User talk:TharsHammar

 ''Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting  --  at the end. [ 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 AND copy and paste the thread onto your talk page as well unless you ask me to keep it here only. Thank you. ''

July 2009
Please stop acting as the sole owner and editor of Wikipedia, and please stop using fallacious claims to influence content. All content I added to the Roesgen page was accompanied by sources. First you claimed it contained 'too many weasel words' and simply undid the change, offering no compromise. I then restored it and opened a discussion section where you could offer your input; you then reverted it again and changed your justification to state that it was supposedly 'defamatory'. I doubt you truly have a content disagreement, but instead side with Roesgen on the issue, which is why I'm referring this to a third-person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only one who is deleting your gross WP:BLP violation. You can't just smear a woman's career with unsourced blog entries and youtube clips.  Get real, how would you enjoy it if someone started a wikipedia page about you then started adding unsourced defamatory material? Bet you'd be rushing to your lawyer! By the way, weasel words are defamatory. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I have warned to above user about edit warring. BLP issues problems are exempt from 3RR, so your edits are probably OK, but please be careful about reverting other bad edits as you could easily been seen as edit warring yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I don't think I've ever seen you around before. I don't want to push you to change your vote against your will, but I was just wondering if there was something specific that I said or did that made you oppose my checkuser candidacy. If not, that's fine, or if you just don't want to say, feel free to ignore this note. Cheers, J.delanoy gabs adds  03:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, I don't know of you personally, the only place I remember your name from is the bad image list. I took a few hours to look over your very very very very very long record before !voting. Don't take it personally.  I see that you are a good anti-vandalism fighter, and very helpful to the project, I see few red flags, and very rare spat here or there - but very little in the way of SPI case work (both in volume and %).  I would like functionaries to become specialists in their given field and keep up that specialization.  I say this for two reasons, the first being that I want the process separated.  Think of it like you being the cop/prosecutor (vandalism fighter) and the CU being the judge/jury.  I want to keep the line up between the two roles to keep the process from degenerating.  Secondly I would like to see people who really know their stuff in the particular function to be the functionaries.  Think of this like wanting to receive open heart surgery from a cardio-vascular surgeon and not an EMT.  Please do not take this personally, I'm a hard user to please when it comes to this sort of thing. Have a good day, and either way good luck. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 04:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Roesgen
You've added a good deal of unreferenced and non-notable material to the Roesgen article without any supporting comments or edit summary. What is the basis for your edit?99.141.246.39 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC) . TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reference is from the reporters self-written bio at CNN. It is not an acceptable source. 99.141.246.39 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CNN falls under the category of WP:RS. Have a good day. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It fails as a third party or neutral source when it's a reporter's self-written bio. 99.141.246.39 (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your uncivil and unsupported Attacks on me as a person.
Your attack on me on the Roesgen Talk page was unacceptable. Please withdraw your unsupported, uncivil attack against me. 99.141.246.39 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No attack was made. No incivility was displayed. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 09:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was here, in the Roesgen Talkk page where you said: "Enough with the teabaggers who pop up every few days, we should try to have the article semi-protected again. Remember folks, this is a BLP" As it was both in direct response to my edit - and I was the only person active there at all in the last three weeks or so, and it was in a section of talk that I had started and been the only one posted in - I took it as directed at me.
 * I was then told by the other owner, "I was then told by the other owner, "If you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you.'''"
 * Actual full quote, in context, by one of the thousands of owners: And by the way, TharsHammar never attacked you; he was expressing frustration with anonymous teabaggers that frequent this article with disruptive editing. If you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you. If you are one, then consider yourself notified that you frustrate him; no attack was made. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This was my response:
 * 'Bullshit. You don't attack the only person you're having a discussion with and ask for the article to be locked and then defend it by saying, 'well, if your not'' one - then he's not talking to you'.
 * The accusation is the attack and nothing I've said or done here, nor in my recent edit history at the Republican congressman's article referenced above indicates any bias. I notice however that the home page of one of the two editors standing sentry over his pet article has dozens of claims of profound liberal bias proudly festooned across the page like a Volvo in Vermont on it's way to the Northeast Kingdom. One usually finds such committed and messianic people to be deeply wedded to their cause and saturated to the bone with inflexible bias - whether on the left, right or third way.
 * False unsubstantiated accusations, blatant bias, article "ownership" and the complete lack of any effort to defend the inclusion of drivel, garbage and fluff into the encyclopedia is ridiculous and nothing more has been done by the "guards" than  revert, attack and ignore .99.141.246.39 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which Republican congressman was that, again? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 99.141.246.39 I want you to cry me a river, build a bridge and get the fuck over it. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the future, it's probably a good idea to avoid altering the comments of others, and to avoid comments like your last one here. In the case of the former, I understand you were providing the full quote from Xenophrenic, but unless Xenophrenic's words were altered, as opposed to being merely truncated as they were here, it's best just to quote what you felt was missing in your response. Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I tend to use a little less tact on my user talk page. I did not alter anyone's comments, I undid the IP's edit that removed my comments from my talk page, I didn't realize that xeno had refractored the IPs comments. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the confusion; I did replace the truncated version of my quote with the full quote, and I should have noted my edit in the visible text. While the IP editor didn't alter my words (he only omitted some), he did alter the meaning of the quoted content.  I'll continue to correct such misrepresentations of my comments where ever I find them.
 * On the matter of anonymous disruptive editors, it appears there are several more (geolocated to the University of Richmond, VA area) insistent upon injecting desparaging content into the BLP, and citing it to unreliable sources - even as recently as a few minutes ago. I'm going to petition for admin assistance. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something but I don't see how the meaning of your statement is altered by the truncation. In any case, if you are going to place comments within comments written by other people, regardless of the circumstances, you should clearly mark them as such as you did above, to avoid confusion and conflict. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are indeed missing something. Response on Gamaliel's talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Tea Party protests
I was writing at Talk:Tea Party protests at the same time you wrote on my talk page. I believed that there was general agreement to merge from Timeline of Tea Party protests and then to trim. That's what I'm doing. I'm trying to put the Timeline stuff in the most concise possible format at the very end of the article. I hope you'll accept my explanation of why the details are relevant and important for providing a good picture of what the protest movement is all about. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Thars, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Klein talk page
Hi. Would you please mind toning down your language (in the future, and if possible, scaling back your recent comments) regarding Aaron Klein's intelligence, motives, etc. Another editor, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, has raised objections and although I think his accusations against you and me on the score are overblown to the point of absurdity, some of the comments about Klein aren't really supported or pertinent to editing his article. I think the line is that we have good reason to question Klein's claims and reliability as a source based on his conduct on Wikipedia, but calling him dumb or speculating that he's helping the terrorists is a bit too WP:SOAP-boxy, and not necessary to make the point. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am discussing the sources, we need to examine what the sources are and take them with a grain of salt. Also the IP most certainly is Aaron Klein.  Furthermore I will say that he aids terrorist when he is providing aid to terrorists - and helping terrorists get their message out so they can terrorize people with threats is aiding terrorists. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've wondered who that IP is. If it is anyone at WND I would say they definitely have too much time on their hands.  Don't you think they could find something more productive, or at least sensationalist, to do?  Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really need to wonder? You were part of the last Sock Puppet Investigation into Klein/Jersulasem21 .  You know how he operates, and how he focuses on his own bio.  On the talk page we have 3 new IPs 79.176.132.168, 79.182.104.187, and 79.177.59.7.  All are on ADSL-CUSTOMER-CONNECTION, on the BEZEQINT.NET domain.  Last time we had a strong evidence of Klein being on 79.182.145.58, which is on ADSL-CUSTOMER-CONNECTION, on the BEZEQINT.NET domain in the same city as one of the new IPs.  Hmmm. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I need to wonder. I tend to forget old things, so that adds to my sense of wonderment :)  But thanks for the history.  Why don't we reopen the SPI?  Klein's account (and by a fair reading, Klein himself) is on indefinite block for socking / meatpupeeting, so if he's using an IP account to game his own article, again conceiling his COI by referring to himself in the third person, that means among other things that he's evading a block, and his claims of libel become a legal threat.  If A claims that B libeled C it's an observation.  If A claims that B libeled A it's a legal threat.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * About those anonIPs:
 * 79.178.103.225, 79.176.132.168, 79.182.104.187, 79.177.59.7  (August 2009) 
 * 79.178.103.240, 79.178.121.238  (July 2009) 
 * 79.181.116.81, 79.182.145.58, 79.179.112.254  (April/March/February 2009) 
 * Considering the amount of talk page disruption (in concert with Leac) an update to the SPI would be appropriate, but note the "blocked and tagged" conclusion* there: "'Did not bother with the IP addresses, but if there is recent activity on those accounts regarding the specific articles detailed, then blocks can be issued.' (diff)"
 * (now in the SPI archive*)  — Athaenara  ✉  20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

In accordance with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which says, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page," I hereby now discuss an issue I intend to raise pending your response here.

I intend to raise the issue of your calling the subject matter of the page a terrorist collaborator. While doing so I may include diffs showing other potentially libelous statements you may have made.

I understand from the above conversation that you may think my comments are "overblown," and I understand that you have suggested I shut up, but I urge you to reconsider whether calling someone a terrorist collaborator is wise, let alone violative of Wiki policy.

Therefore, before I bring this matter to the attention of the Administrative noticeboard, which I will not do depending on your answer, will you withdraw your claim that the subject of the Wiki page you edit is a terrorist collaborator? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I did not tell you to "shut up" I said to "be quiet".  I stick by my statements, by helping terrorists spread terror by giving them a forum to publicize their threats you are collaborating with terrorists. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 08:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand what you are saying, but that's what media does. The New York Times, for example, disclosed the means for intercepting Bin Laden communications and the communications stopped the next day.  Is the New York Times collaborating with terrorists?  Or the Washington Post published the words of various terrorist leaders threatening the USA.  Is the Washington Post collaborating with the terrorists?  Of course not.  Yet you seem to hold Aaron Klein to a different standard.  Please explain.


 * You will be held harmless if you withdraw your claim that Klein is a terrorist collaborator. Pobody's nerfect and this whole problem will go away if you do.  Consider your explanation carefully. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Difference is that the other sources you site are legit newspapers and reliable source. WND is not. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I need to be clear. So you are saying WND is the problem, not Aaron Klein? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Real America
At WP:RFD you wrote Keep and redirect to Union (American Civil War). Is there some history for this or am I just missing a joke? -- Thinking of England (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * During the civil war the Union was considered the "Real America". TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My addition to the Bill Ayers article was not conjecture. If his status as a member of the Weather Underground was not only well know but proclaimed enthusiastically by him, then it leaves no room for ambiguity. Their acts may be considered someone's variation of the term terrorism, but it was no less terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.193.159 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My addition to the Bill Ayers article was not conjecture. If his status as a member of the Weather Underground was not only well know but proclaimed enthusiastically by him, then it leaves no room for ambiguity. Their acts may be considered someone's variation of the term terrorism, but it was no less terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.193.159 (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin
I removed your comment in the Car Wreck Phenomena section, per WP:NOTFORUM. It's clearly posted at the top of the page. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  06:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am undoing you edit. I am trying to have a discussion on improving the Sarah Palin page and what material to include or not include. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 06:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Throwing out biased comments about how someone reminds you of a train wreck (no matter who originally said it) really doesn't count as article improvement. I won't delete it again now that you have backed it up with evidence (of a sort), but is there really any reason to try and humiliate someone on their BLP talk page? If someone was doing this on Nancy Pelosi's or Barack Obama's talk pages, would you support them? J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  15:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Project much? You talk about respecting BLP and not discussing topics which are denegrating to public figures on article talk pages then you throw a low blow to Chuck Todd. I mean really, projection its whats for dinner. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't attempting to project anything on anyone. I was merely pointing out my personal observations. Note that I did not get on Chuck Todd's talk page and claim this, but stated it in a sentence on someone else's talk page in reference to his blatant attacks on that person. I look forward to your response a week from now. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  00:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, you did say something very insulting to me. "then stop posting biased crap". . TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 23:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't look but I assume you made a similar note just as quick for the user i was responding to . TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in that diff that's attacking you. I didn't see that user call you an asshole, and say what you said was bullshit. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And your comments on this talk page are completely asinine. Now fuck off.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users, and personally attacking other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 00:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you to fuck off. Its my talk page and I stick by that comment.  It is my right to ask people to stay off my talk page and stop harassing me here.  Little quick to the gun there skippy.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you continue to talk like that, I'm going to have to change your block to prevent you from using your talk page and lengthen the block. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should look up what harassment is. Please change the reasoning for my block to something respectable that deals with the situation at hand.  I did not harrass you in any way, shape, or form.  I asked you to fuck off in the context of my user talk page.  And I repeat again my statement, fuck off my talk page when this issue is over.  It is my right to ask you to fuck off my talk page.  It is not my right to block you from this page, but again it is my right to ask you to fuck off this user talk page. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And why will you have to do that? I am disrupting the project by asking you to fuck off my talk page?  Nope.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lengthened the block to 1 week, and you can't edit this page . I hope you are more reasonable next week, see you then! --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you went overboard here and blew your load a little too quickly by blocking me for a week for posting on my own talk page. It really is quite ridiculous. I have understood that users on wikipedia have far greater leeway on their own user talk pages and user pages, and asking other users to stay off is an accepted practice.  My comments on the Sarah Palin edit summary probably went over the line and deserved either a warning or 1 day block because of the article probation, and I should not have reacted the way I did to the other users instigation.  But again I note that I did not notice you posting a similar warning to the user who said in his edit summary towards me "then stop posting biased crap".
 * Your entitled to do whatever the fuck you want on wikipedia Coffee because you have the powers which are very hard to take away, but really learn how to read what you link to. Lookup what the definition of harassment, I didn't threaten or try to intimidate you.  I might have insulted you and your fragile sensibilities, but I certainly did not harass you.  I stick by what I said though, please fuck off my talk page after this situation is done.  Keep fucking that chicken. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Please explain or strike your oppose. Thanks,  Airplaneman   ✈  01:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage
It is unacceptable to attack students of a university; it is even worse when the attack is also a copyright violation. Do it again and you'll be blocked. Tim Song (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of your user page
✅ Done

I have asked @ the first deleting admin's talk page about restoring non-offensive versions of your user page. Giving people double birds and making slurs about groups of people are not the best ways to get along here. Will restore prior versions if discussion with User talk:Tanthalas39 proves fruitful. Otherwise recommend discussion at WP:ANI, assuming there is nothing that would weigh against that I'm unaware of. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  15:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Senator from Comcast listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Senator from Comcast. Since you had some involvement with the Senator from Comcast redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)