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It seems like you do alot of BLP improvement/noticeboard help which is cool, imho. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal for wording

Hi, I still think we are misrepresenting facts and would like you to take a look at Talk:Johnny_Weir#Sexuality_verbiage_still_needs_work. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ok,I will check it out, but to be honest, I don't have a very strong opinion about the current wording/inclusion either way....it seems that folks are trying to reach a consensus on the talk page, so that is good, and it dosen't seem that something can't be worked out....I will continue there, thank you...cheers! --Tom (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help at article you recently edited?

Hi,

You recently edited an article on the Whittemore Peterson Institute, and I was hoping to ask if you might consider poking your head in there once more. I could go into detail in explaining why, but I think if you take one look at the article in it's current form it will become abundantly clear why your help is requested. Thanks for your time.74.51.82.241 (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit- The article has already been reverted to a more acceptable form, so it's hard to say which version you will see if you do take a look. Basically one editor has made a practice of cherry picking anything even remotely disparaging about the Institute from any number of sources, even if a particular adjective or descriptor is only used in one source, such as the descriptor 'small' which you edited out(and was used to describe the lab space provided by the Univ. of Nev. which the Institute currently conducts it's research in and is to be abandonded when the Institute's permanent home is completed later this year), and then building the entire Wiki article solely out of this cherry picked junk until the article reads like the Wiki Enquirer or something. Sorry if you're not interested, just thought I'd ask. Thanks again.74.51.82.241 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi 74.51.82.241, Sure, I'll take a look. If someone is trying to push an agenda there, be it promote or disparage, then it should be pointed out and dealt with. More eyes/imput is always good, as well as using the talk page. Anyways --Tom (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ps, I have to admitt that there is also/an "advanced medical" disagreement going on which I won't get into since 1) I have zero medical knowlege and 2) I faint at the sight of blood :)...--Tom (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)