User talk:Tom Cool

Hi. I just read your story about being stuck in Guatemala. It is very interesting and well written but one small part bothered me. As far as I know, Tikal predates any known versions of the Chac Mool. Were you referring to the depictions of captives? Sorry for being fussy, but I thought it might be important. --Joe Quick | Talk

Joe, good catch. I was confusing Tikal with Chichin Itza, a post-classic site that does have Chac Mools. I'll make the change in a little bit. Tom Cool 12:15, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Pittsburgh article

Tom, I'm confused about the Pittsburgh article. Why did you delete it? We are just starting to get editors since the launch. I'm no history or geography editor - but I lived in Pittsburgh for 2 years and trained at Childrens Hospital there, and was on faculty at the University of Pittsburgh. I'd be pleased to co-author a section on the history of the University and the city as a center for medical education. Has there been a complaint about the article that led you to come up with that template? Nancy Sculerati 18:09, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, thanks for the encouraging note and email. I'm back in the game and I hope to make the History of Pittsburgh article even better. Tom Cool 20:11, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Help on Pittsburgh

I'm a specialist on state and local history and will be happy to help out here on the editing. Richard Jensen 18:34, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Richard, I'm very glad that you've decided to help improve this article. I've been disheartened by the fact that professors of history, who teach Pittsburgh history, in PITTSBURGH, have not stepped up to the plate to help to tell the story of this great city. I can see from the bibliography that you've already contributed that you're bringing the right stuff to the table. I just got a couple of the books you've listed, and I look forward to working with you and others to improving this article. It's a great city with a fascinating history . . . and one that is crucial to the development of our nation and indeed the world, in industrial and postindustrial times. Thanks again. Do you think we need to start a PREhistory of Pittsburgh? Lorant, in his excellent popular history of the city, gives the preColombian era short shrift, but I think that this is a disservice. True, the history of Pittsburgh per se didn't start until Fort Prince George, but the early bloody history of the city is very much rooted in the fact that the First Nation was here first (or second, if your subscribe to the theory of a first wave of Ainu-related peoples who were largely wiped out by the peoples we know as Native Americans.) Or should we continue to deal with the prehistory of the city in a section of the article? Tom Cool 20:25, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

yes I think there should be a separate pre-history article. It can include a lot of topics (from Mound builders to Pontiac's rebellion and Revolution), then start the city history article circa 1784 at end of Revolution. Richard Jensen 20:59, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Give CZ a chance

Hey Tom, As someone also named Tom, you must be pretty cool. I hope you understand that CZ was just released to the public and has just started getting some major press coverage. We'll have more editors and experts soon who you can collaborate with. See you around the recent changes list -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:40, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, Tom. With Richard Jensen and others stepping up, I'm encouraged that we can make a go of it here in CZ (if I can dare to use an acronym). Tom Cool 20:27, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Congrats Tom

Hi Tom, I am glad to see you got the editor you were looking for and am pleased that you are back! I performed a thorough search of your work on wikipedia and see that it is solid and your contributions were solid. I am also very impressed with the voracity of your search for Pittsburgh editors. You are to be commended. If everyone had your persistent nature, we will certainly be successful here.

I am removing your comment at the top of the History of Pittsburgh talk page. I'm sure it was out of a moment of understandable frustration. In the future, count to ten;) --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:21, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Tom, as a fellow wikipedian, I can tell you that the reason for not using acronyms is because we want to avoid falling into a cliquish clan that has our own language and makes newcomers feel unwelcome. It may take a little longer, but when we spell everything out, everyone understands everything from day one. Give it a chance and see what happens. I do look forward to seeing a lot of good Pittsburgh articles! --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:30, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

What about approval?

Jensen has split the article, so you may be on the road to getting 2 articles approved. Tom, could you make sure that the discussion pages on those articles are suiitably filled out? Please contact the Editor (Jensen) so that you can work together towards making whatever changes are required to get these articles approved.I will be listing theses articles as developing and on the way to approval on the Notice Board tonight. I am hopeful that they will soon be nominated for approval. If Jensen sticks to being an Editor, he can be the nominating Editor, if he also becomes an author- you will both need an additional History editor to nominate for approval. So, far- it seems to me he is being an Editor, but stay with us Tom, to the end, please. Nancy Sculerati 08:57, 24 April 2007 (CDT)