(Cross-posted from Talk:Evil Inc.) It's possible that the subject of your article is encyclopedic, I can't know that because I haven't read it and haven't seen indication that it qualifies for Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Was this web-comic the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself? If so, you should provide these sources in the article to establish notability.

As to Wikipedia being biased against web-comics, there's a grain of truth in that. There are independent guidelines for web-content, but they are still geared towards establishing notability. Still, many articles that qualify against the criteria for inclusion do exist on Wikipedia (see Category:Webcomics for examples). LeaHazel : talk : contribs 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palindromes rock.

Anyway. The point is that the Evil Inc. article has been restored, and edited so that all the stuff that establishes it as notable is now included in the article. The version that was deleted was basically just a cast list - and any webcomic can have a cast list. DS 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DS. Guigar will be most pleased, as will the rest of the fans. I'm sure there will now be a flurry of edits as people flesh out the article. TomXP411 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you reverted the character listing on the Evil Inc. page. Thank you.

I just wanted a clarification. I believe that, even without explicit permission, listing a comic's characters isn't a violation of copyright. Is there a Wikipedia policy one way or another? I'd just like to have something to point people at if this kind of thing happens again.

Thanks. TomXP411 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it as a given. In my 3+ years here this is the first time I've seen this. Odds are that whoever did that will shut up soon enough with no long-term consequences, but if he doesn't, I'll put up a note at the smart people's noticeboard and ask for one. --Kizor 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that this article will be a hotspot for a while - both good and bad. Thank you again for the help. It's appreciated. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs).

Hey, any time. Welcome to the tour of the sausage factory, folks. ;) --Kizor 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all found and fixed now. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34 20 February 2007 (GMT).

Please see my comment on talk:XM/Sirius merger, as well as various stuff happening at wikinews (I'm assuming it was your article over there). Bawolff 08:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed your edits on User talk:AKMask, and thought I'd drop you a line to alleviate any concerns you may have about potential vandalism stemming from that user on the XM/Sirius merger article. It's clear that you two are engaged in a content dispute, and while it's clear that you disagree with his edits, it's also clear that his edits are not vandalism. Edits made in good-faith are never vandalism, and for you to assert them as such is a bit of bad faith on your part. It's not a huge deal or anything; I just wanted to clarify that there is no vandalism to be worried about. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! For what it's worth, it doesn't appear that either of you were acting particularly out of sorts and I'm glad that you all have appeared to "take it to the talk page", so to speak. Also, you're a bit too harsh on yourself, mate! You've been doing good work, and Wikipedia is lucky to have you as a volunteer! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sort of format Is what we mean by encyclopedic fashion... we write about whats happening, not that its happening. Sorry If I was a bit terse earlier, I've been dealing with a lot of newer editors lately, which means I have to be in compliance with WP:BITE even when I dont want to be, so I'm looser with editors such as yourself who have some edits under their belt. Anyway, found some free time and decided it might be easier to just show what I meant. Lists, although useful for categorizing things, are generally a sign, in actual articles, of someone either a bit unsure of their prose or who just didn't have the time. Either way we like to put them in an encyclopedic tone :) -M^ask 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

think we should make a category for ypg chair's, this guy wasn't that good that he should go in the main bcs category

Hello,

I don't understand why you keep removing the young chairs' category, we're trying to add to the wikipedia entries around the BCS.

We are actively chasing details about the YPG Chair's, a significant post, with signiificant responsibilities and many former chairs' have gone on to achieve great things.

It is inappropieate to add Chairs' directly to the British Computer Society Category as the names by themselves don't mean much.

We would like to therefore create a category under the British Computer Society, call it whatever you like, but something like BCS Young Professionals Chairs,

thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, if you have more monitors than the Neb, how many do you have 0.o? --Hojimachong^talk 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4, at the moment. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 07:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user would like to wish you a happy St. Patrick's Day.

Trampton 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tom, First, you should check your facts. Its George Washington University, not Georgetown University that you are thinking of as being involved with NAB. Its an important distinction. I hope you gave the report cited a more thorough read than your reading of articles discussing the NAB-George Washington University connection. It raises points that go far beyond the scope of the antitrust issues that are discussed in the article. The issues surrounding the merger are far more complicated than a simple merger to monopoly.

Second, the entire article appeared biased to me, so I added a section discussing the possible negatives that could stem from the merger. A section entitled benefits followed by a section entitled hurdles implies that a merger is a positive thing, and that it only has to jump through the hoops for these supposed benefits to materialize. So, in the meantime, for impartiality, I'm going to have to remove the benefits section, because there is no discussion of consumer harm to balance out the alleged consumer benefit that a monopolist would graciously give to consumers.

Thanks, Antitrustbust

Chris, I have taken your comments under advisement and created a more neutral description of your arguments. Again, considering your conflict of interest in this matter (you are part of a political lobbying group), it is better that you propose changes first in the article's discussion page and let users help edit the changes in to an unbiased form. Then the content can be introduced in to the main article. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name isn't Chris. Why are you presuming to know my name?

• As an interesting bit of trivia, the whole anti-trust issue surrounding the XM/Sirius merger seems to have been rendered moot. ClearChannel Communications has released an iPhone and Blackberry application called "I Heart Radio." This app consolidates Internet streams of virtually all of the ClearChannel radio stations and is available anywhere the listener can receive cellular telephone service. On-air personalities have directly compared it to XM/Sirius satellite radio. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		As a top contributor to Village pump assistance, you deserve this barnstar. Thank you! Jreferee (Talk) 05:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TomXP411. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sean Wolfington. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Wolfington (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That page needed to go away. Good riddance. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not removed well reference content. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Doc, it would help to link to the edit you're talking about. I removed a very POV line in an article's header a few days ago, is that what you're referring to? The line was redundant, and POV material has no place in the opening section of an article. Since the same point was made a different way in the "arguments against" section, I decided that simply removing it was the best way to go. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 22:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to a review article published in a respected medical journal which reflects the general scientific opinion on the topic at hand as "critics" [1] is against WP:DUE. These are the facts and per [2] we state the facts. This is NPOV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget it. You can keep your pet article intact. I'm not going to get in to an edit war over a point of formatting; let's just say that the article as it is would get marked down by my college composition teachers for drawing conclusions in an intro paragraph. Do what that with you want. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 23:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have other recent high quality scientific reviews that disagree we can discuss things.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • James. I don't disagree with the study or its conclusion. I disagree with the formatting of the article. That statement is a conclusion or an argument, not an introduction. As such, it belongs in the arguments or conclusions part of the article. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Disambiguation (audio) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary term with no refs or notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TomXP411. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]