User talk:TomPointTwo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Regime change

I did not actively participate in writing that article; I find the title itself misleading and non-neutral. The topics, in the past, have been covered in a more neutral manner elsewhere.

Nevertheless, I am no longer actively editing at Wikipedia; we'll see how Citizendium pans out. I am willing to discuss by email. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for catching the problems in Covert United States foreign regime change actions and Soviet Union – United States relations. I've removed the problematic text from the second article. Another admin has completed the rewrite you had begun on the former. Appreciate your help keeping Wikipedia copyright clear. :)

I did want to explain why it was necessary to further rewrite that text, in case you were wondering. In addition to looking for directly copied text, the US government that governs Wikipedia looks for "comprehensive non-literal similarity" in evaluating if "substantial similarity" exists between a source and a work that draws on it. Even if there is no verbatim duplication of the copyrighted original, infringement can be found if the new version follows so closely on the structure of the original that copying is clear. As the US Court of Appeals noted in discussing Artica v. Palmer, et al. (970 F.2d 106, 1992): "A plaintiff succeeds under this doctrine when it shows that the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar."[1] This adds an additional layer of challenge to addressing copyright infringements placed on Wikipedia to be sure. :)

Anyway, the material should be fine now and, again, I do appreciate your keeping an eye out for copyright issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Benjamin R Mixon

blanked page

Hi TomPointTwo, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Benjamin R Mixon. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 00:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Genocide_of_Ottoman_Turks_and_Muslims. Pcap ping 02:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Covert United States foreign regime change actions

Hit TomPointTwo. In my opinion, the content I removed from Talk:Covert United States foreign regime change actions is clearly inappropriate for an article talk page and detrimental to a collaborative editing environment. But I see you feel otherwise, and I won't revert again, but I'll just kindly ask you to reconsider. Thanks, -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that even though the manner in which the objection was raised is obviously disagreeable it's still has a potentially valid underlying point. Since no person was single out and attacked ad hominem and a specific complaint was raised about the article's content I'm inclined to let the comment stay. Many times when others perceive a problem with an article and, upon viewing the talk page and finding others who have raised similar concerns, are motivated to bring it up again, usually in a more concrete and constructive manner. With that said it's obviously in poor taste and as I doubt this individual will return and engage in constructive editing I have no problem with putting it into a drop down box and marking it as something that "potentially doesn't add to the discussion" if that would mollify you any. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

War crimes committed by the United States

Please see Talk:War crimes committed by the United States, and explain your reasoning. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there TomPointTwo, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:TomPointTwo/sandbox/3. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Triple-volunteer

Hi,

I re-submitted my edit with a fuller summary, because the first one was evidently unclear (sorry). I'll leave the final decision to you, in case you disagree with the reasoning regardless.

(new IP) 212.23.105.124 (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

JSOC

I love how you completely ignore the comments I make and just take an opportunity to make useless comments. If you read the Congressional Research Service citation on the page, it lists the Ranger Regiment and SOAR. Also, read JP 3-05 - it establishes the whole Joint Task Force concept. Out of curiosity, Delta wears USASOC patches, but they are JSOC? They deploy with the Ranger Regiment and SOAR but neither are JSOC? I think if you set aside your personal bias, you'll find the numbers aren't adding up. (Message moved from User: to User talk: page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolau.kalani (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at User talk:MFIreland

Please don't restore block and warning templates to the talk pages of other users. The only templates that users are not allowed to blank are declined unblock requests. While I am bothered that he blanked my notice after blocking him, WP:BLANKING is pretty clear on what can and can't be blanked. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please repair improperly formatted links rather than delete them. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A broken link in a reference is not grounds for removal of a reference. References are required to have a working url. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mayward District killings

You did an excellent job shepherding that process through. Well done. V7-sport (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

...But you misspelled "Maywand District" while executing the move. These things happen to the best of us. Not to worry; I've moved the article to the correctly spelled title. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

cite a (weak) source for JSOC involvement in bin laden's death

I've found an (not necessarily reliable) source to cite for the assertion that jsoc is being credited as having involvement in the death of bin laden. Note the assertion is that this is being reported, not that this is known to be the case. Hope that satisfies your concern? (sdsds - talk) 04:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've put it on full for 18 hours. Solid sources should have emerged by that time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. DS (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Tom, please stop claiming that Thugdog is the author of that blog. The WP:OUTING policy is quite clear on speculating about editors' undeclared identity and affiliations. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Outing covers revealing personal information about a person they didn't advertise, not making an obvious connection between an anonymous blog and a WP:COI and forum shopping for consensus. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

JSOC units

Both the Delta Force and DevGroup articles list those units as being part of multiple commands, are they wrong?83.233.139.169 (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to keep up with theses sort of articles, a lot of people have their hands in them who mean well but don't really understand how the US military organizes their units. DevGru, for example, has the actual command it is part of (JSOC) and then all of the tiers of commands in which JSOC is a part of (NAVSPECWARCOM and SOCOM) when only JSOC should be listed. DevGru does not report to or fall under teh operations command of SOCOM people, it falls under JSOC people. I know that can be a distinction lost on a lot of people but it matters. It would be like listing them as part to the Department of Defense. Yes, they under the Department of Defense but no one at that level has any doctrinal, training or operational control over them, same as at SOCOM. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. 83.233.139.169 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi there. You're edit-warring. Please stop. You're already past 3RR and any admin may block you for it. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jac16888 ^Talk 22:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TomPointTwo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for violating the 3RR rule which, as a long established editor, I understand. My 3RR block stems from the re-opening and the unhatting of this section in ANI. There must be a reasonable expectation that when an editor, in good faith, brings up an issue at any Administrator Noticeboard that he will be addressed by an admin, regardless of what that admin decides. My section was repeatedly hatted with titles which were clearly personal attacks and snarky in tone. Several times it as closed which made it impossible for me to make my case or express my concerns. At no time was this section closed or hatted by an admin, instead by a group of non-admin, some of whom elected to attack and make political statements on the validity of my concerns. To have multiple editors, whose justification is not policy, but "I don't like it" repeatedly close the section before an admin can comment on it and then, when I reopen the section, to call 3RR is clearly a case of gaming the system. All I wanted was my concern about the generation of content on the mainpage to be addressed. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Plenty of admins, including ErrantX and MuZemike, were following that discussion. If they felt action was required, they would have acted. That a non-admin (or in this case, quite a few non-admins) closed the discussion is no excuse to edit-war it back open. Nonetheless, if you promise to stop edit-warring AND leave that AN/I thread alone, I'll unblock you. 28bytes (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not an admin., but I want to respond to your unblock request myself. You clearly violated 3RR by continually reopening a closed discussion. Yes, there are people on the page who are not admins. - me included - but when the community clearly has determined that there is nothing wrong, and you continue to insist that a discussion needs to be continued in the fashion you did, you appear to be nothing more than an uncivil and disruptive editor who cannot accept a consensus. The consensus is that nothing was wrong; someone even posted inside the closed discussion from one of the projects even saying himself that it was a mere coincidence, and you kept reopening the discussion. You deserve the block, and the discussion does not need to be had according to community consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. CycloneGU (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Your block is not just about 3RR, its about the fact your inability to let this non-issue drop was disruptive. You are the only editor who sees a problem, and you are ignoring the clear consensus that nothing needed to be done. Your concern was addressed, just not in the way you wanted--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, my block was for 3RR, not disruptive editing. That's two different criteria. My issue was NOT addressed, at no point prior to my being blocked did I get a response from an admin on the admin noticeboard. This was a topic about the generation of material on the front page and it was only a few hours old. There were still comment scoming in and consensus had yet to be established. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I know why I blocked you, and I've no doubt you do too. There is clearly no point me discussing this with you further since you're clearly not willing to drop it. Regardless I see Floq has decided to unblock you, and I trust that they will be the one to reblock you should you decide to go back to the dead horse--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone, That it was a non-issue was not the consensus, merely the majority and on a topic less than a few hours old. To hat the section with snarky titles and to close it before review by an admin is not acceptable. Even more so than when the admin responsible for POTD had just responded and asked a question of me. This has been a very disturbing instance of group think and bullying to a degree that I have seldom seen on wikipedia in the six years I've been editing. My questions were yet unanswered and many people, who were wearing politics on their sleeves, refused to acknowedge that there was more than one issue to be discussed. This is not discourse, this is bullying. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your thread on ANI had lots of input, and the consensus outcome was that there was no need for admin intervention. Your unblock request doesn't actually contain a reason for an unblock, so I'll decline it, unless you promise you'll stay away from the issue and let that ANI thread rest in peace. By the way, the issue will soon have become moot, because the DYK will be exchanged in about 1.5 hours. Will you let the matter rest until then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aw, crap, I guess I unblocked at the same time 28bytes declined the unblock. Sorry, 28bytes. I unblocked contingent on not repening the ANI thread, so hopefully this isn't stepping on your toes too much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No worries. I think we're all on the same page. :) 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the assumption of good faith on my part by those willing to unblock my account. As stated above, it's a none issue for immediate attention in an hour and a half. I'll leave ANI, not because I think I'm wrong, but because it's not longer the appropriate venue. Instead I will investigate using process in DYK, POTD and the front page for figuring out a way to better coordinate the material on it. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this your first DYK? One of my first DYKs was for the rap song "911 Is a Joke", which was – entirely coincidentally – scheduled to go up right around September 11, 2010. Unfortunate coincidences like that are actually pretty common. But regardless, your suggestion for better coordination is certainly a good one; hopefully that will gain some traction at the VP. 28bytes (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I'm going to comment here because I hate to see a fellow editor blocked over something so trivial. If you still want to debate that DYK and POTD need more coordination, that'll be a matter for Wikipedia:Village pump, not an admin board. It's not a matter for admins to use their tools on, but something the community needs to discuss and try to achieve consensus on. I personally don't see a problem with the way things are, but that's a matter to discuss at VPP.

Seriously, I know we got off on the wrong foot (and will probably still disagree on the matter), but I honestly wish this hadn't come to a block. Folks were trying to point out that this wasn't something for admins to fix. Hopefully you can get a resolution for this on the Village Pump. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, that took a sudden shift, didn't it? But yes, community consensus was that nothing needed to be done; regardless of my opinion (frankly I didn't even look yet), the consensus was clear that there was no POV problem. The only bullying I saw was the only user who clearly thought there is a problem was constantly trying to reopen the discussion. Admins. tend to follow the discussions even if they do not participate, and I think it's safe to say the only reason they didn't comment was because someone already made their comments for them. CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A sudden shift in what? If there were admins following the discussion they either didn't weight in because they weren't sure what to do or they didn't consider my appeals for admin comment to be worth responding to. Neither is a good scenario. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock denied and approved by two different editors at the same time, and then agreement that you could be conditionally unblocked. Haven't seen that before. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• (as always, multiple edit conflicts, no doubt I'm repeating what others above have just said) Tom, I understand how people hatting your discussion can feel insulting; evidently people are incapable of not responding incessantly to someone they disagree with, and simply must smack them down for the good of the project. You could have tried harder to avoid snapping back so often as well, I suppose. The net result was: (a) not intentional, (b) consensus seems to be against you that this particular instance is a significant problem (although you might have gained theoretical consensus that, if it had been caught ahead of time, something should have been switched with something else), and (c) ANI isn't the place to talk about changing how the main page is coordinated. May I suggest you take a few days to get some perspective, (this isn't an emergency, stuff like this happens once in a blue moon), and then open a non-accusatory, helpful, friendly thread at (I suppose) Talk:Main Page. Probably much more productive way to spend your time here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, my two rehattings were merely due to 3RR already being violated and not because of my own opinion. Consider it vandalism control by that point. =) I hope the editor did not take offense by my supporting community consensus. As for the VP suggestion (I also had multiple edit conflicts), see what they think; AN/I is definitely not the venue for that. CycloneGU (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think you acted fairly poorly here, to be honest. And I imagine he might take a wee bit of offense at being called a vandal just now. This probably is a discussion better had at one of our talk pages; if you'd like some more feedback, let me know, if not I'll shut up now and keep the rest of it to myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I do take offense but I feel so generally disrespected at this point it doesn't much register. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to win every dispute. I've lost more disputes than I can count, and I've been called a lot worse things than "vandal". But generally I don't take it personally. And I do win a dispute occasionally. And obviously I am always right. :) But being right, and winning a dispute, are not necessarily in sync. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I always think I'm right, too. I won't even go into detail on what the words "pending changes" mean; that became a mess with some very heated discussions I tried to cool down (and one or two myself I was caught up in the heat of). But even though I'm right, it's still fully disabled right now. Just how Wikipedia works. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

)(Multiple edit conflicts) I'll leave the first part of that for elsewhere, but I don't mean to call Tom a vandal at all. It's just a thing when I see a situation that is a 3RR violation I want to help ensure that the situation is resolved (sometimes it is vandalism, not here specifically). I probably didn't need to get involved, but after he reverted for a fourth time I couldn't not act and didn't want another editor caught in the 3RR rule. If Tom is indeed insulted or such by anything I said let me profoundly apologize. CycloneGU (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, if it wasn't you it would have been one of the others goading me into the inevitable result of that editorial gangbang. I don't take it personally and I appreciate the olive branch. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Flo, My discussion of the issue began on the Main page's discussion page, along with the POTD discussion page. The response was tepid and I viewed it as something requirng immediate attention from someone with admin tools, hence ANI. It's too bad I never got a response from someone that fit that criteria. At least not in time. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Both the DYK and the POTD are supportive of our military personnel. The POTD is an editorial cartoon expressing a point of view. It will still be expressing that point of view, no matter which day it's run. I don't understand your objections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of dropping the stick... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I'm entirely disinterested in your opinion on the political context of that cartoon or broad assertions of motivation you make on the behalf of others. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Then your complaints don't make sense. The cartoon pushes a point of view, no matter what day it gets run. So what's special about today? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy John's

Thanks for the concur. Nice to know someone still thinks I'm sane. Regards, --Manway 02:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unit awards

Please join the conversation at the MILHIST talk page, regarding this. AR 670-1 differs from the edit summary that was provided. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I will; I didn't see the section on the talk page prior to my edit. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Libel

I didnt remove any sourcing from any material if you review my past few edits. In fact, I included MORE reliable sources from the SAME source. This is the second libelous statement you've made (one in reference to Naylor, once now to me). and, Just FYI, you're argument is completely illogical. You suggest that since the 75th is under USASOC it can't be under any other component command, yet NO organization has officially acknowledged the existence of Delta Force. Using your logic, we must delete the entire delta force wiki page since it doesnt have official information validating it (completely illogical). It has already been brought to your attention that an Army FM and a journalist attached to JSOC forces references JSOC utilization of the 75th, yet you choose to ignore it. This is in direct contradiction to Wiki policies. 75.111.97.117 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested in an open discussion

I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Topher385 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael McGinn

In my opinion, the article is not written in an NPOV fashion but consistently uses references, quotes and subtle phrasing a way that tends to cast McGinn in a negative light. I will comment in greater detail later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been working long hours away from a computer (I work in construction) and am replying on a smart phone now. That's fine for short comments, but not for lengthy analysis requiring cut and paste to quote the article plus policies and guidelines. I marked up a paper copy of the article with a highlighter pen so when I am able to spend an hour or two at a computer, I will respond in detail. My concerns are grounded in WP:BLP not generalized discontent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've expressed my concerns on the article's talk page and more briefly, at WP:BLPN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reply to you here instead of the talk page back and forth if that's alright with you. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Total Taliban casualties

Hi, Could you please identify the reliable sources which provide estimates of total Taliban casualties? This would be very helpful to resolving the disagreement. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Savage

Thanks for the words. I made my argument and "everyone" disagreed so I finally gave up. Some people were polite and those that weren't shutup when I called them on calling me basically a right-wing hack. Whatever... Ckruschke (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Collateral murder

Hi, TomPointTwo, censors like User:C.Fred would like to disallow the question. But anyway, how would you feel if members of your family were "collaterally" killed? --129.125.102.126 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Navy SEALs

I assume that since you say the removed material has a place that you will put it there? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ike Densmore

Heh. He got caught by the wrong guy. Ike Densmore Watch the youtube video. Brad (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Chinook crash

I am reverting the change about the supposed electric pen signing. I would appreciate it if you would discuss this issue on the article talk page before any more reversions are done. The addition "believed by some to be" is more accurate. No one in the White House has stated that it was signed by a electric pen. The source cited is not even the primary article it is a condensation of a post from a highly partisan blog. The reliability of the source is highly questionable. As it stands now I question whether it is relevant and POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.131.247 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TomPointTwo. You have new messages at Talk:Attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Message added 14:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you comment on this? FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I requested page protection for the Delta Force talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Memorial page????

You state Wikipedia is not a Memorial page... I agree, but please re-start with deleting: United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan and see how far you get. Now, make an excuse on how all things here can stay and is NOT a form of a Memorial as you claim this on this article, because it doesn't mention a soldier individual name... or does is matter? Then start to delete other articles that mention lost of life of military people that points out a particular individual(s)... you will be one busy person. I think it belongs. Don't like the fact a soldier's name is used take it out and just mention the accident. But, I request you please put it back. Kennvido (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There has to be an inherent and general notability about an event for us to catalog it here. SEALs dying in training accidents is not inherently notable. Off the top of my head I can name a half dozen SEALs who have died in parachute, dive and live fire training exercises in far fewer years. While it's emotional for those personally invested and pertinent doctrinally for the military they are not, individually, encyclopedically notable events. If we cataloged every SOF member killed in training incidents by their unit's page all such articles would turn into memorial pages. If you would instead like to find sourcing on overall numbers or significant trends I could see that being something worth including in the article. Otherwise I would say non-combat deaths should remain in the very significant non-Wikipedia spehere of the internet. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you write, "I would say non-combat deaths should remain in the very significant non-Wikipedia spehere of the internet." I request you keep up with your editing beliefs and standards and deletions. I ask you to stand by your editing belief and remove the graph of non-combat deaths in Afghanistan at: United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan. And please notify me when you do it. Thanks. Kennvido (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It would appear you're not understanding my very clearly explained position. Since it's already clearly explained I'm not going to reiterate, I'll just suggest you read it again, in it's entirety. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

EW at 2nd Battle of Fallujah

Saw your question on AN:EW; I'll try to clarify. WP:3RR says:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. See below for exemptions.

Many editors mistakenly think that what they're reverting has to be the same text, or at least one word in that text must be the same. The specific clarification "whether involving the same or different material" in the rule actually means that even if what you're reverting isn't the same text (spanning across your reverts), they still count as a "revert" of another editor's actions. In the span of approximately four hours, you reverted Veriditas four times. In your first three reverts (#1, #2, #3), you added back in "politically leftist" after Veriditas removed it. In your last three reverts (#2, #3, #4), you removed the word "independent" from in front of Dahr Jamail after Veriditas inserted it. You're thinking that's only three reverts total, but under the rule, it's actually four reverts; on four separate occasions within a 24-hour period, you reversed the actions of another editor, "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Hence, Veriditas is at 3RR right now, and you're actually at 4RR. Do you see what I'm talking about now? And why it would be prudent to just withdraw the report while there is still time? AzureCitizen (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do what you need to, email lists and all. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You've lost me. Email lists and all? What are you referring to? AzureCitizen (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, no sweat. People are slinging emails like mad, if your're not one then don't sweat it. It'l pan out or it won't. All the edits you've made are productive so, thanks. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz Canadian

Ted Cruz was born in Alberta Canada. Anyone born on Canadian soil, other that the children of diplomats and their staff is automatically a Canadian Citizen under the Canadian nationality law. While I have no evidence that Mr. Cruz has ever used a Canadian passport or otherwise exercised the rights of his Canadian Citizen, Ted Cruz is or has been a Canadian and therefore fits this category. Just like, for example, Jennifer Granholm or Bonar Law. Dowew (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What you're referring to is Jus soli which means Cruz automatically qualifies for Canadian citizenship since he was born there, just as is law in the United States. I'm unaware of any legal precedent for the Canadian (or US) government forcing its citizenship on the child of foreign nationals who have no desire to give their child Canadian citizenship. If you can demonstrate the Canadian government ever issued, and his parents accepted, Canadian citizenship to Cruz then I'll be the first in line to put it in. Since they didn't, because he was given US citizenship upon birth, asserting that Cruz is a Canadian based on your understanding of Canadian law as it applies to Cruz is a violation of our policy on synthesis. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney

I understand that MilesMoney can be infuriating. As evidence, look at my response on the article talk page, which won't get awards for most diplomatic response ever. That said, your edit summary "Actually now that you're up against 3RR you can eat it." is too much. The editor is new, and will pick up cues about acceptable behavior from those s/he interacts with, so can we both strive to do better?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC) (Addendum, I now see that I'm a bit late to the table, and others have already commented.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SPhilbrick here. I can see that you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, but obviously a lot of people are finding your interaction style quite grating. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and getting on with people is an important part of editing here. I strongly recommend that you tone down the jokes and the sarcasm, as not everyone will understand your comments, and they might well end up getting you blocked if you continue. This goes doubly so now that you are the subject of an ANI thread, as your behaviour will be being looked at closely by many admins. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll tone it down a few notches. Besides, I've made why point and had my cheap laugh. There's going to be some future fussing about it but that's alright, it's just the usual badge waiving hall monitors and hurt feelings crowd. Thanks guys. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)