User talk:Tomgreeny

Welcome!

Hello, Tomgreeny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JoshuaZ 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

You're doing a good job on the news break on Donald Rumsfeld/Robert Gates, but with so many edits coming in fast, it's helpful to have summaries. Thanks! Stealthound 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; I'll bear that in mind thanks. Tomgreeny 21:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus

I responded on the talk page, your input would be appreciated. Thanks.--Cronholm144 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Match Point

Thanks for your note about the Match Point entry. I've replied twice but I confess I'm not too interested in continuing the argument with those determined to have no spoiler tags anywhere. Clockster 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endspoiler

Done. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Crick

I see you’ve nuked my contribution to Michael Crick’s entry. It was intended as an attempt to improve Wikipedia and as such does not technically constitute vandalism, though I take your point. I would be grateful if you could correct the record before the Wikicops come round and break my Amstrad.

My botched attempt at making the world a better place does however raise a fundamental issue that, should it be resolved, might well improve Wikipedia. At what point does a political commentator become a political activist? It is surely when the layman would agree that their body of work indicates a definite political agenda, rather than objective commentary. Thus Mr. Crick’s entry might, for example, be entitled “Socialist Activist” rather than “Political Editor, Newsnight”.

This might seem unusual, but History would surely smile on a wiki that gave its reader true insight into its subjects at the earliest possible stage. Indeed this kind of thinking would seem very much in the Wikipedia spirit and of its admirably progressive agenda.

May I request a full debate on this issue and that Mr. Crick’s output might be an excellent starting point when addressing it.

Many thanks and best wishes.

Yungatheart (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]