User talk:Tom harrison/Archive07

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 May 2006 and 31 May 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User Talk:Tom harrison/Archive08. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Tom Harrison Talk 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker1234 has written about you
Tom Harrison, you are mentioned several times in my article about my experience here. I accuse you of vandalism. Journalistic responsibility requires that I give you an opportunity to respond, should you choose to do so.

TruthSeeker1234 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Giovanni. Freethinker, TruthSeeker...Can't keep socks straight...Apologies G33...My head hurts.Timothy Usher 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh; this is a whole other issue, related to 9/11 conspiracy theories, nothing to do with Giovanni33. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * TruthSeeker1234, It was a good joke. --Aminz 00:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Wisdom
Yes, I shall take a look, though I've been pretty busy today.

One problem we're having on these other pages, besides the issue of translation, is that an editor has opinions about the way passages should read far stronger than his command of the language.

Thanks again for protecting my talk page from vandalism. It is obvious now he is not an impersonator, as I'd wondered the other night. The relevant e-mail address is abuse@rutgers.edu - I'm curious as to whether WP policy allows me to take action on my own.Timothy Usher 03:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy blocked
Hi, Tom, Timothy Usher has been blocked on what appears to be a rather flimsy pretext. Can you look into the matter? He has requested an unblock. Thanks, Pecher Talk 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked Cyde. Do you find him to be sufficiently uninvolved? Pecher Talk 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Impersonators
Now we've got User:Timothy Usherr, blocked by Pepsidrinka, and User:T Usher, who claimed to be me on User talk:Sean Black.

Good thing I set up those Doppelgangers, huh?Timothy Usher 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected my spelling of one of the usernames above. AnnH has already blocked him.Timothy Usher 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11
I read the foot notes for the 9/11 article, but what is wrong with using the word colloquially, seeing as thats how 9/11 and september 11th are referred, in a manner of speech. Such as "often referred colloquially as 9/11 [1] or September 11th". If anything, it enhances the readers understanding of the terms and their useage.--Gephart 22:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Any particular reason...
...you reverted me on WP:AbRep? 68.39.174.238 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh crap! I didn't even see that! Thanx anyway dude... 68.39.174.238 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit War is a' brewin on 9/11 conspiracy theories
Pokipsy 76 is working himself up into a frenzy over the statement he added into the intro. Right now he is up to three reverts on the same section.

We had an interesting talk on his user page:

''Pokipsy, the consensus was against you on this one. Plus you are getting dangerously close to vioalating the The three revert rule.--DCAnderson 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)''


 * The objections were only yours and that of bill. Bill completely misunderstood my edit ("You just wanted to show that some people disagree with the mainstream criticism of the conspiracy" he said) I explained he was wrong and he didn't object my explanation. Moreover your objection was just a sort of "preference" (you liked it best before, you find the addition is not "needed"), it is not a substantial objection. It is very little to say that "the consensus is against me". However thank you for making me notice the The three revert rule.--Pokipsy76 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * From looking at the history of people who reverted it, Tom Harrison was against it too. And nobody seemed to have supported it, except you.--DCAnderson 20:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom Harrison didn't give any motivation for his revert, it was pure vandalism.--Pokipsy76 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So apparently you're a vandal now. Please step in before this gets out of control--DCAnderson 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On Pokipsy 76's user page he said

"Please don't write in my tak page again. Thank you.--Pokipsy76 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)"

Would it be wrong of me to reply with, "Why?"--DCAnderson 21:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be amusing, but probably unhelpful. The way things are going someone is going to be posting to his talk page real soon now. Hopefully he'll stop his incivility and personal attacks before it comes to that. Tom Harrison Talk 21:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured I should say something here. From what I can see, Pokipsy has tried to be constructive and I think his editing was conducted in a proper manner, at least as far as he understands it so far. I have seen far worse behaviour from some administrators. He thinks that he is being ganged up on by POV pushers and I don't blame him, especially if he is new and his edits and comments are met with such ridicule. Someone will be posting to his talk page real soon? I bet! It's getting harder and harder to assume good faith. SkeenaR 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I reply on your page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that the same guy Jayjg was blocking who just wrote about the debris field? SkeenaR 04:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi
Dhimmi is under attack from anonymous sockpuppets who collectively are well over 3RR.Timothy Usher 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

crossbow
need some help to make this article correct again. it has been vandalized, just for the claim that the crossbow was invented in China. well, I have a different opinion, I showed many reasons and there is none with a logical argumentation against it. unfortunartely this user either remade technical errors and deleted historic bonus material, sources, external links, etc. I hate such people.

moves
Yes I know. I hope it isn't moved again. RM was where people should have went in the first place. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template
Copy/Pasting Mystic's message:

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

(Friendly smile) (Confident) (Mocking) (Hysterical) (Hurt) (Very Sorry) (Sleepy) (You are Nive) (I am not happy) (No Comments)
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce

« ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 04:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation Northwoods re: proven conspiracy theories
If you look through the documents the possibility of flying an airplane into a sky scraper was mentioned explicitly. Please don't make reverts without at least explaining the reason why - this is not vandalism and it is very pertinent information.Sukiari 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please look into this
Hi Tom,

Can you please have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Najis&diff=52372278&oldid=52283450

This comment, as I understand, only aims to humiliate me rather than providing any information. Please have a look at the history of this article. I asked Pecher over and over to respond to my comments on the talk page and finally he made the above comment.

Also, please have a look at the relevant talk at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najis#Last_changes Please have a look at the dates of the posts.

The issue started by my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najis&diff=51797236&oldid=51788882

Can you please look into it. Thanks,

--Aminz 05:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, Can you please also look into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rules_of_war_in_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=53199313


 * Also, Pecher has not explained yet what I need to learn according to his comment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Najis&diff=52372278&oldid=52283450 )
 * Can you please ask him to let me know what I should learn about my religon.
 * Thanks very much --Aminz 20:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jibril
Hi Tom,

The merge template has been on Jibril for several weeks now. All the editors who've shown up support the merger. It is an exact duplicate of the text found in the main article Gabriel. However, I'd been threatened by Anonymous editor on the basis of policies he wouldn't specify that I'd be blocked if I redirected it again. Is there any basis for this, or can I redirect it again?Timothy Usher 05:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Geelong Grammar School
Dear Mr Harrison

I the Editor in Chief of the Geelong Grammar School Newspaper. It has come to my attention that you and some other administrators have rejected amendments to articles written by Students of this school with Citation to material that I publish. I would like to clarify that none of the material in the Geelong Grammar School Newletter "The Window" is copyrighted material. All of our material in The Window is public domain and may be freely quoted and cited anyone. If you wish for further information, you can contact the school by phone or email. I understand the "if in doubt throw it out" approach taken by Wikipedia Admin as proper caution. Since this issue has been addressed, I hope that a freer flow of information will result, improving the services that Wikipedia Provides.

Regards Paul Lim

Editor in Chief The Window VERITAS VINCIT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.252.190 (talk • contribs).


 * My concern is not copyright, though other editors have mentioned it. The changes have not been, in general, improvements to the encyclopedia, and I am not convinced they were meant to be. Tom Harrison Talk 12:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Harrison

Thank you for clairfying the issue. Could you kindly ensure where you can however, that copyright is no longer brought up as an issue by other administrators who do not have a familiarity with the nature of my publication

Regards Paul Lim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.252.190 (talk • contribs).

Help me!
Hello! I'm a Persian Wikipedian and I wanna build a robot, but I like to build a one in English Wikipedia. So Can you help to make a bot step by step??? Thanks a lot! --MehranVB 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Another annoying request
Hi Tom (and sorry off the top that you're the admin I bug for things). I've been involved in two sort-of flame exchanges on our Anti-Americanism page. Well, OK, so goes the Wiki. But curiously tonight, the two showed up in minutes of each other despite the fact that neither are very active and one seems to edit only every two days. I really don't know how any of this works, but could you see as best you're able that User:Rkrichbaum and User:Christinam are not the same person? Perhaps they aren't and I had the bad luck of getting two "annoyed with me" people on at the same time. Also, horrible as it sounds, I'm going to keep reverting them on Anti-Americanism until they explain to me why we need to ditch an intro that has been standing for months. Maybe it should be locked. Obviously, I want it locked at the old version (that I like), but I think a disinterested look is in order. Apologies again for bothering, Marskell 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, help please now if you could. I just took the time to start a new section to incorporate the editors points as a compromise and got reverted completely. She won't address me directly, so I don't know what to do. Marskell 08:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom. You'll notice I've gone a little batshit on the talk page :( but today was very frustrating: I was literally right in the middle of inserting her points. I did indeed but the Guantanamo pic back in and I haven't dropped any point she's made, just moved it to a "modern" section. I think it might be worth raising a talk point on WP:LEAD making "summation in lead, details in body" as explicit as possible. Marskell 13:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tfine80 has started an RfC: Requests for comment/Christinam. This may be weilding a big stick too soon, but this editor is very very stubborn and if you look at her editing pattern she's obviousl single-issue, POV editor. She's reverted six times in a day and half and most frustratingly she doesn't seem to recognize that keeping her info was an attempt to compromise. Anyhow, I see your "busy in real life", just thought I'd point out the RfC. Marskell 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the clean up Tom. Soph i  a  Gilraen   of Dorthonion  13:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Warnings for Editing Pages
I would like to inform that Wikipedia staff that users from are school all share the same IP Address. Everycomputer uses 151.199.193.49 as there IP Address. So you can't really block the trouble makers, without blocking everybody.

So I don't know how else to tell you and stuff, it could be one of million students screwing around with a page and stuff. Sorry that people have to act this way... but its the same 151.199.193.49 not just 1 person!

Thanks.

Natural Hygiene Walled Garden
I've been trying to do something about this page, because it is full of a lot of unverified claims and seems to be a POV fork off of Naturopathy. From what I've been able to gather, the only thing really keeping it from changing is that no one knows the page exists.--DCAnderson 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno man, those Natural Hygiene guys seem pretty hardcore.--DCAnderson 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's another crappy page that pretty much needs to be deleted:

Nick Berg conspiracy theories--DCAnderson 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you did a good job cleaning that one up.


 * Have a:[[Image:Choco_chip_cookie.jpg|cookie|100px]]

I have a feeling that once that article realy gets pruned, it could probably be replaced with a sentence and a couple of links in the main NickBerg article.--DCAnderson 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please block me
Tom, I can not study because of wikipedia. I am addicted. Can you please do me a favor by blocking me for five days. Thanks --Aminz 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am unblocked now. THANKS Again! --Aminz 02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby
I've had a change of opinion on this. Because of Gibby's relentless incivility and personal attacks on other editors, and his edit warring, but in particular because of the unbending nature of his approach to subjects on which he has strong feelings, I think it may (either now or soon) be time to consider invoking the General Probation in his case to ban him from Wikipedia completely. I don't think he's shown any sign of trying to work with other Wikipedians, and instead he's treating Wikipedia like a corner of Usenet. I no longer cling on to the hope that he has both the capacity and the will to reform.


 * KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby.

I'd be interested in your opinion on this. --Tony Sidaway 12:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on this on WP:AN. I'd like to see if there are reasonable objections before pressing ahead. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi Tom! I saw that you just reverted vandalism on the Claude Debussy page from 216.120.184.66. Thank you! This user seems to have quite a history of vandalism. I'm rather new to Wikipedia - is there anything that can be done about this for the future? Best wishes. -MarkBuckles 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Query about AFD procedure
JA: Hi, could you explain the AFD procedure to me, as I only dimly remember going through it once before in my first few weeks at WP. I'm under the impression that there's supposed to be a place for discussion and voting, but don't know if that's supposed to be at the article talk page or at some dedicated AFD page. This is in reference to the article Truth theory, a page that already existed, but which I changed from a redirect to an article in order to add content that was being deleted whole hog by one editor at the article on Truth. This was due to objections about its technical level rather than POV issues. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Hi again, does "speedy keep" mean I can remove the AFD tag, or should I wait for somebody else to do that? PS, thanx for the smiley templates but I object to the label "mocking", as it's just the way I really look. Jon Awbrey 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

35.9.4.44
I think your block may have been a little premature here. The user hadn't even been warned. In fact I'd just added a 'welcome' message (with a little warning) about thirty seconds before you blocked him. DJ Clayworth 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But compare Special:Contributions/35.9.4.44 with Special:Contributions/35.9.4.45. Exactly the same vandalism, and just the last digit different in the IP address. Is Tom vindicated? :-) AnnH ♫ 17:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Two consecutive 3RR violations
User:Pecher has twice 3RR violation in last two days, in Dhimmi article. That is yesterday as well as today. Remember what is meaning of 24 hours. From 19:28, 16 May 2006, to 11:57, 17 May 2006 he had 4 edits (excluding self edits). Also he revert each thing that is written with reference saying it WP:RS or see talk page. The whole article of Dhimmi is not neutral and only presenting one side view. The article looks like some anti Islam campaign. I will need you help and support to change it and give both sides view. Do not you think wikipedia policy is to have neutral articles giving both sides view? Right now, I will appreciate if you can give him at least a 3RR warning. Thank you. --- Faisal 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel extremely bad not to have you on Dhimmi article. You were a big hope for me. Now I do not know that how I can correct that article without a good admin. They continue reverting back all the changes and their number is very large. They have made the article a propoganda article. I am sad after getting your message :( ... --- Faisal 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to tell you that I have reported him. Let see if any action is taken against him or not. I am now thinking to report again his yesterday violation as well, in case that will help. --- Faisal 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Important e-mail
Tom,

I just sent you an e-mail that requests imeediate action. Sorry to have done this.Timothy Usher 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks?
If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks?

AmandaParker

"Hate crime"? "Racism"? Calling 1.2 billion muslims "terrorists" and allowing the terms like "Islamic Terrorism" is not a "Hate crime" or "Racism". Taking off innocent Muslims off the planes coz the fellow passengers didn't feel "comfortable" or making movies to criminalize innocent human beings is not "hate crime" or "racism"? Asking from muslims to continuously apologize for 911 and other acts which were committed by some lunatics and yet not apologizing for White Christian Terrorism is not "hate crime" or "racism"? It is time for the White Christian Terrorists to have the taste of their own medicine which they shoving down the throat of others for centuries. What you guys are doing is harrassment and forcing me to stop contributing to wikipedia which claims to be neutral and yet allow 1.2 billion human beings to be called "terrorists" and yet White Christian Terrorists crimes against humanity, genocide, holocausts squat free. It is double standard and hypocrisy. AmandaParker

Request unprotection
Tom, please, you think we could get that page protection off the Sept 11 article? It's been up for a long time and I think it's no longer necessary. SkeenaR 00:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! SkeenaR 00:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre Practical joke in new messages link
Hi Tom,

Something very strange just happened. I got the "You have new messages (last change)," but the bluelighted link was to Practical joke. At first I thought it was a talk page redirect, but there's nothing in my talk page history, and the "my talk" link was unaffected. How on earth was this done? Any ideas?Timothy Usher 03:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Duh, I'd been had. Check out User:Alienus.Timothy Usher 04:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's just html. Instructive, in a sense. Tom Harrison Talk 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Langston Deletions
I'd like an explanation for why Glen and Michael Langston were removed from Wikipedia with zero explanation. I noticed much of the work I performed cleaning up some of the field definitions in biomechanics and dynamics has been left, but two pages dealing with two specific scientists were destroyed. Why was this done? Imusade 13:40, 18 May 2006

UPDATE: Michael Langston is certainly worthy of inclusion - he aces the "professor test" and is a highly respected figure (certainly one of the most well-known) in the rapidly growing field of bioinformatics. Glen Langston is more debateable - he is young in his field, but is of particular interest due to both the lineage from Michael Langston and his mastery of a formulation of dynamics that is so advanced (Kane's Method)it will be mentioned alongside Newton and Lagrange in history books.

So Michael Langston certainly belongs here, and it may be that Glen Langston does not fulfill requirements because he is currently earning his PhD and is not yet a full professor. Regardless, the area of biodynamics is sorely lacking here on wikipedia, and I will spend some time in the near future updating the areas and adding leading figures, as well as some history.

69.194.28.186
The user with that IP address is vandalizing the Assyrian people article.King Legit

141.217.41.238, he's at it again, he may have a dynamic ip address
It appears as if the same vandal is at it again on the Assyrian people page.

Cookie
Thank you :-) - Drogo Underburrow 06:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on TruthSeeker1234
I have filed a request for arbitration regarding TruthSeeker1234. .--DCAnderson 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Heytesbury street
Hi, This certainly was a candidate for deletion in its original form. I've now added material and wonder if you could see what you think of it now? Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case on Christianity
Hi, I have taken the Christianity case over at the mediation cabal. I am reviewing the case now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dia Mirza
Thank you for the action on Dia Mirza. Let's see what happens now. Zora 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for protection of Diamirza article..Anon Alleged vandal of Dia Mirza article.

Care to review?
--MONGO 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
I've moved our dialog to WP:ANI. Raphael1 10:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Ahari article edits by Moorbeyel
You warned Moorbeyel about hacking the article about me. I thought he was blocked. Muhammed al-Ahari
 * He is now. Tom Harrison Talk 12:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Capital Punishment discussion
I appreciate your assistance in the capital punishment talk page. I'm sorry that you think my behavior was unacceptable. If you don't mind, would you point out what specifically you thought was inappropriate. I'd appreciate it so that I can avoid it in future. Regards. JCO312 05:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching this while I was away:. Perhaps the work of this blocked IP from a new machine? Never knew I could draw such attention.... --mtz206 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker1234 Journalism
I am indeed writing an article about my experience here, about Wikipedia in general, and about 9/11 articles in particular. I did write a draft a few weeks ago, however there is much more to write about now, so I have held off on seeking a publisher. Since you and other administrators are partly the subject, I offer you the opportunity to dialog with me, to be interviewed by phone or email. Prior to seeking publication, I will make a copy available to you, and ask for any corrections, clarifications, or comments that you wish to make.

Contrary to your concerns, this is not meant to be a "threat" of any kind. I am merely exercising free speech, and of the press. I find WIkipedia very interesting. Many people enjoy being the subject of articles.

Of course you are under no obligation to dialog with me at all, and I would never violate your privacy. I hope this clears up the questions you have voiced on other pages.

TruthSeeker1234 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again...
Benne has nominated Aramaic speakers for Articles for deletion. There is no factual basis on that action. If you take a look at his reason as to why it makes no sense. We have had several altercations. It seems whatever I work on he contests.סרגון יוחנא

MoorBeyEl
216.130.124.10 is the IP he is using now to avoid your block. Muhammed al-Ahari

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me
User: Can't sleep Clown will eat me Appears to have stopped hacking on many pages besides the article on Muhammed al-Ahari. Muhammed al-Ahari

Articles for deletion/Naismith Family
You voted on this AfD; I just wanted to let you know that I've extended the AfD to cover Carolina Family, a similar article created by the same user. If for some reason you have a different opinion on the latter, please make your opinions known on the AfD. Ral315 (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian math
Tom,

Could you point out a historical error on

http://historyofegyptianfractions.blogspot.com

or show me a historical Egyptian fraction series that was not calculated by scribes using remainder arithmetic? Many scholar have proposed many ways to convert vulgar fractions to Egyptian fractions series. Only the ancient texts can judge the correctness of any 2006 writer on the subject.

I cited the vulgar fraction 1386/97 as used to solve RMP #31. Wikipedia properly shows that 28/97 is involved in the answer - but Wikipedia does not explain how, and so forth.

I tried to show that:

1386/97 = 14 + 28/97 was solved by Ahmes by breaking 28/97 into two parts, 2/97 + 26/97, and so forth. Read the data, as written and report it ALL. Why omit major facts?

Given that you do not read hieratic, and that you probably do not know anyone that does read hieratic scribal shorthand, there is very little that you can add on this subject (except close off debate).

Closing the door to internet published papers is very odd --- what experts are you relying on?

The ones that are referenced on Wikipedia are mostly dead or, if alive, dead wrong in critical areas! Remainder arithmetic is found in every hieratic mathematical text - except none of your panel of experts fairly reported on the subject!

Best Regards,

Milo Gardner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.197.90.55 (talk • contribs).


 * Reply on the user's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Example
Do you disagree with my contention that user:MONGO is habitually uncivil? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tom Harrison Talk 21:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a sharp divergence of views. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

reverts on 9/11 Truth movement page
Tom, I notived you posted a citation calling for links to show that the movement exists - when links were provided they were deleted and described as 'vandalism.' I'm not going to do the legwork when it's just thrown away. Shouldn't it be your job to revert someone reverting links that you asked for? bov 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply on user's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary
On the ABM article: 'POV my ass!'. I read that and thought, hmmm, that doesn't sound like Tom. :) On checking the diff, I'm glad to see that your wikistress hasn't overflowed. Cheers, MilesVorkosigan 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the epic barnstar Tom! :D Bigdaddy1204 21:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

revert on Blasphemy page
You reverted my removal of the link to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy from the section on Blasphemy in Islam. Just to clarify, in case there's a misperception, the removal was not politically motivated but was rather based on the fact that the context-less link seemed incongrous and failed to place the controversy (which was primarily about iconism rather than blasphemy) in any real context. I initally commented on the talk page, and given that after 2 months there was no reply felt that there was no strong view towards keeping the link. Evidently I was incorrect, but I still don't believe what will probably, in the grand scheme of things, amount to a relatively minor incident warrants such a prominent position in an article of such wide scope. If there really is a feeling that it should be kept I (or someone better qualified) could always add a brief description and move it into the main text. Daduzi 07:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the new revision, though I moved the relevant sentence and reworded it slightly in order to make it fit better with the flow of the paragraph. Thanks for the response. Daduzi 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but too late
Thanks for calling SynergeticMaggott for his abusive use of cite tags and locking the Crowley page. It's too late for me, however. I blew up tonight and am quitting Wikipedia. Nice to know that someone finally noiced, anyway. 'Bye. Catherineyronwode 14:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Being suspicious at Rosey
Hi, Tom, having googled Alexis de Rede and Andrea di Robilant, and having found this and this, I'm prepared to accept the latest edits at Rosey, which I (and you) initially reverted. I'm always aware that at that page, as well as at Salem, I could be reverting something valid, but it's so easy for an anon to vandalize the articles with hoax information that I think it's better to be cautious. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 15:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley
Well, I do not think I was being abusive. Some of the cite tags I put up, I also discussed on the talk page (and there was no response). Others were put there because a source was disputed and taken off, then another statement was made, in an attempt to overt the citation that was needed for these "statements" and comments. I placed cite tags at the end of each sentence, and not all over the place. The user in question was citing such things as fiction books to support the author of racism, as well as wikipedia articles being used as citation. She then began to curse at me, not trying to compromise or make any sense of the matter. I apologize if I used too many cite tags, but she keeps making statements to prove a "point", and adds these with no sources/citations. What am I supposed to do? Wikipedia tells me I can remove it as soon as it appears. The burden is left with the contributor, not the editor. So instead of removing the material (again, she reverted the whole section i disputed), I added cite tags at the end of sentences. And if the citation did not cover the whole sentence (which, those sentences were long and needed more than one source), I asked for a citation where it lacked it. I have also called for secondary sources, seeing as how no one has found any published authors calling Aleister Crowley as racist. But anyway, I am eager to get back to working on the article, and have been more than willing to discuss each and every matter that is brought up. Thank you. Zos 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

page protection
I have Aleister Crowley on my watchlist, but dont' usually act. I see your name editting it, which immediately draws my interest. I find that you first removed a ton of fact tags, ones that I'm not even the one to add, and then page protected it....... may I ask why you would think you don't have to verify information?

KV 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cite tags as edit war. Feel free to comment there if you want. Tom Harrison Talk 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Three Men in a Boat
I see your homepage says you usually only revert in cases of vandalism. I hope you can see that my addition of Kim Taplin's book Three Women in a Boat was not vandalism. Your edit summary said "non-notable", but I don't see how a current poet, recently featured on Radio 4 (I think Open Country or one of those walking programmes) can be deemed less important than the 1933 men who you left in. And anyway, my point is not that Taplin herself is so notable (or I'd create a page for her), but that it is of relevance that people a hundred years after Jerome's trip are still following in his wake, literally. I will re-write, making clear it is a book, not poem. I hope you can agree to let it stay this time. BrainyBabe 15:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to Radio Interviews
Hi Tom, the links you commented as spam are for 1 hour long online radio interviews featuring the individuals on who's bio pages the links are being placed. The audio files referenced are over 25MB in size and consequently are not eligible for hosting on Wikipedia directly. This is very relevant content, is there a preferable way to direct Wiki users to it as an alternative to a simple link? TWIS 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page. disco spinster  talk  22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Message?
Was wondering why you didn't give a warning on the reversion, which seems to me to have been vandalism. Or was it not vandalism (perhaps harassment?), or didn't warrant placing the message? Yours was actually the second reversion of that edit. Шизомби 23:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply on user's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nocebo and Merge, etc.
Thanks for your coment and suggestion. I have made a response as best I could in the time I have available. Hope it helps you understand how I see things; and I am eager so see if you agree with mme, or whether you have have some other suggestions or pertinent views from your experience. I'm sure that you understand that sometimes one can get too close to a particular topic. I'd be grateful if you could make you response onn the page wee I have set out my thoughts Talk:Nocebo effect Best cogtrue 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting my user page after it was vandalized, I didn't even notice. --Awiseman 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nocebo
Thought a lot about what you said. It makes perfect sense to me. Please look at Nocebo effect, Nocebo response, and Nocebo. I hope that it all meets your approval. Some of the difficulties arise from the fact that the original usages were exclusively subject-oriented, whilst nowadays, because of the ways in which the meanings have expanded, some of the usages are symptom oriented, some are drug oriented, and some are belief oriented. I have made it as clear as I can. Cheers, cogtrue 02:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate external link in "9/11 conspiracy theories" article
Mr. Harrison--

On a small matter of housekeeping. ..

I see that on 30 May you've restored an external link I deleted, pointing to "Anti-Defamation League "Unraveling anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories."

I had deleted it, commenting that it was a duplicate link. You restored it, commenting "Useful here."

Result: We now have the link you restored, and four lines above it another link, pointing to the identical resource.

One link says:

Anti-Defamation League "Unraveling anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories

The other:

Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, the Anti-Defamation League

I think perhaps you missed this and reverted in haste. If you agree, perhaps you'd like to delete the link again.

I have no point of view on the content of the link. I deleted it only because it was a duplicate.

Best wishes.

O Govinda 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply on user's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

removal of Adidam from other religons monasticism
Hi Tom, would just like an explanation as to why you removed my text with no reason given, if the text can be re worked or improved ok, hoping there is no bias here, in good faith will await your reply. --Scribe5 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply on the user's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Tom, unfortunately it is unlikely I can win on that ground, since it is a little known religous movement , so will not pursue the point in this case ( at present ), would appreciate in future at the least brief explanation in the edit section--Scribe5 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point; I'll try to do that in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 21:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for warning User:Gemini531. --Yamla 23:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)