User talk:Tom harrison/Archive/Mar06

User:VirtualEye
I will be thankful if you could reply that. regards. --- ALM 09:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Its ok Mr. Harrison, you need not feel sorry. The matter is that I only feel offended upon wrong intensions and neither disagreements nor mistakes. Thanks for the unblock.VirtualEye 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And thanks to Bro. ALM too, :) VirtualEye 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Spooky DeVille
Our Article was deleted by you. We're not very happy about this as the band created and maitained this page personally.

- Kid Gruesome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.35.254.5 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC).


 * you want to stop vandalisam i just am tired of proplr at wikipidea say that i am not wriring nice things once i had an acount and i added things i loved and they kicked me off i won;t stop untilol my revege is complete on people like you an User:Jfell

About making web pages
Hey i cant put pictures on my web page can you direct me to a place where i can learn? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfell (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
 * See Help:Images and other uploaded files. Tom Harrison Talk 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My talk page
Hello Tom, I see your point. I only engaged User:BhaiSaab on my talk page and then he and HE used it... if you're inclined to remove the defamation parts from the talk I won't oppose that and invite you to do so... but please leave the rest. Thanks. 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; I don't put any of it on those who undid what they saw as an inappropriate removal by someone who is not allowed to edit, just on the one who made the original remarks. Tom Harrison Talk 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed tags
In the future please do not remove tags from pages without actually providing the citations requested. Quotes in particular are items that require citations. If you feel the citations are given, please provide them here or on my talk page and I can move them to the end of the area in which the citation covers as it should be. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will remove citation tags whenever I think it improves the article to do so. Tom Harrison Talk 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sprotect
Can you please put the sprotection back on the Hoffman article as you removed it in your last edit, it seems by accident, since you didnt mention it. --Nuclear Zer0 23:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not unprotect it. Tom Harrison Talk 23:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies looks as though you are removing the sprotection. --Nuclear Zer0 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Tom Harrison Talk 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I have no idea what happened here: I meant to add the references you asked for, and instead put up an ancient version. Anyway, the page is not now protected, and should not be tagged until it is. Tom Harrison Talk 00:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * you seem to have added a image template. --Nuclear Zer0 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly I need a break. I removed the spurious image, added the references, and that's all for me today. Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What? An accidently button click? It happens to the best of us. ;-)  00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Stroker:
You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to deletion of info in articel "wiggler" on Oct. 5 2006
Excuse me! I'm sorry if the truths of my changes conflict with your opinions on this article. If there is something that I wrote that you did not understand, I will be happy to explain my reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jthminion (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

You stated
This edit was unbalanced. Can you please explain what you feel is ubalanced and what I can do to the paragraph to make it more balanced? It currently has both Silverstein's point and the accusation. --Nuclear Zer0 11:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Use the article's talk page to get consensus for the changes you want to make. Don't violate our policy on biographies. Tom Harrison Talk 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain what you feel is ubalanced and what I can do to the paragraph to make it more balanced? It currently has both Silverstein's point and the accusation. Please answer the question. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably best taken up on the article's talk page. There is some discussion there now, and if I have anything to add I'll add it there. Tom Harrison Talk 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott
Dear Tom Harrison,

As I am not clever enough to use a talk page to correct the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article, I am appealing to you to correct what it says about me

In a Wikipedia article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” the following false statement is made about me.

"Peter Dale Scott points out what he says are similarities between the assassination of JFK and the events of 9/11. Among many arguments he makes is that on September 11, at 9:59 the FBI already had names of 3 out of the 4 hijackers of Flight 93, at which time NORAD, according to the 9/11 Commission, wasn't yet aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked. (This Scott finds similar to the situation when Oswald's description was released immediately after the JFK assassination).[32]"

(“9/11 conspiracy theories,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)

I accept full responsibility for having originated this error, because I did make this claim in an hour-long talk on 18 November 2007. However, as I no longer trust the source I used for the claim, I no longer make it. On the contrary, in my edited text of my remarks (posted on December 20, 2006) I restated my remarks about the FBI’s identifications on 9/11, to eliminate the reference to the Flight 93 hijackers:

"Now the parallel to that for 9/11 is, I have to say, even more astounding, because of Richard Clarke, who was director for counter-terrorism activities in the White House, and a very important eyewitness. His book Against All Enemies is almost totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and it had to be ignored by the Commission because it is at odds, in many important respects, with what the 9/11 Report says (which I will get back to). But he tells us that at 9:59 am on September 11, which is the time when the second tower collapses, the North Tower, the FBI already had a list of the alleged hijackers. [5] "This is extraordinary in the first place because the FBI always says about itself that it doesn’t do much intelligence in the field of terrorism; its specialty is criminal investigation afterwards. They had the names of hijackers at 9:59; at 9:59 am Flight 93 had not yet crashed. And even more astonishingly, if we believe the 9/11 Report (which of course on this point I do not believe), NORAD, which was searching for the hijacked planes, wasn’t aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked until 10:08, which is nine minutes later." (“JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained from Studying Both,” by Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, December 20, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20061220&articleId=4207) It is clear that I am not now making the claim which the Wikipedia article attributes to me in the present tense, citing my original talk as given, but not my corrected text.

I would like to say that in general I am admirer of Wikipedia’s concept and process, and have belatedly come to use it as a research resource. I would say the same of the article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” Even though there are many details in the article I disagree with, I would commend the article on the whole as a conscientious collective effort to grope towards a consensus view.

But I do not now make the claim about the three hijackers on Flight 93 which the article attributes to me in the present tense. More importantly, I do not now believe the claim. I would therefore be grateful to have the entire paragraph removed, as it is a disservice to the truth. I trust I will not need to seek legal assistance towards this end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.180.192 (talk • contribs)


 * I am happy to remove the paragraph as you ask. I have copied what you wrote here to Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm glad you have a basically positive opinion of Wikipedia, and you are welcome to contribute if you want to. If you do choose to, you should read up on our policies, including avoiding anything that could be misunderstood as a legal threat. Thanks for the link and the correction, Tom Harrison Talk 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See I told you
I told you that most people around are still good and I will not leave until I have faith on humanity and wikipedia community. I wish to compromise as much as possible and wish to give them respect as much as possible for me. If they return only 10% then I am fine and happy with wikipedia. In a successful marriage and in every partnership key of success is that each party is ready to compromise otherwise they end like western marriages. --- ALM 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it. And my western marriage is doing just fine, thanks. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No no. Dear Tom it was not at all an attack on you. I even do NOT know that you are married or not. But it is just what I observed each day here in Germany and observed in USA/Sweden where I lived for few years. For example my land lady in 62 years old devoiced women and many other people in my office. It was just a general comment. Okay :) :) --- ALM 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, no problem. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 14:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Christianity (Nicene Creed)
I noticed you took part in the straw poll. Please visit the talk page to engage in the discussion, so we may build consensus. Vassyana 00:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Page - Bennet Wong
Greetings. You recently removed the page "Bennet Wong" ... the reason was that the page was being done "for promotion" .... Bennet Wong is now retired ... so, he is not promoting himself. The problem probably was because the page was originally created by his associate Jock McKeen (a new editor in Wikipedia who did not realize that he should not create a page for himself or his friend). I entered the picture after Jock McKeen had created the pages for Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen. I have been editing these two pages for the past two days ... and they have both disappeared this morning. Please put the pages for "Bennet Wong" and "Jock McKeen" back online so I can continue to edit them. Much appreciated ... thanks.

William Meyer 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Page - Wong and McKeen
Hello again. I just checked to see if the page "Wong and McKeen" that I created and have been editing has been removed, since the "Bennet Wong" and "Jock McKeen" pages had been recently deleted. Indeed, you did remove this page too. I respectfully request that you restore this page. I imagine this removal was prompted by the removal of the pages for "Bennet Wong" and "Jock McKeen" noted in the note just above this one. Please tell me what I should do to follow the Wikipedia standards properly so that my work will not be removed again. Many thanks. Respectfully ...

William Meyer 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"I have restored Bennet Wong, Wong and McKeen, and Jock McKeen. Some relevant policies are Criteria for speedy deletion, Autobiography, and Spam. If they do not develop as neutral articles about notable people they will probably be deleted again. Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfect
perfectly worded. It pretty much sums up the debate. --Hojimachongtalk con 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're generous to say so. Tom Harrison Talk 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Pages - Wong and McKeen, Jock McKeen and Bennet Wong
Thank you for your quick response to my request. I appreciate your guidance in suggesting the policy pages. I have read these, and I will study them further. I do want to develop these three pages as neutral articles about notable people, as you suggested. Is there anything on any of these three pages (either structure or content) that keeps these pages flagged for removal? I will respectfully alter or delete anything necessary to keep this project alive. My intention is to establish these three pages, and then produce a page for "The Haven Institute" which was founded by Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen (similar to the Wikipedia page for "Esalen Institute"). The Haven Institute is owned an operated by a nonprofit society (The Haven Foundation) and both Wong nor McKeen are at arms' length from both the Institute and the Foundation. Do you see any problem with ultimately creating this page? The intention is not to promote, but rather to inform about a cultural phenomenon. The similarity to Esalen seems clear to me. I'm sorry this is so long ... but I do want to "play ball" with you, and to do this properly the first time. Please advise. Thanks. William Meyer 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, rely primarily on independent, reliable sources: newspapers, books, etc. If there are no independent reliable sources, it will not be possible. Tom Harrison Talk 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good/Bad guys
Hi Tom, I think this is interesting. --Aminz 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that is disappointing, and I just saw something similar on another article. I will go through the evidence closely, but at this point it looks suggestive but there is enough reasonable doubt that a block would be hard to justify. I think Isotope23 is right that we need to act agressively against any edit-warring where new accounts show up and revert. Tom Harrison Talk 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation
You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Pages - Wong and McKeen, Jock McKeen and Bennet Wong
Thanks for your reply above. Is there anything that is currently on any of the three pages in question that you want to remove? Thanks William Meyer 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They need to be sourced to reliable, independent third-parties. See Attribution. Tom Harrison Talk 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

locking?
Up, in the header of the 911 talk page, there is a little locking… would you know how to remove it? Since page is unlocked… Lovelight 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the lock image. Maybe someone already removed it. If you still see it, try clearing your browser cache. Tom Harrison Talk 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone fix it, thanks. Lovelight 15:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mongo's talk page
Yes, I am sure you are right, but in this case it was also necessary to communicate to Mongo about SlimVirgin's suggestion. However, I think the precedent of "no go" areas is one to be considered carefully, and, if it is to be endorsed, then should be available to all, and incorporated into guidelines. But it may well create more problems than it solves. Tyrenius 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like you are sure I'm right, but if you really are then you could just stay off the man's talk page and leave policy to take care of itself. Tom Harrison Talk 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear about this, you think I should stay off his talk page because he feels aggrieved about one short-lived situation that happened nearly five months ago? Tyrenius 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should avoid his talk page because he asked you to, and because it would be one less opportunity for conflict. Tom Harrison Talk 05:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Would you do the same if asked by a user? Tyrenius 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Tom, but I certainly would, and I have done in the past. If you're interested in preventing conflict from multiplying, if a user makes it clear that he doesn't want you to post on his page, and if there's no absolutely urgent reason to do so, then it seems obvious that you should. Musical Linguist 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you remember, you posted a remark on the page obviously referring to me, which necessitated a reply. Tyrenius 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done so before, and would again under similar circumstances. Tom Harrison Talk 02:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also avoid such situations if I can. At the moment Mongo is posting talk about and to me anyway. Hopefully that will soon reach its conclusion, and I can be on my way to other climes. Tyrenius 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve 9/11 dispute
Hi Tom, I'd like to suggest a way of resolving the long standing dispute over 9/11-related articles that you, Mongo and I are involved in. The first thing to do is to straighten things out between Mongo and I. To that end, I hope you have some ideas, I think an informal mediation (by you) would do the trick. I think some mutual assurances, apologies, no hard feelings would probably be sufficient. The next thing I want to suggest will take a bit more time. At bottom, I think we need to deal with the meaning of | this remark of mine. Though I can understand why, you both seem to have seriously misunderstood it as, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of bad faith. I propose we get involved in some form of mediation (or just some discussions at a relaxed pace) about what my POV is, and what I think an NPOV description of these events would look like. With corresponding input from you guys. What do you think?--Thomas Basboll 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it. I'm not keen to pour any more of my life down the bottomless rat hole of conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto.--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I can usefully relay between you and Mongo I am willing to, but I am not really very good at mediation. I accept that you are working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, but I observe that the result of your work here has been to expand our coverage of conspiracy theories, present them in a more favorable light, legitimize them, and lately to add them to other articles. I have said before that neutrality is not what we get when you and I compromise, it's what we get when we present what the reliable sources say, without undue weight or original research. I don't know what we would mediate about. It's possible that a request for comment on some page or pages might be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great. Like I say, the first thing I'd like to do is to clear the air with Mongo. It's a pretty straightforward misunderstanding in this particular case, but obviously connected to our past (and present) disagreements. How to propose we go forward? What do you need from me?--Thomas Basboll 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad mediation
Tom, I agree with User:ALM scientist about parties entering into the mediation who've not been involved with the article (and this on both sides of the issue). 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt some people on both sides have joined the meditaion because of the topic. It's also possible that some are taking a position here to use as leverage elsewhere. That's what you get when humans argue about religion and politics. Someone made a point that concerns about censorship have drawn some people, which is probably true. I don't see a lot of hope for mediation at this point. What do you think about opening it up to the community at large, maybe by a request for comment, or a proposed policy change? Tom Harrison Talk 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm fairly open to the idea of presenting this to the community at large but I fear that this seemingly forthright spirit will have unintended consequences. In terms of the overall community Muslim editors are surely in the minority. This is not the case when it comes to editing on Muslim related topics. It would be most unfortunate to lose Muslim editors through a sort of "pushing out" by the community. Your point about other language Wikis is rather eye opening. It makes one wonder if those other Wikis (in particular the German one) went through what we're going through and came up with some sort of a general or policy solution. 14:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put in a question about Muhammad images over on the German wiki to see how they've arrived at the current version of their article in terms of displaying images of Muhammad. Hopefully responses there will be enlightening. 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I wish I could read German, as well as a few other languages. I would not like to loose any good contributors. At the same time, I don't get any more say on Christianity than anyone else, and there are a number of articles I just don't follow at all because I can't contribute to them honestly and still follow policy. Lately I've been thinking in terms of "I would not change the article if it looked like this." Maybe that is a useful way to proceed, but it is hard to know how to compromise further. I also worry that the mediation is doing as much harm as good. I can't think either "side's" opinion of the other is improving. Anyway, that's it for today. I'll talk to you later. Tom Harrison Talk 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just write in English and ask forgiveness and use Google translate as best I can when it comes to the other language Wikis. It is trippy to note that the German Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controvresy article doesn't carry the cartoons. See you later Tom. 16:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply is interesting. A Muslim has replied saying we Muslim do not mind them ("no one object"). Hence looks like they have no picture of cartoon because Muslim object and in Muhammad article they have picture because member Muslim allowed that. Looks like they tolerate much better and thanks God I am no more in USA. The reason those Muslims do not mind Pictures of Muhammad are because they all are born (or living since long time) in that society. They have adopted them (I do not wish to ellaborate it more given the your page is link to that German article talk page). --- ALM 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why the German article regarding the cartoons controversy doesn't have an image of the cartoons, is that they don't accept fair use images. And it's the same on the Danish and many other non-English versions. -- Karl Meier 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All that was lacking from the mediation was a dispute about Fair Use. Maybe we can work that in as well. ;-) Just kidding, Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, I'm new here and I have a couple of questions. When you say "some are taking a position here to use as leverage elsewhere" what do you mean by this? I withdrew from the mediation on the Muhammad page because I do not want to be thought of as someone who aggressively pushes his point of view. But how do you use a position as leverage as you describe? Is this like taking someone's edits and using them against the person elsewhere?  Also, the Mediation Cabal is informal mediation group, is this right? I've read that it's non-official and non-binding. This mediation appeared to be open invitation, as there was a section titled: "Please sign below if you plan to participate in this mediation".  I understand formal mediation and arbitration is among specific parties, but this informal mediation gave the appearance of asking for input. Was I wrong to  have joined that discussion even though I had only made comments on the talk page? I'm still a little confused by the etiquette. Thanks. Liberal Classic 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment about leverage was just an off-the-cuff remark made without much thought. It is pointless to speculate about anyone's motivation, and I assume everyone is sincere in the positions they have taken.


 * The Mediation Cabal is informal and non-binding. Even formal mediation is non-binding. The only binding conclusions are from the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom), or from Jimbo himself I guess. As far as I know the mediation is open to anyone who wants to take part, as is editing any page. I don't know of any etiquette that would make your taking part inappropriate. The last time I looked people were talking about how to draw more people into the discussion, so you shouldn't feel like you can't take part if you want to. Maybe the mediator has thoughts about how it should be going. Tom Harrison Talk 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi Tom - I have asked Crockspot not to post on my talk page. No good can come from it. Too much animosity. Can you advise him as well? He might listen to you. Thanks. FaAfA 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think as much as possible we should all stay off each other's talk pages, and out of each other's way, on request. Feel free to refer people to this as a statement of my opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Crosley Deletion
An explanation for your actions would be greatly appreciated. The page was earnestly and (I think) fluentally written, factually accurate, and, above all, relevant to the audience that would be interested in it. Surely, Wikipedia as a resource has a duty to cater for all audiences - artists should not be discrinated against simply because they have not had a top 40 hit or an airing on MTV. Apart from this, the page is not in violation of any of Wikipedia's core criteria for deletion and thus the grounds for such a move are spurious. I therefore recommend the page be restored forthwith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brockjaw (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I deleted it under our criteria for speedy deletion as including no assertion of notability. I see you recreated it, and someone else again recommended it for speedy deletion. We'll see if another administrator shares my judgement. Tom Harrison Talk 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The section entitled 'predictions for the future' clearly shows what the notability is. I'd like you to expand on your issues with the article rather than give a stock response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brockjaw (talk • contribs).
 * That is what the links are for. Here is another: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tom Harrison Talk 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm. "I'd like you to expand on your issues with the article rather than give a stock response." Word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brockjaw (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Tom, I left a message on User:Grenavitar talk page about this user. He recieved one warning. I disagree with those who viewed his one edit as falling under WP:VAND. Gren appears to be offline so I'm requesting if you could discuss this block with the blocking party and possibly lift it? 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his removing the image was not vandalism in the strictest sense. It is suspicious that after no edits for nine months he removes an image of Muhammad shortly after the page is unprotected. To me that suggests enough knowledge of the situation to know better. We do not need special-purpose accounts dropping in to do 'their three reverts.' I would probably have put up with a couple more reverts before I blocked him, but I am not prepared over-ride King of Hearts' block. Of course I am involved. An unblock request might get attention from a neutral admin. Tom Harrison Talk 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi, Tom. I really want to award you this pretty star for your hard working on improving 9-11 related articles.

Daniel5127 | Talk 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vim & Mozex
After I gave you pretty barnstar for your hard work, I really have big question about those two things(Vim & Mozex). I think you know more about those two things(Vim and Mozex). For best of my knowledge, I know that Vim is the Text editor, and from Linux(Operating system) like Debian(Distribution of Linux). But I still don't know a lot about Mozex. Is Mozex distribution of Mozilla or Linux? I am still confused with these two things. In my opinion, they are similar. Could you please explain the differences between Mozex and Vim? Please, reply in my talk page. Your Response will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Daniel5127 | Talk 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You stated
This edit was unbalanced. Can you please explain what you feel is ubalanced and what I can do to the paragraph to make it more balanced? It currently has both Silverstein's point and the accusation. --Nuclear Zer0 11:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Use the article's talk page to get consensus for the changes you want to make. Don't violate our policy on biographies. Tom Harrison Talk 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain what you feel is ubalanced and what I can do to the paragraph to make it more balanced? It currently has both Silverstein's point and the accusation. Please answer the question. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably best taken up on the article's talk page. There is some discussion there now, and if I have anything to add I'll add it there. Tom Harrison Talk 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott
Dear Tom Harrison,

As I am not clever enough to use a talk page to correct the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article, I am appealing to you to correct what it says about me

In a Wikipedia article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” the following false statement is made about me.

"Peter Dale Scott points out what he says are similarities between the assassination of JFK and the events of 9/11. Among many arguments he makes is that on September 11, at 9:59 the FBI already had names of 3 out of the 4 hijackers of Flight 93, at which time NORAD, according to the 9/11 Commission, wasn't yet aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked. (This Scott finds similar to the situation when Oswald's description was released immediately after the JFK assassination).[32]"

(“9/11 conspiracy theories,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)

I accept full responsibility for having originated this error, because I did make this claim in an hour-long talk on 18 November 2007. However, as I no longer trust the source I used for the claim, I no longer make it. On the contrary, in my edited text of my remarks (posted on December 20, 2006) I restated my remarks about the FBI’s identifications on 9/11, to eliminate the reference to the Flight 93 hijackers:

"Now the parallel to that for 9/11 is, I have to say, even more astounding, because of Richard Clarke, who was director for counter-terrorism activities in the White House, and a very important eyewitness. His book Against All Enemies is almost totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and it had to be ignored by the Commission because it is at odds, in many important respects, with what the 9/11 Report says (which I will get back to). But he tells us that at 9:59 am on September 11, which is the time when the second tower collapses, the North Tower, the FBI already had a list of the alleged hijackers. [5] "This is extraordinary in the first place because the FBI always says about itself that it doesn’t do much intelligence in the field of terrorism; its specialty is criminal investigation afterwards. They had the names of hijackers at 9:59; at 9:59 am Flight 93 had not yet crashed. And even more astonishingly, if we believe the 9/11 Report (which of course on this point I do not believe), NORAD, which was searching for the hijacked planes, wasn’t aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked until 10:08, which is nine minutes later." (“JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained from Studying Both,” by Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, December 20, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20061220&articleId=4207) It is clear that I am not now making the claim which the Wikipedia article attributes to me in the present tense, citing my original talk as given, but not my corrected text.

I would like to say that in general I am admirer of Wikipedia’s concept and process, and have belatedly come to use it as a research resource. I would say the same of the article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” Even though there are many details in the article I disagree with, I would commend the article on the whole as a conscientious collective effort to grope towards a consensus view.

But I do not now make the claim about the three hijackers on Flight 93 which the article attributes to me in the present tense. More importantly, I do not now believe the claim. I would therefore be grateful to have the entire paragraph removed, as it is a disservice to the truth. I trust I will not need to seek legal assistance towards this end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.180.192 (talk • contribs)


 * I am happy to remove the paragraph as you ask. I have copied what you wrote here to Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm glad you have a basically positive opinion of Wikipedia, and you are welcome to contribute if you want to. If you do choose to, you should read up on our policies, including avoiding anything that could be misunderstood as a legal threat. Thanks for the link and the correction, Tom Harrison Talk 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See I told you
I told you that most people around are still good and I will not leave until I have faith on humanity and wikipedia community. I wish to compromise as much as possible and wish to give them respect as much as possible for me. If they return only 10% then I am fine and happy with wikipedia. In a successful marriage and in every partnership key of success is that each party is ready to compromise otherwise they end like western marriages. --- ALM 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it. And my western marriage is doing just fine, thanks. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No no. Dear Tom it was not at all an attack on you. I even do NOT know that you are married or not. But it is just what I observed each day here in Germany and observed in USA/Sweden where I lived for few years. For example my land lady in 62 years old devoiced women and many other people in my office. It was just a general comment. Okay :) :) --- ALM 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, no problem. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 14:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Christianity (Nicene Creed)
I noticed you took part in the straw poll. Please visit the talk page to engage in the discussion, so we may build consensus. Vassyana 00:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Page - Bennet Wong
Greetings. You recently removed the page "Bennet Wong" ... the reason was that the page was being done "for promotion" .... Bennet Wong is now retired ... so, he is not promoting himself. The problem probably was because the page was originally created by his associate Jock McKeen (a new editor in Wikipedia who did not realize that he should not create a page for himself or his friend). I entered the picture after Jock McKeen had created the pages for Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen. I have been editing these two pages for the past two days ... and they have both disappeared this morning. Please put the pages for "Bennet Wong" and "Jock McKeen" back online so I can continue to edit them. Much appreciated ... thanks.

William Meyer 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Page - Wong and McKeen
Hello again. I just checked to see if the page "Wong and McKeen" that I created and have been editing has been removed, since the "Bennet Wong" and "Jock McKeen" pages had been recently deleted. Indeed, you did remove this page too. I respectfully request that you restore this page. I imagine this removal was prompted by the removal of the pages for "Bennet Wong" and "Jock McKeen" noted in the note just above this one. Please tell me what I should do to follow the Wikipedia standards properly so that my work will not be removed again. Many thanks. Respectfully ...

William Meyer 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"I have restored Bennet Wong, Wong and McKeen, and Jock McKeen. Some relevant policies are Criteria for speedy deletion, Autobiography, and Spam. If they do not develop as neutral articles about notable people they will probably be deleted again. Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfect
perfectly worded. It pretty much sums up the debate. --Hojimachongtalk con 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're generous to say so. Tom Harrison Talk 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Pages - Wong and McKeen, Jock McKeen and Bennet Wong
Thank you for your quick response to my request. I appreciate your guidance in suggesting the policy pages. I have read these, and I will study them further. I do want to develop these three pages as neutral articles about notable people, as you suggested. Is there anything on any of these three pages (either structure or content) that keeps these pages flagged for removal? I will respectfully alter or delete anything necessary to keep this project alive. My intention is to establish these three pages, and then produce a page for "The Haven Institute" which was founded by Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen (similar to the Wikipedia page for "Esalen Institute"). The Haven Institute is owned an operated by a nonprofit society (The Haven Foundation) and both Wong nor McKeen are at arms' length from both the Institute and the Foundation. Do you see any problem with ultimately creating this page? The intention is not to promote, but rather to inform about a cultural phenomenon. The similarity to Esalen seems clear to me. I'm sorry this is so long ... but I do want to "play ball" with you, and to do this properly the first time. Please advise. Thanks. William Meyer 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, rely primarily on independent, reliable sources: newspapers, books, etc. If there are no independent reliable sources, it will not be possible. Tom Harrison Talk 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good/Bad guys
Hi Tom, I think this is interesting. --Aminz 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that is disappointing, and I just saw something similar on another article. I will go through the evidence closely, but at this point it looks suggestive but there is enough reasonable doubt that a block would be hard to justify. I think Isotope23 is right that we need to act agressively against any edit-warring where new accounts show up and revert. Tom Harrison Talk 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation
You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Pages - Wong and McKeen, Jock McKeen and Bennet Wong
Thanks for your reply above. Is there anything that is currently on any of the three pages in question that you want to remove? Thanks William Meyer 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They need to be sourced to reliable, independent third-parties. See Attribution. Tom Harrison Talk 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

locking?
Up, in the header of the 911 talk page, there is a little locking… would you know how to remove it? Since page is unlocked… Lovelight 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the lock image. Maybe someone already removed it. If you still see it, try clearing your browser cache. Tom Harrison Talk 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone fix it, thanks. Lovelight 15:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mongo's talk page
Yes, I am sure you are right, but in this case it was also necessary to communicate to Mongo about SlimVirgin's suggestion. However, I think the precedent of "no go" areas is one to be considered carefully, and, if it is to be endorsed, then should be available to all, and incorporated into guidelines. But it may well create more problems than it solves. Tyrenius 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like you are sure I'm right, but if you really are then you could just stay off the man's talk page and leave policy to take care of itself. Tom Harrison Talk 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear about this, you think I should stay off his talk page because he feels aggrieved about one short-lived situation that happened nearly five months ago? Tyrenius 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should avoid his talk page because he asked you to, and because it would be one less opportunity for conflict. Tom Harrison Talk 05:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Would you do the same if asked by a user? Tyrenius 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Tom, but I certainly would, and I have done in the past. If you're interested in preventing conflict from multiplying, if a user makes it clear that he doesn't want you to post on his page, and if there's no absolutely urgent reason to do so, then it seems obvious that you should. Musical Linguist 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you remember, you posted a remark on the page obviously referring to me, which necessitated a reply. Tyrenius 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done so before, and would again under similar circumstances. Tom Harrison Talk 02:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also avoid such situations if I can. At the moment Mongo is posting talk about and to me anyway. Hopefully that will soon reach its conclusion, and I can be on my way to other climes. Tyrenius 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve 9/11 dispute
Hi Tom, I'd like to suggest a way of resolving the long standing dispute over 9/11-related articles that you, Mongo and I are involved in. The first thing to do is to straighten things out between Mongo and I. To that end, I hope you have some ideas, I think an informal mediation (by you) would do the trick. I think some mutual assurances, apologies, no hard feelings would probably be sufficient. The next thing I want to suggest will take a bit more time. At bottom, I think we need to deal with the meaning of | this remark of mine. Though I can understand why, you both seem to have seriously misunderstood it as, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of bad faith. I propose we get involved in some form of mediation (or just some discussions at a relaxed pace) about what my POV is, and what I think an NPOV description of these events would look like. With corresponding input from you guys. What do you think?--Thomas Basboll 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it. I'm not keen to pour any more of my life down the bottomless rat hole of conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto.--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I can usefully relay between you and Mongo I am willing to, but I am not really very good at mediation. I accept that you are working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, but I observe that the result of your work here has been to expand our coverage of conspiracy theories, present them in a more favorable light, legitimize them, and lately to add them to other articles. I have said before that neutrality is not what we get when you and I compromise, it's what we get when we present what the reliable sources say, without undue weight or original research. I don't know what we would mediate about. It's possible that a request for comment on some page or pages might be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great. Like I say, the first thing I'd like to do is to clear the air with Mongo. It's a pretty straightforward misunderstanding in this particular case, but obviously connected to our past (and present) disagreements. How to propose we go forward? What do you need from me?--Thomas Basboll 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

9/11
I think you're right about doing an RfC on some of the 9/11-related articles instead of a mediation. I'll try to explain briefly my take on this.

You are of course right that I've improved that coverage of 9/11CTs, if by that we mean that the articles on those topics have become more wikipedic. I don't really see that as a problem, even where the theories are false. They are presented as a body of lore for the most part. If we compare it to the amount of coverage WP has of fictional universes, like Star Trek and Star Wars, this is really not a big issue.

As for putting people who pursue these theories in a better light, again, I think that's partly true. But I think some of these people/theories really are more rational than they are made out to be (by association with obviously irrational variants). I think the danger that these theories pose to society (if false) has been completely overblown (to the extent that some of them are true, well, that'd of course be troubling). I think my role has simply been to present them more accurately, if at times less dismissively. (Straightforwardly dismissive remarks don't really have the intended effect in these articles anyway. They just look sort of mean.)

My main concern right now, and this is what the remark that you and Mongo seem to have misunderstood was getting at, is that there are some perfectly good facts out there that have come to belong to CTs alone. That is, some of the stuff that (actually) happened on 9/11, you can really only read about in the context of conspiracy theories.

The most recent group of these facts have to do with the sense in which 9/11 was a failure of US anti-terrorism efforts (my take on this failure may of course be wrong; but right now the article doesn't even address this natural question). Another one, until recently, was that there was little sense in the collapse of the World Trade Center article of how the buildings had been/could have been expected to perform. These are both things that you can be curious about without harbouring any suspicions about US gov't complicity, etc., etc.

I'm not the first to suggest that CTs prosper precisely when we refuse to provide information that we are actually in a position to provide. Okay. That's a first attempt to say what I mean and some gestures at possible questions to put to an RfC. Let me know if you want to move this conversation elsewhere (feel free to move these remarks over to my page if you want). Cheers.--Thomas Basboll 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * These are all reasonable things you have said before, more or less. In practice, the result of your work has not been to present them as a body of folklore, but as alternatives to what you persist in labeling the 'official' account. You say you want to present the theories as sociological phenomena, but you write about the engineering details of the collapse, and the validity of planted explosives as an explanation for observed events. You created as original research the whole idea of a 'controlled demolition hypothesis' as if there were such a thing, and try to present it as a legitimate alternative view about which reasonable men might disagree. On the talk pages we can describe our intentions as we like, but ultimately we have to look at the result in the article - like they say, 'debug the code, no the comments.' That is not to say you do not intend your edits to improve the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomas did all of this basing it on reliable sources. Controlled demolition hypothesis exists as it is indicated in "official" sources. It is just a scientific approach to solve a problem. As of now official sources have claimed that this hypothesis does not explain the collapse phenomenon better than other explanations, others say otherwise. Scientifically the issue is not closed as many features of the collapse have never been explained. The need for more data and analysis is brought by many, also those supporting NIST's explanation. There are some other theories about what exactly initiated the collapse, what caused the total collapse etc. Scientists still argue about it, but some people here claim to know better what is an issue and what is not. imho. SalvNaut 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Part of the problem with comparing actions and intentions (and especially reading intentions off actions) is that our intentions ought, ideally, to be better than our actions. That's certainly true in my case. On the other hand, any statement of intentions will necessarily be incomplete. I can see this has happened here again: after all, I do think of these theories as more than just folklore, partly because I draw the science/folklore distinction a bit less clearly than I imagine you do. Much of the history of the science is about moving beliefs from one side that distinction to the other, and redefining it in the process. But that's a broader philosophical issue.
 * More concretely, however, I don't see how you can continue call the CDH article OR. It has passed three AFDs and received a constructive peer review. I created it as a content fork, moving material from the 9/11CT section into its own article. And then improved it from there. That's been a community effort and there is community support for it. I don't think my belief that intelligent, reasonable people could (and do) pursue the hypothesis is obviously flawed (i.e., itself irrational). More importantly, I think perfectly intelligent people (like me) might want to read a well balanced article about the hypothesis.
 * I completely agree that we should be debugging the code, not the comments; on similar note, we should critique the edits, not the editors. The present dispute arises because I've been forced to defend my intentions (against charges of, e.g., "extreme POV pushing"). In one form or another, I've been in that position from the beginning. Even though 90% of my edits (a guess) stand to this day (and therefore have community support), I'm still forced to defend my intentions.--Thomas Basboll 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed a possible tool we might use at WP:RTF WP:RTP. It might be useful to summarize some of the standard disagreements and recurrent arguments over these pages and link to these summaries at the top of the relevant talk pages. If we work on that together, they could probably become quite representative and save people a lot of time, focusing the discussion, etc.--Thomas Basboll 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think you are working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, but on one level intentions do not matter, just results. Your work here has advanced a view - that it is reasonable to think the world trade center was destroyed by pre-planted explosives - that misinforms our readers. These are the results I observe; I expect them to continue; and I expect a similar result from your work on other related articles. But there is no need to extrapolate from there to your intentions, for good or ill.


 * Maybe scientists move beliefs from folklore to reason or vice versa. Certainly we do not. That would be original research. You have decided there is a 'controlled demolition hypothesis' distinct from other 9/11 conspiracy theories, and almost entirely from primary sources you have synthesized a description of it. That is original research. That it is good quality work, and that the community has accepted it does not make it any less original research.


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean about Translation. Did you mean to link something else? Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We disagree about whether CDH is a reasonable/intelligible idea (but not about its status in relation to mainstream science, which is very clear in the article). That's very clearly a content dispute and we might think about taking that question itself to an RfC. It is true that I believe that there is such a thing as a CDH, but I don't think I decided or invented that idea. It's what I thought the sources indicated, I put it out there, and it won consensus. I would have thought that calling something "good quality work accepted by the [Wikipedia] community" would be incompatible with calling it OR. If is in an intelligible notion, distinct from 9/11 CTs (as it is for me), then readers are not misinformed. Isn't it possible that I am simply right about this?--Thomas Basboll 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS You were right about the translation link. I meant refactor. I've fixed it above.--Thomas Basboll 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you want to do with refactoring, but it might be useful. You can certainly start an RfC about the page if you want. I'm afraid that "good quality work accepted by the community" is not at all incompatible with its being original research. Whether or not it is original research is partly a judgement call, and reasonable men might differ about that. That the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition is only possible in the sense that it is possible that we faked the Moon landing in Hollywood. Tom Harrison Talk 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But don't you agree that the content dispute about whether or not the CDH article is OR has been settled by the community? I think the next question, the one that you also raise, is perhaps more open: should it be presented as a plausible hypothesis in the sense that the Apollo Hoax idea should be presented as an implausible one? I think the Apollo Hoax is different in many ways, both social and technical grounds. If the analogy holds (i.e., if you're right) then the CDH article should probably look quite different.--Thomas Basboll 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The moon-hoaxers, last time I looked in, bitterly resented the bald statement that men landed on the Moon on 20 July 1969 too. More and more this 'controlled demolition hypotheses' is being presented as a reasonable alternative to some 'official' theory, to the point that people object to having a bald statement that al-Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center as "POV." I will say that the last time the community considered it at Articles for Deletion there was a consensus to keep the article. There was also a consensus that the 'hypothesis' was nonsense, and that it should be presented as a sociologial phenomena. I hope with time the page will come to reflect this, and so will look quite different. Tom Harrison Talk 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting example. If the article really is about a sociological (or even an epistemic) phenomenon then any direct statement about the events of 9/11 is, technically, out of place. Most of us who are working on the article have stuck to the simple principle that only uncontroversial (i.e., agreed to on both sides of the controversy) statements would be put "baldly", and not to asssert them but mainly to ease readability. The others would always be attributed to either side. That's partly a POV-management issue, but it's mainly a style issue. Bald statements that run directly against the hypothesis to be presented make the article look like it has made up its mind already (not even the proponents of the hypothesis are presented as having made up their mind.) So it's just odd looking. I don't think the article should say that the hypothesis is nonsense, but I think people who think that it is nonesense can make useful contributions anyway. Likewise, I don't think the article should say the hypothesis is true (of course) but people who think it is can obviously make contributions also. The sentence about al-Qaeda (in the form where the aircraft impacts are baldly asserted to have caused the collapses) implies that the hypothesis is nonsense.--Thomas Basboll 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do the reliable sources say about the terrorist attack causing the collapse, and about 'controlled demolition?' Tom Harrison Talk 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we disagree about what the sources say. Reliable sources don't explain the collapses by appealling to either terrorism or al-Qaeda, but aircraft impacts. These are not called into question by the article or by CDers. Reliable sources also dismiss controlled demolition as an explanation, and the article leaves no doubt about this. A WP article may present many points of view but should itself have only one: neutrality. By making the article's POV include the claim that the aircraft impacts caused the collapses, the sentence we are talking about gives up any claim to neutrality in presenting the hypothesis. Since it cannot both be true that the aircraft impacts caused the collapses and that controlled demolition caused the collapses, and the article takes a position in favour of the first, it is saying that the hypothesis can't possibly be true. A hypothesis that can't possibly be true is nonsense. Including this sentence, then, is tantamount to introducing the article with "The controlled demolition hypothesis is the nonsensical proposition that...", which would of course be unencyclopedic. Nobody who read that introduction would take the article seriously (and it would have no effect on how seriously they took the hypothesis). I believe the al-Qaeda sentence gives the appearance of a similar lack of seriousness (although in a slightly subtler form). It is not so much a bald statement of fact, as a bald statement of the article's bias. I don't think it is intended that way, but I do think that is how it looks. Anyone who had reason to read the article (out of curiosity, say) will immediately recognize that it is not just providing information about the hypothesis: it is encouraging the reader not to believe it.--Thomas Basboll 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you apply the same standard to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations? Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just skimmed the article. It doesn't look like a statement like the one we're talking about is included there. (Do you have a diff in re "moon-hoaxers ... bitterly resented the bald statement that men landed on the Moon on 20 July 1969 too". That might give me a bit more to work with.) Looking at the article quickly, yes, I would say that such a statement would be odd to insist on putting in there. It goes without saying for most people, and the article, which deals with the controversial issue, has no business taking a position. Nor any need to. If it did say, "BTW, people actually did land on the moon," wouldn't that strike you as kind of odd too?--Thomas Basboll 16:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to hunt down diffs. I used to think conspiracy theories were an interesting social phenomanon. Now I just find them tedious and repetitive, usually self-serving, and increasingly malicious to boot. I don't think such a statement would look odd, unless it were written to. It could perfectly well appear as part of the over view of what really happened, to which the conspiracy theory (which, after all, is nonsense) stands in opposition. As I've said before, neutrality is not defined by triangulation among the random guys on the internet who choose to edit here. It is defined by what the reliable sources say. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a reason to have people like me workig on the article. I find these theories and movements interesting, and want to see them accurately described. I can work on them without getting too weary about the content because I'm curious about the facts. Anyway, no sense making you weary of this discussion as well. I'm still thinking about whether or not to return/how to proceed. If I do return, I'll start with an RfC on how how to deal with 9/11CTs. Thanks for your time on this.--Thomas Basboll 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad mediation
Tom, I agree with User:ALM scientist about parties entering into the mediation who've not been involved with the article (and this on both sides of the issue). 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt some people on both sides have joined the meditaion because of the topic. It's also possible that some are taking a position here to use as leverage elsewhere. That's what you get when humans argue about religion and politics. Someone made a point that concerns about censorship have drawn some people, which is probably true. I don't see a lot of hope for mediation at this point. What do you think about opening it up to the community at large, maybe by a request for comment, or a proposed policy change? Tom Harrison Talk 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm fairly open to the idea of presenting this to the community at large but I fear that this seemingly forthright spirit will have unintended consequences. In terms of the overall community Muslim editors are surely in the minority. This is not the case when it comes to editing on Muslim related topics. It would be most unfortunate to lose Muslim editors through a sort of "pushing out" by the community. Your point about other language Wikis is rather eye opening. It makes one wonder if those other Wikis (in particular the German one) went through what we're going through and came up with some sort of a general or policy solution. 14:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put in a question about Muhammad images over on the German wiki to see how they've arrived at the current version of their article in terms of displaying images of Muhammad. Hopefully responses there will be enlightening. 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I wish I could read German, as well as a few other languages. I would not like to loose any good contributors. At the same time, I don't get any more say on Christianity than anyone else, and there are a number of articles I just don't follow at all because I can't contribute to them honestly and still follow policy. Lately I've been thinking in terms of "I would not change the article if it looked like this." Maybe that is a useful way to proceed, but it is hard to know how to compromise further. I also worry that the mediation is doing as much harm as good. I can't think either "side's" opinion of the other is improving. Anyway, that's it for today. I'll talk to you later. Tom Harrison Talk 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just write in English and ask forgiveness and use Google translate as best I can when it comes to the other language Wikis. It is trippy to note that the German Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controvresy article doesn't carry the cartoons. See you later Tom. 16:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply is interesting. A Muslim has replied saying we Muslim do not mind them ("no one object"). Hence looks like they have no picture of cartoon because Muslim object and in Muhammad article they have picture because member Muslim allowed that. Looks like they tolerate much better and thanks God I am no more in USA. The reason those Muslims do not mind Pictures of Muhammad are because they all are born (or living since long time) in that society. They have adopted them (I do not wish to ellaborate it more given the your page is link to that German article talk page). --- ALM 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why the German article regarding the cartoons controversy doesn't have an image of the cartoons, is that they don't accept fair use images. And it's the same on the Danish and many other non-English versions. -- Karl Meier 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All that was lacking from the mediation was a dispute about Fair Use. Maybe we can work that in as well. ;-) Just kidding, Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, I'm new here and I have a couple of questions. When you say "some are taking a position here to use as leverage elsewhere" what do you mean by this? I withdrew from the mediation on the Muhammad page because I do not want to be thought of as someone who aggressively pushes his point of view. But how do you use a position as leverage as you describe? Is this like taking someone's edits and using them against the person elsewhere?  Also, the Mediation Cabal is informal mediation group, is this right? I've read that it's non-official and non-binding. This mediation appeared to be open invitation, as there was a section titled: "Please sign below if you plan to participate in this mediation".  I understand formal mediation and arbitration is among specific parties, but this informal mediation gave the appearance of asking for input. Was I wrong to  have joined that discussion even though I had only made comments on the talk page? I'm still a little confused by the etiquette. Thanks. Liberal Classic 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment about leverage was just an off-the-cuff remark made without much thought. It is pointless to speculate about anyone's motivation, and I assume everyone is sincere in the positions they have taken.


 * The Mediation Cabal is informal and non-binding. Even formal mediation is non-binding. The only binding conclusions are from the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom), or from Jimbo himself I guess. As far as I know the mediation is open to anyone who wants to take part, as is editing any page. I don't know of any etiquette that would make your taking part inappropriate. The last time I looked people were talking about how to draw more people into the discussion, so you shouldn't feel like you can't take part if you want to. Maybe the mediator has thoughts about how it should be going. Tom Harrison Talk 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi Tom - I have asked Crockspot not to post on my talk page. No good can come from it. Too much animosity. Can you advise him as well? He might listen to you. Thanks. FaAfA 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think as much as possible we should all stay off each other's talk pages, and out of each other's way, on request. Feel free to refer people to this as a statement of my opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Crosley Deletion
An explanation for your actions would be greatly appreciated. The page was earnestly and (I think) fluentally written, factually accurate, and, above all, relevant to the audience that would be interested in it. Surely, Wikipedia as a resource has a duty to cater for all audiences - artists should not be discrinated against simply because they have not had a top 40 hit or an airing on MTV. Apart from this, the page is not in violation of any of Wikipedia's core criteria for deletion and thus the grounds for such a move are spurious. I therefore recommend the page be restored forthwith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brockjaw (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I deleted it under our criteria for speedy deletion as including no assertion of notability. I see you recreated it, and someone else again recommended it for speedy deletion. We'll see if another administrator shares my judgement. Tom Harrison Talk 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The section entitled 'predictions for the future' clearly shows what the notability is. I'd like you to expand on your issues with the article rather than give a stock response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brockjaw (talk • contribs).
 * That is what the links are for. Here is another: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tom Harrison Talk 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm. "I'd like you to expand on your issues with the article rather than give a stock response." Word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brockjaw (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Tom, I left a message on User:Grenavitar talk page about this user. He recieved one warning. I disagree with those who viewed his one edit as falling under WP:VAND. Gren appears to be offline so I'm requesting if you could discuss this block with the blocking party and possibly lift it? 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his removing the image was not vandalism in the strictest sense. It is suspicious that after no edits for nine months he removes an image of Muhammad shortly after the page is unprotected. To me that suggests enough knowledge of the situation to know better. We do not need special-purpose accounts dropping in to do 'their three reverts.' I would probably have put up with a couple more reverts before I blocked him, but I am not prepared over-ride King of Hearts' block. Of course I am involved. An unblock request might get attention from a neutral admin. Tom Harrison Talk 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi, Tom. I really want to award you this pretty star for your hard working on improving 9-11 related articles.

Daniel5127 | Talk 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vim & Mozex
After I gave you pretty barnstar for your hard work, I really have big question about those two things(Vim & Mozex). I think you know more about those two things(Vim and Mozex). For best of my knowledge, I know that Vim is the Text editor, and from Linux(Operating system) like Debian(Distribution of Linux). But I still don't know a lot about Mozex. Is Mozex distribution of Mozilla or Linux? I am still confused with these two things. In my opinion, they are similar. Could you please explain the differences between Mozex and Vim? Please, reply in my talk page. Your Response will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Daniel5127 | Talk 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If it continues...
Just sprotect... both IP editors were from Canada... also the transclusion isn't backed up by policy... it is easy to consider it disruption but not officially (just like User:Alim777's edit wasn't technically vandalism). 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User is extremely obviously a sockpuppet... so I suppose blocking per "avoiding scrutiny" provision of WP:SOCK would be in order. But still I think sprotecting would be better.  03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and sprotected. Since I'm maybe too involved, I'll post on ANI for review. Tom Harrison Talk 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it is pretty obvious that they are one and the same or meatpuppets of eachother tag teaming to avoid 3RR. 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with blocking instead/also. Tom Harrison Talk 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would fault you for doing so Tom... just cite this with the knowledge that obvious sockpuppetry can be treated as such. 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had not read that before - interesting. But I did the sprotect; you do the block, and I will support you. Tom Harrison Talk 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Three Canadian IPs making the same edit... ridiculous. 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd, your sprotection on Muhammad never seemed to take effect. 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I believe we know who our sockpuppet is (check this guy's user talk page).  04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This person shoud be blocked no? Do note his Canadian centered editing (Bloc Quebequois, etc.) 04:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's the same guy, but it should probably go through AIV or checkuser. On reflection, you and I should probably refrain from blocking anyone for anything that's not simple vandalism. Tom Harrison Talk 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom, the sprotection on the transclusion should be lifted... that's meant to be open really. Also Bbarnett's admitted to sockpuppetry and broken 3RR (which he thinks I've done as well but I beg to differ). 05:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Welp unfortunately I expect that will be back to POINT out his concerns. It seems that WP:AN3 is a bit backlogged as it doesn't appear as if my report concerning him has been reviewed. One other thing, I think User:ALM scientist added the tag relative to concerns he had about User:Proabivouac's non-image related edits. 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM added the tag here? Tom Harrison Talk 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * /me gets clued in... thanks for the simple demonstration... d'oh! I'm still wondering why the German Wikipedia doesn't seem to have this image problem. Maybe the Germany culture is that different about such things. 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IP 207.195.79.254 Blocked
I have noticed that a blocking message appears when I or anyone at our school accesses Wikpedia. Is there a way that I (a teacher) could find out from you when these violations occurred (from you or otherwise), which might allow me to find out who has been vandalizing? I do not want this IP address unblocked, since students and teachers can still edit wikipedia in the future by logging in. Please reply on my Talk page. Delzen 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, the times recorded must be in error, as many occur after school hours; I am guessing that there must be some error in how the time is recording. The actual time of this posting is 4:30 pm (16:30). --Delzen 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! A breakthrough! I have to subtract 6 hours! Interesting... --Delzen 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discovery of Nuclear energy AT HOME
If you want to laugh, please check this out.

Ahmadinejad has recently reported discovery of nuclear energy at home , "'A high school student contacted me a little while ago, telling me 'Mr. [Ahmadinejad]! We got a 13-16 year old girl, third year high school student, majoring in math/physics. She came to me saying, Ms. teacher I've discovered nuclear energy in our house. 'Do something about it' I told her to set up a meeting at school, ask [the student] couple of questions, check how serious she is. They hold the meeting, examined her, and realized it looks to be serious. They informed me, [then] I called the head of the Iranian Atomic Agency and told him: 'Dear Sir! A high school girl says something like this! Verify [her claim], if she's right then support her' [They] invited our nuclear scientist-whose average age is below 25. [The nuclear scientists] set up a meeting and invited her to inquiry. They found out she is right. They told her let's go to your house and see what are you up to. They went to her house and realized this 3rd year high school girl, with the help of her elder brother, has got some gadgets from the bazaar, assembled them and produced nuclear energy, FOR REAL! So now, [nuclear scientists] have [hired] her- now she's a nuclear scientist too. They have set up an escort for her, [she] comes, goes, has driving service, a chauffeur! This is self esteem!'"

--Aminz 02:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is just really odd! Maybe it is another of those Cold Fusion schemes. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. But it is really funny. --Aminz 08:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

hello
Tom, i do have a personal aversion towards such images. i don't consider that Wikipedia should cater to my personal preferences, as i know that's not really possible here. what i do know is this: 1) as we have no real picture of Muhammad, the depictions are not depicting the subject, they are depicting how tradition has visually represented the subject; 2) tradition has represented the subject (Muhammad), and other venerated subjects, in numerous ways: human depiction is an extreme minority of this tradition. 3) if we are to accurately and neutrally reflect how tradition has represented Muhammad, depictions should remain a minority, and so requests of 3+ depictions in an article which currently has few images anyway is disproportionate and unreasonable. now, i have never minded much when my arguments are torn apart. what i do mind, is when people's views are used to discredit their motives or their honesty. our "side" of the debate has constantly been accused of changing positions or having ulterior motives. Wikipedia is not censored, yet Wikipedia should aim to maintain the appropriate balance and should not be used to 'show' that it is not censored. to maintain such a balance, i think the depiction count cannot be more than two, and retaining a position in the lead assigns to it more prominence than it merits. this is certainly not the product of a compromising of WP:NOT, it is a (in my view, logical) derivative of what WP:NPOV mandates. sure, you may disagree here, but i would dearly like for the discussion to be based on arguments as opposed to guessing the motives of the opponent. thanks.  ITAQALLAH  14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have heard all these arguments, and don't find them persuasive. As you probably know, I have followed this debate from the beginning, and watched as different arguments have been introduced. But these arguments are only applied here. There is no simialar move to take out black-and-white pictures of people, even though people are not grey in color. There is no similar drive to replace images of Shakespere with the word 'Shakespere', because a Google search showed that the word is more common than the image. There is no move to take out pictures of Jesus, even though we have no idea what he really looked like. I assume you are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, but I stand by me conclusion that the arguments presented are pretexts, or are motivated by a desire to work out a compromise.


 * The one argument that is compelling is BYT's that it bothers some of our editors to have pictures of Muhammad on the page, and does not add enough to the page to justify it. I originally accepted this argument, but later came to think that the negative consequences of allowing religious censorship are so severe that they tip the balance away from what I would personally prefer. No arguments so far have led me to change my mind again. And I wish it were otherwise, but the behavior of some parties reinforces me in thinging I am right.
 * Tom Harrison Talk 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Hi Tom,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.

As you know I think the Islam section is very POV. I have found a new quote which I think could be very helpful. Also, I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. There is a new dispute here. If you have time to help, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks,--Aminz 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment:) --Aminz 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning
Hi Tom,

I am working on Issac article to bring it into the Good Article status. Reading a secondary source, I got confused about an statement. If you could help me, I would be thankful. I have posted my question on the Isaac talk page. --Aminz 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind advice
Thanks for your gentle advice on AFD over the ramadan riots article Aaliyah Stevens 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lazarus and Dives RFC
An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the cleanup
Hi Tom,

Thanks very much for the cleanup. I have nominated the article for GA status. I hope it gets promoted. Thanks again :) --Aminz 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You added some good material. Tom Harrison Talk 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Essjay
Wow.Proabivouac 03:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow indeed. Tom Harrison Talk 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My jaw just hit the floor! I didn't know this was going on. What is happening to our people here - writer's dementia? JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  13:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't really improve the sense of community. It would be easier if he were an obnoxious jerk instead of a consistently nice helpful guy. Tom Harrison Talk 14:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I will just go and get some fresh air and do some work in the yard. This computer thing is really overrated. :-) JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

BASE-10 Spectrum?
Tom Why did you take down the link to BASE-10 Spectrum? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drakeja (talk • contribs).


 * I deleted it as promotional material under our criteria for speedy deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How can it be written differently to inform and not to promote, e.g. Microsoft? Microsoft has hundreds of entries about its products and services and links to their websites. How is this different? All I am asking is the right to be considered with other CMS systems. By deleting the article, you are denying the existence of the software.


 * Find reliable third-party sources that have written about the software. Major newspapers and magazines are good sources, as are reviews done with independent editorial oversight. Tom Harrison Talk 18:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tom

You recently deleted an article I had added your reason was no assertion of notability. While Veronica and her accomplishments may not be notable to you, I assure you their are many people that would disagree. I am going to try putting my article backup with the Title changed to Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist or if you have any other suggestions I would certainly appreciate them.

Uvak38 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why my article on Veronica Yurach Artist was speedy deleted. Uvak38 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and Notability (people). Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The tragical history of Dives and Lazarus
You did quite a few edits on Lazarus and Dives, and very helpfully. I was wondering if you had an opinion on the "Jesus Seminar" furore that's all over the talk page to the article now. If we're counting heads, the opinions are evenly split. I hope no one counts heads, as I would find it very hard to settle for pumping up that group with yet another wikilink. Geogre 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I saw you had been working on the formatting after my edit went in, so I hope none of my changes to spacing and italics were at cross purposes. If they were, feel free to change them back.


 * I think Wikipedia over-represents the opinion of the Jesus Seminar because they have a talent for self-promotion. Like you said about the guru and the cheese, their opinions belong on Jesus Seminar, not in a paragraph on every page we have. I remember this comming up on Talk:Christianity, so some of the regulars there may have a better-informed opinion than I do. Tom Harrison Talk 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethics for dummies
See User:Proabivouac/Ethics for dummies. I've been amazed to realize that some of these points aren't anywhere in our current policies.Proabivouac 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

other stuff...
HI THERE, why did you delete my edit. what i said about sept 11 was true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.10.194.218 (talk • contribs).

At least there is one senseable person around here. Thanks--Beguiled 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
Have you seen the stuff being posted by this User:El magnifico character?--Beguiled 14:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say just let him run and see where he goes. Sometimes people just need a little opportunity to show what they are really made of. Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I do more reading here than much else and am always either fascinated or nauseated by some of the radical stuff I see here. I usually don't bother to post any comments unless I see something so stupid I have to respond to it. Thanks for your time.--Beguiled 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad image archive
Hello Tom, I usually am pretty good about checking external links on articles that tend to have contentious histories. In the links you added I noticed the URL mentioned something about archives and of course that rang a bell which led me to removing them. I appreciate that you didn't reinstate them.... If zombietime would just get rid of the hateful stuff that archive would make a decent resource given all of the images of art from the antiquities it shows. Thanks for the note. 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Chris Hecker
Hiho Tom. Sorry to bother you, but it seems to me that your speedy deletion of Chris Hecker was... well a little too speedy. Perhaps we could revert the deletion for now, put an A7 tag up, and just wait one more day. Frankly, I have no idea who this guy is, and I'm willing to accept that he might not bear any importance at all. However, this page will be getting a lot of traffic in the next few days, so perhaps something notable will come up. Just my two cents. --~Ça Suffit~ 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. Why will the page be getting a lot of traffic? Tom Harrison Talk 18:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See the slashdot article that's about him. As you undeleted the article, and the only reason for it being protected is to prevent recreation, I've gone ahead and unprotected the article. --Conti|✉ 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did forget to do that. Tom Harrison Talk 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions
Hi, I noticed you participated in the Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in more than one. Best wishes, Noroton 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)