User talk:Tom harrison

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.

Archives

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Tom harrison/Archive 2007 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

9/11 cultural impact discussion

Would you mind commenting on the proposals (there are several) here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the discussion; not sure I have anything to add at this point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for being open about this.

Xiutwel-2012 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well surmised

Your comment here pretty much sums it up...as usual, you're able to make a point concisely and accurately.--MONGO 00:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It works both ways; if his edits are allowed by consensus, then he's not banned. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. Although again, my point is about banned users in general, not about this case in particular. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as someone that understood the Mantanmoreland/WordBomb "fight" I did take a side in that affair in favor of the latter. I had no idea that ScottyBerg is/might be Mantanmoreland, so that was a revelation. However, the reasons we have rules around here is so we have order and some semblance of harmony of course, even if we are faced with a relatively unique returnee...what surprises me is why it takes so long to issue 1 desyopping and ban another editor for a year...--MONGO 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There is such a group

With respect to your comments here - that is the Audit Subcommittee. Please see WP:AUSC. We've just recently closed applications for candidacy for the 2012 community representatives; please watch WP:AC/N for further information as it becomes available, as we will be calling for comments from the community on the candidates put forward. Risker (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CT article

Please stop making edits like this. It isn't even a question for discussion. Trying to smear all 9/11 conspiracy theorists by prominently associating them with antisemitism is blatantly tendentious. You are aware of the discretionary sanctions I am sure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand you don't like it, but the antisemitism of 9/11 conspiracy theories is well established in reliable secondary sources, which I and others have provided. Discussion is continuing of how to correct the bias of the article as it is now; I've read your arguments there, and will continue to, but those arguments so far have been unpersuasive, and haven't gained traction. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

AE case

I have filed a request for enforcement at AE concerning you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)