User talk:Tom harrison

Tom Harrison is a great Wikipedia admin

Thank you indeed Tom for drawing my attention to the "the angel Gabriel". Many thanks and kindest regards. Baher 13:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words. I am glad I grew up speaking this crazy language, otherwise I would never be able to learn it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For new users

If you are new here, welcome. The page Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Please do not edit the Le Rosey page. You should not be able to affect the nature of that page for the same reason why you did not study there. The world is not equal.

Please do not edit the Le Rosey page. You should not be able to affect the nature of that page for the same reason why you did not study there. The world is not equal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.77.253.191 (talk • contribs).

The real question about Santa

What does he do when a child asks for a Bigfoot for Christmas? A pony, maybe, but Santa would really be in a bind in this case. Marskell 13:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sonny, we're very sorry, but Bigfoot got loose and ate the Reindeer. Santa got away, but he has decided to retire. We will all have to step up and take Santa's place, and buy presents for each other. Can I count on you, son?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is this sort of thing allowed? Here is the log for that article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally accepted that people can maintain stuff in userspace that they may be working on. Of course the rules about recreation of deleted content apply, as does 'Wikipedia is not a hosting service.' You could take it to MfD if you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. It's nominated for MfD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3r rule

Quote "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."

It doesn't apply to my reverts... they were not done within 24 hrs... and it goes BOTH ways Abureem 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back, I did not notice that it applied even when the material being reverted is different... I'll watch that more closely next time Abureem 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube talk on Undercover Mosque

I need to understand your removal reasons Abureem 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After your gracious reply above I restored it for now and left a link on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

Thanks for your good work at WP:V. As a non-admin, it would be unwise for me to argue too forcefully. Raymond Arritt 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please don't hesitate to make your case. Almost anyone can say almost anything as long as they are polite and sincere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Arrit, Wikipedia's readers would greatly benefit if the voices of citizen-experts were argued more forcefully, and more often.Proabivouac 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday

Looks like I'll be hanging around the computer all day on Tuesday (starting Monday evening) to deal with vandalism and other problems. - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2007 --Aude (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations(or condolences). It's a good article, and I'll watch it closely. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge damaged by tanker truck fire

I thought you might be interested in an article about a fatal tanker truck accident near Bloomington, Illinois. It has closed a bridge and limited another to one lane on Interstate 74. Good thing fuel fuel fires can't damage steel or the bridge would have collapsed. Actually, the bridge is closed and it's steel beams look pretty warped in the gallery of images. Maybe those beams were warped by a controlled demolition or something. Article: Two-way traffic on burned I-74 bridge 4-6 weeks away. --Dual Freq 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Maybe special military-grade extra-hot gasoline, with sulfur added? Or maybe it was a truck load of thermite... Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that reminds me of this news item I saw the other day. The tanker crash caused a freeway overpass to collapse, and the ensuing traffic chaos was not a pretty sight. Nobody has (so far) brought thermite into it, but you never know... --John 00:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; looks like Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center is due for an update. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist

I noticed a recent edit you made regarding a pejorative link [1] to the Cultural Revolution and the starvation of a large group of people. On two points, the first being that I think they were more reffering to the Naxalites and the maoist groups that inspired them, not of the starvation in particular, which seems to be highlited. The second would be that were are assuming a link that was not specified, and the maoist movement / cultural revolution is pretty broad of an area to jump to any conclusions on. Perhaps for the better we should not make an assumption on the intent at all. If you feel you have to, you may want to consider the sentence was on violent acts and you have connected them more to starvation then that of similar violence by maoist groups. While I am sure many of those acts lead to starvation, the jump seem to insinuate the extreme. The butterfly flapping its wings to start a tornado kinda of statement. --SixOfDiamonds 18:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I had never even heard of the Naxalites; thanks. You may be right, but they clearly chose to use 'Maoist' instead of the more-neutral 'Mao Zedong Thought'. I think in the west that pejorative sense is primarily understood, and intended, as a reference to the excesses of the great leap forward. Still, other interpretations are possible, as you note. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup

Greetings. I am currently attempting to cleanup the Institut Le Rosey article. I have noticed your past interest in the article and would like your, and others', opinions. On the article's discussion page I have listed several alumni that are not currently listed in the Le Rosey article. There are many reputable sources on the internet that can confirm their attendance, however, because of previous vandalism on the page, it seems important that there be a consensus when adding names to the alumni list. There are other issues that plague the article, such as: no school history, no information on facilities/buildings, and very little information on the curriculum/education. Please visit the article discussion page and share your opinions. Many thanks. -- AJ24 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareau

You removed a source on the state terrorism article cited to Gareau, and left the summary "per talk." Can you point me to the discussion regarding this. I am not sure if you mixed up who was being discussed, or if I missed where it was being discussed. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's under section 2, "Gareau's thesis." Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its in the "front matter" as Amazon describes it. The Introduction to be precise, Amazon doe snot include the introduction in the version you read online. The quote is:

"WASHINGTON PUBLISHES AN ANNUAL LIST OF GOVERNMENTS THAT IT ALLEGES aid terrorists. Typically, this list contains a majority of governments of Arab states plus Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. This highlights the importance of how terrorism is defined. If state terrorism were included in the definition, Washington would have to include itself in the list"
.

I will revert this tomorrow if there are no objections by then. This is why I stated the "search in" feature on Amazon should not be considered a measuring tool of sources. Just so you do not think I am lying you can search for, "If state terrorism were" You can read the quoted passage here --SixOfDiamonds 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, but my point is that isn't what Chomsky is saying. I don't mind mentioning Gareau ("Gareau maintains that..."), but we have to distinguish his position from Chomsky's. Anyway, this probably belongs on the talk page so others can address it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing covers from album infoboxes

Hi there. When you do changes like this, would you mind not removing the "| Cover =" line entirely, instead just removing the image from the line. Per WP:ALBUM#Code empty fields should not be removed, as keeping them makes it easier to add the information in the future, and keeps the formatting consistent. Thanks in advance.

I will do that from now on. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for any inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --PEJL 00:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS edit

Come on Tom. How is this edit "per talk" as you claimed in your edit summary? On the talk page I asked to put in language about e-mails, User:Radiant (who apparently actually works on this guideline page frequently) said I should do that and so I did. Morton objected as did you (though all you did was ask a question, you did not discuss) and MONGO actually said "I don't know how we are going to be able to regulate what people do in emails, but it should be mentioned that it isn't condoned." I see more folks in favor of adding in language about e-mails then against. Also all of us are in a content dispute on an article right now, so presumably none of us should make decisions about this right now (I said I did not want to revert again and I will not, at least until there is further discussion).

Furthermore, in reverting to Morton's version "per talk" you have now changed "unacceptable" to "frowned-upon by many editors" (an extremely significant change) which had literally never been discussed. Please explain your rationale behind this edit, and why you thought it impossible to wait for another (uninvolved) editor or editors to offer their opinion before replacing material that was added after some discussion with material that was not discussed at all. Even though we disagree often, I respect you as an editor and admin, but this seemed like an ill advised decision to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did not simply "revert to Morton's version" - [2]
By "per talk", I mean "per my comment on the talk page," where I question the wisdom of adding "or emails." If others think your addition is a good idea, no doubt they will add it themselves. You seem to take this as some kind of personal affront - I don't mean that at all. You write well, and have made good contributions to the project. I just think it is a bad idea to expand the guideline in a futile attempt to restrict email (and logically telephone and personal contact too.) The best way to address concern about canvassing is to recall "it's not a vote", and understand why it is not.
I should not change the guideline because I am in a content dispute with you, but your change to the guideline should stand unless removed by a neutral third party? That seems odd. (By the way, I'm not sure you and I are in a content dispute, but the only article I remember we both edit, American terrorism, has its own talk page.)
Wikipedia:Canvassing has its own talk page too. Make a logical case there and people will support your change.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not take it as a personal affront, but simply view it as an ill advised edit as I said. Agreed that you did not simply rv to Morton's version as you made additional edits (I should have been more precise), but it remains true--and this was my main point--that you changed "unacceptable" to "frowned-upon by many editors" without any discussion whatsoever. You made no comment on the talk page about changing the wording in that fashion (i.e. it was not "per talk"), and I still don't see the rationale behind this change, which was significant. "Unacceptable" and "frowned upon by many" are obviously quite different--the former wording has apparently existed since late 2006, and had nothing to do with my recent edit.

The difference, as I see it, between my change and yours is that I was careful to ask beforehand on the talk page if it would make sense to add in something about e-mail, and received a resounding yes (including that I should report such behavior on AN/I) from an editor who actually works on that page and participates in discussions on it. Had there been any reluctance whatsoever expressed (I waited for a week) there is no way I would have added it, but there was not. My edit obviously angered Morton (hence his bizarre edit summary accusing me of having a "vendetta," and then of "hating his innards"). Then several editors who have never edited there before nor even discussed the guideline on the talk page (but who, it's undeniable, very often agree with Morton and presumably watch his conspiracy theory noticeboard where--inexplicably, since it has nothing to do with CT articles--Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#E-mail_canvassing was placed) show up in quick succession, complain about the inclusion of the words "or e-mail", and ultimately those words get removed and the language about the unacceptability of sending mass talk messages is toned down, which has never even been discussed and had nothing to do with my edit. Sorry, but in my opinion, that's a bit bush league. You probably disagree, and I stress I use this term only with respect to the behavior and not the editors themselves, but that's how I see it. It's for that reason that I wanted someone who actually worked on the page to weigh in and still do. If other editors who work on the page agree with your position then so be it, we'll keep the e-mail stuff out. Believe it or not it's actually not a big deal to me, and if no one is interested in commenting on it I'll leave it your way. Finally (and apologies for the lengthy comment) thanks for your compliments about my contributions--I do appreciate that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get angry, I just go for the win. MortonDevonshire Yo · 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right man, Wikipedia is all about "winning." But I was actually writing quite specifically to Tom.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested

I don't know if anyone ever told you about this discussion. Please read it and indicate your thoughts. :-) Grand master ka 04:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Tom,

I have asked a question here [3], I would be thankful to hear your advices as to how one should proceed in such a situation. Thanks --Aminz 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed at a loss

Im not sure where to turn. User Wafulz as fully protected a page without any talk on the talk page. User Wafulz also at the same time removed a Dispute tag which had been up that user Nescio had removed again with no talk. Im sure user Nescio used some board to get user Wafulz to do it. User Nescio has been in many different Mediations all on Bush pages. He uses differnt boards to bully people into letting him do what he wants. He seems to want to put his POV on these pages. I tried to have good faith but after looking at his record its clear what he is doing. I dont understand why Admin are letteing him do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq GATXER 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have a limited set of tools. We can lock pages and block editors, and we only do that to prevent disruption. Admins do not adjudicate content disputes . It's up to the editors on the page to work out a consensus among themselves. There is dispute resolution, but it takes a lot of time rarely does any good. The best choice is probably to go do something else for a while. After a few months consensus may change. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user has understood that editing any article is allowed but not when it results in edit warring. The fact somebody stops the low-grade edit war and forces this editor to discuss his edits can only be applauded. Also the suggestion this user could use some time to cool down sounds like a wise comment in light of his "passionate" approach on this article. Respectfully. As an aside, the page was protected by another user than the one reverting the disruptive edit by this editor,[4] stating it is G that is contributing against consensus. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was protected so that a POV tag couldnt be put up....A tag put up by others that needs to be there. Editor N has put his POV on many Bush pages and ended up in meditation but thinks Im Passionate? Its hard to respect a Admin who protects a page fully yet gives No reasons why on the talk page. I have No doubt Editor N had it protected..... to think otherwise looking at his record would be crazy. I admit I have loss allot of respect for Wiki seeing how Editor N uses the sysytem to bully his POV on to pages with the help of Adim who dont seem to care....and no I dont mean Tom. GATXER 02:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, and double sigh. Have asked the etiquette-mediator to step in again. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Charger page

Please drop by the discussion page and share your thoughts as well as help resolve a edit conflict currently going on thanks RMANCIL 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know anything about the subject. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I thought that somebody was going to punish me when I saw the popup saying I've got new messages. Just a vandal vandalized my talk page and you removed it. Thank you very much sir.--Willy, your mate 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia

While I appreciate your opinion about Petri's block, you should reflect that the notion of "two camps" has no basis in reality. In respect to mainspace, there is Petri Krohn and everyone else. Sure, I offered my opinion in Estonia-related discussions on two or three occasions, mainly to prevent him from feeling isolated. The only way that one *won't* be alone is by being a nationalist oneself. That's the irony. Petri really feels that there is nothing you can do to counter a large and well-organized group of one-purpose accounts whose owners know each other in real life and have some very definite ideas what they want from Wikipedia. You may fight one troll, two, or three, but not a dozen of them. Unfortunately, there's some truth in that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is truth in that, and there is truth in some of your other observations, but at this point I do not see what else is to be done. Blocking everyone in sight is a blunt tool, and makes injustice inevitable, but at least it stops the disruption. The next step, or perhaps a better step, would be a long lock-down of all articles about the Baltic, the Balkans, the Byzantine Empire, Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Cyprus, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "Petri against the world" as Ghirla suggests, perhaps it is Petri who is being the disruption. Wikipedia is about common sense, right? Surely a group of editors who happen to live in Estonia would have a better idea of Estonian history, don't you think? Rather than lock down an entire range of articles about the Baltics, would it not make better sense to just to ban Petri from editing articles related to the Baltics? Martintg 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“ whose owners know each other in real life and have some very definite ideas what they want from Wikipedia.” typical Ghirlandajo - first throw out all kinds of senseless accusations (read: slander), and then it's the one accuse who has to prove that he or she is not gulity. Ha-ha.E.J. 09:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection Query

Hi Tom. The page protection on Transylvanian hypothesis you put into place remains revert by User:DreamGuy, who completely removed all the cited content in the article that I created. The article was requested for more than a year and I spent considerable amount of time researching only for it to be removed by User:DreamGuy on a whim. Are we completely ignoring the WP:Deletion process??? If the article is a WP:FORK as he claims, then I suggest merge it. Also I have been nothing but NPOV with DreamGuy and I never accused User:DreamGuy of bad faith. I merely wanted to point out that he violated the 3RR (he is also a repeat offender of the rule) in two separate articles which I made edits to. I was quite sure that the situation was clearly apparent. On the other hand, you might want to look at my entries on their talk page (which they apparently blanked) and their entries on mine. See the difference? He did also tried to compromise the evidence in the AN3RR entry I created removing my comments. Could anything else be done? Thanks for your help. Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I don't have any interest in the subject matter. Consider asking for a third opinion. If the edit-warring resumes I will block people as needed to prevent disruption. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.225.14.51

Did you revert (or at least look at) all of thie IP's edits? If not, I'd be willing to take the time later today. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all. He was just adding a link to investigate911.se, which another ip was doing a few days ago. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain more fully

You added a {{cn}} tag to Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list -- a tag placement I didn't really understand.

Would you consider returning to Talk:Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list to discuss this more fully?

Thanks! Geo Swan 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me that you left me a heads-up at the time you placed the tag.

I left a reply on Talk:Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list.

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please ask MONGO to not vandalize my page anymore[5]. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to cool down disagreements by ignoring them than inflaming them with words like 'vandalize'. If you want him to avoid you, start by avoiding him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is clearly vandalism. As an admin are you not suppose to warn people for actions such as that? --SevenOfDiamonds 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop with the 'You're a troll/You're a vandal' stuff. Use dispute resolution if you feel it necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call MONGO a troll, nor a vandal. I stated the act he commited was vandalism. He has actually called me both, as well as a SPA and a sockpuppet. I am kind of surprised as an admin you would not issue a warning to someone for something that was clearly vandalism. I hope this is not because we often stand on opposite sides on the state terrorism page. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, please. You're just escalating the situation. An administrator is never obliged to issue a warning. I can warn VandalX on Monday, block VandalY on Tuesday, and ignore VandalZ on Wednesday. Admins are trusted to use their discretion, and judge whether or not a particular action is likely to be helpful or not. Probably one reason Tom is an admin is that the community felt that he was likely to have good judgment. Following MONGO around, and showing up at noticeboards where he posts or where someone else posts about him is not showing good judgment. Ditto for reporting him at WP:AIV, which is meant for stopping continuing vandalism. Please walk away. MONGO almost certainly watchlists Tom's page, so be assured that he's aware of your concerns. Admins are not meant to be the manners police, issuing a warning because someone has been naughty. ElinorD (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow hostile. Not sure where I said they were the "manner police" Just surprised an admin used their discretion and found that edit to not merit a warning. Doesn't matter apparently another did. I am sure the picture is understood now and the action will not be repeated. Which is the goal of course. I by the way think Tom is a great admin, and have been very thankful of his edits to a particular article, who said anything less? Anyway good day. Hopefully next time we chat you will not be over defensive, nor so agressive. Its just the internet. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban log

I hope you'll forgive this violation of my ban with this question: I note that users have a Block log,[6] but I can't find a Ban log? Do I have one? user:iantresman --84.9.191.165 18:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]