User talk:Harmonia1

This is Harmonia1's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 31 days

DoD Directive

DoD Directive 3000.3 (9 July 1996) Should be easy to find a link to this unnclassified document. It has problems but the reason for the name is that the intent to be nonlethal is paramount; anything with mass can kill you; lethal weapons are required to be only 30% lethal.

Orangemike, about your WoW query as to sound idea but what's published

Thank you for concurring that the idea is sound; I can't get a handle on how to document the obvious. World of Warcraft is huge, daunting to someone with no gaming background. There is lots of SB activity. I wouldn't know where to start looking for the sort of reference you are suggesting and the authors never kept reviews and are very busy with their other activities. Perhaps you would know how to narrow down a search in WoW.. I put in that link to SB on WoW and took it out because I don't know how to sort through it or how to document the rather obvious proliferation from the Sacred Band introduction in fiction with "A Man and His God" (subsequently collected twice by others, in Argos Magazine and in some fantasy story collection, maybe called 30 Great Fantasy Stories but the authors aren't sure); biobliographic material on these folks is everywhere and often contradictory. As I say, Sacred Band, Stepsons, and certain Stepsons, Tempus, Niko, Critias, Straton, and Randal, appear in Goggle searches in what must be gamers sites, since I don't understand what they're doing there. So felt like I must delete it rather than have you find it inadequately persuasive. Help!

Marcus AA: NL terminology

I would start with "Non-lethal," then look at "Nonlethal" CFR reports use NL, no hyphen; check nonlethality (which is policy and strategy, concept, not weapons once developed). Less than lethal and less lethal are funded with a different end-user in mind and tend to be more police-focused; commonality comes from military police uses; guys at Leavenworth would be happy to help. I can get some expert help next week for you. Meanwhile, I think there are several good, time-tested external links on Chris Morris bio site down at the bottom: nonlethality: a global strategy, etc.

If you have a wish-list for info, provide it and I will pass it along to folks. if you want me to help separate what you have already, happy to help. Don't want to intrude; you do a great job with whatever you tackle. Rest assured that DoD activities and r&d will remain coordinated under the rubric Non-Lethal Weapons for some time; many have tried to get that office title changed to "Nonlethal Capabilities" but it is too hard to do. Meanwhile, will check if there is an unclass version of Nonlethal Taxonomy at JNLWD; wrote the first one, but status changes. You might check the "Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate" web-site and any yearly reports or publications.

Obviously, from the problems I am having with Orangemike, my sense of what constitutes a citation or an acceptable reference may not be Wikipedia's, so I will be careful. Will find a couple links to historical documents for you and put them here.

[1] Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force Report on Nonlethal Weapons
[2] Nonlethality: A Global Strategy
[3] Weapons of Mass Protection

Fair use rationale for File:10 04 20 Tempus Cover Scan.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:10 04 20 Tempus Cover Scan.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:10 04 20 Tempus Cover-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:10 04 20 Tempus Cover-1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

Hopefully I have addressed the fair use issue on the image page as instructed. Believing that I have done, I have removed the tag there. The image is provided for fair use by Wikipedia by the copyright holder and with the permission of the copyright holder (Janet Morris, copyright 1987). The author owns all rights (Janet Morris, copyright 1987) to the work, having reverted the work from the publisher as of Dec, 2009. If more rationale is needed or another form must be filled out for a different type of use, let me know and I will do it. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also noticed that I have uploaded the same file twice with two different file names; will delete one if I can figure out how. The files are identical, but for the fair use rationale. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marcus

Speedy deletion of the duplicate is fine with me; I'm not sure which image is linked to the page but if one goes away, I guess I can reload the other. Fumbling my way through this. Thanks for your help. If I knew how, I'd nomiate you for another decoration for your patience and efficiency. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you fill out the "Non-free media use rationale" template I've placed on the image page using Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for guidance. On the subject of less lethals I think there will be intense rejection by the Wikipedia community to creating a somewhat redundant article on non lethals. Instead, the best route to go would be to have the article renamed to non lethal (or non-lethal) by far the preferred term at least in the U.S. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; and changing to Non-lethal or nonlethal

Will work on the image page. Your idea of changing the name of the current page to non-lethal (the term JNLWD still uses, with hyphen) is a good one, though a redirect for "nonlethal" may still be helpful. "Less lethals" or LTLs won't include the upper end military items, yet non-lethal includes everything. Please check later if you have time to see if I've filled out the Non-free media use rational form as needed. Thanks once again.Harmonia1 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus, have filled out non-free use rationale on the image page. Hoefull, it is done correctly. Let me know if I need to do more. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

much needed witticism

MAA, you bet. You probably could kill with that brain of yours; too bad the remote viewing program isn't up and running. Bet I know folks who could teach you.... (also meant to be humorous). Seriously, anything to do with NLWs causes folks to lose their NPOV. Hopefully, you will win this fight to rename. Tis a far, far better thing....Harmonia1 (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love where my taxes are going.

Harmonia, I just thought you should see this article I created:Transformer (flying car). Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus, Hi! Thanks. I never would have seen this but for you. I needed a giggle. I'm trying everything I can think of to meet OrangeMike's conditions on the SBT page and get those tags removed, and it's tough. You did a fine job with this article. DARPA, a/k/a The Black Tower, should be thankful you did it. Harmonia1 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critias6, do you read

Harmonia1 says hiHarmonia1 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to be aboard Harmonia

Thanks for welcoming me.Critias6 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elkoholic, welcome

hi thereHarmonia1 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, NL article categories may need to change or be augmented

Marcus, now that this LL article has moved to Non-lethal, shouldn't the categories reflect the military applications, such as military police, crowd control, peace keeping, peace enforcement, etc. as well as or instead of so many the law enforcement categories? Harmonia1 Harmonia1 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added Category:Military equipment. Feel free to add categories that haven't been thought of. I have also nominated Category:Less-lethal weapons to be deleted and replaced with Category:Non-lethal weapons

Category:Antipersonnel weapon Category:Antimateriel weapon Category:Kinetic projectile devices Category:Chemical incapacitants Category:Electromagnetic antimateriel weapon Category:Vessel stopping devices Category:Vehicle stopping devices Category:Calmative agents Category:Non-lethal delivery mechanisms Category:Area denial weapons . You can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Will comply. 98.19.157.80 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it, probably not have anything much useful until tomorrow. Sleep deprived. But really pleased about what you've accomplished. Some of my knowledgeable friends, Critias6 and Elkoholic, have been alerted as well. This fight is worth winning Harmonia1 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elkoholic, have at it

ID some categories for this article; provide some lists of NLWs appropriate for this fora, if you please. Need to decide if ASITS fits within em; or SBD fits anywhere; FRAGIT probably doesn't. Should be able to link GCV to this but hopefully someone less involved will do that. Call if you need help or ask MAA, much smarter on WP protocols than I.Harmonia1 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critias6, fire when ready

Crit, you may proceed with whatever Nonlethal taxonomy is appropriate within constraints. Share the article list I sent with Elko. Can we use the old Directorate list from 99/2000? I have some docs in MA. Will be there next week. Others on Dotto's old files. We should get some JNLWD yearlies. MAA will surely edit for level and depth appropriate. I think I know how to add categories to the page bottom, but WP thinks differently than we do: WP wants categories of activity or use. Look at categories and type classification that seem appropriate; NLS by class and effect: antipersonnel and antimateriel; electromagnetic, kinetic, chem; list of tech areas from old Nonlethality Global Strategy docs. And let's find the current makeup of NL kits we're using. Run by me first if you have concerns. Citations are a requirement: no original research, all open source Harmonia1 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonia1, got it

Harmonia, I will review with Elkoholic and see what documents we have and what we need to get. Elkholic just received a document from the JNLWD that lists their updated NLW cpabilities.

Critias, copy that. Good work.Harmonia1 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, link NL page to GCV page?

Marcus, would it be appropriate to link the N-L page to the GCV page: it's a projected delivery system for NLs, after all. Also, does it make sense to add categories or subcategories as we discussed above, starting with antipersonnel/antimateriel, then electromagnetic/chemical/kinetic, etc? Harmonia1 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense. To add them (if you haven't found out how) place them in alphabetical order at the bottom of the page. I'll see where I can work in the GCV as well as other delivery systems.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. Harmonia1 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMA, please clarify: at the bottom of which page? The page that currently is reachable by typing Non-Lethal Weapon doesn't have the categories you posted here, but instead still has the LL categories. I know how to do it, once a category list is started, but not where to do it. Harmonia1 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example. A good (but not totally necessary) tool to have enabled is hotcat. To install see the gadgets part of your my preferences page.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, you want create categories? Wikipedia won't let you create a blank category so you must add the category:Less-lethal weapons as I've done at Category:Non-lethal police equipment.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will put entries wherever you wish. Am accustomed to breaking NLS down in subcats: first level is asking if they are antipersonnel or antimateriel or both; second level is are they chemical, electromagnetic, or kinetic (acoustics falls into kinetic because it moves molecules through the air, although once it was separate); then there are NL delivery systems to consider. You have "Weapons" but not broken down into antimateriel or antipersonnel, let alone differentiated further. I don't want to upset anyone or change protocols. I can put these in the less-lethal page or wait to see what you do. If we were differentiating military equipment more finely, it might be easier. Would all of these entries go into "Weapons" under "Military Equipment" as subcats? Wikipedia thinks a very specific way about things, not always the way I think. Excuse my caution, but feel it is warranted. Harmonia1 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, some categories exist

Marcus, research categories for NL while trying to deal with the Sacred Band issues.

On NL, WP has the category (or subcategories) "antiperonnel weapons" and the category "kinetic projectile weapon." These would be good additions to the category list, I think. I had to create a category list for Sacred Band of Stepsons today. Did it as best I could and removed the tag with that instruction as it said to do. If you think I did that right, I might attempt the NL category list. Harmonia1 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the categories for Sacred Band and also started a Janet Morris category. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike

Locus has said it will help locate reviews and an article on Janet Morris that may mention the Sacred Band series. We now have a good Library Journal review for Beyond Sanctuary, a Publisher's Weekly review for Beyond Sanctuary (know it's there and can cite it but haven't got it yet; a Kirkus Review for Beyond the Veil which is pretty good for Kirkus, whihc hates everything and especially sf and fantasy, and only notice sf or fantasy if they are popular enough. For fantasy, having reviews from three of the major trades seems quite good to me, since so much is never reviewed at all.

Have broken out some quotes and blockquoted them. If they're too long, can shorten.

Locus could possibly give Locus best-seller list appearances, but don't know if that is appropriate. Do think it is worthy of note that series has had tremendous longevity, starting in 1981.

Started a category list; can expand.

Am about to tackle the question of whether I should add other games that use Sacred Bands or should delete the characters I moved into the TW list (since there a list of characters was allowed, and do some shortened form of it here.

Hope you are pleased with this progress. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, thanks again

You made Janet Morris a category? Cool. And thanks for cleaning up the SBS categories. Been pouring over this SBS site to improve it, wikify it and meet the notability guideline. All the games were contracted by Thieves' World, though these characters are important in them, so I can't find more than circumstantial evidence that the proliferation of the Sacred Band in rpgs is in some large part do to the Sacred Banders in Sanctuary and Beyond.

As for your help, it's invaluable: Everything you show me helps. And I am looking through the weapons categories. Acoustics are always the trickiest, since they are really kinetic and the holy grail in NLS is an acoustic impact device using parametric acoustics to generate the "difference tone" between two crossing waves. Can't find anything in the cats on acoustic weapons, although in life we used an acoustic paddle pretty effectively to repel boarders off Somalia. Will try to find citation for that. (Sigh!) If I could construct a parametric device, I could quit working and make the world a safer place at the same time.Harmonia1 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, the dogies are restless

So, what happens now that some of the Wikipedians just woke up to the change and want to split into 2 categories? Lucky I read all of Marcus Aurelius, your namesake, on dealing with the body politic -- more than once. Interesting. Accomplishing a split wouldn't be hard, but some of them didn't want that. Is WP a simple democracy? One hopes not, if one has read one's Plato.Harmonia1 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, look at added cats, please, bottom here

Have added some suggestions for cats. See what you think.Harmonia1 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, these additions could be done without the word 'weapon,' (so electromagnetic weapon would become simply 'electromagnetic' or 'electromagnetic devices'). If you think the W word is going to upset folks, it's a possiblity since these are type classes under non-lethal weapons; it may be redundant to say weapon a second time; also, some things not covered here yet. But a start.Harmonia1 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Also, do these cats need to be alphabetical? Or in descending order of importance or universality (better)? I was working on the cats on the NL page and someone else overrode me with their work, which is fine. I think I'll stay over here where I'm safer and make suggestions. NPOV is critical to this effort; no political bias is appropriate where hardware is concerned; weapons don't kill people; people kill people.Harmonia1 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks so much for HotCat. I put the image on my user page, You'll see the results below. I was trying to work on the NL page but now it is too controversial....Harmonia1 (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tailertoo

Welcome to Wikipedia! Harmonia1 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, cats

An administrator came by and edited out the test cats here, which is fine. We can always look at them. Added several well-informed and arguably neutral references at NLW. Please consider that "chemical" may be less obfuscatory than other terms used to discuss these antimateriel and antipersonnel agents, when legal, such as tear gas for antipersonnel or similar agents for antimateriel (calmative agents, antimateriel foams,etc.). Also never did connect with you on whether the word 'weapon' was helpful or problematical in the subcateogrization scheme of things. I moved a couple cats to the NL page; some are still in red. Am waiting to see what happens next. Will there be a vote? When is it useful to work on the NL page again? It's restructure depends on whether it must handle both military and police or whether each will be treated separately, but it seems very disorganized and happenstantial as it stands: whatever widget someone knew about got discussed. Will there be a throw-down? Or should we go ahead now as if the NL page was separate? Or as if it were conjoined?Harmonia1 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAA, I tried uploading a third book cover

Marcus, I tried uploading a third book cover with a Frank Frazetta cover from the German edition of the book Tempus, 1989, and had to do it twice. I attempted to delete the first attempt, which was crooked, but not sure if it worked. Hope I did this correctly this time. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. This book cover should be non-free use rationale. I tried filling out the form. Please keep in mind my German is poor. Harmonia1 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tempus German Frazetta cover 1989.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Tempus German Frazetta cover 1989.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marcus. Please go ahead and delete the redundant file. Harmonia1 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arggh! Automated edits! Anyway, i have to wait for an administrator to review the speedy deletion and delete it. Also the second file needs to be uploaded smaller which I can do but I can't remember exactly what size is allowed. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If YOU can't remember what size file is ok for the book cover, then I feel better. Please, if you can make it smaller, please do that. I thought we made it small enough. I added the info on the "source." I assume that meant to say we got it from the book front cover and what edition. Had the info, but in the wrong place. Please check me to see if I did it right.Harmonia1 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading the smaller version. You are so kind. I will try to do better next time.Harmonia1 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk pages

Do not delete material from article talk pages. If the page is getting too long, then it can be archived; but you don't delete material vital to understanding the editing history of an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike, copy that. Sorry for protocol lapse. Said the same thing on your talk page. It looks to me as if you have restored everything. I need to learn how to archive; will do so as soon as I have time. Thanks again for your patience and understanding. This page is getting big, as is the discussion page. Need to make it more manageable. Harmonia1 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as always, your help on this page is much appreciated.Harmonia1 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus

You are so kind. Mizzabot much appreciated. Perhaps this same notice (not a page for general discussion, etc) ought to go on the Discussion page for NL. It seems to be being used as a forum for political discussions of which and what are how lethal. Perhaps I am wrong, but I see the NL page as a discussion of the general weapons available and their capabilities where appropriate, not a political site to hash over all this old ground. Since the DoD disclaimer is clearly stated, do not understand why we're going round and round about the degree to which some weapons with nonlethal intent may have injured or killed enemies or rioters. None of us who know the topic well (and there are several) are quoting stats from conflicts such as Serbia where military users in after action reports said how many lives were saved because NLs were available and used. I put my hand under ADS, along with other volunteers, and lived to tell about it: not the worst pain I've ever felt. NPOV is going to impossible on that page if political debate hijacks the intent.Harmonia1 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes in Hell

Hi, thanks for tidying up Heroes in Hell. I see you added that a story from the series was a Nebula Award winner. Do you know which one it was? I think we should add its title to the article and from which book it came. --Bruce1ee^talk 06:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1, and you are therefore blocked for a period of 1 week. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.
If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do not delete

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harmonia1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I have not engaged in sock-puppetry. I don't believe I have done anything wrong. I am a WP editor with knowledge in the field of non-lethal weapons. Since the non-lethal (or less-lethal) page is so poor and needs so much work, I did let other knowledgeable people know that they could become Wikipedia editors and contribute to this page and other military pages and have encouraged many to become Wikipedia editors since I became one. When this article vote came along, I alerted several people whom I knew had become Wikipedia editors or were thinking of becoming editors. Surely it cannot be wrong to encourage people to join the Wikipedia editor community by alerting them to issues in which they have strong interests. I do know some of the people on Wikipedia personally; I have recruited new Wikipedia editors like myself. I don't see why this should be problem. What is the issue? If the issue is whether or not I know Tailertoo: I do know that person. I know several other editors as well, including Ellie Herring (actually that person's real name). If it is wrong to encourage editors to speak their minds, for or against an issue on Wikipedia, then I am guilty of that, both on the sites and off. If it is wrong to encourage people to become Wikipedia editors in order to work on a specific issue, then so instruct me and I promise I won't do it again. I'm sure Tailertoo will respond as well. He and I also know some others who are contributing or considering contributing to the nonlethal page: if you wish, we will discourage them from contributing or from joining Wikipedia as editors. I need someone to clarify why it is wrong to encourage a person to join Wikipedia and edit or talk or vote to make their opinions known. If I am to treat treat my Wikipedia work as if it is classified, not discuss it or encourage others to make their opinions known, then tell me so and I will leave the non-lethal page altogether. I can ask the others I encouraged to join in the non-lethal effort to quit as well. Please be clear that is your decision. But please unblock me.

Decline reason:

Redundant to the most recent unblock request below. You may make only one request at a time, and only the latest request will be evaluated. Sandstein 20:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harmonia1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unnlock me. I'm not sure if I'm acting to be unblocked correctly. None of the people you've blocked are my sockpuppets. I made a number of people aware of the non-lethal page and some chose to participate. I know some of them. I never asked anyone to support my point of view; I did make people aware that there was an ongoing discussion. If there is another level of appeal, since I am new to Wikipedia, tell me what it is. The Timeshifter person is using this attack on nearly all who disagree with him to knock out opposition to his position. Unless I get some guidance, I will not ask again.

Decline reason:

Redundant to the most recent unblock request below. You may make only one request at a time, and only the latest request will be evaluated. Sandstein 20:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

May 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts extensively, as confirmed by checkuser. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harmonia1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me. Although I maintain that the people you named as my sockpuppets are real people with own opinions, and that I did not try to influence those opinions, I understand that inviting people to join a topic and comment on a talkpage may be perceived by you as an inappropriate attempt to influence an outcome. Please unblock me. I will not contribute to the nonlethal/less lethal page or engage in any discussion on its talk page. I have other projects on Wikipedia that I have enjoyed working on and would like to continue. I will not encourage any other people to become Wikipedia editors because there is a specific topic that would interest them. I will not do anything that might build consensus on a topic. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1/Archive has determined that you were abusing multiple accounts. Your denial of this is not convincing. Your other arguments are irrelevant to this request. Sandstein 20:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harmonia1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to Sandstein's denial of my unblock due to me not proving that I was not abusing multiple accounts. Please unblock me. If you wish, I can provide you by email contact information, including phone numbers, of the people that I now see you have blocked. They are real people with their own points of view. I have reviewed the unblock criteria. I have not created multiple accounts and used them, although I did show Tailertoo on my computer how to set up a Tailertoo account on his computer and in the process inadvertently created the Tailertoo account on my machine. I am new to Wikipedia. I had forgotten doing that: he continued with his account on his computer. I admit to helping him create his account and doing so on my computer, I understand my error; I will never, ever do it again. I feel I could make substantial contributions to the non-lethal/less lethal page, so perhaps I could edit the page but stay away from the talk page; I have much printed but unclassified material that could be helpful. I know I can make useful contributions on other pages. I enjoy Wikipedia and want to regain your trust. I know some, if not all, the people you blocked. They live all over the country. Most of them are former military officers who served together in Somalia when non-lethals were first used. I am guilty of recruiting qualified people to help improve the non-lethal/less lethal page. You have blocked them and that is your choice. These people are in large senior people with security clearances; all of them have demanding jobs and must demonstrate impeccable ethics. I am so sorry for getting them involved in this, where their integrity is being impugned, but it is my inexperience, not any ill intent, that caused this problem. None of us would risk doing anything illegal or inappropriate. If you will unblock me, I will either refrain from contributing to any military technology pages, or not engage in any talk about my edits on those pages, whichever you prefer. I felt I was making a real contribution by bringing experts to the discussion, in general until recently being held among people whose knowledge-base in this area is very limited and who are subject to manipulation by vested interests with political agendas. It is still my position that hardware pages should be about hardware, not politics, but I will be silent. I am sorry. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

Perhaps you don't understand how CheckUser works. Basically, checkuser allows authorized users to match a username with the IP address it is editing from and the result apparently shows that you and the other four users were editing from the same location, so your claim that some of them are in different locations simply can't be true. —DoRD (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note, I have fowarded two emails from ellie herring to the check user. Marcus Aurelius (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Am feeling pretty abused. Not just me, but these others -- all real people -- could have helped that page. Harmonia1 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Harmonia1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

DorD, I don't understand how the intricacies of Wikipedia work, but I am not perpetrating a fraud. Your information must be in error. Critias6 lives in New Hamshire; Elkoholic lives in Texas; Ellie Herring lives (I think) in Lexington KY; Tailertoo lives in Versailles KY. Elkoholic jut called from Texas. We discussed why your equipment is giving a faulty reading. The only thing we can think of was that I saw Critias6 and Elkoholic and Ellie Herring at a meeting and some had mobile cards in their laptops (except Ellie) so that might explain why your system read as it did: everyone was using the server in Ellie's building on the day Harmonia1 helped them set up their accounts. Soon after, everyone dispersed. This does not, however, explain the reading you got from Tailertoo, whose account was set up much earlier and from a different location. Is there a glitch in your system? I am on a big dsl net; so is Tailertoo. I can call Ellie Herring and ask what kind of server she's on, if it helps. Tailertoo says your system is reading faulty. Elkoholic will respond directly from Texas. Once again I assert these are all real people with their own ideas and different computers, no matter what you think your system is telling you.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=DorD, I don't understand how the intricacies of Wikipedia work, but I am not perpetrating a fraud.  Your information must be in error.  Critias6 lives in New Hamshire; Elkoholic lives in Texas; Ellie Herring lives (I think) in Lexington KY; Tailertoo lives in Versailles KY.  Elkoholic jut called from Texas.  We discussed why your equipment is giving a faulty reading.  The only thing we can think of was that I saw Critias6 and Elkoholic and Ellie Herring at a meeting and some had mobile cards in their laptops (except Ellie) so that might explain why your system read as it did: everyone was using the server in Ellie's building on the day Harmonia1 helped them set up their accounts.  Soon after, everyone dispersed.  This does not, however, explain the reading you got from Tailertoo, whose account was set up much earlier and from a different location.  Is there a glitch in your system?  I am on a big dsl net; so is Tailertoo.  I can call Ellie Herring and ask what kind of server she's on, if it helps. Tailertoo says your system is reading faulty.  Elkoholic will respond directly from Texas. Once again I assert these are all real people with their own ideas and different computers, no matter what you think your system is telling you. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=DorD, I don't understand how the intricacies of Wikipedia work, but I am not perpetrating a fraud.  Your information must be in error.  Critias6 lives in New Hamshire; Elkoholic lives in Texas; Ellie Herring lives (I think) in Lexington KY; Tailertoo lives in Versailles KY.  Elkoholic jut called from Texas.  We discussed why your equipment is giving a faulty reading.  The only thing we can think of was that I saw Critias6 and Elkoholic and Ellie Herring at a meeting and some had mobile cards in their laptops (except Ellie) so that might explain why your system read as it did: everyone was using the server in Ellie's building on the day Harmonia1 helped them set up their accounts.  Soon after, everyone dispersed.  This does not, however, explain the reading you got from Tailertoo, whose account was set up much earlier and from a different location.  Is there a glitch in your system?  I am on a big dsl net; so is Tailertoo.  I can call Ellie Herring and ask what kind of server she's on, if it helps. Tailertoo says your system is reading faulty.  Elkoholic will respond directly from Texas. Once again I assert these are all real people with their own ideas and different computers, no matter what you think your system is telling you. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=DorD, I don't understand how the intricacies of Wikipedia work, but I am not perpetrating a fraud.  Your information must be in error.  Critias6 lives in New Hamshire; Elkoholic lives in Texas; Ellie Herring lives (I think) in Lexington KY; Tailertoo lives in Versailles KY.  Elkoholic jut called from Texas.  We discussed why your equipment is giving a faulty reading.  The only thing we can think of was that I saw Critias6 and Elkoholic and Ellie Herring at a meeting and some had mobile cards in their laptops (except Ellie) so that might explain why your system read as it did: everyone was using the server in Ellie's building on the day Harmonia1 helped them set up their accounts.  Soon after, everyone dispersed.  This does not, however, explain the reading you got from Tailertoo, whose account was set up much earlier and from a different location.  Is there a glitch in your system?  I am on a big dsl net; so is Tailertoo.  I can call Ellie Herring and ask what kind of server she's on, if it helps. Tailertoo says your system is reading faulty.  Elkoholic will respond directly from Texas. Once again I assert these are all real people with their own ideas and different computers, no matter what you think your system is telling you. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}