User talk:Tom harrison/Archive05

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 March 2006 and 31 March 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/Archive06. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

John of Austria

I apologize for the reverts, but John of Austria wasn't Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba, and all the adult males have got the treatment of Don. 84.122.144.70 22:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Opuim

Hey good job on the "production today" section on the opium article. I sometimes get too wordy and the section looks a lot better. Rayana fazli 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Digitalstyledesigns award link

I would like to comment on this paragraph: "And Tom, the Digitalstyledesigns award link is not significant relative to the other information about Hoffman on here. It is a list that Jan Hoyer came up with on her own and is not a recognized award by a particular organization oustide of her own website. She is a photographer and activist and it is out of place on this page given the other citations."

It is correct that I am not with an organization and the Best of 911 Truth Media 2005 list was created from my own experiences. However, for the sake of accuracy, the remaining comment about my position is not an accurate or fair portrayal. As a co-founder of the 9/11 Visibility Project, and former staff of 911Truth.org (for nearly two years, until 10-05) my involvement has been considerably deeper than "a photographer and activist". I have worked closely with a great many founding leaders of the 911 truth movement, and therefore believe that I have a good finger on the pulse of the movement.

(disclaimer: After 911Truth.org rejected Jim Hoffman as a board member, I left that organization to work with Jim Hoffman and his team)

Thank you for your efforts, Jan Hoyer jhoyer@digitalstyledesigns.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.145.248.98 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, I've copied your comment to the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your help requested

I was asked to help Christianity with it's discussions on becoming NPOV... there is a debate on Talk:Hermeticism#Reason_for_reverting_Infinitysnake's_changes_2/22/06 on whether it should be stated that some scholars believed Hermes Trismegistus to be a real man. In my arguments I have noted the Christianity article, and I feel that the contributors of it may be able to give some view on how a religion article should be NPOV. I don't know if you will agree with me or not, but your help is requested.

KV 06:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Hey, thanks for helping out my picture...:)

Greatly appreciated!

-- JFB

Take a look?

You might want to take a look at this.Gator (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm...

I recieved a message from you regarding me editing a page unconstructively. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a long time, nor did I even know about editing submissions until today. I would like to ask why I got this message.

Thanks,

~Ferret Overlord~

PS: I don't have an account, though you probably know that already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.241.92 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, I believe you. "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users." Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Terrorism (disambiguation)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that the users (Lady in Red and Uncle Skull) that are arguing with you are both sockpuppets of a banned user Zephram Stark). I'm going to delete his contributions to the talk page. Just wanted to let you know (I'll probably go ahead and just delete the entire section, including your comments, since they won't make much sense when his posts are gone). If you have any major objections to this, just let me know. I just didn't want you to be suprised to find your posts deleted.--JW1805 (Talk) 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

RfD

Thanks! I didn't know there was such a page as RfD. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Moorbeyel

Is there anyway you can ban Mr. Gunho and Moorbeyel from editing Wikipedia. The later has accused me, falsely, of homosexuality and many other slanderous items in his edits of the Wikipedia on me started by Bektashi110. Muhammed al-Ahari —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.198 (talk • contribs) .

Personnal attacks have been removed, and I have warned the users about them. Please don't respond to them in kind. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Rfc

Yeah, noticed that right after I made the comment. That'll teach me to respond so quickly to Rfc's . . . I removed my comment. - Jersyko·talk 16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Annother Stark sockpuppet

History Repeats (talk · contribs). See noticeboard for details. Can you block this one too? This guy is really getting on my nerves... --JW1805 (Talk) 23:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not a sockpuppet. --History Repeats 04:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

Since User:Intellibot added back in some text that you've erased as sockpuppetry, I'm guessing that Intellibot is a sockpuppet of the same person. --Mr. Billion 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wyss's block

No mistake. She deleted lines of another article dealing claims about someone's homosexuality. That breached the arbcom ruling which says that she and Wilkes are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. The clauses "any edit" and "related to homosexuality or bisexuality" shall be interpreted broadly. This is not the first time she has broken the ruling. The first time I judged given past behaviour to be unintentional. In this case however she unambiguously disobeyed the arbcom ruling at least 3 times. breach 1 breach 2 breach 3 As a result there was no choice but to block her. I have to say that while Wilkes seems a complete nutcase (who is strongly suspected of being a notorious multiple hardbanned user from some years back) Wyss normally acts more responsibly. But in this case the enfringments were clearcut and necessitated a block. Indeed she is very lucky that she only got a 24 hour block having made three clear breaches. She could have been blocked for longer. Some users would have imposed a block of up to one week for three clear unambiguous breaches like those. To breach the ruling once is wrong. To do it three times in the one article smacks of giving the two fingers to the ruling.

Here is just one of the bits of text she deleted. According to a theory by Professor Machtan, which he explained in his book The Hidden Hitler, August Kubizek had a homosexual relationship with Adolf Hitler. Both Brigitte Hamann and Professor Machtan wrote that after meeting Hitler during the latter part of 1905, the two quickly became close friends and lived together, sharing a small room they rented on the Stumpergasse in Vienna. In Young Hitler, the Story of Our Friendship, Kubizek wrote that during their time together Hitler "always rejected the coquettish advances of girls or women. Women and girls took an interest in him in Linz as well as Vienna, but he always evaded their endeavors." Kubizek also wrote that Hitler had a great love for a girl named "Stefanie" and wrote her countless love poems but never sent them. Instead, Kubizek says Hitler read his poem "Hymn to the Beloved" to him. Professor Machtan stated that while the Stefanie girl definitely existed, some of Kubizek's 1953 writing was a deliberate "heterosexualizing" of Hitler in retrospect (p. 43).

She replaced the above text with

William L. Shirer, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich cites a letter dated August 4, 1933, six months after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, in which he wrote his boyhood friend, "I should be very glad . . . to revive once more with you those memories of the best years of my life."

Deleting that was a clear and unambiguous breach of the prohibition "from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dowsing

What was so wrong with the edits made at 20:53 today by 84.92.243.246? They seem to me to slightly leven the relentless sceptism which has been restored within an hour and which is not entirely supported by the results in some of the linked articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.243.246 (talk • contribs) .

I may have been too quick to revert. I restored the edit by 84.92.243.246 (talk • contribs), then made some changes I thought were needed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine coinage

Saw your note about the formatting of the Byzantine coinage page on Phaedriel's talk page and have modified it. I played with the top two images but could not get them all to stay ranged left but I think you will agree it is better now. If you approve then you may want to make a note on her page. Cheers. ww2censor 15:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

reverts

Stunningly obvious! I should have worked that out but I didn't - thanks for the help. SOPHIA 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is some nonsense I deleted from the Muhammed al-Ahari article

- What is this group about? A man, a man without a race, without proper fitting Clothes, sailing between dimensions and stuggling to tread the Golden Path laid Down by God in the Old Days. But it is Hard to walk down the Golden Path, for it has been obscured over millenia by the Weeds and Dust of...Obscurity. Many, especially those damn Ba'hais, have lost their way. Thus, Al-Ahari is God's Weedwacker, his Hands are the Trowels, his Poetry is the Roundup©! When his mortal coil has finally left him (probably in, like, 400 years), the Golden Path will be cleansed, and Free of crab-grass, clovers, and the Daffodils that Sprout up between the Cracks (but there are no physical cracks in the Golden Path! Only those percieved by the Unrighteous). Finally, the Golden Path will be Presentable and worthy of the brushed aluminum Low-Voltage lights that God will one day set along the Golden Path, when he gets around to it. BEHOLD! *dum dum dum dum dum* (drums) *bwaaaaaah* (trumpets) *bwaaaaaaah*

The above was written by someone calling themselves the Invisible Man.

Muhammed al-Ahari (MoorishAm@aol.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.12.150 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, deleting it was entirely correct; In the future, there's no need to paste it in here, I can see it in the page history. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Moorbeyel

in the article on Muhamme dal-Ahari Moorbeyel is adding slander and nonsense which he has been warned against before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.175.47.164 (talk • contribs) .

Dechristianization of France

This is a partisan phrase, sweeping into one net many events which were persecution, many which were not intended as persecution, and many which it requires the eye of faith to see as persecution at all. It wants much work, which I have not given it; but a large template endorsing the Ultramontaine view is really not what the article needs.

Regards. Septentrionalis 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that it neither be in the template, or the template in it; an associated category would be fine. Septentrionalis 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) And thank you for your civility; clearly I've been spending too long with the trolls.

Moorbeyel

Moorbeyel is still making his slanderous and childish edits at the al-Ahari article even after he was warned several times to stop by Wikipedia administration. He also made edits under the name Mr. Gunho and Invisible Man. Muhammed al-Ahari--209.175.47.164 21:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits. The page is on my watch list, so I am automatically informed of changes as they occur. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings!

I was patrolling recent changes and i noticed you were experimenting with templates. I'm wondering how do you make a template for a special signature like you did? Or do you have to put in the code every time? I'd appreciate some pointers :] ---Marcus- 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! :) ---Marcus- 22:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Haber Process

Just to let you know i saw these on the Haber Process page... you were in the history

Nigel Sharp is Gay BrrraP Jit Mann licks scrotum OWAIN PROSSER IS A GAY TWAT

I am unable to remove them; they do not appear in the edit section Thanks Baynardo7 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thanks for the unblocking! Staxringold 16:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Agree with you. Pecher ^Talk 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement Links

Comment moved to article talk page [1]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Phil Plait book

Comment moved to article talk page. [2] Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re.:Robertson Panel

Comment moved to article talk page [3] Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

DOM

Tom, thanks for the message. I wasn't sure about that person, so that's why I left that message on the talk page. My feeling is that Johnski is still lurking around, in fact he made a comment on one of the talk page of a related article under a diffrent name.

The way that the arbitration committee ruled certainly states the page can't be protected indefinately, so I guess it's envitable in terms of unprotect. Myself, Gene Poole and I'm sure you as well will watch it, so the worst that can happen is it's reverted, fixed and then semi-protected again. It might also be a good test as to whether he's lurking, the temptation is going to be pretty high for him to start reverting again.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I'll keep a closer eye out for it now that I know. Davidpdx 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Sure. But I think Pecher's edits have the following problems(though i realized that some of his edits are very good): 1. He is assuming that whatever some particular has scholars has said is a fact. Instead of writing them as the opinion of some scholar he writes it as a fact. 2. Some of his quotes are clearly wrong. For example, As a shia, I am well aware of the Shia ritual purity. I am also aware of the Qur'anic verse they use to prove their opinion and problems with that interpretation(some shia scholars have pointed that out). But he is quoting wrong statements from some scholar and pretends as they are facts; he also reverts my edits. 3. He is adding irrelevant material to the article without accepting them to be irrelevant (e.g. He has added the picture of Maimonides in the Dhimmi article.)

I have to admit, I thought my edits were fair and was surprised when they got reverted wholesale. --Aminz 07:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you possible please read my conversations with Pecher, and help us in our discussion. He reverts my edits. Thanks. --Aminz 07:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your comments on the talk page of Dhimmi article. I feel that I was not talking peaceful about pecher. I agree that I was wrong but I really felt that the article is very POV now. I felt that Pecher doesn't even read my edits (e.g. changing Meshed to Mashhad) I agree that I was not writing respectful about Pecher. But anyway thanks for your comments. --Aminz 11:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

Upon my request, User:Cyde has agreed to mediate informally on Dhimmi, and I hope that will help (though my request was related more to the issue with Farhansher). Naturally, I will appreciate your involvement too. Pecher ^Talk 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your participation in the ongoing mediation will be welcome. Pecher ^Talk 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibortun made money from September 11th attacks

Hi Tom,

could you tell me why you summarily deleted the facts that I posted, please?

Thanks,

yours,

1liberator1liberator 20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My reply in on User talk:1liberator. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Meshed/Mashhad

The story of the spelling of this city's name on Dhimmi reminded me of a bitter struggle on Talk:Kiev and the ensuing edit war, which is proudly featured in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever, over whether the name of the Ukrainian capital must be spelled as "Kiev", which is the more common and established English spelling, or "Kyiv", which better reflects the Ukrainian phonetics. Ultimately, the reason prevailed, and the article is now titled Kiev. On Mashhad, reason must have been less lucky. Pecher ^Talk 21:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just kidding about Warsaw :). I brought it up as an example of people who are quite content to live with the traditional English spelling of their capital's name, without trying to impose "Varshava" (to match Polish phonetics) or "Warszawa" (to match Polish spelling). Pecher ^Talk 19:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

block

Hi Tom. Can you block user:Fixislam for 3rr violation on Muhammad where he reverted six times now. Also has an inappropriate username and is making attacks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

His username isn't the big problem, but his editing is. So no need to bring it up. The personal attacks are and the six times he reverted. Also his contributions show that he is a sock of user:BlatherAndBlatherscite. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about edit summaries which attack many different editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[4]] , [5] , also see below . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this what your imam taught you, "Anonym"? Attacking others for telling the truth? I am disgusted by your behavior. Quran states that a good Muslim should not lie. Ever. Fixislam 17:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again Tom, more reverts now [6]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. I know a sock when I see it. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to point this out just once. [7] I am acting in good faith, trying to clean up a biased article. Anonym, instead of acting in good faith and adding anything to the discussion, is only interested in making false accusations and trying to get people blocked so that push his own version. My ability to assume good faith on his part has been completely destroyed by his behavior. Fixislam 18:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For tireless contributions to defend us from conspiracy theorists, nutjobs and vandals. Keep up the good work!--MONGO 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias and pov warring by fundamentalist muslim Anonym

This editor (who I notice tried to get you to block me, fraudulently, above) is a pov warrior of a fundamentalist islamic sect. I only reverted his edits with those summaries becuase he continually reverts with "rvv" which I gather is "ReVert Vandalism".

Before you make threats at people, try looking into the situations. I'm trying to clean up bias and let the facts speak for themselves because it does my religion no good to let the fundamentalists get away with trying to hide things. Fixislam 17:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

You said: "Another point to bear in mind is, if you can cite verses from the Quran, so can all the other editors, Muslim or not." I am not quite sure wha you meant here. Can you elaborate on this point for me? Pecher ^Talk 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. I can't agree with you more. Pecher ^Talk 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave it

I will leave till the end of the weekend then. Glad to do business with you! ILovEPlankton 21:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is for keeping your cool even when i was getting angry!
  This is for keeping your cool even when i was getting angry!

Adding unit Converter links

Tom,

The links I added for my unit converter were not spam in any sense. I only added them to sites where I believed readers would benefit from having access to an easy to use converter. I reviewed the wikipedia policy on adding material and the only guideline I seem to be in opposition with is the one asking that new links be added to the bottom of lists.

The most pressing question I have is - after deleting the links to my conversion engine, why did you leave the other links. They are also privately run sites with ad content. No different than mine.

Hovik.—This unsigned comment is by Zakian49 (talk • contribs) .

I replied on your talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Online unit converter

I respect your opinion, but if you're going to classify my page, an online unit converter, as spam, why not remove the links to all the other online unit converters as well. I'm not trying to hurt the wiki users, but to offer them a service. I placed my links in the "External Links" sections of relevant articles with clear and descriptive text. Nothing misleading. Nothing malicious. —This unsigned comment is by Zakian49 (talk • contribs) .

How do you feel about me adding my link to the Unit of Measurement article under the "Converters" heading....that's gotta be non-spam...its what the article asks for.

what does *Online Unit Converter - Conversion of many different units have that I don't? why did i see its link on all the articles I placed my link on....and why do i still see its link there, but not mine.

Vandalism and Edit Warring

Fares S has vandalized my user page, as has another anon editor. Please semi-protect my page from anonymous editors and take appropriate action, verbal or otherwise, against Fares S for his deletion. I have placed a vandalism warning on his Talk page. Also, Fares S and others continue to edit war in the Michel Aoun article and absolutely refuse to reply to participate in Talk discussion. I have requested the page to be protected as you advised. Thank you.--AladdinSE 15:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As you see, anon users have been vandalizing my User page. Are you able to place a semi-protect against anon editing, or should I go through the requesting protection page? Thanks.-AladdinSE 01:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As yo know Fares S continues to vandalize my User Page, despite me and you asking him to stop. Thank you for reverting his vandalism. Cedar-Guardian is contemplating a block. Please consider add your comments to ours on my Talk page.--AladdinSE 22:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:151.198.212.250

Request to block this IP whom you have dealt with before - already has a long record of vandalism and blocks. Check contribs for recent additions. Thanks, DLand 17:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Thanks for correcting my sloppiness. Pecher ^Talk 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Ahari

Thank you for catching Bananaboy. It seems he is a socket puppet for Invisibleman, Moorbeyel, and Mr. Gunho. He is attacking me because I have proof his father-in-law's dissertation was largely copied from online sources. I can forward it to you if you like. Muhammed al-Ahari —This unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.198 (talk • contribs) .

No, that would not be useful to me, thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

MD Party Room

Smart sprotect! For a laugh, I clicked on their thread while they were discussing their wikipedia page: [8]. Cheers. -- Samir (the scope) 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Crossbows

Thank you for being civil. I will respond in kind. There is a great difference between being "neutral" in relation to personal opinions and being "neutral" in relation to facts. You can be neutral with opinions because opinions are just that - opinions. However, being "neutral" with facts through creating little stories presented as fact borders on outright lying.

(Part II) Evidence or proof is no problem at all. There is plenty I assure you and I neglected to cite only because I considered such a fact (invention of the crossbow by the Chinese) to be common knowledge. To be honest, I was appalled at how the way insidious conjectures were insinuated that took away from the truthful fact of the history of crossbows.

Anyways, for citation please take a look at the website http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/. It contains a brief timeline of all the major Chinese inventions in a contained timespan. Specifically, look at the time section known as the "Warring States" period (403-221 BC) for the invention of the crossbow.

The timeline in this website does not come from the website's creator, it is a well-known timeline among intellectual circles. In fact, it is drawn from the famous historian Joseph Needham's lifework, "Science and Civilization in China". Apologies for the lengthy reply, but I feel it is necessary. Have yourself a good day!

(Part III) I have edited and improved upon the diction of the crossbow article. Usage of words such as "probably" and "maybe" are inadvisable in encyclopedias, which are supposed to be authoritative collections of facts. If something is written, then it better be a provable fact with evidence. If there is any doubt, then it is better that nothing be written at all.

(Part IV) Yes, Joseph says "probably". However, Joseph isn't all-knowing God and neither should anyone treat him that way. From historical records, archaelogical evidence, and the writings of many historians including Needham, it is clear without a doubt that the crossbow was most definitely invented in China. I will find other sources and add them to the Needham citation.

Wikify

Hi I saw that you had placed the wikify template on Nastran. I have attempted to wikify it but since it is my first article to do so, I would appreciate if you gave it a quick look and mention the drawbacks. Thanks!!! Nivus|(talk)|(desk) 12:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If I am right the TOC should generate automatically but in this article it did not until i explicitly put in the TOC tag. I am pretty sure I am missing out something. Thanks for the review though!!! Nivus|(talk)|(desk) 04:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

restoring Miniature of Muhammad

Please don't revert my removal of bloat in the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy article. If you want to keep the 700 year old picture in the article, please explain why on the talk page. There has been a consensus, that the article is too long and full of bloat. Nobody disagreed to my suggestion to remove historic information in that section, Raphael1 15:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My reply is on the article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

DOM

Thanks for your recent message. I don't know if you are aware, but Centuari took out some of the words that had been left in the DOM article for about six weeks. Anyway, I reverted it, basically because I'm concerned an edit war will break out with Johnski et al coming back full force and they'll start messing with the article. Hopefully by reverting back to the previous version will continue to maintain the peace for the short term. I'll keep an eye out on the situation. Please let me know if you see anything strange taking place. Thanks.. Davidpdx 15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center

Why don't you respond to my points on the talk page instead of edit warring and wikilawyering? — goethean ॐ 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring the talk page, edit warring, and then threatening me with a 3RR. I honestly don't get it. Why are you deleting this one sentence on what 50% of what New Yorkers believe about the collapse? — goethean ॐ 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My hostility comes from my shock and outrage that this complete non-issue has become an issue due to the transparently POV editing by User:MONGO, whom I have not had the extreme displeasure of dealing with until now. And then you offer an inane "compromise" that includes deleting all of the information. I refer to the Zogby poll and MONGO is yammering on about how Bush is from Texas, as if that has anything to do with the subject at hand. This is not an issue, and I reject your "compromise". I am no believer in conspiracy theories. But inappropriate deletions like this is what drives conspiracy theorists. If you keep deleting the section, I will bring more editors to the article and shine some wiki-light on the subject. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, have to correct you...yes, it is I who blasphemed...tis the end of the world. Nice...yes please bring more like minded folks as your self to that article, Goethean...nothing beats editors that try to stack the deck in an article to push a POV. Sorry you found me unpleasant...the baseline for nonsense trivia such as the results of one singular opinion poll should alsways be zero.--MONGO 04:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Goodie

We have now been blessed with the omnipotent...prepare to bow to the new beacon of truth.--MONGO 12:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tom, that's the thing...you can't argue with those that simply want to believe what the want to believe, be it for a desire to prefer the far out and incredulous, for political reasons or simply becuase they are offended by the correct version of the account. Hence my sarcasm and abrupt demeanor...I don't suffer fools lightly. I was there, not as an investigator, but in support capacities. I wish I had been allowed to bring a camera, but I wasn't. How sad that some actually and sincerely do believe that the U.S. Government could do this...I suppose those that think that any erroneous involvement by the U.S. Governement in this sordid affair must really hate us, or well, I simply cannot fully explain it. If the feds had really done this, it would be as heinious a crime ever committed by a gvernment on it's own people. There are two reasons why the conspiracy notions are completely baseless, aside from all the other reasons. Firstly, the U.S. Government is simply too disorganized to pull this off. Secondly, the press would have found something by now...I don't think most people understand how disfunctional the government is at times, or how effective the media is at digging up evidence. I won't walk away from those articles, but if I encounter anymore trolls on the talk page, I'll probably just continue to be sarcastic or simply say nothing at all...my hope will be to only respond to those that are simply innocently naive...but if this new character is here to stay, he's going to have a long ride from me if he ventures into the more "mainstream" articles related to the scholars nonsense. Good job, and if you feel it is too exhausting to continue dealing with these wackos, thats fine, or simply take a break,...Wikipedia is supposed to be fun.--MONGO 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

link

Why do you keep removing my link at the golden ratio article? --67.49.215.31 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you not tell where it goes? It goes to the 67.49.215.31 ip adress. By the way, check out this and this.--BorisFromStockdale 03:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (I forgot to log in before...)

Hypocrisy, is thy name Tom Harrison?

You have the gall to accuse *me* of altering other people's changes? Why aren't you accusing others of vandalising my amendments? Or are demonstrating your personal political and religious bias on the topic by preventing additions and amendments?

I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to allow public contributions, not be Tom Harrison's personal forum.—This unsigned comment was added by 61.58.53.139 (talk • contribs) .

User:OsamaBinLadenIsGOD

Do you think it looks like an appropriate username? Pecher ^Talk 19:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work on Flue gas desulfurization. The article is shaping up nicely. I replaced Flue Gas Desulfurization with a redirect, so any links to the old one will now lead to the correct updated article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not yet through with that article. If I don't hear soon from whoever contributed the equations in the chemistry section, then I will replace them with more meaningful equations. In fact, I may do so whether or not I hear from whoever. - mbeychok 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Ahari article

Thanks for your diligence, but I thought Moorbeyel was banned for his slanderous behavior. He now wrote I had homosexual relations with someone named Nedim Hasanbegovic. I don't know any such person and i have never had homosexual relations. They are unnatural, in my opinion, and also against my religion.--205.188.116.198 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

John of Austria

I apologize for the reverts, but John of Austria wasn't Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba, and all the adult males have got the treatment of Don. User:84.122.144.70 22:00, 27 March 2006

User 208.210.74.2

Dear Tom,

Please, please block user 208.210.74.2. He has never responded to anyone’s inquiries, and the only edit he’s ever made is to repeatedly insert the same spam link into a number of articles.

Timothy Usher 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom,

Thank you so much for your earlier action.

Just to update you, he is apparently now unblocked and back at it as if nothing had happened. Is it possible that this is some sort of malicious script?

Timothy Usher 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

reverting history

Hehe.. oops again. I meant I was reverting to the last by BorgQueen. Ctrl-C betrayed me. ;) Cheers. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Moment (mathematics)

You put an expert tag on this article. What does it need?Septentrionalis 05:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

On noting omissions from the 9/11 Commission Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report

I regret that I have not found the time to invest in becoming an expert (Wikipedian), and probably never will. (And even if I could, I am not sufficiently regimented to ever be in perfect tune with all such requirements.) The "no original research" policy has its place, I agree; but not to the exclusion of logic and self-evident truths, I hope. That policy has been misused by government(-friendly) disinformationists to suppress web sites which contain information which shatters the government's big lie of 9/11! (As in, self-evident truths which have not yet achieved widespread concensus can not be mentioned here.) Thus I feel it is incumbent upon Wikipedia patrollers such as Tom to be on the lookout for the removal and suppression of reasonable External Links, lest all external links from all pages be removed in the quest for some kind of Utopian "purity". The beauty of the World Wide Web is that anyone can publish anything, and it is up to the reader to do their own filtering, regardless of the source (including Wikipedia itself!). If Wikipedia cannot embrace that concept whatsoever even in its pages' External Links sections, then it is not a vaiable, or dare I say valid, part of the World Wide Web, but it is playing into the hands of those who willfully suppress valid important truthful information. 69.171.225.186 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More tools, invite

Find on my userpage a list of Wikipedia links that may be of use to you. Some incl. Admin capabilities. Go ahead and make a copy of these links. I have not found all of the links yet. You have any that I can use? Also ckeck out Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers as well. Would be nice to have a Admin in it. Martial Law 09:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :)

RfA Results and Thanks

Tom harrison/Archive05, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)