User talk:Tom harrison/Archive10

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 August 2006 and 31 August 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/Archive11. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Page moves
My mistake. I was just trying to revert to the way it was before and got mixed up with the titles. I just meant to restore it to "researchers questioning official account". Sorry about any confusion. I wasn't quite clear on how to do page moves. SkeenaR 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)P.S.-could you please use your mop and bucket-I'll pay closer attention next time.
 * Don't worry about it, it's correctable. I'm still sorting out the details. Tom Harrison Talk 02:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Whatsupdoc
Tom, it appears that User:Johnski has resurfaced again, this time as User:Whatsupdoc and has begun to revert the DoM article. I think we need to look at rebanning him (I believe he was banned at one time and not sure how it was undone). I'd appreciate it. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Davidpdx 06:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not who or what David faines of me, but I only took off the link to Hoaxes because if DOM is a criminal organization as the links at the bottom of that page suggest, then it can't also be a hoax. Is the Gambino crime family a hoax? Or does it mean that it is a hoax that it is an organized criminal operation? Whatsupdoc 02:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Steven Jones
Thanks for reverting the article, Tom. B3X11 is also erasing my comments from his userpage. I don't know if there is anything to be done about that, but wanted to let you know. Thanks for your help. Levi P. 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If he has erased them, he has read them, and they are still in the history. I wouldn't worry about it. On the article, I hope no one reverts again, or there could be blocks. Tom Harrison Talk 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories and Wikipedia
Hello Mr. Harrison

I see that you've had some problems with conspiracy theory material and the wikipedia, especially with people creating original "research", (ie, adding their own speculations without citation or support), to topics like "New World Order" or "North American Union".

I am an editor (one of many) for the Tinwiki, a conspiracy themed wikipedia (think 'tinfoil hat' wikipedia).

Perhaps, if you or other admins have problems with people wanting to create 'original' conspiracy theory type of research (or paranormal research and other related subjects), you'd like to direct them to us? That might defuse any potential drama for the wikipedia, and of course we're interested in having people create all sorts of entries on these subjects for us.

Does that sound reasonable or workable? I'd happily discuss this with you or anyone else further. Nygdan 04:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Your article on NWO is interesting. Another possible forum for those so inclined might be Conspiracy Fiction. Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you are free Could you please
Tom, Could you please have a look at the talk page of The Jews of Islam (it is a book written by Lewis). CltFn has made a section with the title "Examples of Jewish life in the Islamic world" and has found one of the worst possible examples in time and in place in the Lewis book and have inserted a big chunk of text in the article. After all, this article is about the book itself and not about its content in this detail. A large part of the article is dedicated to a particular POV. Furthermore, that particular text is made by a Jewish traveller and Lewis quotes that. Lewis states that the situation of Jews was much better in other places. Could you please join us there (if you have time). --Aminz 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll try myself again to see if it works. --Aminz 05:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much Tom. --Aminz 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome; I'll check in again later. Tom Harrison Talk 23:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

testing
Cool,it works,sorry for the snub of the sandbox. If a person is to ensure that the novel 'wiki' parameters function to satisfaction... they must be tested,because I don't know your people. good job,and I would hope this is an example of the general speed I will hope to rely on. To test vandalism to my own future contributions,I have a need to ensure fidelity,and calm my fears that this is just a scam site.

I'll test your other functions forthwith. May your integrity continue,Then you might be part of a nice quite online revolution.

zen-master
sorry to bug you, but in my experience nothing will stop him diff --Rikurzhen 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are right. I've blocked the account indefinitely. I guess we will have to see about re-starting his one-year ban. Tom Harrison Talk 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you happen to have time to block Zen-master's new sockpuppet? Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Thanks if you can, Nectar 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Abusive 3RR reporting in order to push POV at Lance Armstrong
At my page you wrote: "Adding the POV tag, while in my view inappropriate, is not the basis of the four reverts I reported. Three times you changed "an approved cream" to "a cream", and then you reverted to re-add the paragraph involving 'because of his cancer treatment'." Tom Harrison Talk 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is two different things. There is no rule forbidding four different edits at one page, in fact many users do so. What you write just shows again the harrassment of users who do not accept an wikipedia article of an athlete who is from the same country as most editors of the English version to become a fanzine. Socafan 10:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:3RR. Your use of innuendo is duly noted - I am from England by the way.  Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." Socafan, in less than 24 hours you four times undid the work of other editors, and were blocked for it by A Man In Black. Tom Harrison Talk 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale Removal
Dear Mr. Harrison:

I'm the editor of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a newspaper in Los Angeles. I found that there were links to on Wikipedia to some of our articles. I went about yesterday and today adding a spate of other links. I have received a message from you saying: "Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia...." I received a like message from someone else.

Nearly all of the links I added, it would seem, have been wiped off in the past few hours. A newspaper article is hardly commercial in nature. (There was no advertising matter on pages to which the links referred--only articles.) Perhaps I added too many links. But it would seem that no discretion whatsoever was exercised in making the deletions.

The Wikipedia site may not be "a mere collection of external links" but it does have external links, and it does afford an opportunity to edit them. I spent several hours doing what the website invites: editing the external link field. The additions were relevant. There were, for example, links to comprehensive biographies, e.g. those of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and U.S. District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.

Even small changes were undone. I changed "Goodwin Knight" to "Goodwin J. Knight." I knew Governor Knight. He attended my wedding. I was an honorable pall bearer at his funeral. I know that he went by "Goodwin J. Knight." Adding a middle initial which a man regularly used surely cannot violate Wikipedia protocol. Yet, in a rash operation removing virtually ALL changes, even that was changed back.

You didn't even allow me to correct the name of my newspaper or my own name! An entry for Paul Caruso has a link to two articles in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, one with my byline. It listed the newspaper as "Metropolitan News"--its former name, changed in 1988, and referred to me as "Roger Grace" when the byline I use is "Roger M. Grace." I made these rather modest corrections. These corrections can violate no conceivable policy. Even this was undone.

I do not quite understand the workings of this website yet, and the "talk" feature is a bit mystifying. What I do understand is that it is patently unreasonable for a website to extend an invitation to add external links, then wipe them off after hours have been spent adding them. I stress that the links were to newspaper articles, not commercial matter.

I ask that you or whoever wiped off the links en masse reinstate them or at least go through them and thoughtfully exercise discretion as to which remain and which go. Otherwise, I ask that you advise me as to what appeal procedures might be invoked.

Yours truly, Roger M. Grace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogerMGrace (talk • contribs).


 * I reply on the user's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's all politics
Tom, Mark Cohen has got a good recent book on dhimmi: Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. There he explains what he calls two myths: 1. "The Myth of an interfaith utopia" (i.e. the belief that medieval Islam provided a peaceful heaven for the Jews) 2. "The counter-myth of Islamic persecution of Jews". He claims they equally distort the past.

As far as I understood, he explains that "The Myth of an interfaith utopia" was so widespread till the 6-day war between Arabs and Israel. "The counter-myth of Islamic persecution of Jews" has been recently formed. Shoot. It's all politics. I like the view of people like Lewis and Cohen and not those who are inspired by politics. --Aminz 09:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your pages
I have semi protected both your userpage and talk page temporarily due to ongoing abusive comments by anon posters. Feel free to override my decision anytime you feel like it should be lifted.--MONGO 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

why are you starting a revert war?
What is your goal? Your contributions to the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page in the past have not been unreasonable. Your last two reverts, however, are totally out of line, and you are likely preparing for a third. I spent a lot of time carefully justifying each of my changes to that page on the discussion page, and you ignored all of those arguments, offering instead a very cryptic edit summary that addresses only one word of the changes you made. Discuss your problems with this word and perhaps we can compromise. Otherwise your reverts look like malicious trolling, which is inconsistent with your previous participation on that page. What's the deal? Are you just having a bad day?--csloat 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have twice wholesale reverted my changes. How do you get from there to me starting a revert war? And "malicious trolling"? That could be mistaken for a personal attack, or a failure to assume good faith. There is no need to move into confrontational mode; I looked at Mongo's changes, started from there, integrated some of your work, and added some of my own. I do not see why you are unwilling to do the same. I would think anyone would have seen at least the cited ref tag I added as an improvement. I was surprised to see you had reverted and removed it instead of expanding on what I had added. Tom Harrison Talk 21:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No; you have twice reverted wholesale my changes. My changes did not start with a revert; they started with a careful explanation in talk of what I was fixing.  I apologize for the "malicious trolling" claim, but that is what it looks like to me.  You did not start with mongo;s work, integrate your changes, and add your own, as you claim; you reverted wholesale -- here is the diff between you and Mongo, with my edits in between.  Your edit summary even says it is a revert.  I am not at all opposed to hearing about your proposed changes, or additions of ref tags, but that is not what I see here.  It is true that you added that in your second revert (link compares with mongo's that I had edited), which is a change I agree with, and I don't have a problem with your minor changes, but I do have a problem with your wholesale revert of my changes, which you have yet to explain in talk or anywhere else.  Each of those changes was justified by me in this section of the talk page, and you did not respond to those points.  Your revert included deleting major sections that I had added in my edit.  Can you understand now why your actions seemed trollish?  Again, I apologize for any offense; perhaps you were just careless?--csloat 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and incorporated your changes in the page. The ref tag and the changed sentences about the two main viewpoints are both improvements.  The other change you made -- from "operational" to "collaborative operational" is not necessary; that section is not specifically quoting the 9/11 report so there is no need to add the redundant term in this case.  As far as I can tell, there were no other changes you made other than reverting my previous changes; this has been corrected.--csloat 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

These are your two reverts:
 * 


 * 

These are mine:
 * 


 * 

I don't see why yours are good and mine bad. Thank you for incorporating some of my work. Since you seem to think I'm some kind of trollish interloper, so I'm going to leave things alone and wait and see what changes others want to make. If you're going to "apologise" about the trolling remark while reasserting it, I don't think we have a lot more to talk about. Tom Harrison Talk 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think you're a troll; in fact, I started out by pointing out that I found your reverts surprising because your participation has been reasonable before this. I just found your reverts trollish, but again I apologize for any offense.  I  want to assume good faith here.  I am not reasserting the remark; I apologized for it; perhaps you could assume good faith here as well?  Here is my problem with your reverts:  you are missing this earlier edit, which I was reverting to, which was also an edit of mine.  You see, I made specific changes to the page that I justified in a detailed explanation on the talk page.  You then reverted those changes without explaining your revert.  This is not a tit-for-tat; I am trying to understand why you felt that reverting my changes was necessary?  I explained each of these changes with a reason for the change.  Your revert was wholesale -- including deleting sourced and relevant information -- and you did not bother to address any of the justifications I offered for the changes you reverted.  Does this make sense?--csloat 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, just to clarify that my earlier statement, which I have apologized for, was not calling you a troll: what I said precisely was (emph. added): "Discuss your problems with this word and perhaps we can compromise. Otherwise your reverts look like malicious trolling, which is inconsistent with your previous participation on that page." Again, I am still apologizing for the statement, and I am not reasserting it, but I never called you a troll.  I said that if you are unwilling to discuss your wholesale reverts then your actions look like trolling, but that perception is still inconsistent with what I have seen.  I feel like I went out of my way to explain that I did not think you were a troll.--csloat 23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I see now that you meant no offense, and I take none. I'll do no more on the page today, and look in again tomorrow. Tom Harrison Talk 23:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy
Tom, have a look at this. Timothy Usher placed on Probation for one year!!!!????? Can you believe it? --Aminz 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do find it surprising. I guess we'll see what happens. Tom Harrison Talk 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback
Tom, do you have any feedback on my work here ? Thanks --Aminz 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a project I am going to join. I have no opinion to offer, but I wish the best to everyone invloved. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, thanks for your reply but actually it has nothing to do with that project :) . We are working on how articles on Islam should be written. I just had to put it somewhere (and the most obvious place to put it was WikiProject of Islam which I am aware of). Striver now put it on a separate page: . Anyways, it is nothing important. Take care, --Aminz 21:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see; it's about sources. I should not have automatically assumed it was controversial and turned away when I saw "Muslim guild". Sorry for that. I will take a look at it. Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your criticisms are more than welcome! --Aminz 22:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated!! --Aminz 22:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

CT article
I'm going to make an attempt at getting the article up to standards regarding sources. I thought maybe you might be interested in giving me a hand there if you're not too busy. That'd be good. SkeenaR 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll look in when I can. I suggest an incremental approach. There is some activity at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories that you might want to look at. Tom Harrison Talk 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be there off and on. SkeenaR 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper
You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:190.10.0.36
How much longer should we tolerate anon IP, non-consensus edits? You reverted some of his stuff yesterday. I have done it before. So has other edits. He keeps making the same edits. He's been blocked and warned a number of times. --Tbeatty 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref: Vandalism to Tweenies and Bob the Builder
Dear Sir, Previously I have communicated with you concerning the vandalism and suchlike on Bob the Builder and the Tweenies. I have been monitoring both articles, and whilst Bob the Builder remains relatively untouched, Tweenies has has 7 instances of vandalism (reverted by 2 users) in the last 3 days! I was wondering if you could now go for a semi on it. Would appreciate a reply, but as I know you are up to your eyeballs i.r.l, I am happy to wait. Take care. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 08:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Thor's Multilanguage Talk Page

Copperchair
Tom, Copperchair seems to be back again with the name User:Tony Camonte. If you're around, could you block it like the rest of his socks? TomTheHand 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for spotting it and letting me know. Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Further personally attacking activity
Greetings Tom harrison, based upon this diff it seems that needs to be prevented from continuing to personally attack me. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 04:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Netscott. “Don’t be a dick” is official policy, not a personal attack. I suggest you read it. —Banzai! (talk) @ 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * is continuing to edit in personally attacking ways. There is now this page that's holds personally attacking commentary that I removed from my talk page and it is also a fishing expedition with posted details towards stalking ends. (→ Netscott ) 05:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean the Google search on your username that reveals you're disliked elsewhere as well? Yeah, I can see why you'd object to that. —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert?
You say you blocked me for violating three revert rule? When did I ever revert anything? See my contributions. --NathanDW 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Tom Harrison Talk 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not my IP address. I am sure you have some way of verifying this. You jumped to conclusions and that is irresponsible. --NathanDW 16:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for your response
Tom, I am still waiting for your response. Please see my note to you near bottom of talk page on State terrorism by United States of America. --NYCJosh 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Civility
I really hope you gave the warning also to User:BhaiSaab and User:Timothy Usher because they have been harrassing me for the last week. Bakaman Bakatalk  21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also he never notified me of anything going down on the WP:AN admin noticeboard.  Bakaman  Bakatalk  21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a complaint, take it to dispute resolution. Don't come to me claiming some sort of moral equilivalence as an excuse. Correct your own behavior or I will block you. Tom Harrison Talk 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also half of those diffs are bringing the other side of the discussion. According to BhaiSaab unleashing the truth (about dab using Ip accounts) is a personal attack. Also, if you look at User talk:Blnguyen the Indian articles are full of accusations and nobody takes action because they are just that: accusations. BhaiSaab has been spying on me (Bakht Singh was one of my first edits, even before I knew what a personal attack was). With user Hornplease, the differences were worked out between us (so the "attack" is null and void). BhaiSaab has been stalking me, I feel there is no reason for him to dig down at every edit I made. And with the RfC filed against me, BhaiSaab and another user were planning to assault me on the admin boards without notifying me. Blnguyen said himself that it was unfair and that the RfC had no value. As per User:Ragib, I apologized to him and helped him out on articles related to his (Bengali) domain. For the "baiting" user Blnguyen was referring to BhaiSaab not myself. BhaiSaab said that he did not know Holywarrior while he was conversing with him . Please talk to User:Blnguyen before taking action, as he is the mediator for this debate.


 * I appreciate your constructive attitude, and am glad to hear that there is mediation. There is no reason why people who disagree cannot work together with courtesy and civility. Regardless what others do, I suggest you be very careful for the next several weeks to comment only on content, not on other users. That way you will be in a strong moral position to complain if others misbehave, and your patience will be to your credit. Tom Harrison Talk 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, he put a personal attack warning template on my page because I listed him on Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Is that justified? I didn't think I had to notify him, because there are no instructions on that page to do so. BhaiSaab talk 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just take it easy. I left a warning on your page, and it is a warning and no more. If you avoid commenting on other users it should not be a problem. Now might be a good time for everyone to take a few hours break. Tom Harrison Talk 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have resolved my issues with User:Hornplease and User:Ragib, but BhaiSaab seems to find sport in digging through all my contribs trying to find dirt. Since I try to add to the encyclopedia, I don't have time to dig up hundreds of diffs (most of which I made before I was aware of WP:NPA). You should contact User:Blnguyen he has like 4 archives full of these issues. Bakaman Bakatalk  21:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I called him a wikistalker but someone who goes to my first edits to make a shoddy case for a PAN can be classified as one. Bakaman Bakatalk  22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, could you please delete my userpage. Thanks. --Telex 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) --Telex 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

AN:I Paranoia
Your either paranoid or not enough. Whispering(talk/c) 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh - Type I and type II errors. Tom Harrison Talk 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom
I'm glad somebody noticed I'm back editing. :p I'm quite disillusioned about WP now, though, although this doesn't mean I'll refrain from editing. I just hope it'll make me care less about whatever happens on WP, since it's irritating when you have to constantly deal with newbies who well-meaningly screw up articles with zealous additions of trivia sections and the like. Johnleemk | Talk 17:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to your query about refrigeration cycle on my talk page
Tom, see my response on my talk page. - mbeychok 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you


Please vote
I notice that you didn't actually vote at: Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America Travb (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by a user you've warned
Hi. User:137.244.215.51, whom you have reverted on my user page, continues to edit my page, even after I asked him not to and left him a vandalism warning (which he has removed). If you go to his talk page, you will see that a half dozen people have also given him vandalism warnings. I would appreciate it if you would consider a block. Thanks. Morton devonshire 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for letting me know, Tom Harrison Talk 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Puppet confirmation
Hi, I presume you've seen this and this. It seems to be a nolo contendere plea, trying to find the right balance in avoiding an indefinite ban but without losing face. I'm happy not to try to force a more explicit confession. As long as he doesn't create any more puppets, it doesn't really matter to Wikipedia whether or not he admits, say, that NPOV77 was one. If you get time, you might comment at the noticeboard. I'm hoping for a solution as soon as possible, as I need to go on a wiki-break to finish writing some papers. AnnH ♫ 15:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews
CltFn has been trying to create a new section there with a huge amount of quotes from "Jews of Islam" contrary to wikipedia format, copying and pasting the entire page 181 and 182 of that book word by word (In WikiBook and WikiQuote format), even though those quotes have already been cited in the article in proper format, throughout the post-Islamic history sections. So CltFn's section is redundant and unnecessary, I've tried to explain this to him but he keeps blindly reverting the article. Can you please take a look at this issue. --Mardavich 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not willing to edit the article on Persian Jews, or to try to broker an agreement there. You might consider some form of mediation, or maybe try dispute resolution. Tom Harrison Talk 18:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user reverted your recent edits of Refrigeration
Tom, are you aware that an anonymous user has reverted all or most of the recent edits you made to Refrigeration?? I just wanted to alert you. - mbeychok 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. See Long term abuse/General Tojo. Tom Harrison Talk 23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance
You blocked last month for extreme hostility and incivility. Unfortunately, as the fiasco has continued, so have the insults. I posted a notice on WP:PAIN about it, but that particular board is seemingly not checked as often as, say, AN/I, and nothing has been done. Could you possibly read my report there and act on it as you see fit? Thanks! Byrgenwulf 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that another admin take a look at it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I understand. The only reason I actually sought someone out is because no-one seems to be attending to that admin noticeboard.  Oh well.  Thanks anyway. Byrgenwulf 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch
Thanks, I didn't know there was a page "Definition of terrorism". samwaltz 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - happy to help. Tom Harrison Talk 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of christianity page
Hi Tom, there is still a problem with this page, see my comments on the talk.Poujeaux 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

user:Damburger
Is there anything that can be done about the following personal attack that Damburger levelled against me and another editor on his user page?. This user seems to have trouble becoming familiar with basic wikipedia policies--civility chief among them. Stanley011 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He has also falsely accused me of being the anonymous IP address that left a personal attack message on his discussion page. Is there anything that can be done about this? Stanley011 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have left a warning. If it continues let me know or post at WP:PAIN. Tom Harrison Talk 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Deletion
Hello, I was wondering if you could help me find out what reasons there were for deleting the article on the "North American Union", and protecting it from re-creation.

Thanks, Jennifer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.48.51.33 (talk • contribs).
 * Please see Articles for deletion/North American Union Tom Harrison Talk 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I know you?
I was wondering if I knew you. I knew of a Tom Harrison once with your web markup skills. Did you used to hangout in the Dalnet #ska channel on IRC? Emperorchaos 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not me; I don't use IRC much, and have never vistited Dalnet #ska. It's nice to know I have web markup skills though. Tom Harrison Talk 12:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you censor on the 911 wiki?
You sensor the September 11 2001 page. Why do you block out any view that may contridict the government? Is this wiki now about the trueth?

Many people who lost people in the attacks on 911 are upset with what happened and deserve the trueth. Will you insult them by hiding the trueth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.35.116 (talk • contribs).


 * I just do what the Illuminati tell me. Tom Harrison Talk 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnski At it again
Johnski is at it again. His sock Whatsupdoc has been blanking his user talk page. He then posted a templet to unblock himself, which I reverted. Please make sure he is on your watch list and keep and eye out for him. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Replacing phrases with "say"?
On the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, you went through sentences about those critical to the CTists and replaced certain words with "say," often with no regard to context. For instance, "the claim that..." becomes "The say that no other high-rise building has suffered a total collapse from fire". This is not a valid sentence. What is the point of this? You also changed the phrase "point out" to "say." Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.233.98 (talk • contribs).
 * The first you mention was just a mistake. I'll check and see if there are any others. The second, and the purpose of my edit, was to remove tendentious wording. There is some discussion of this at words to avoid. Tom Harrison Talk 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.233.98 (talk • contribs) 09:43, August 22, 2006

Did you notice this
How about this new boilerplate?!--MONGO 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Tom Harrison Talk 03:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any innapropriate discussion should be dealt with on the talk page. If it truly is innapropriate, warnings or a block are in order. That boilerplate is meant to intimidate and ridiculously in your face. SkeenaR 05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've actually quit following that talk page. It has become useless for its purpose, and I feel like I have read all of the long, impassioned, and unoriginal screeds. As near as I can tell, we could lock the page and loose nothing. Tom Harrison Talk 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message on my talk page. I am going to archive your message now, as is allowed under wikipedia guidelines.Travb (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

oh....never mind, but thanks anyway. This stuff is a bit much sometimes. SkeenaR 07:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

email
Check.--MONGO 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys heading to the ranch again? I want an autographed t-shirt. SkeenaR 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom
What interest in "national parks" are you referring to? I've contributed to nothing to do with any parks, aside from a few local, town level parks-related articles from the town/area I grew up in: Boothe Memorial Park and Museum and Putnam Memorial State Park. rootology (T) 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to keep all that on the arbcom page. Everyone gets their say, and you can have yours there. Tom Harrison Talk 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Fall of Constantinople source
I am NOT going to state this again! I don't know how to add footnotes, the sources are CLEARLY STATED IN THE TALKPAGE DISCUSSION! Now, how this this ONE source from an unknown military history site rule the numerous primary and secondary scholarly sources I have listed in the discussion page?

I am trying to be civil, seriously, but this pedantic rubbish is getting old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.172.220 (talk • contribs).

You
Thank you for blocking me, I've been bad. I like you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.193.83.62 (talk • contribs).

Tom, I need your advice as an administrator
On August 7th, I spent about 4 hours cleaning up the Savannah River Site and, on August 8th, I left a note on the Talk page there. My note said the article still needed much more work, especially the unnecessarily and tediously long 'Time Line' section. In particular, the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 of the 'Time Line' section, which are each lengthy essays rather than a chronological timeline. My note also asked if anyone would mind if I trimmed those parts of the 'Timeline'. In the 3 weeks since I left my note, no one has responded either yea or nay. Should I just go ahead and trim it ... or should I wait longer? Thanks in advance. - mbeychok 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I say go for it. Tom Harrison Talk 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Administrative Comment
Administrators noticeboard/Incidents

I have been attacked for vandalism by a Wikibully, the accusor has responded with violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. The biggest chunk of text is his outright violation of WP:CIVIL, and I want to make sure an admin reads it. Please check it out.

He has also been reported for 3RR, which he is attempting to dodge, despite being blocked twice for it prior.

KV(Talk) 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Speedy Deletion
Dear mr. Harrison,

The user Merope has marked one of my contributions for speedy deletion Ned Herrmann, then you suggested it should rather be an AfD. This is one of my very first contributions and I would like to gain more insight in why this is not a proper article.

Kind Regards, Jacques Viviers 0:01, 26 August 2006 (GMT +2:00)


 * My reply is on your talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice Work
On the "innovative information display and retrieval system". SkeenaR 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Web site and fame to follow shortly after peer-review ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/MONGO
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Albini
I thought ArtNet biographies aren't copyrighted. Antidote 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like it is copyrighted with all rights reserved, down at the bottom of the page, and in conditions of use. If there is a reason to think otherwise, please let me know. I will restore the page if we can use the material. Tom Harrison Talk 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Afd Pro American
Take a look at my reply to your post on the afd page, just a discussion. thanks --Frogsprog 16:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You should know better
Don't you dare fuck around with the encyclopedic content like you did with Template:Alex Jones. As an administrator you really should know better. -- Cyde Weys 17:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry; You are right of course. I won't do it again. Thank you for fixing it. Tom Harrison Talk 17:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hum, not sure what was done that was so "wrong" personally.--MONGO 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think it was the giant owl. In retrospect I should not have added that. Good thing I didn't have the technical skills to make his head spin. Tom Harrison Talk 19:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should know better. Here, have an owl.  :) -- Samir   धर्म 00:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

From George (Blogtronix)
Hello Tom.

I removed all the links to Blogtronix Web page.

I did provide several external links discussing what BLogtronix is. Blogtronix is one of the very very few companies presenting real and actual Corporate blogging capabilities. I think it will be good for both sides (Blogtronix and Wikipedia)that Blogtronix is listed here. I will do anything with the article so it complies with the Wikipedia inclusion guidelines - these is no doubt about it.

Thank you for the remarks. Can we consider these as references:

Ernst & Young - VP of Internal Communications - Rod Boothby

http://www.innovationcreators.com/2006/04/blogtronix_is_web_office_techn.html

http://www.enterpriseweb2.com/?p=67 - Jerry Bowles

And Robert Scoble, Ex-Microsoft Chief Blogger and now PodTech VP: http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2005/10/31/i-totally-screwed-up-on-post-about-blogtronix/

http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/04/27/another-test-of-is-microsoft-listening/

George again: another article mentioning Blogtronix in BusinessWeek:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060718_932217.htm


 * No, sorry. I'll credit Scobble as a mention, and Innovationcreators; the comment at Business Week doesn't count. That doesn't make my cut for multiple non-trivial published works. Tom Harrison Talk 21:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider AfD vote?
Can I urge you to reconsider Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (second nomination). The prior AfD from over a year ago had been based on a substantially different article that failed properly to assert notability. However, the "Google test", Google scholar, and the "author test" all place him at substantial notability. See my comments at the AfD. LotLE × talk 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You removed "9/11 conspiracy" link for no reason. Why?
You removed two very important links to the 9/11 Conspiracy theory page concerning Larry Silversteins comments. They were links which were quotes by the president of CDI using the word "pull" which is central to the supposition that Mr. Silverstein meant "pull down the building". This is not what you said "rv slanted rewrites promoting rather than describing theories". I am going to put it back unless you can give me a better reason not to. -- Demosfoni 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bring it up on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories if you want to talk about it. Tom Harrison Talk 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

External link in Christian Identity
Tom, I am a new member of Wikipedia. I did add some external links to articles (not advertising) on our organization's (not my personal) web site that I thought would be added information for interested readers. You have a lot of rules and I will try to familiarize myself with them to avoid future concern on your part. We are a highly respected research organizatin. We have been used by national media to give expert commentary on events involving new religious movements, cults and the new age and occult movements. We take our researh very seriously and have a library and file system of over 50,000 volumes, files and periodicals. Thank you for leaving the message explaining the removal of my additions to religious subject articles. I will submit my inclusions to the talk page next time for discussion.

Your servant,

Phillip Arnn/ Senior Researcher/ Watchman Fellowship —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Old Watchman (talk • contribs).


 * My reply is on the user's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
This is just getting weird. Your thoughts?--Rosicrucian 18:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've warned the user and will watch the page. Thanks for pointing it out. Tom Harrison Talk 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You might find this interesting
Hi Tom. I'm pretty sure that is the same person as GreekWarrior, a user who made comments like these and incidentally, whose six-month ban recently expired. Someone should probably talk to Tony Sidaway if he continues to make comments like these (GreekWarrior would always talk about Ali Sina as well). &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I don't know about you, but I find this to be just plain disgusting:


 * Again, I advise you to reconsider saying that Greeks are 'despised', believe me my barbaric friend, Turks are hated in Europe - Ask any European what he thinks of a Turk and the answer will probably be the same as if you asked him about an Albanian, that he is nothing more than a heroin dealer or a people trafficker.


 * The user he's been having the flame war with at Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) (Lutherian) has been making some pretty nasty personal attacks as well. The two of them keep popping up on my watchlist, and I'm starting to get sick of it. :( &mdash; Khoikhoi 08:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both for 24 hours. I hope they use the time as a cooling-off period. Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I sure hope so. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A question about reliable sources
Greeting Tom Harrison, could you take a peak at this discussion and possibly add your view? Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 12:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt that's a page where I can be very helpful. I will follow the discussion for a while and speak up if I have anything to contribute. Tom Harrison Talk 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you are not the first to express hesitation about commenting there. It has been a bit of an effort to get good faith edits in on that article and not have them reverted Thanks for your response none-the-less. (→ Netscott ) 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just blocked two people on Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), so my controversy index is nearing maximum, and I haven't even started my watch list yet. I hope to spend the rest of the day working on skinks. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Hi. I saw that you had blocked Luherian due to incivility, please consider to take action (at least a warning) against the other participants of the issue otherwise blocking Lutherian would not be fair. Thanks--Hattusili 13:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked both him and User:86.137.172.220. Tom Harrison Talk 13:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Thanks --Hattusili 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing 23.8.
hi, please react to: talk page Thanks, &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

V 4 Vendetta
Hi there tom, any particular reason for reverting my thoughts on 911? Judging by your stars here, you are a pesky fellow, aren’t you? I mean you may conspire, but I cannot? Lovelight

Jones Protection
Hi Tom. I see you protected the Jones page, and was wondering if you would care to weigh in on the dispute as I am unsure how it could be resolved. The disagreement isn't over whether there should be a seperate criticism section, but over what belongs in the Crit. section. Currently that section is reserved for, well, explicit criticism. Bov, and other anon. users, want to move other facts about Jones' WTC research, which they think reflects badly upon him, into the criticism section ( despite the fact that it clearly contains no criticism). I am against editors moving facts that they have decided are deleterious to his reputation into a section that should be reserved for criticism. Do you care to weigh in on this? Cheers, Levi P. 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New article on a complex subject
A new article on a complex subject is looking for more high quality contributors:
 * Israel lobby in the United States

--Ben Houston 01:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Edits
Hi Tom, this is a bit late, but I noticed on 13:27, 29 July 2006 you removed an external link I added to www.waronterrortheboardgame.com in the External Links section of the War on Terror page. While this link leads to a potentially commercial site, it is also highly relevant to the subject matter. Meanwhile you claim, "when I am scanning the recent changes I try to revert only what is clearly vandalism". My link wasn't vandalism but was removed - could you please clarify what the criteria are for external links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.6.104.229 (talk • contribs).
 * The policy is at External links. If you want to, put it back and we'll see what others think of it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)