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

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]

OK, I worked it out: it's Gilgamesh in the Outback by Robert Silverberg, from Rebels in Hell. I've updated the article. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 06:49, 24 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]

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'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:

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 reason:

Your claim that "all these people" live in different areas is, true or not, moot to this discussion as even with Checkuser we have no way of completely verifying this. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:25, 22 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.

I should note that when we discussed this on #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect, the finding was confirmed by two very experienced checkusers running the check independently: J.delanoy (talk · contribs) and Versageek (talk · contribs). Tim Song (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very mysterious. These folks travel a lot and are in different regions much of the time. As I said, I did set up the account on my machine for Tailertoo while he watched; he's a mac and I'm a pc. He then went off and did whatever. I didn't know how to delete it from my system and didn't think anything of it. I asked Ellie Herring, who's a geek, how all the accounts could read the same IP address, and she says it should be computer specific, not network specific, in any case. Even though a number of folks were together at that meeting, Tailertoo's account was set up earlier in May by me in a different location. Critias6 and Elkoholic, I know for sure, didn't set up their accounts at the same place or time.I've talked to both. Is there a rule about only one Wikipedean per building? Perhaps their should be, if this is the proof needed to convict so many well-meaning people. Once again, I ask you all to relook this blocking of so many qualified and capable folks.Harmonia1 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty hard to believe. You and Tailertoo (as well as the others) have been editing in tandem, on the same articles, from multiple different IPs since you created that account on March 31. It's not like it's happened once when you were setting up the account; it's pretty clear this is either one person controlling all the accounts, or, more likely (given that it appears to be on different computers), multiple people working in concert in the same room on the same topics. This is unacceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it pretty hard to believe that so many of you are so uncivil about this. Now at least you are admitting that there are 'multiple different IPs.' That is because there are multiple people, each with their own computers and opinions. One of your people commented on my site that all of us were being "bagged and tagged" as sockpuppets. And wrongly, at that. What happened to 'be polite, assume good faith?' What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I know for a fact that these various addresses aren't resident in my computer -- except the one set up of Tailertoo's User-page because I was in a hurry so I showed him how to set it up on my machine, told him what to do next, and never touched it again. If you are the high-tech sleuths you claim to be, you ought to be able tell which computer the work is coming from, and you'd know that my commuter didn't originate Tailertoo's work. And the work involved so far is minimal: no one of the people I know has done much editing that I've seen on the site. As for us all working in the same room: we usually don't; hardly ever do. Some of these very qualified people (Critias6 and Elkoholic), I usually see every three weeks or once a month for a couple days, and often pretty briefly (an hour or two) on such days. Ellie Herring I hardly saw at all for over a year; she's a geek so I have been sitting down with her pretty frequently on a project having nothing to do with with Wikipedia -- unusal for me. I like to work alone. I see Tailertoo all the time. Tailertoo has many computers and several offices. I have two computers in my office, usually, but no other people: one small computer, one with a big screen. I am trying to be nice, but whatever system you are using has falsely identified these people as being nonexistent and living inside my computer: sockpuppets; now you're changing the charges. If "sharing" requires seeing each other constantly, or close coordination, then we're not sharing -- and can't. We all have day jobs. I could agree to be categorized as 'sharing' if it doesn't mean that I have to change the way I work or my hardware.

We can't admit to 'multiple people working in concert in the same room on the same topics' because its untrue and infeasible for us: geography makes it a non-starter. If you want us to "admit" to sharing, then do we meet those 'share' criteria? I "admit" that I don't know much at Wikipedia yet; its labyrinthine. If I have erred, it was with the best intention. As for sharing: five people, based in three different states of the union; those of us in KY work may in different offices in the same building or different buildings miles apart sometimes; physically close together, other times. Ellie Herring is miles away from me. I have no idea how your system managed to misidentify the IPs, but many of the places we work don't always use the same servers or even the same internet providers.

What would you like us to do? Our real jobs won't allow most of us to move into the same building or onto the same server(s) to please you. How about a group of me and Tailertoo? That would be nice. I can sign up to any sort of "group" you wish, if it makes you feel like you've unmasked a plot or punished me, but we are not that kind of group: we're not all in one place, sharing the same equipment, or even the same tasks, most of the time. I will be happy to apologize for stirring things up and for my ignorance on WP procedures. I will be happy to leave the N-L/LL site forever. I will do anything reasonable short of confessing to intentional misbehavior when there was none, or saying that something is true that in reality is false.Harmonia1 (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tempus German Frazetta cover 1989 2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tempus German Frazetta cover 1989 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MorrisSacredBand.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MorrisSacredBand.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]