User talk:Tom harrison/Archive/Feb06

User:Moscatanix
Hi Tom, about a week ago, you blocked User:Moscatanix indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned user. I suspected User:Moscatanix as a possible sockpuppet in this ArbCom case. Could you reveal who is the banned user to which reference is made in the block? Thanks --BostonMA talk 02:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, the answer to my question is User:Rootology. --BostonMA talk  18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. You did put a notice on the talk page, and someone pointed it out to me -- doh!  --BostonMA talk  19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm always pleased when my mistakes cancel out:-) Tom Harrison Talk 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message
Gosh, I hadn't noticed until I got your message. If it's not too painful a subject, what happened? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly rolled back a bunch of your edits. I think everything is back as it should be now. Email me if you want the details. Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's OK &mdash; all's well that ends well. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cunning Folk
Hi, Tom. Do you know who wrote the original comment about cunning folk and witches, please? Only I referred to it in a book I'm writing, and the editor would like to know more about it. When I checked back, it had vanished from the page. I'm new to Wikipedia's ways, but tracked down the changes you made and hope you can help me track the source. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Velveteen Rose (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure what comment you mean exactly. My contributions were to remove an advisory tag, and a minor edit changing 'folklore' to 'history', on 23 February. The article was started by an anonymous contributor on 30 May 2004, and added to by a few people since. You should be able to step through the edit history one version at a time examining the changes to see when everything was added. Please let me know if it's not clear how to do that, or if you need anything else. Tom Harrison Talk 13:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism
Please block, and advise what steps can be taken to prevent this recurring harassment. Thank you. --RolandR 10:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see SlimVirgin has already blocked this one. Because of the concerns you mentioned in your email, I suggest you contact the foundation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

the 911ct template
Well, it seems to have caused something. Perhaps you would like to look at Template talk:911ct and make whatever comments you wish. As I said when I created it, it is there to use. I have no emotional commitment to it either way. Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that a couple of editors do not like the template, or one editor and their logged out self do not like it. I thought this was likely to happen "just because it is about 9/11" more than anything else.  Since you contributed to the tmeplate by adding a number of articles to it I was wondering if you might both keep an eye on the deployment without getting into a revert war, and consider which other articles might benefit from inclusion and adding it to them and them to it.  Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll keep an eye on it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

John Sparey
Would you please explain why you deleted this article? I fail to see how it didn't meet the notability guidelines; there was even an external link to an IMDb page for him. Anthony Rupert 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see an assertion of notability, or any basis for one, but I have restored the article so it can be expanded. Tom Harrison Talk 12:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: What's Up
Never mind, I see what happened too… thanks for good faith. Lovelight 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Block threat from admin User:FayssalF
Dear Mr. Harrison, I am being threatened with a block by User:FayssalF on what I see as nakedly specious grounds. See User talk:Proabivouac. My aim is to ensure that this situation does not play out in a "dark alley," as it were - I cannot imagine that FayssalF would act this way if he thought his actions were under review - and I wonder if you've any recommendations as to how I might proceed.Proabivouac 11:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not nakedly specious grounds. Proabivouac was removing well sourced material on Islam page. Also, please have a look at the link Proabivouac provided.--Aminz 11:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at this. Please see the history. Many times, when I wanted to complete the section further, I had an edit conflict because Proabivouac had removing the section completely. --Aminz 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks like a good-faith content dispute. The parties should seek mediation. I don't see any vandalism on either side. I don't see a basis for any blocks, and I will review any that occur if that seems necessary - Whoever blocks (Szvest says correctly that it will not be him, since he is involved in the dispute) will probably post on the notice board. If not, there is email. If there is a basis for blocking, there are places to request that. Likewise page protection. Everything should be, and I expect will be, done in the open. And as ever, use the talk page and focus on content, not each other. Tom Harrison Talk 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation
Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 13:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is now on RfA == See Requests for arbitration for more details and add your tuppence to the debate... &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted
That's ok, mistakes happen. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad pictures
Can I discuss here with you about Muhammad pictures instead of at Mediation page. I really liked your previous stand and you had helped us to maintain one picture in the article and it provided a peace of long time (with no major edit war). Now I feel sad that you also have change your position. I wish to discuss it here for better understanding if possible? Thanks --- ALM 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that I want to add pictures to the page, I just don't want to remove them for a reason that will set a bad precedent. I think something like two pictures would probably be appropriate - one for the section Depictions of Muhammad, and one somewhere else. But one, or two, or one and some calligraphy, or anything else reasonable would be fine. I care less about the specifics of what we decide than about the reasons for our decision. Whatever we choose to do, we should not do it to avoid offending people, or for religious reasons. Though it is in general good to avoid offending and to respect everyone's religion, changing the article for those reasons would encourage people to change other pages for similar reasons, or to demand other changes. Scientology comes to mind. Like I said on the mediation page, if we want to remove stuff that offends Muslims, but keep stuff that offends Christians, we can do that. But because of what I expect will happen, and for simple justice, we should not. I think we can agree on a reasonable solution that will keep the page stable. Please let me know what you think. Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Tom Harrison, I am very busy until 10th Jan night. I am very sorry that I am not able to reply. I will reply before 10th when I have to take some rest or after that definitely. I hope that you will not be mad and will continue to talk about this (even if I am slow in replying). best wishes --- ALM 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all, take your time. There is no deadline. I'm busy myself, so I'm happy to take it slowly. Tom Harrison Talk 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can now reply every day finally I guess. After reading your above post it looks like "secularism has more or less a system where goal is to offend everyone, Christians or Muslims or Jews". It has become closer to communism which was against religions. New Goal of secularism is "not to bend on demands of anyone even though they are reasonable enough". For example if you follow trend then this article should not have any picture of Muhammad because


 * 1) That is norm followed in almost 99.9999999% books as well as in most encyclopedias. (wikipedia is a big book)
 * 2) Secondly Muhammad has 99.999% represented in calligraphy and may be 0.00001% in pictures. If we wish to give everything right weightage then we cannot have 99 calligraphy pictures in the article in order to justify one picture showing Muhammad face. Can we have 99 picture of calligraphy in the article?
 * Hence asking for no picture of Muhammad in article is according to history and literature is a valid demand. However, we just want to have picture to up held secularism and not making any group happy. We want to give 0.000001% extra weightage of 20% to make a point. This kind of bothers me.
 * I being a Muslim do not like picture of him in any article that include Depiction of Muhammad and that newspaper cartoon article. However, I tolerate them with big heart and I do not go there and contribute (delete those pictures). Now some people want to add his picture in Kaaba in Muhammad where they are even not informational and there main point is that we will not let censor any thing (or make Muslims happy by mistake as it will set a wrong trend).
 * I said many times if you show me 5 books published by reliable sources and with historical picture of Muhammad then I can change my position. However, they do not give me just 5 books to end this dispute but goes back to see not censor. We will offend all. --- ALM 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel my above post is harsh. I am not good in expressing myself but I have written that with all the respect. I just wanted to convey my feelings. --- ALM 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that is not too harsh; I will think about what you said. Tom Harrison Talk 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If we do remove these pictures, it will be for religious reasons, and I think everyone knows that. There is a lot in Wikipedia I don't like, but to remove any of it on religious grounds puts all of it at risk of the same thing: Drug resistance, Psychiatry, History of Rome, and any number of others. Religious based censorship has a long and dismal history, and cannot be allowed to take root here.

There are many pictures, and whole pages, that I would remove if I took a narrow view of my obligations as a Christian. But my obligation as a Christian to promote education, literacy, and reason over-rides my obligation to discourage other people from looking at inappropriate pictures - that one is pretty far down on my list, after quite a few other things. Trying to coerce public morality is a bad idea on several levels.

To the extent that it is a matter of you not wanting to see the pictures, you could use AdBlock. If as you say they are not pictures of Muhammad anyway, can we adjust the captions to avoid giving offense while still accurately describing the picture? Tom Harrison Talk 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I have learned from our discussion that new religion secularism is become extreme superior and it is against all religions. The idea of secularism is no more that it will tolerate (care) about all religion but is that it will not allow any religion (like communism).
 * There are many reasons of not including Muhammad picture even if I do not say it that it is because of Islam and I do not like them being Muslim. I will try that during this mediation I will not give religion reason because that is not required to convince any neutral person. Do you think if I give good enough reason (without mentioning religion) then you will accept them? Even if they are against putting any picture of Muhammad in the article. -- ALM 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. I'm not so concerned about having or not having pictures, but about the reason why. But it should not be a pretext. It has to he a real, valid reason that would apply as well to other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I have now started to hate secularism. It is worse then I thought of.
 * If they will follow the tradition then they will never include any picture in articles like Muhammad. Otherwise I will try to name as many books as I can find in local library that have no picture of Muhammad (because I am sure no one of them will have any picture) and I will keep challenging them to give ONLY 5 books or 5 mosques that have historical pictures of Muhammad. Otherwise I will ask them to give reason to make wikipedia different from reality (going against vast majority of publications). Is that plan sound good to you? --- ALM 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure I like secularism much myself, but it seems less bad than any alternative. If most neutral scholarly biographies of Muhammad do not include pictures, I would find that a persuasive argument that we should not. I'll check at the library myself. I doubt whether or not mosques have pictures would be persuasive - we already know that most Muslims oppose having pictures of Muhammad. Incidently, I thought all depictions of people and animals were forbidden, and yet I remember parades in the eighties with giant pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini. How does it work? Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that all religious Sunni will not like to have any kind of painting of animals, human. However even sunnis are divided about usage of photo-graph (from camera) because hadith in Shahi-Bukari is against painting (there was no camera at that time :)). However I do not think any Sunni will like usage of Muhammad pictures at all. I used to believe same about Shias but came to know a fatwa by a Shia scholar (who has some followings) to use Muhammad pictures in good manner. But given that all Sunni (who are in vast majority) and mostly Shia still also do not allow picture of Muhammad hence I believe that a group which allow them is in real minority among Muslims. I think Shia use pictures of their imams widely.
 * Once again I am *not* going to use above argument but will tell them to follow what we have in books in real life. If they can give me give me 5 books with historical picture (not cartoonic pictures) of Muhammad then I will let them have Muhammad picture in the article. Otherwise I will ask there reason for this huge change. --- ALM 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Aminz
Please be informed that a request for comments has been started. Beit Or 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

a 9/11 researcher
Tom, I don't want to name names at this stage. I have just looked at the user page of someone with whom you and I disagree over templates. S/he states that they do not always log in when editing, but often/sometimes edit with IP address only. A few days ago I noticed a major volume of template removal coming from a pair of IP addresses and from this user. At the time it looked to me like a mechanism for stepping around the 3 Revert Rule, but I am unsure whether it was broken or not. I am assuming good faith (one of the reasons for not naming names, because I do not wish to be seen as accusing the editor) but find the user page statement bewildering. If it had been "Guys I sometimes forget to log in" I would be able to understand easier.

I also recognise that we are entitled under policies to use an alternative (or anonymous) user id when editing articles that we feel we do not wish our regular id to be associated with, but this is different. I suppose I should by now be an experienced wikipedian, but this one is outside my experience, and I wonder if it is within yours. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The three-revert rule applies to the person, whether using different accounts, logged in or not. I mentioned this on the user's talk page a few months ago. If it becomes clear that 3rr is being violated, it should be reported at Requests for checkuser under code E. Tom Harrison Talk 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It does seem to go back a long way. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

William Henry Carroll
I'm curious as to why you removed the Speedy tags from this article, without any explanation of why it shouldn't be deleted, along with the author having made no arguments in it's defense -- febtalk 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look to me like it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Take it to AfD if you want. Tom Harrison Talk 03:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for answering that so quickly -- febtalk 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, after all it was easy; I didn't really say anything. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

9-11 Talk Page Response
Tony,

I would very much like to respond to your response (and Zbl's) to my posts on the 9-11 Talk Page. However my attempts to edit the page now fail because the page has become semi-protected. Please add me to the authorised users. Many thanks.

Regards --Angryjames 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no whitelist I could add you to. It is soft-protected, which means the page that "cannot be edited by unregistered users or accounts less than four days old." You should be able to edit. Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the quick response. I have tried another edit and that worked just fine. I think this is a case of "stupid" user error on my part. I'll now respond to your points on the 9-11 talk page, and hopefully I wont offend you too much ;) All the best. --Angryjames 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signature
Oh, I've had that for a long time, just that I'm an erratic editor (see Editor review/Penwhale and look at the edit link). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Messy Situation at Uncyclopedia
User:Miltopia has reverted atleast 4 times, if not more, within 24 hours,, , ,. He has had run ins with admins before, and accused an admin of doing something as a "face saving" act. While I dont really think hes here to do much other than troll around, in the very least he has made a concrete violation in exceeding 3 reverts. The changes he is making are controversial and really need to be discussed on the talk page, but he isnt allowing any of that to occur and is instead pushing forward. After 2 AFD nominations within 24 hours, this is quite a bit of chaos that should probably be stopped one way or another. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ho hum. The first diff shows a different set of reverts.  All of the people reverting me used person reasons or no reason.  The drama is over for anyone concerned with actual improvement to the article.  I've been accused of a fair bit myself - like right here.  Milto LOL pia 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A revert is a revert, its on the same page. Please read the 3RR rule. Its now reached atleast 6 reverts . ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom, it's a bad idea to tell someone to report a resolved situation 20 hours after the fact to someone to get them to unresolve it. I said quite clearly that the edit war was over due to a misunderstanding; if you can't be helpful, please don't involve yourself in the situation. Milto LOL pia 01:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misudnerstood the rule. I've self-reverted.  Milto LOL pia 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone else beat me to it. It's odd that you'd rather have self-reference and unverified statements in than keep them out, simply because you're making non-existent parallels to ED.  Milto LOL pia 04:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tom
Tom, Thanks very much for commenting on my RfC page. Thank you! --Aminz 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope the RfC does some good. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

idea/conviction
Tom, the edit you are proposing to the lead of the CDH article is at odds with the whole article and I'm puzzled about your insistence. None of the sources we identify present their views as a belief (let alone a conviction). They all say that the scandal is not that the buildings were demolished but that this possibility has not been investigated. "Idea" is nice and neutral.--Thomas Basboll 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that your perception of neutrality is the same as that of the reliable sources who have spoken about controlled demolition. Remember that neutrality is not determined by triangulating between your position and mine. Tom Harrison Talk 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eagar is clearly not a neutral commentator on the hypothesis. Surely you must agree with that?--Thomas Basboll 07:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure he's neutral. Why would he not be? Because he looked at the evidence and found that Silverstein the Jew in fact did not blow up the world trade center for the insurance money? That is the consensus of everyone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground: Al-Qaeda blew up the world trade center. They crashed passenger jets into the towers, and the resulting catastrophe caused a huge amount of destruction and killed nearly 3000 people. Do you need a citation? Neutrality is not something half way between 'pull it' and 'Allah Akbar.' Neutrality is what results when we present what the reliable sources say. If you want to write about the social/psychological phenomenon of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go for it. But don't try to put goofy urban legends on the same level as informed engineering opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a nice day, Tom. I can't make heads or tails of this. Whatever you're trying to explain here is not, I hope, something you think you have to explain to me.--Thomas Basboll 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Medcab case
There's a medcab case listing you as a participant. It involves the 9/11 truth templates. Please respond there. Regards, -- Selmo  (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Zero-knowledge proofs
Is that enough? Morton DevonshireYo  01:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. If a little knowledge is dangerous, is zero knowledge like an atom bomb? Tom Harrison Talk 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism
I have addressed a revert that you made on one of my edits of Antisemitism in the discussion section of the same article (here). I would appreciate it if you responded.

Thanks,

--137.99.174.125 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

re: vandalism
We cannot "distribute" flawed, unfinished and misnamed template, any action to install it is pure case of vandalism (or despotism). No, this is not fight against good and evil, and yes, this is about making "Wikiworld" a better place. Please restrain. Lovelight 16:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a comment about stubbornness, but it was poor and unnecessary comment, which means that I'm stressed out, guess I'll have to excuse myself (again) and seek some calm. Lovelight 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Invite
Would you like to participate? Lovelight 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In yet another discussion about why conspiracy theories ought not to be called conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison Talk 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No Tom, you're missing the point, it's about contest. Never mind. However, please do check the other points that were made so you may recognize that template is disputed (because its not finished, its misnamed, its on TfD list, WP violations and prohibitions, and so on…), your continued insertions are vandalusian… Lovelight 03:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm still missing the point. I don't see how either adding or removing the template is, in general, vandalism - maybe in some specific instance it would be editing to make a point, but that's not really vandalism either. No good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is vandalism. Tom Harrison Talk 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The point is, we are in the middle of the edit war, good steps were taken to resolve such fierce situation, we should restrain ourselves until we reach some sort of consensus. Lovelight 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked that the page(s) be protected. See WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison Talk 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that, it was intended to be quick reply, and with haste I haven’t stop to take a look at those (unintended) implications. Lovelight 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Tom Harrison Talk 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Need some help resolving a dispute
Hello Tom. I am requesting your help in resolving a dispute on the Attribution of recent climate change article. I have been editing on wikipedia for some time and have only met one other editor as POV and stubborn as the present case. Please tell me your best advice for resolving the dispute. RonCram 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the subject, so I would have to rely on the opinions of experts. Seeing his work elsewhere on Wikipedia, I think William Connolley is an objective and knowledgeable contributor. You might post at Third opinion and see if someone who knows the area has an opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

911ct
What now? Are you saying that template is not applicable at the subject articles? Please explain. Lovelight 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; the 911 conspiracy theory template is for conspiracy theories, not for September 11, 2001 attacks, World Trade Center, 7 World Trade Center, etc. Tom Harrison Talk 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, silly me, and how do we call that? Selective approach? Lovelight 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we use the template selectively in articles to which it applies, and not in articles where it does not apply. People were probably praying on the planes and in the twin towers, but we don't add Template:Christianity to Collapse of the World Trade Center. Tom Harrison Talk 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, people were praying, while others were whipping their necks: "Of course that orders still stand." Lovelight 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of an AfD decision you commented on
This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

following me
Hi User:Morton devonshire followed me to an article that he never edited Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and is now harrasing me. I ask him to stop, but he hasn't. I know you intervened with User:Morton devonshire and I before, can you ask him to please stop? I want to avoid each other for a while and maybe things will cool off. Thanks Tom Travb (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What page is it? Tom Harrison Talk 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Travb (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any edits by Morton Devonshire to that page or its talk page. I guess I will need diffs to persue it further. If what this boils down to is that he had the temerity to comment on the notice board and at Suspected sock puppets, I guess I will have wasted my time investigating this. Tom Harrison Talk 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wish I could say that I am surprised by your inacation. If Morton asks you to warn a user, you warn that user, User_talk:Travb/Archive_8.  But later, if that user you warned asks the same thing, you refuse.
 * I am reminded of NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults's comments on this small group of editors and admins.
 * Thatcher131 also refused to get invovled.
 * And now User:Tbeatty, who is actively advising User:Mobile 01 in a section that attacks me, is getting invovled also in a page he has never edited. Travb (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I cannot find any edits by User:Morton_devonshire to that page or its talk page. I will need diffs to pursue it further. Tom Harrison Talk 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Morton has never edited Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, as I wrote above:  "User:Morton_devonshire followed me to an article that he never edited" that is why you "cannot find any edits by User:Morton_devonshire to that page or its talk page."
 * He then wrote: Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01
 * And started to actively advise User:Mobile 01 in a section that openly mocks me User_talk:Morton_devonshire. He then states that my edits are a Chewbacca defense and starts to call me "chewie"
 * He then gets involved in the ANI, defending the Bridgestone employees who secretly edit the Bridgestone/Firestone.
 * At this point, I ask you to intervene, which you have not.
 * Since then, Morton continues to actively work on this alledged Sockpuppet's page.
 * Since then, User:Tbeatty another admin, who appears to be watching User:Morton_devonshires page, has got involved in the sockpuppet case also.
 * I only ask that you or User:Thatcher131 give Morton the same warning that you have given me:
 * Your warning: User_talk:Travb/Archive_8.
 * When you asked me to stop commenting on User:Morton_devonshires page I did immediatly.
 * When User:Thatcher131 asked User:NuclearUmpf and I too stop commenting on AfDs and stop editing the alledged terrorism page, I did voluntarily for a month.
 * Morton can ignore this warning, that is up to him.
 * I think we both can agree that editors, especially admins, should be unbaised and equal in monitoring, refering, and commenting in disputes. Past disagreements on certain wikipages should not color an admins referee priveledges, which were given to him/her by the wikipedia community. Travb (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If he has never edited the page or its talk page, I don't see how he has followed you there. He can comment on the noticeboard like anyone else - that's kind of the point of posting there: so people not otherwise involved can have a look. I can't see how it is inappropriate for Morton to say Mobile-1 is not a sock, but okay for you to say that Mobile-1 is a sock (and I have no idea whether he is or not.) It looks like you two disagree about something that has not been determined, and may not be. Wasn't the checkuser request declined for technical reasons? I looked into this a little, and only found that Luis Posada Carriles worked for Firestone, which is mildy interesting but maybe a bit peripheral - I'm not really clear on the points in dispute at Firestone. On the assumption that 'Chewie' in the edit summary refered to you rather than to Chewbacca, I will ask Morton not to call you anything but 'Travb.' But Chewbacca didn't make the Chewbacca defense. That was Johnny Cochrane, I think, so his edit summary probably meant the defense rather that the person he thought was making it. And finally, if you think I am biased against you, ask someone else to intervene instead of engaging in some kind of exercise to demonstrate my bias. Post about it on the noticeboard if you want, but don't then complain if someone replies in a way you don't like. Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * thank you for your time. Travb (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to say, "I disagree with Travb's analysis"; saying "Never mind Travb, he has a history of making false accusations" is needlessly stirring the pot. I have removed a part of his comments that do not relate to the present case. Thatcher131 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom, thanks for your efforts and time.
 * I remember right when Zer0 took a 180 degree turn had a paradigm shift, that Zer0 said you (Tom) were lazy. I disagree with this flippant assessment.
 * In my dealings with you, I think you are simply not as partisan and hypocritical as other wikiusers, and more willing to comprimise, and this makes other wikiusers who tend to share your same POV mad at you. I do think it has nothing to do with being "lazy".
 * I have praised you more than once. The way you handled the Seabhcan episode was really inspiring. You stayed above the fray, while everyone else (including myself) groveled around in the mud, flinging mud at each other.
 * I have a lot to learn from you yet.
 * Thanks for your time and involving yourself in this nasty debate which we should have taken care of ourselves if we were all responsible adults.
 * Long after many other admins get pushed out or retire, and long after many other regular wikiusers are indefinetly booted or get pushed out, I think you will continue to be here on wikipedia, a relatively fair and impartial editor and admin. Who lets his own personal biases cloud his judgement just a little bit, instead of having your personal biases cloud your judgement a lot, like many wikiusers. Travb (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Long after many other admins get pushed out or retire, and long after many other regular wikiusers are indefinetly booted or get pushed out, I think you will continue to be here on wikipedia..."
 * Sometimes I'm afraid that may be the case;-)
 * "Who lets his own personal biases cloud his judgement just a little bit..."
 * Thank you. Ultimately that's about the best any of us can do. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ultimately that's about the best any of us can do." So true :) Travb (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

quick note on Common Dreams NewsCenter AfD
Hey Tom. I should note that my concern for the article is mostly based on that it is commonly linked to from references in other articles. It is a republisher of reputable news articles from mainstream news sources that are of interest to progressive communities. Thus many people find articles on it and link them into existing articles and describe them as coming from Common Dreams. The issue is that some might then argue that if it is on Common Dreams and Common Dreams is felt to be not notable then those articles from that source can't be used, but that isn't the case if you read what Common Dreams is. (Which hopefully makes people read to the end of the articles they are referencing on Common Dreams, because it will list the original source at the bottom of the articles, although not an original URL.) Thus I feel there is value in the article, even though by itself it isn't that notable to the mainstream media (because it doesn't publish original content.)  Just my thinking. It feels to me like an article may not fit the existing criteria for web notability you referenced but it does provide value to Wikipedia, as long as the article doesn't get overly long. It's currently linked to by quite a few other major Wikipedia articles, see:. There isn't a partisan reason for keeping the article or overly hating it since the article don't contain any discussion of specific issues. --70.48.71.53 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to consider a merge instead, if there were a suitable page. Tom Harrison Talk 21:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Talk:FrontPageMag.com up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See Proposed deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
You protected it at the version of the anon edit-warriors. Shouldn't you reward playing by the rules, if anything? Arrow740 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought temporary s-protection was necessary given the multi-ip reverting. I didn't pick a version to protect. Tom Harrison Talk 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. You might want to look at Islamic ethics too. Arrow740 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see Jayjg has protected it -- looks like a good call. Tom Harrison Talk 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)