User talk:Tom harrison/Archive 2011

== RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes ==

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Linux --RaptorHunter (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your work has been mentioned
Hello Tom. An essay of yours, User:Tom harrison/concerns, has been mentioned in an unban discussion. Your essay is certainly food for thought. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea
Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasit 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Sounds like a good idea, but not really something I know much about. Tom Harrison Talk 19:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasit 04:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP
Please stop your POV pushing on conspiracy articles and the sort. We're fed up with crackpots here. Thanks. --Phleer (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We're fed up with crackpots here. Experience suggests that's not the case. Tom Harrison Talk 15:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No kidding...it may even be worse than ever...nice to see you around and hope you have the stomach to resume your previous excellent contributions.--MONGO 20:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look in every day or so for the next couple of weeks. Elk looks good; nice choice of pictures. Tom Harrison Talk 19:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you....not sure why I decided to get that one up to featured level, but it is an interesting species. I am pleased ot see you're getting somewhat reinvolved...you've always been far more sedate than I and your calm and wise approach has been missed.--MONGO 03:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really I just simulate calm wisdom through sedation. Inside, I'm dancing. Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bishzilla Spin
Hehe, appreciate fine comment! (Penis discussions unfortunately only to be expected on little 'shonen's silly page.)   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    13:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Request for arbitration
Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Case The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom! Man, you're were right...you've but barely returned to us and you already get named in a case! Don't let this dismay you...as you stated, you're going to sit back with the popcorn I hope.--MONGO 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No kidding, got to avoid those notice boards;-) But no, I'm not really a party, and mean not to become a party, to this or any other case. 11:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Outline of the September 11 attacks


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Outline of the September 11 attacks. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - September 11th Attacks. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at September 11th Attacks - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Quiggers1P (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 911-motives-draft


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, 911-motives-draft. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Motives for the September 11 attacks. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Motives for the September 11 attacks - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 14:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor's barnstar

 * Much appreciated, especiallly coming from someone whose recent work on that article was so important in getting it to GA - cleaning up all those citations and internal links has made it way more readable. Thanks! Tom Harrison Talk 14:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

removal of content
I really do not appreciate the removal of my content on the 7 World Trade Center page! WHY exactly did you remove it? What's wrong? And WHY are you unable to put your concerns in writing on the discussion page as I so clearly asked?? I REALLY STRONGLY suggest that you actually back up your statement that the old material is "well sourced". Specifically, PLEASE find for me a source that says ALL of the following:
 * 1) that the design of WTC7's perimeter was unique to the building.
 * 2) that "each OUTER structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space"
 * 3) that the building's structural integrity was "severely compromised" by debris damage
 * 4) that global collapse took exactly 7 seconds, and that the North face did not move until more than 8 seconds after the East Penthouse
 * 5) that NIST's progress report "indicates a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA." The current wikipedia article relies heavily on Popular Mechanic's interpretation of NIST's findings.  This is clearly not as reliable as ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE REPORTS THEMSELVES.  And when we look at the actual reports we see just how subjective the statement really is.
 * 6) that news footage from the North somehow captured cracking and bowing of the EAST wall.
 * 7) that collapse began at the penthouse floors
 * 8) that the 10 story gash (which we can see there in the photo on the wiki page) extended 1/4 of the way into the building.

and for the FACTS which I added and you apparently think are not correct:
 * 9) that the exact sequence of collapse, including a significant period of free fall, did not happen or is not relevant to the page
 * 10) that the building did not fall downward as a single unit

good luck. In the mean time, please respect the time and efforts of people like myself by discussing your undo on the discussion page before actually doing it. Thanks!Smitty121981 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

thanks
Hi Tom. Thanks for warning (threatening?) me about possible sanctions. Is there a specific action I have done which would warrant this? Please let me know, that link said you should counsel me. Specifically I would like to know exactly how I violated "any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." I am new to wikipedia so I am bound to make some mistakes. Nevertheless I have tried hard to avoid any kind of personal attack in discussion (although I was passionate in my wording), I have tried to only make edits which I believe to be impartial (contrary to your accusation), and I am simply pushing for the 7 World Trade Center article to be as accurate as possible. Have you looked into the above points to see that they are, IN FACT, wrong?? Frankly, I would think that ignoring or hiding the fact that the article is incorrect would be more of a reason to call for a sanction than anything I have done. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981


 * You've started off by edit-warring, so certainly stop doing that, whatever articles you choose to work on. Your first two edits promoted conspiracy theories about 9/11, so I counsel you never again to edit any article dealing with 9/11 - that would probably be the course of action most likely to improve Wikipedia. I'll review the article when I get a chance, as I'm sure others will. As you are new to Wikipedia, so I wish you happy editing. Tom Harrison Talk 23:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I didn't know about the edit-warring... I was frustrated by the overwhelming resistance I received and did not know how to handle all of you ganging up on me like that. However, I must respectfully decline your counsel to "never again to edit any article dealing with 9/11" and frankly my first two edits did NOT promote conspiracy theories and I respectfully ask that you retract this slanderous statement.  Why are you allowed to insult me like this?  I have made no personal attacks myself.  My first edit was very minor and I made it because I thought it was accurate for the tone of the article to acknowledge that there ARE other theories and that there is not a general consensus, however I accepted the removal of this edit as I had trouble finding an exact source.  While I admit it was not the greatest contribution, there is nothing in the word "allegedly" or in the phrase "It is sometimes asserted" that PROMOTES any theory in any way.  The second edit was removing incorrect statements and revising the article to reflect what NIST published.  Unless citing NIST is promoting a "conspiracy theory" then your accusation holds no water.  And why do you ignore my MORE RECENT edit in which I updated the 7 World Trade center page to include and reflect NCSTAR 1-A after more than two years of absence??  Do I get no respect at all for this improvement?? Please be more mature.  Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty121981 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * *sigh* If only I had found the weasel word page before doing any edits it would have saved me some grief! Looks like "allegedly" and "It is sometimes asserted" are both on there.  Whoops.  I was bound to make some mistakes... I hope you can see that I am making an honest effort to comply with community expectations.  I'm going to take a short break from the 7 World Trade Center talk and let some other people weigh in for a while.  Take care. Smitty121981 (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Super
This...work is super!....what is the next step...is it best to minimize the entire collapse story on the old WTC7 within the current WTC7 article and have what your working on as a subarticle? I am thinking that is the best option, but we'll have to watch it closely since the WTC7 collapse is a favorite of the truth squad.--MONGO 02:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is WTC 7 after twin tower collapse...it is at the left margin of the smoke...again here with heavy smoke from the demolished buildings and fires in WTC7--MONGO 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Some other things to do are a paragraph on NIST's recommnedations; maybe updating citations to the final report where possible, instead of citing interim reports; removing the blurb about thermate; maybe updating a few things about ongoing reconstruction.


 * I'm afraid a sub-article on the collapse of 7 WTC would be a magnet for crazies. We've got Collapse of the World Trade Center, and 7 World Trade Center. We should be able to get all the information about the actual collapse into those two, but they'll have to be balanced. I haven't looked closely at Collapse of the WTC for a while. Tom Harrison Talk 11:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Tom harrison, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Tom harrison/7wtc-collapse-draft.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Please see the discussion of this article, which you contributed to: Articles for deletion/Texe Marrs (2nd nomination). Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Doom
Ok, we are about to get into an edit war, and seeing as we have very similar taste (I see you on my watchlist a lot), lets just knock it on the head here. I don't like "see also" sections per se, for reasons mentioned in hasty edit summaries and also becase they are so easy to add, and the link is often specious in the extreme. Thats not the case here of course, I'm acting on principal rather than, eh, against you if you know what I mean. I'll revert myself and call a truce, or we can write up a section if there are online sources (I dont see anything in the few books I have). Deal? Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, we'll dismiss "Go away and write a paragraph" as an unfortunate result of the limitations of the edit summary. Clearly the link is relevent. I understand disliking 'see also' on principle, but when the links there add something useful to the article, the links should be kept until they are integrated into the article, as we would both prefer. I've added an attempt at that, which I hope satisfies both of us. Tom Harrison Talk 17:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted myself, reinstated the full links and am looking at the doom article. Was not aware of it, very interesting, so thanks for that. Yeah, edit wars on early medieval art history dont exactly get the pulse racing. Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

9/11
Tom...we'll get the article to FA level by 9/11....just roll with the punches at the FAC and address the issues...in a week to 10 days, the article will look a whole lot better, trust me.MONGO 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. So far the comments have been (except one) useful suggestions for improvement. I'll have more time later today and tomorrow. Thanks for taking on those formatting issues. I don't really have a lot of experience with that, and we should get a more consistent result if one person does it. Tom Harrison Talk 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't track my edits...you'll see comments regarding the closing of the FAC after a day to be most unforgiving...this is your first FAC nomination if I am not mistaken? So they welcome you to their "club" by slamming the door in your face...so shall we press on and let you renominate it in a week to 10 days? I don't think it will pass before 9/11 since they closed the target page most helpful for getting feedback for improvement!!!!! Nevertheless, this has been a herculean effort, and one worth fighting for and I commend you.--MONGO 04:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * 1) Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
 * 2) Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
 * 3) To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
 * 4) If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's useless to say "Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard" exactly because experienced editors are discouraged from following and editing these things. The arbs say "we urge," but the editing environment discourages. Tom Harrison Talk 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

9/11 again
Tom, I am sorry we're in opposition on the 9/11 article and the direction it should take. I think you've done pretty well so far in the face of what must seem like a personal blow; I know how much hard work it is to improve an article, and how awful it can be to have your work criticized. Unfortunately this is the cost (but ultimately also the benefit) of collaborating with a wider group as you invited when you put this up for FA. I have the greatest respect for the calm and patience you have brought to the 9/11 page, and nothing but respect too for the work you have done on the article, even if we disagree about the proper scope it should have. I've already praised you for your willingness to collaborate and compromise over wording. Edits like this one remind me that you also have a good sense of humor and a good heart. I'm less happy with edits like this one; we all need to avoid snark, me included, if we are to make this article what it really ought to be. I wouldn't be posting at that article's talk if I wasn't arguing that it is necessary to add something of this matter at the article we are talking about. Andrew Brookes and David Gero thought these matters were worth discussing in the context of the attacks, and these are hardly fringe figures but very respectable authors on aviation, and, in Brookes' case, about military and defense matters in general. Their views should not automatically be discounted or shunted off to a "daughter article".

This question has genuinely gotten me stumped; where do you see that from me? --John (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a result of summary style. We don't pack everything into the top-level article, we summarize the other articles. Surely there's some article where Torture and kidnapping carried out by US government using 9/11 as a pretext belongs, but it isn't this one, becuase it isn't about 9/11 - it's about torture and kidnaping carried out by the US governemnt. That's certainly a topic for the article on American terrorism as it used to be.


 * I remember - mabye incorrectly - that you came to the talk page saying the prose was bad. I said 'so fix it'. You said it was too howlingly aweful to fix, and only a complete rewrite would do. I suggested you write something up in userspace so we could see it. You said that wouldn't do any good, because the active editors on the article wouldn't entertain changes. Finally, after this time-wasting dialogue, we came to the nub - you wanted to add a section on the conspiracy theories, torture and kidnapping, and tendentious essays on Entry of the US into two unwinnable wars as a response to the attacks, leading to far more deaths than the original attacks, and the billions wasted on airport security - nothing to do with prose quailty at all. So if you have proposals, I'll read them, but I'll view them more sceptically than I did at first. Tom Harrison Talk 11:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I get what you meant. There are two separate problems; one with NPOV by omission, and one with the prose quality. Multiple other editors besides me have raised this. It makes sense to deal with them in that order though I think, but they will both have to be dealt with. --John (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Will they both have to be dealt with? I no longer believe all generic criticism of the prose has been sincere, and the sources are against you on the question of due weight. But these are questions for the article talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose is important, but this article has a technical side to it that makes it tough to be too rosy with the prose...please look over my edit here Tom, when you can...I prefer this not be in the article but tried to show that air defense was done, that there had been an order to shoot down planes and that in retrospect, as history has shown, it may be better that we didn't.--MONGO 01:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't for a moment accept that the sources are against me, obviously. Is this a part of the problem you are having?

Hah, I saw that discussion. I think conspiracy theorists are generally nutcases, but how is it that some people can be so against them that to even mention the fact they exist, and have been discussed in reliable sources, is inappropriate? It seems to me that some of those people think that to mention them is to validate them. Parrot of Doom 06:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for barging in, but I think that is a stupendous point PoD. To mention a topic is not to endorse it; we're a neutral resource and we don't take sides, just report what the sources say. When the BBC, respected aviation writers, or the US Government itself all discuss an aspect of a topic, it becomes notable. Indeed as I think HJM pointed out, to suppress (or appear to suppress) a particular POV may give more comfort to the supporters of the POV than to report on it dispassionately. Anyway, nice point; I may use it if I decide to stay involved with this exhausting and generally unrewarding subject area. Cheers. --John (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(copied over from User talk:Parrot of Doom, yet another uninvolved editor who thinks there are NPOV issues with suppressing any mention of the conspiracy theories.)


 * I'm sorry for any difficulty you are having maintaining AGF in the face of folks with a different world-view to your own; but with this many dissenters from your position, I think you'd need some conspiracy theories of your own to explain an interpretation other than you and MONGO being in the wrong on this issue.


 * As regards the prose quality, this is quite a straightforward one. Multiple editors have highlighted that there are problems of writing clarity and grammar. The section we were just talking about had quite a bad grammar error and is over-written; you acknowledged this when you fixed it yourself after my attempt to do so was reverted. In a good article, "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;...". Ergo, this article is not at Good Article quality in this regard either. Yet. --John (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If there were so many dissenters, they'd form the consensus. Mongo and I could hardly by ourselves suppress the Truth about "torture and kidnapping carried out by US government" and the "Entry of the US into two unwinnable wars as a response to the attacks, leading to far more deaths than the original attacks" and the "billions wasted on airport security", if the community wanted it included.

And of course the material you cite wasn't in the article until September 4, so it can't have been one of the prose problems. Several editors have said the prose is bad - "memorably bad," you said in one edit summary, which is poor practice - but the critics rarely point to anything specific. To fix it only a complete rewrite will do; and they must be the ones to do it. There's always room for improvement, but I think "prose quality" has been used as a catch-all for "I don't like it."

And I have to say, I'm more interested in having a good article than a Good Article. Certainly we shouldn't violate due weight to court votes.

I'll read a reply to this if you care to leave one, but beyond that we should take it to the talk page; Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that error was only recently added to the article. I'm disappointed you didn't answer the main point I made about covering minority beliefs not being the same as subscribing to them. Of course it is more than you and MONGO; there are a bunch of you fighting to keep the article US-government POV only, and you've done a great job. Nevertheless, an honest person looking at the GAR page wouldn't be maintaining that the article was "good" or "Good" at present, because that isn't what most neutral editors there have been saying. I note your capitalization of "truth", by the way; nice innuendo. It may well be that you and your friends will be allowed to keep the article the way you want it for a while longer, since you feel so strongly about it and are prepared to work so hard to keep it this way. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't capture the values of the project or the "community". So long. --John (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read
As requested by BusterD I am passing this along for you to read so that you know that your efforts are appreciated.--MONGO 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to BusterD for the kind words. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You got mentioned by the New York Times
In case you didn't know, you were mentioned in an article by the New York Times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, huh, how about that. Tom Harrison Talk 11:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes usually gets their reporting half right...this time I give them a 66 percent for accuracy. The writer of that apparently doesn't understand our policies very well. And their portrayal of Rubin, what with such impeccable qualifications, that he would have been unable to force the "gatekeepers" to see it his way, indicates the Times is, to a degree questioning how an "expert" could be overrruled by well, they may assume amateurs...okie dokie.MONGO 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the reporter didn't read the talk page archives. Not that I can blame him - the Times couldn't pay me to do that either. would have to pay me a lot to do that. Tom Harrison Talk 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert warring
I assume that revert warring is included under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for this topic. Please don't do it. Cla68 (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you do it either. Wait for the discussion to end and see what the conclusion is. Tom Harrison Talk 13:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Flight 93
Was Tom Burnett the first one to know the WTC crashed? Then the transcript shouldn't be removed. Farmer Tom 2004 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you source this please?
Sorry to bother you again. I noticed you said recently at AN/I that HJ Mitchell had said "the likes of MONGO are more of an amusing occupational hazard", but I am having trouble finding it in this user's contributions. Would you mind pointing out the diff where he said it? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to have come from here. Tom Harrison Talk 03:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was fast and I appreciate that. The full quote seems to be "And the idle threats of the likes of MONGO are more of an amusing occupational hazard than anything to be concerned about." which is a lot less derogatory than the extract you quoted. Thanks again. --John (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was soooo much more polite.--MONGO 03:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom I surely appreciate you defending me at Malleus' page...but he's got a blank check to comment as he pleases so long as his POV is the same one that the administrator has. HJ Mitchell indicated long ago and just demonstrated here that he and I do have a content dispute on the very link in question...though he reverted the addition of the link, his edit summary is overtly obvious. I think I'm dealing with some really adolescent kids on this matter and while I really do appreciate your assistance, if I decide to take this where it should go, which is arbcom, I don't want your talents wasted there dealing with these people. I want your editing experiences here to be better than mine...I've just sort of gotten used to being harassed. If I can just get a civility probation and a topic ban from 9/11 pages, that would be an even trade for 1-2 desysoppings and another admonishment.--MONGO 02:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Tom Harrison Talk 14:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of GA temp at September 11 attacks
Hi - I noticed you removed the GA temp from the article. I didn't realize the GAR was decided yet. Shirt waist &#9742;  12:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake. I mistook one of the templates on the talk page as saying it had closed, but I see it's still open. Tom Harrison Talk 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That GAR is a sham...prior to the GAR fiasco starting there wer some plausible complaints about the prose and MOS issues...but in the end, even the those that had the appearances of being there to make a refined assessment, boiled their complaints down to one main issue: the lack of conspiracy theories in the article. Oh well...you now have the most edits to that article, for whatever that's worth...but I surely wouldn't let the opinions of some self appointed "experts" have any bearing on how much your efforts have made that article better.--MONGO 03:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the suggestions have been useful, and I appreciate the time people took to read and comment. The article is better than it was. My approach is going to be to do the best work possible and let the awards take care of themselves. Going forward it might be good to cite more books and fewer newspapers, and to avoid relying too heavily on any one book. Since the current consensus is to link to the conspiracy theories, it will be necessary to follow those and make sure they are accurate, sourced, neutral, free of self-promotion, etc. Some of them are in pretty good shape, others need a little weeding. In a few cases merging might give us stronger articles. Tom Harrison Talk 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the suggestions. I figure if the likes of POV pushers we've seen as of late were to get their unrelated anti-American propaganda in the article, then I'd be forced to restore balance by adding to immediate response the details about all festivities that broke out all over the Muslim world celebrating...and these celebrations were biggest early on when it was thought that as many as 10,000 or more people may have perished. Plus, I could add in the details of phone calls made by those trapped in the towers if the POv pushers  wants to play "let's talk about torture and kidnappings done by the U.S.".....both my ideas here for adding content to the article are surely related to the attacks...more so than the suggestions by some left wing anti-American radicals.MONGO 16:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding section to 911 about torture and kidnapping by the US probably won't get much support. On the other hand, I'm kind of surprised there isn't a stand-alone article. We do have And you are lynching Negroes. Tom Harrison Talk 18:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's Torture and the United States and the ever popular United States and state terrorism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose it would be undue weight to summarize those in sub-sections of United States, and then mention them in the lead there. Even a link in See also would be too much, really. Like the absence of any mention of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Universe, it's something we must accept. Tom Harrison Talk 22:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I only mention those article as an aside. I didn't mean to imply that we should summarize or even link to those articles.  In fact, my mention of United States and state terrorism was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek.  IIRC, that article has a WP:BATTLEGROUND-like atmosphere and was the subject of considerable WikiDrama earlier in the year.  Or maybe it was a similar article, I'm not sure.
 * In any case, if you think that it would be good to cite more books, that's fine. Someone brought this up in the 2008 FA review IIRC.  But I think it would be helpful to first discuss which books to use.  I did a little bit of research on this a couple months ago, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of books from academic presses.  (I'm guessing that the events of 9/11 are already so well documented, historians don't want to waste their time writing about it.)  The most reliable sources seem to be from journalistic presses.  The two that seemed to be the best to me were The Looming Tower and The Eleventh Day.  Do you have any opinions on which books to use?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Terrorist might also be a good book to use. This one came up in the GAR.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Terrorist might also be a good book to use. This one came up in the GAR.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understood your tounge-in-cheek, but failed to communicate my own. My reply was originally laden with much snark, but I decided to play it straight, because someone told me sarcasm online interferes with communication, plus it's hurtful and stuff. I should know better than to take advice from random guys on the internet.


 * I've been trying to put together a list of books for interlibrary loan. Besides those two, Inside 9-11: What Really Happened, from Der Spiegel might be good, if not as recent as we would like. There's also Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It, by Terry Mcdermott. Tom Harrison Talk 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, by Gerald Posner Tom Harrison Talk 23:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw the Der Spiegel book, but I can't imagine that it's any more authoritative than the 9/11 commission report, but I'll take another look. I'll also look at the other two books you mention.  At this point, I'm thinking that Mongo's suggestion of aiming for FA status for next year's anniversary is much more realistic than mine (which has obviously expired).
 * BTW, what might be a fun little side-project is - as we're reading through which ever books we decide on - to work on the our articles on those books and get them to GA level (or FA), too. I doubt it would be that much extra work and it will give us valuable experience on how the GA (and perhaps FA) reviews work.  What do you think?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, what might be a fun little side-project is - as we're reading through which ever books we decide on - to work on the our articles on those books and get them to GA level (or FA), too. I doubt it would be that much extra work and it will give us valuable experience on how the GA (and perhaps FA) reviews work.  What do you think?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea to write up the books as we go. There will probably also be material to add to the daughter articles, which kind of get neglected sometimes. As far as GA/FA, I'll be happy read suggestions to improve the articles, but I'm inclined to just write and let the awards take care of themselves. I'm afraid trying to please reviewers can distort things - "That sucks; you should have written a whole different article instead." On the other hand, a couple of people recommended the Military History Project reviews, and they might be useful as a peer review. Der Spiegel would be mostly to give us a non-US reference. Tom Harrison Talk 01:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool! I just don't want to do it alone (get these articles to GA (or FA) status).  I've created a page in my user space in order to keep track of the books we're discussing.  I just started it tonight so it's very much a work in progress. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So long as there is a posse of POV pushing radicals that want to circumvent policy to promote their agenda by forcing the editors on the article to add-in issues that exceed the SCOPE and violate WEIGHT which is provided by the reliable references, and that allow their own personal biases interfere with the possible improvements and promotion of the article back to GA or even an FA level, I don't know how much more can be done on the article...it's pretty hard for me to assume good faith of the "reviewers" at the GAR when their arguments are as POV laden as they are....I haven't nominated an article for FA (never went for a GA actually) in several years, but what I am seeing is that while there are still a few folks around I remember such as SandyGeorgia and Tony1, this newer cadre of reviewers that haunt these processes are unable to detach themselves enough from their own biases to be able to render a fair assessment. Granted, there were some prose and MOS and a few other issues and there still are some very small things that could be improved, but this level of pettiness, POV pushing and egregious disregard of policy to deliberately derail an article just because it doesn't reflect the biases of a few is alarmingly discouraging. So, while I think all involved would prefer to see the best article possible, I have to question whether its worth accomodating their whims and to violate policy to get their "approval" just so the article has a "rank".--MONGO 10:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm completed my initial stab at a list of books to use as potential sources: User:A Quest For Knowledge/September 11 attacks - Books. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's going to be a useful resource. Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

sockpuppet editing
There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed. Yonmei (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

sockpuppet editing
There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed. Yonmei (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

fyi
As I noted here I remain concerned by your commitment to use immediate blocks without warning rather than good faith explanations. Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The BLP policy is what it is, but I'm not an admin now. If you get blocked for citing Prisonplanet.com to say someone is a spy for MI6, it will be someone else blocking you. Tom Harrison Talk 18:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should all comply with policy. No offense, I do not believe you were complying with policy.


 * You are illustrating selective memory here. You didn't say you would block me for referencing prisonplanet.  I would have regarded that as a good faith warning that it would be trivial to comply with.  What you actually said was that you would block me, without warning, if you ever saw me use ANY reference that you thought was from a bad site -- but you refused to list the sites you thought were bad sites, or to give any information as to how I would recognize what you thought was a bad site.


 * I'd never heard of Andy Jones or prisonplanet. You never acknowledged how your initial poorly explained excision looked like vandalism.  Ordinary contributors have an obligation to explain themselves.  So far as I am concerned being entrusted with administrator authority doesn't free a contributor of the obligation to explain themselves, it makes explanations more important.  First, administrators should be setting a good example for less experienced contributors.  Second, the actions administrators take have more serious consequences, and I think this makes honoring their obligation to explain themselves more important.


 * AGF, I should try to assume that your unwillingness to acknowledge error, your unwillingness to offer a civil explanation of your concerns, your threats to block me without offering meaningful guidance as to how to avoid that block -- I should try to assume they were all not typical of your usual behavior.


 * I am curious as to why you are not an administrator now. Your last administrator action seems to have been in March 2010.  But I don't see any clues on your talk page as to why you are not an administrator.  So, may I ask, how did you come to stop being an administrator?  Did you just get tired of the responsibility?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked to have the rights removed before a period of inactivity on the project. I can't say I've missed being an admin. Happy editing, Tom Harrison Talk 23:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden
Hi Tom, I saw that you removed a reference from the article, relating to Bin Laden's last will, dealing with its interpretation, as it was leading to a blogspot post. This reference lead to the only place on the web I've ever seen which actually related to the problematic translation of the will. As far as I've known wikipedia rules in that regard, blog posts which are objective, well anchored, and are the only known source of information are allowed. You can see, for example, the following google search which demonstrates this, as well as several examples of articles referring to blogspots posts I've ran across over time: Nir Poraz, Matt Bullen, Comparison of demand generation software. If you do not know another source thoroughly dealing with the will's problematic translation, I'd thank you kindly If you returned that reference to the article, or direct me to the decisions made regarding the usage of blogspot posts which prevent such usage in this case. With regards, Adom2000 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Verifiability, under Self-published sources,says "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Weblogs are rarely reliable sources. I'm not aware of any exception for material that can't be cited any other way. If the only place this is mentioned is in the blog post, I don't see how we would include it in an article. Tom Harrison Talk 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * the blog I was referring to is one of the best web-sources regarding Israeli & Israeli related politics I personally know. The wiki-rule states clearly "largely not acceptable", and not a more strict policy, as is inferred by your editing choice. Furthermore, at least in IT, my field of expertise, there are blogs which are currently considered more trustworthy than newspapers, and you can take for example techrunch, gizmodo, or engadget. Considering the changing face of the web, I believe editing policies regarding sources such as blogs should be far more constrained, and instead of a complete removal of a source, it would have been better, in my mind, to add an additional-reference needed tag. But that is my opinion, and assuming you will not change your mind over this, I'll respect your wiki-experience. Thanks for your time, --Adom2000 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Terrorist
Please read it. Than realize it is impossible to source an opinion as fact. Public awareness (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Tom Harrison Talk 01:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no forbidden words on Wikipedia;
 * Removing "terrorist" isn't exempt from WP:3RR.
 * I never violated 3RR.
 * Of course, thats why I never removed the part "It has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, NATO, and various other countries (see below)." But, the edit you made presents the opinion as a fact which is of course unacceptable or do you think wikipedia should be opinionated. Public awareness (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a fact. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, like Asafoetida has an unpleasant smell when raw. Tom Harrison Talk 01:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Imagine! Tom Harrison Talk 11:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perfect Soldiers
FYI - I started reading Perfect Soldiers and created a stub in my user space: User:A Quest For Knowledge/Perfect Soldiers. I basically copied the outline from WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article with some slight modifications and that's about it. It looks ugly but I want to get further into the book before I start writing any real content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good start - I'll watchlist it. Tom Harrison Talk 11:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Salafist jihadism
Based on your using the same source I did, plus your addition of another would you be so kind as to comment on the talk page regarding PassaMethods reverting of this same thing from the article please? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Primitive Baptist article request
Hello. Would you mind unblocking the Primitive Baptist article so that it can be moved over a redirect to Primitive Baptists, or just make the move yourself? Similar moves at Baptists and Missionary Baptists and Reformed Baptists were made long ago (for more, you can read Talk:Baptists/Archive_5). Thank you and happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection to moving it, but I'm no longer an administrator. You can request unprotection at Requests for page protection. Sorry for any inconvenience, Tom Harrison Talk 12:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Verifiability
Thanks for reverting the erroneous edit I made to WT:V. I've explained on my talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove?
Why did you remove it on AE911Truth? Yes, I know you all have powers to censor and block, no need to link me over to some cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Skepticism (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding promotional videos doesn't improve the article. That secondary sources don't mention them is an argument for leaving them out, not for putting them in. Tom Harrison Talk 23:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in edit-warring noticeboard
In responding to Jordgette's motion on the edit-warring noticeboard I mentioned you and your activities on the 7 World Trade Center article. As a result any admin reviewing Jordgette's motion may take action against you. Sorry.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks
Good suggestion, I don't have a problem talking alot of people seem to. Deleting relevant images and relevant information which is nowhere to be found in the article like height of the towers, the speed of the planes, the floors impacted, etc. makes no rational sense whatsover. Nobody owns any page on Wikipedia. Behavior like MONGO's is why people get fed up. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum:I did't realize you reverted the page as well. You don't WP:OWN the page either but I don't feel like getting aggravated right now. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody owns the page. It's open to everyone, like the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 12:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you replying to 2 month old comments on the article talk page? Geometry guy 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the discussion closed? Surely we aren't required to use the talk page always and only to discuss conspiracy theories. If you think it would be more convenient, feel free to move it and start a new section. Tom Harrison Talk 03:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you can add comments to old discussions on article talk if you want to, but the editors you are replying to are unlikely to read them. My question is: why do you want to do this? Geometry guy 03:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Article structure seems to be part of what people say concerns them - the need to go into causes and motivations. If we have a better sense of what articles we have and what they contain, maybe we can come up with a few improvements we can agree on. And I suppose, in the larger scheme, if we can come to agreement on something maybe we can all work together better in the future. Do you not agree? Tom Harrison Talk 03:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope so and suggest you ask Karanacs (to whom you were replying) for her view as well. Geometry guy 03:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal
I am appealing the topic ban that WG issued on November 30th and thought you might want to comment.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Things
I know we've had our differences, but you have a interest that I share and there is a lot of activity at Early Netherlandish painting and any help or an eye out would be appreciated. I have a short memory and put things behing me easily, so calling peace and bygones. You welcome to chip in whenever you spot something or have something to say. In other words it a big project and I could do with help from people that care, and can write. Sincearly. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, very gracious. I'll look in when I get a chance. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. You might keep on an eye on prose etc when you have time so. I understand if your busy with other stuff, so no worries. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks for the edits. After the trouble and the words I used against you, this is very big of you. I'm thinking you are ok people. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem; it's interesting material to work with. I'll do some more in a day or so. Tom Harrison Talk 12:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didnt get much done this weekend, but to warn you, I see this as an eventual FAC, but not until early summer. I'm going to need a lot of help though, esp with prose. I notice you have a very succincient syle, I suppose you have learned it through the area you work in, nesessarly you have to be precise and unambigious. But its a good skill, your very good with words (devistating actually at times!) and I be very happy to work along with you when ever you have the time and interest. I take back the harsh words from before. Ceoil (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it'll give me some time to find a few references. Thanks for the kind words; glad neither of us has any hard feelings. Tom Harrison Talk 13:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Building 7 article
Are you going to respond to my comments here and here?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See my comment at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would really like to get some sort of comment from you at the section I created on the talk page concerning that revert you performed during my block. I raised other issues as well concerning some of the material in the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that reverting due to "no consensus" is never a legitimate reason. You have to actually give a reason for why you don't agree with a change when using the undo function. I started a section on the talk page just for that, though I really don't see how you could possibly have an issue with me splitting a large paragraph into two paragraphs. However, whatever reason you have for opposing the change I would like to know. It also looks like you undid some changes from several days ago that you actually expressed no opposition to so your actions are perplexing. An explanation in either of the sections on the talk page concerning those edits would be nice, or you could just provide an explanation in a new section of the talk page.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to work with anyone whose apparent goal is to promote fringe theories and deemphasize the facts.--MONGO 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You said there needs to be consensus and for that there needs to be discussion. So I started a section on the talk page for you to explain any concerns you had about the changes you reverted.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice for you to give some explanation in the talk page at the section I linked to in my previous comment.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that you commented on the RfC. Would you mind responding to the section right at the bottom of the page and mention what your issues were with the changes you reverted?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to my comment here.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)