User talk:Tom harrison/Archive 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Deleting Abigail Bryant

Mr. Harrison, I was wondering why you deleted Abigail Bryant? on the log it says that the page was deleted as an A7, as spam, but it was not. I was searching for a viable link to availible resources because the News-Press (local newspaper) deletes published articles 7 days after the any article in the paper was published. Thank you, Munkee madness 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it for having no assertion of importance or significance. I agree that it was not spam, and I'm sorry if I seemed to say it was. Tom Harrison Talk 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank You, Mr. Harrison. Munkee madness 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:


--GordonWatts 07:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit war warning

I would like you to take note of the fact that I have discussed my rationale for every edit on the talk page, whereas your previous revert came with no discussion. It also appears that you have not carefully followed the discussion, because when you did participate, you wrongly concluded that there was some dispute over whether Lyn Marcus was the same person as Lyndon LaRouche.

That being said, I don't intent to break the 3rr rule -- even though BLP edits are exempt. I presume that you are an admin. How about enforcing some of the other policies, such as WP:BLP, WP:COI#Citing_oneself and WP:FRINGE? Input of that sort is badly needed. --Tsunami Butler 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you deleted various citation requests that I had added to article. Was this intentional on your part? Are you going to object if I restore them? --Tsunami Butler 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I will be glad if you do not edit war. A revert is undoing another editor's work. See the policy for details. Three reverts is not a daily entitlement. If I have anything to say about LaRouche's political views, I'll say it on the article talk page. It does begin to look like you are using the LarRouche page to prosecute some kind of thing against Berlet or Political Research Associates. Please don't do that. Tom Harrison Talk 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have found Tom Harrison's edits often controverisal and hidden behind his admin. privelages. DerwinUMD 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, according to BLP, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply." If you are an admin, it is your responsibility to enforce this fairly and impartially, regardless of whether SlimVirgin or Cberlet are your buddies. --Tsunami Butler 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The material you keep removing is well sourced, as has been said at length on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 12:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting needed

Tom, would you kindly unprotect Muhammad/images? The sprotection has been in effect for a very long time and articles aren't supposed to be permanently protected. Thanks. (Netscott) 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The semiprotection expires automatically on 16 March.[1] ElinorD (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure why it was protected for so long but that amount of time appears a bit inordinate. (Netscott) 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't oppose unprotection, but you should probably ask User:Majorly, who is the one in the protection log. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: My "cabal" comment... the fact that the image is sprotected is part of the reason I mentioned that word. If you found that comment uncivil or otherwise insulting please accept my apologies. (Netscott) 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, don't worry about it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the point of un-semiprotecting? All that is likely to happen is that sockpuppets and anonpuppets will proceed to edit-war, causing stress until it is semi-protected once again.Proabivouac 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It has to be unprotected eventually, but if people disagree about removing sprotection now, it should be requested at WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison Talk 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Usernames with "truth"

Re User:For Truth's Sake!, I propose that all usernames with "truth" in them be blocked on sight. No, it would never fly, but heuristically this may be without equal as a predictor of tendentious editing.Proabivouac 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could somehow divert those usernames to a sandbox. They would think they were editing Wikipedia, but only they would see the changes. Tom Harrison Talk 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm just an ogre...can you help me help another and get the two templates in an article to stack up on top of one another? On the Neoplatonism and Gnosticism article, we're tryng to get the "Platonism" infobox to stack above the "Gnosticism" infobox, akin to what can be seen on the September 11, 2001 attacks article. I know you can do it...I have faith in you! Thanks in advance.--MONGO 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried several different combinations and for some stupid reaosn, all my efforts have failed in the preview mode..I can't seem to find a guide as to how to anywhere either...oh well.--MONGO 13:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a guide to formating - maybe there is something on meta. I think it has to do with the internals of how the templates are set to display. To over-ride this, I put one in a div. I'm no template expert, but it seems like templates in general should not have any more formating than they need for internal use. Tom Harrison Talk 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And now the white space is a problem... Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Check it now...this is as close as I can get it.--MONGO 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That looks good. I'll look around and see if I can find anything else. Tom Harrison Talk 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Aude saved the day...again...I think she must have gone to college or something.--MONGO 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Re: Gilad Atzmon: ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I have posted about Gilad Atzmon is true and easily documented: he IS [removed per blp] and many more things I could have added. It is neccessary to know such things in order for a reader to obtain a truly non-POV balanced assesment of a man who whatever his musical talents is clearly a [removed per blp]. This information is simply factual; and attempts to remove this constitute censorship. Felix-felix has consistently sought to remove virtually any material about Atzmon that could prove in the least bit unflattering. It is HIS clearly POV edits that should be targeted for blocking.

Retrieved from ""

Controversial material about living people must be attributed to a reliable source. Tom Harrison Talk 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unexamined cultural bias: bad thing?

That was truly a brilliant question.Proabivouac 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you, that's nice to hear. Tom Harrison Talk 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for the quick block on the user vandalizing the Peter Pace page. Cheers--Looper5920 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm glad I could help. Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

re: pronunciation

Agreed. I can be a little pointlessly obsessive about using the IPA sometimes, even in non-linguistics articles. I'll try to include or at least preserve more layperson friendly guides in future edits. --Krsont 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that will give us the best of both. And after all, if we weren't a bit obssesive we wouldn't be volunteer encyclopedia writers, would we? Tom Harrison Talk 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

edit warring

In this message which you left on my talk page, you asked me to "Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly," warning me also that "users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page." In the spirit of fairness, I am asking you to review the edit history of "Political Cult" to see whether you ought to make a similar warning to User:Dking. --Tsunami Butler 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think he is edit warring, report him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Tom Harrison Talk 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You told me that "users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." I am asking you to be even-handed here; Dking is attempting to dominate the aforementioned article in violation of WP:OWN, and I would like to think that you intervened in my case because of a general concern for the project, and not because of some particular POV you may share with Dking, Cberlet or SlimVirgin. --Tsunami Butler 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Need advice

I am trying to figure out what the proper steps are for dealing with a dispute involving User:Intangible2.0. There have been discussions, polls, RFC's, requests for mediation (failed when a thord party declined), etc. I believe this is the same user as User:Intangible, who you blocked briefly for disruptive editing. User:Intangible was put on probation. I think problematic editing is happening again, but have no idea if probation rolls over to new accounts. The pages involved are Nazism, National Socialism, National socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Fascism, and several others. See, for example: here, and the discussion here, where User:Intangible2.0 posts a poll, and then spends the rest of the talk page refusing to accept the majority view. Any advice gratefully accepted.--Cberlet 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. I was not the one who started the debate on how to (re-)name the Nazism article. [2]
  2. I initiated a poll after reading upon on the naming policy:Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. [3] I still hold that Wikipedia policy should be followed. Most of the votes in the poll were in support of a guideline instead (WP:COMMONNAME), instead of supporting the more important Wikipedia policy itself.
  3. There is another issue with if National socialism and National Socialism should redirect to National Socialism (disambiguation), or not. This is dealt with in Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Which is a different Wikipedia policy/guideline altogether (see Talk:National socialism and Talk:National Socialism), and is a different debate. Here User:Cberlet initiated a poll [4], while solliciting for votes.[5].
  4. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. Intangible2.0 16:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The remedy goes with the editor, not with the account. If Intangible disrupts articles related to National Socialism, he can be banned from them. As of now the consensus is that National Socialism and National socialism should redirect to the disambiguation page. Changing that twice against this consensus was disruptive. Under terms of the arbcom remedy, Intangible 2.0 is banned for one week from National socialism, National Socialism, and National Socialism (disambiguation). Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to be snippy, but what consensus? What Wikipedia policy has been followed? It certainly wasn;t WP:DAB, because nobody except me even mentioned the proper policy. Intangible2.0 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of editors who edits those articles and, coming back from weekend, I was unpleasantly surprised to find Intangible banned. You banned him on a basis that he acted against consensus. However, there is no consensus on whether National Socialism should be redirected to Nazism or to the disambiguation page. On a closer inspection of Talk:Nazism you will find that 8 users support redirect to Nazism: Lygophile, Slrubenstein, Jmabel, Mitsos, Flammingo, Xyzzy n , Intangible and me; one users is perfectly ok with it: Nikodemos, and one user supports redirecting Nazism to National Socialism: Argyriou. There are 9 users who support redirect to disambiguation page. So there are 19 users who stated their opinion on this, and only 9 support redirect to disambiguation page. That is not even a majority, and you are talking about consensus. Please reconsider his ban. Thanks. -- Vision Thing -- 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that being the case on the talk page; I see a clear consensus to redirect to the disambiguation page. If I'm wrong and there is strong support for redirecting to nazism instead, someone else will redirect it there. Tom Harrison Talk 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I provided you with diffs. Point is that users who support original redirect to Nazism, including Intangible and me, choose not to vote in Cberlet's straw poll. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If they want it redirected, they will redirect it. I will not lift the ban, but feel free to ask someone else, or ask for review somewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 22:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I started to block this IP, an left a notice at the Talk page, only to find that you'd just blocked it — and were probably wondering what on Earth my notice was there for. Two minds with but a single thought. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh; I guess I block first and notify later... Tom Harrison Talk 13:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab + User:His excellency

Hello Tom, are you aware that although others are claiming they are one and the same, the checkuser evidence was never conclusive about these two accounts? Having seen the unfolding of this story I can tell you that there were serious differences in editing styles and character between these two users. User:BhaiSaab was given a definitive ban relative to his conflict with User:Hkelkar which was a separate issue from HE. I don't see it as fair at all that these two are being lumped together given the significant differences the two accounts exhibited with respect to each other. (Netscott) 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Having some experience myself with Amibidhrohi/His excellency and his other socks, I understand that BhaiSaab is a different person. I have not dealt much with BhaiSaab. My recommendation to indefinitely ban His excellency is independent of anyone's opinion about BhaiSaab. Tom Harrison Talk 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that. Would you kindly state that on WP:CN User:Rama's Arrow seems to think everyone's supporting User:BhaiSaab's indefinite block, which is obviously not the case. Thanks. (Netscott) 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on BhaiSaab's case. Rama's Arrow seems to understand they are two different people, and I think it is pretty clear that my remarks apply to His excellency. Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
In requesting me to assist in having the tags on his sockpuppets deleted and traces of his connection to this latest HE nonsense TU made an agreement with me to not further sockpuppet and instead seek the assistance of admins. I fulfilled my side of the agreement. It is nonsense that he's sockpuppeting and thereby avoiding the scrutiny of his biases by other editors as he's been commenting via sockpuppets on HE/BS's community banning case. The right to vanish was not meant to be abused in such a way. (Netscott) 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Community consensus is clear on HE but it is frustrating that BhaiSaab is being thrown into the mix when he's had nothing to do with HE disruption and while everyone is supporting HE's banning they appear to be supporting BS's banning due to how the WP:CN talk was presented. BhaiSaab was disruptive mostly related to his conflict with User:Hkelkar unlike HE who was generally disruptive. This is a significant part of the reason that I think BhaiSaab could return to the contributor he was prior to his involvement with Hkelkar. (Netscott) 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not unreasonable to use a sock to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. Something could also be said about restoring attacks by a banned user, or acting as a proxy for a banned user. But if a reasonable agreement has been reached, I'll drop it. Certainly His excellency's was a contentious and even bitter arbitration that included attacks on me as well (though less serious than those on others). As I said, I know little about BhaiSaab, so I'll defer to others' opinions on banning him. Tom Harrison Talk 14:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It is unreasonable when you're using the sock towards furthering the possibility to someone being community banned. It is wrong to hide one's bias in such a case through such usage of a sockpuppet. Besides where was TU ever threatened? TU was removing commentary as a sockpuppet claiming a "personal attack". Given that two other separate individuals who've not been involved with this case other than right now restored the same commentary as well it seems rather clear that the commentary wasn't a personal attack. I respected your removal of that commentary due to the fact that you weren't puppeting. I share User:Yamla's view that the accused should have the possibility to participate in his community bannishment proceedings. If BhaiSaab's unjustified indefinite block (here he's paying for HE's disruption) were lifted I would drop this whole thing. (Netscott) 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You know even TU using one of his sockpuppets expressed support for BhaiSaab. (Netscott) 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to read up on BhaiSaab's case. It might be tomorrow morning before I know enough to say anything about it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be appreciated Tom. Also if you could take a look at this talk on User:Rama's Arrow's talk page and possibly contribute that'd be helpful as well. Thanks. (Netscott) 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Tom, User:BhaiSaab is requesting a temporary unblock so that he can comment on his community banning case. Would you kindly allow him the dignity to do so? Thanks. (Netscott) 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A Force upon the Plain

Glad you liked it. I hope to find time and mood to read it through. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi there, I believe that you blocked user: for seven days; would be grateful if you could mention this on the user page. Thanks. Fourohfour 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! Fourohfour 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

If you believe there is no credible claim of NPOV dispute at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, why don't you explain your reasoning on the talk page, rather than just feeding the revert war frenzy? --NathanDW 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Tom, I've just archived my talk page. My response to you is here. Cheers. (Netscott) 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I basically agree. Maybe we can end the transclusion within the week if all goes well. There does seem to be a rough consensus for the current presentation. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
How about Friday then? (Netscott) 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Tom Harrison Talk 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

re: is this correct?

yes, that looks right for American English pronunciation. --Krsont 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you

on this article Tom... as it needs serious help right now. Cheers. (Netscott) 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an important article that must neither villify or whitewash anything. I hope that we can all work together to make it everything it can be. Tom Harrison Talk 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted someone who was insisting that to be born slave you must have two slave parents, because it's wrong. Unsupported by fact. My reasons are on talk. You can only be born free from a slave parent if your father is the master/owner of your mother (in Islamic slavery). Reference is from the work of Levy.DavidYork71 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree with you Tom in terms of whitewashing and villification. Another problem is that there seems to be some confusion on the part of certain editors who want to blanket ascribe Islam to the Arab slave trade. I understand the confusion given Islam's historical origins in Arab lands but still the distinction is an important one. Thanks. (Netscott) 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at Arab slave trade, and wondering how the two pages should be arranged. I imagine some overlap is necessary, but we may want to think about how to divide up the content: Theory/parctice, East/west, general/specific, Ottoman empire/Arabic-speaking peoples, or something else? Tom Harrison Talk 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed to your address the EoI and EoQ articles on Slavery. Cheers, --Aminz 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll read them as soon as I can. Tom Harrison Talk 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

What on earth are you doing? -Lapinmies 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Helping to write an encyclopedia supported by reliable sources. You? Tom Harrison Talk 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Trying to use common sense and avoid wikilawyering. -Lapinmies 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then I guess we are both virtuous people. Tom Harrison Talk 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this bothers me. The picture shows nothing but I can't fix it, why not? -Lapinmies 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the caption is accurate. It is from the security camera footage showing American Airlines Flight 77 just before impact. Maybe something like 'showing the pentagon just before flight 77's hit it' would also work. Inaccurately implying that anything other than flight 77 hit the pentagon would not be suitable. There are extensive archives of Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not claiming that it was not AA77, just that the picture is not clear enough for a caption like that. -Lapinmies 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

About freezing an article

I suppose William Connelly asked you to freeze Scientific data archiving. It is a nice trick to get the article frozen just after he reverted the new version that clarified a misunderstanding. It would have been nice if other editors would have had a chance to read it so they could discuss it. Can I learn this trick for future use? RonCram 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A helpful label for affixing to any articles you find locked at the Wrong Version.

You have quite a sense of humor there Tom. Unfortunately, you didn't answer the question. RonCram 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad images

Tom, perhaps you could draft up some sort of warning language in hidden comment style to go near the diputed images explaining to people to discuss image changes on the talk page prior to making them? (Netscott) 19:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, couldn't hurt. I'll put something in. Tom Harrison Talk 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to adjust the language. Tom Harrison Talk 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison is a censoring, gatekeeping agent of disinformation who suppresses the truths about 9/11

Even when limited-hangout gatekeeping liar Steven E. Jones has been caught lying with his own mouth, in an overt, blatantly false act of gatekeeping (falsely ruling out the possibility -- contrary to the evidence -- of a nuclear even having occurred at "Ground Zero" at the WTC in NYC), Censoring Agent Tom Harrison persists in protecting the good name and reputation of his fellow dishonest disinformation agent.

So just how much is the covert/shadow government paying you, Agent Harrison, to suppress all of the information which makes it clear just how impossible it is to honestly blame/fear/loathe Muslims for 9/11?

George Orwell told us that lies of omission are the worst.

Tom Harrison is the worst kind of liar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Tom Harrison's Crimes Against Truth

Even when limited-hangout gatekeeping liar Steven E. Jones has been caught lying with his own mouth, in an overt, blatantly false act of gatekeeping (falsely ruling out the possibility -- contrary to the evidence[6] -- of a nuclear(-like) event having occurred at "Ground Zero" at the WTC in NYC), Censoring Disinformation Agent Tom Harrison persists in protecting the good name and reputation of his fellow dishonest disinformation agent.

So just how much is the covert/shadow government paying you, Agent Harrison, to suppress all of the information which makes it clear just how impossible it is to honestly blame/fear/loathe Muslims for 9/11?

George Orwell told us that lies of omission are the worst.

Tom Harrison has thus repeatedly proven himself to be the worst kind of liar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Or the best kind of Gate-Keeper. Gold stars in my book.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How much

does it pay? I might have to join up there... heh. :-) (Netscott) 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We only get paid in Hegelian Fakeybucks, and there is no health plan. I think the Illuminati get a better deal. Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tom, after thinking about it for a while, I've decided to make one last attempt at finding a way to keep working on Wikipedia. Thanks for trying the mediation route, but I think an RfC is now the best way foward. (Unless you have a better idea, of course.) Here's a draft of a statement of the dispute user:Thomas Basboll/Sandbox. I'm not going to post it until after Easter because I'll be away from the Internet next week. In the meantime, your comments are of course very welcome. I'm not especially optimistic about this approach, actually, but I don't want to leave for good without trying it. I still consider myself unwelcome on Mongo's talk page, so I would appreciate it if you let him know for me. He is also welcome to comment on the draft before I post it if he wants. Happy editing,--Thomas Basboll 15:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rfc is ridiculous and I won't be contributing to it at far as I am concerned, it is borderline harassment.--MONGO 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to make the final version less ridiculous. I imagine that one (very unlikely) outcome of the RfC is precisely that my actions (including the act of filing the RfC) will be deemed inappropriate, perhaps even a form of harassment (though that would really surprise me). The point of the RfC is to get the community's view of this dispute before I make a decision to return to editing Wikipedia articles or stay away for good. Given those two possible outcomes, and the possible effect it might have on the tone on the 9/11 articles in general, I would think many people could have an interest in contributing to it. Best,--Thomas Basboll 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The Rfc is a hostile action...but since you yourself linked in that Rfc to a discussion on my talkpage in which you told me I was a man of a particular kind of science, I expect no less. If I have anything more to say on the matter, I will do so on the Rfc talkpage, but it's highly unlikely I'll bother. The only person keeping you from editing is you...there are over 1.6 million articles to work on.--MONGO 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Full protection on: Taco Bell

Please explain why have you unprotected the article: Taco Bell? — zero » 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I protected it, then thought better of it and undid myself. If you think it should be protected, ask at requests for page protection. Tom Harrison Talk 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


The IP I am currently visiting from: Is a School IP, and is scheduled to be unblocked on April 6, 2007. I figured I should register to mention this, As it may or may not help.

Thanks, From a member of the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarningSchool (talkcontribs) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

The Wiki Factor

Thanks for editing. The "case" is something of a rhetorical joke, given that many people that fall into this category treat their reviews as legal appeals. However, you did edit the page, so no fine is payable. ;-) Chris cheese whine 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then my edit must have been like the flowers that bloom in the spring. ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center

Great edit. I am trying to stimulate some improvement of the article and it seems I have incurred MONGO's annoyance as a result. Edits like yours, which add well-referenced data to the article are what we really need; we should be able to aspire to make this a FA-class article. Keep it up. --Guinnog 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks, you are very kind, but aren't you complaining that Mongo is not extending to others the presumption of good faith you are denying him? If you are going to leave me a 'compliment' and then take advantage of it to attack someone, I'd rather forgo the compliment. Tom Harrison Talk 17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Nah, point taken, but I did not attack anyone. I assume good faith in all editors and MONGO has been annoyed that I removed what I thought was a mistaken vandalism template he applied to a new user who was (I think) trying to improve the article. Such templates are only to be used where there has been unambiguous intentional damage to the article. None of us likes to have our errors pointed out, but to characterise this as an attack would be a serious misunderstanding. --Guinnog 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's inappropriate that you would threaten administrative action against MONGO in an article that you substantively edit. It's well-known that you sympathize with the 9/11 conspiracy theory point of view. If you think he's doing something wrong, perhaps you should invite a non-CT-Admin to review the action.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Guinnog, are you suffering from a misundertstanding of WP:BLP? Surely you must be. Wikipedia could be sued if edits such as this are allowed to stand! You must be kidding! You should be exercising your admin powers appropriately by notifying offending parties such as him that those kinds of edits if continued can and will result in blocks. Instead, you removed my warning and welcomed him...I'm flabbergasted! If that is what can be construed as article "improvement" in your eyes, then I don't know what to say.--MONGO 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
MONGO, no, I believe I understand BLP as well as you do. My point was the newby user may not have done, and will not have been helped by the inaccurate warning you placed. As I said, the more accurate one placed by Tbeatty will have been more productive. I will not respond to Morton's ludicrous post, except to point out that I at no point threatened any admin action.--Guinnog 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's your threat: "I won't edit war with you, but I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error." diff of 15:12 31 March 2007  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
My warning wasn't "inaccurate"...your welcoming a vandal and removing my warning is as big a case of vandalism as has occurred in this situation. His edit was indeed nonsense...that was a standard {{subst:test2}} warning I placed regarding his overt vandalism and as the template states "nonsense". You could have very well have place the "productive" BLP info template as well.--MONGO 18:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism at Islam and slavery

Hi Tom, User:Al-Zaidi persistently removes a sentence from that article that is a sourced, almost verbatim, entirely appropriate piece of information. This is his latest revert: [7]. I warned him about this vandalism: [8]. I have provided the exact referrence on the talk page, Aminz and Itaqallah have not objected to his, and Al-Zaidi persists in removing it despite my protests. I'm coming to you because of your involvement in that article. Could you do something about it? Thanks, Arrow740 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am currently busy at the moment and can not get heavily involved in the article. Anyways, here is the full quote summerized by Arrow as " In Shia jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations".
Imami Shiiites, for which one may refer to the classic work of al- Hilli, is indicative of attitudes sometimes considerably removed from the great Sunni principles. Among the solutions it offers we shall confine ourselves to the following, as being particularly revealing of some interesting legal or social viewpoints.
The child born in wedlock does not follow the status of his mother, bond or free, but failing any stipulation to the contrary, is born free if either of his parents is free. If both are slaves but not of the same master, he belongs jointly to the masters of both parents. The master of a female slave may grant a third party the “ use ” of her, for purposes of work or sexual relations...
First of all, these are examples where Shiasm has "considerably removed from the great Sunni principles" as the author says; hence it is best to add this sentence in contrast with another sentence giving the opinions of Sunni scholars, or state that this is where Shia laws are considerablly different from those of Sunnis. The original quote says: "The master of a female slave may grant a third party the “ use ” of her, for purposes of work or sexual relations."; the word "work" is absent in Arrow's summary. It could be added as well. --Aminz 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's in the concubinage section, and should be read in the context of the article. Arrow740 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It will need to be worked out on the article talk page. Tentatively it looks to me like something we could include in the section on marriage and concubinage, but I'm not sure I feel strongly about it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Gwen Gale

Tom, small request of you. User:Ryulong seems to have inadvertently semi-protected User:Gwen Gale's talk page. He protected it for 3 hours but that was at 10:57 and it's now 14:51... can you look into this? Thanks. (Netscott) 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the protection has expired. Tom Harrison Talk 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletion

I don't see complete similarity - it looks to me like preparations for an RfC, but I could be missing something. You might nominate it for deletion with a {{Template:Db-attack}}, or take it to misc. for deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Smee 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi Tom. Thanks for your help with the phony Editor Review. Yes, you are right, that is the beginnings of an RfC or ArbCom on User:Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Certainly my user space is the appropriate place for me to work on it. It goes without saying that those are charges against Smee that I intend to pursue. Another editor has already added his experience. After Smee's promise to reform and as a sign of good faith (please see my User Talk) I have put it on hold. If I see a turnaround then I will save it off-wiki and delete the page. I must say, however that, so far, reviews are mixed on Smee. A couple positives but a few negatives too including misrepresentation on my talk page and her unwillingness to accept that I will not delete the page until I see some change. She very much wants the cart before the horse. But I remain hopeful. Thanks for your time. --Justanother 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Tom Harrison:

  • Why do you see my attempt to get feedback on my behavior as an attack on Justanother?
  • I was asking for a review of how I've dealt with Justanother, how can you see that as a back door RfC on him?
  • Why did you delete it without contacting me?
  • Did you even read it?

Please restore my WP:ER, asking experienced uninvolved editors for feedback on me isn't a personal attack because the comments are supposed to be about me. I've also made this argument on the WP:AN/I, but am required to ask you directly before initiating a WP:DRV Anynobody 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Take it up on deletion review if you want. Tom Harrison Talk 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Anynobody 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Tom, I appreciate your spirit of compromise. Please work with me on this, because you and I might be able to bring months of controversy to an end. I played with your wording a bit, but hopefully kept the spirit. I'm not wed to my last work, and maybe we can keep working toward a better product. --Kevin Murray 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we may be converging toward something. I'll probably let it sit for a while and see what others think. Tom Harrison Talk 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I think that you really put together an excellent composite of the best of many ideas. I sure hope that it can be preserved. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're generous to say so. We'll see where the consensus is. Tom Harrison Talk 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tom,

User:Arrow740 is persistently removing modern interpretation bit from the intro; it is really getting annoying (please see [9]). He inserts dubious tags to material sourced from EoQ. [10]. In the same diff [11], he violates the WP:POV policy by writing that Wahhabis are the true followers of the example of Muhammad (i.e. other Muslim sects are wrong).

He removes the "exceptional condition" here [12] while EoI says: "It is pleasing to see that in the eyes of Muslim jurists slavery is an exceptional condition: “ The basic principle is liberty ”".

Tom, Arrow has self-identified himself as a critic of Islam: [13].

There are many diffs of his personal attacks: [14], [15], [16],[17],[18], [19] Please see this diff from User:Netscott: [20] and this one [21] --Aminz 10:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks [22] (edit summary). --Aminz 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when I see User:Arrow740 making edits like this linking to a site called "Prophet of Doom" I wonder if the term "critic" is sufficient. Granted, I've got nothing against folks that are critics but I certainly have much against hateful folks. (Netscott) 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with Arrow being a critic by itself. What bothers me is that he removes sourced materials that he doesn't agree with. --Aminz 10:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Another example of that when David York first visited the Slavery and Islam article and removed a lot of sourced material/making sweeping changes to the article. I requested the edits to sweeping edits to be discussed on the talk page. User:Arrow started supporting him calling me disruptive [23].Such comments are provoking. He has made several personal attacks against me. --Aminz 10:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Another recent example of Arrow's incivility was on Muhammad's talk page: [24].
I was very offended by this harsh diff.
Please see this quote by F.E.Peters [25] and the quote by Stillman at the top of this section [26]. My summary was the following:"After his migration to Medina, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed (According to Stillman, "This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion.").Many Medinans converted to the faith of the Meccan immigrants, but the Jewish tribes did not. Much to Muhammad's disappointment, they ridiculed and rejected his claim to be a prophet."
Tom, Arrow's incivility, removal of sourced matterial is really annoying (after ignoring comments like "Muslim societies are backward because of Islam." [27] )--Aminz 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the personal attacks had mostly stopped since his block in November. If they are continuing, that is a problem. Persistent incivility and personal attacks, supported by diffs, should be presented to him. Unless they stop, they will be the basis for a request for comment. Nobody should say, "Muslim societies are backward because of Islam." That's just needlessly provacative.

It's possible a case could be made for tendentious editing across several articles related to Islam, which seems to be a constant problem. I'm not quite sure how to deal with this. I suppose mediation, or a request for comment. Frankly, I have seen a lot of this from both 'sides', and each feeds the other. People begin to think they must 'push back' against the pov-pushing. Pretty soon we have two warring camps, and articles that read like they were written by two warring camps. But there are not enough moderates to go around.

The reader searching for information on Islam and slavery will reasonably wonder if Islam forbids slavery, or allows it, or allows it in theory but forbids it in practice. In Islam and slavery, I think we need to acknowledge both that:

  • Islam today does not prohibit slavery (unless it does, then we need citations), and
  • Slavery is illegal in every Muslim country (though tolerated in one or two places)

Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of Aminz's diffs seem to be random diffs of Netscott. That's quite entertaining. For the Wahabi thing, Aminz distorted the meaning of the EoI article, and I merely replaced his wording with the correct meaning; Wahabis are portrayed as the uncompromising restorers of the Sunnah, there's nothing about belief (though Aminz's grammar left it unclear who he was attributing the belief to). About the Muhammad and the Jews, Aminz put in that Muhammad started to have a negative opinion of the Jew and Christians because they disagreed with one another. He completely left out the first half of the quote, that the Jews mocked and rejected Muhammad because of his incorrect retelling of OT events. That is clearly important, and only giving half a quote in that instance was actually quite inappropriate. My edits at Islam and slavery have been justified, and if a third party has an objection I'd by happy to discuss them. Arrow740 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Tom, Content dispute is not the real issue; I have had content issues with other editors. Arrow is aggresive. Please take a look at these post November edits. [28], [29], [30].
And this diff certainly was made after his block [31].
Also, Tom, please note what Arrow provides as a justification for this accusation: [32]: "Aminz put in that Muhammad started to have a negative opinion of the Jew and Christians because they disagreed with one another. He completely left out the first half of the quote, that the Jews mocked and rejected Muhammad because of his incorrect retelling of OT events."
"Muhammad started to have a negative opinion of the Jew and Christians because they disagreed with one another": It is true. It was sourced to Encyclopedia of Religion and Stillman who says:"This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion."
"He completely left out the first half of the quote, that the Jews mocked and rejected Muhammad because of his incorrect retelling of OT events.": He is completely wrong. The article said: "On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet,and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures."
--Aminz 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Tom, what is your analysis of Aminz's presentation here? Arrow740 05:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And, Tom, what do you think of this tagging [33] --Aminz 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should either seek mediation or start a request for comment. Try not to let it become personal. Arrow740, you have had problems with incivility before. Try to avoid anything that may be read as harsher than you intend. Personal comments are better avoided. It can turn into incivility and personal attack, and can be very disruptive, especially on pages that are already difficult. Tom Harrison Talk 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I dont like the fact that any user can disturb any admin over disputes like these and many, when they really should go through the Mediation and RfC procedures, or whatver the procedures are. I had proposed an idea here but people didnt like it. I think admins are disturbed a lot over small Islam related issues when they could be spending time on more useful things in Wikipedia. Taking time of admins of resolving small disputes prevents them from doing other more worthwhile tasks. Users should be made to resolve their disputes themselves and not target specific admins for help. I mean, doesnt this constant bickering bother you and so many other admins? This is not the right way to solve disputes infact. The fact that admins are easily accessible, doesnt mean people should 'cry mommy' and contact them anytime they feel a prick. Whats your opinion? --Matt57 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the best way to resolve disputes is to prevent them from getting to the point of needing formal resolution. As long as there is constructive discussion (as there has been in this case), I'm okay with people using my page, and I'll speak up when I have something useful to add. Admins learn very quickly to say no, or to direct users to a better forum. I think that's one of the things I'm supposed to do to help out. That said, we do have to be careful not to encourage people to forum-shop, but I think that is on us admins to prevent. Tom Harrison Talk 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi, I'm Midasminus, and I'm making a project. I'd really thank you if you answer this quick question.

For you, what is truely Mythology (or folklore)?

Thank you for the attention, happy Easter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midasminus (talkcontribs).

You have probably looked at Mythology and Folklore already, and maybe Urban legend, so I'll just say that to me, mythology is older and more respectable than folklore. There also is maybe a continuum of truth: People tell urban legends as if they were true, folklore as if it might be true. With myths and legends, it doens't matter to people if they are literally true or not; they are thought to express some deeper truth. I hope this helps, and happy Easter to you too. Tom Harrison Talk 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that helped a lot!--Midasminus 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Tom, sorry to be a pain in your side, but I have a couple issues that have come up in regards to the DoM article. First of all, Johnski's back via his sock/meatpuppet User:Harvardy. Second, this page [34] which was started by User:CyberAnth, but essentially has remained untouched since December, is being used to make editing decisions outside of the DoM talk page. I only found this by pure accident when I was doing a search of article on Yahoo about DoM. I'd like it if this could be deleted as it's not being used in good faith in terms of letting others have a say in what is happening with the article.

Thanks for your help. Davidpdx 13:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Hi Tom,


Cheers, --Aminz 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Aminz; Happy Easter to you too. Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material by Arrow Again

Hi Tom,

please take a look at [35] where Arrow clears up the intro again. The quotes are all here in this section [36]. --Aminz 08:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Objective Point of View in Slavery Article

Why did you insist on the use of pejorative language in the history of slavery article? It seems a good article that is spoiled by the use of pejorative language in the opening paragraph.--Toddy1 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wahabis and slavery

Tom, as I indicated on the talk page, the EoI says that the Wahabi's are the uncompromising restorers of the example of the prophet. Also, a modern interpretation of the Qur'an is clearly more appropriate in the modern interpreters section than in the section which relates the raw Qur'anic material. Regarding the sentence in the intro, shouldn't every sentence in the intro be backed up in the body? Arrow740 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we do not include as undisputed fact everything the EoI says. Since a minority of Muslims are Wahabis, I think we can take it for granted that non-Wahabis think the Wahabis are mistaken. I imagine there are sources that would support that. Of course, the page is about Islam and slavery, not about the Wahabis.
The guideline for the lead is good and useful, but should not be followed mechanically to the detriment of good writing. Matters of style are subject to reasonable disagreement, but I think the shift in Muslim thought works well in the lead. It's an important point in its own right, helps to establish choronlogical context, and invites the reader to consider the contempoary relevence of an otherwise dull matter of history. Issues about the page are probably better discussed on the talk page, where everyone can easily join the discussion.
Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Two more diffs of Arrow

Hi Tom,

Just wanted to provide two more evidences of recent incivility of Arrow: Referring to Itaqallah as Allah: [37], [38] --Aminz 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How is calling someone God incivil? I'm at a loss. This is getting very tiresome, Aminz. Arrow740 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, there is no need to debate whether was or wasn't uncivil; merely take note that it might reasonably be perceived as such and take the time to spell out his full username, or ask if there isn't some other abbreviation which would meet with his approval. There is enough for us to discuss without having to worry about such miscellanea.
Aminz, as it appears that Arrow740 has ceased the use of this poorly-chosen abbreviation for almost three weeks now, I think you will agree that it is not useful to continue this dispute. If there is content to discuss, please discuss it on the relevant article talk page(s).
Remember, both of you that, our goal should be to get along despite our disagreements.
Aminz, missteps are to be strongly disliked, addressed and ideally resolved, not treasured and hoarded for ammunition in future disputes.
Arrow740 it would help if you would acknowledge the problem here and make it clear that you intend to refrain from the disputed behavior.
80% of the disputes in this space have their origins (at least nominally) in edits which have no direct bearing on the goals of the project; this is one such example.Proabivouac 07:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, 1. it was certainly uncivil. It is rather discouraging to see that Arrow denies that. 2. You said: "as it appears that Arrow740 has ceased the use of this poorly-chosen abbreviation for almost three weeks now" Infact Arrow doesn't make incivil comments all the time (two every three weeks is a high rate). Do you have more diffs to prove that Arrow used to call Itaqallah by this abbreviation(note that he made it clear by "How is calling someone God incivil?" that by Allah he meant God not an abbreviation which was in any case uncivil).And yes, it is useful to do that because I am being fed up by Arrow and I would like to talk with Tom about that. At least I personally feel better after sharing some of what myself and Itaqallah, the two remaining somewhat active wikipedians have to go through everyday. --Aminz 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, I agree that the abbreviation might easily be construed as uncivil: Islamic doctrine holds the equation of God with human to constitute blasphemy, additionally it would be thoughtless and inappropriate to call a Buddhist editor "Buddha" or a Christian editor "Jesus." This is why I am inviting Arrow740 to recognize the problem.
At the same time, it is quite clear that a culture has developed in this space which treats such missteps as opportunities to be exploited. Individuals cannot necessarily be blamed for proceeding in this spirit, for they have merely discerned and followed the rules as they became clear to them. It is to Itaqallah's credit that he does not approach things in this manner, and is always eager for discussions to return to the topics at hand - the content of our encyclopedia. Sadly, this is a rare thing on Wikipedia.
I do not dispute that you are correct on the very narrow matter at hand, but still think it better to concentrate on the real matters in dispute, which I'm certain you would agree are not this. If you find diffs uncivil and problematic, I urge you to remove them, and invite the poster to refrain from similar diffs in the future. While I'm not particularly active nowadays, I will support you (or anyone else) in the removal of personal attacks, trolling or incivility wherever you identify it. Where editors continue to engage in such unproductive behavior, they may be blocked as a preventative measure.Proabivouac 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't care if someone did that. The real issue here is that itaqallah (whose username is, I believe, a command to be mentally devoted to Allah, and hence a somewhat inflammatory username), who has been very quick to post warnings and complaints on my talk page ever since I started here, simply ignored this one. That says something. If he was offended then I apologize, and I won't refer to him that way again. Arrow740 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, if you could watch closely the articles Arrow is involved in, you can see the progress rate. A simple comparison of this with the cases where say Merzbow is involved can be quite informative. One example: It has been a long time that Arrow is trying to remove any mention of the new Quranic interpretations against slavery from intro. No wonder, he is only here to criticize Islam[39] rather than to write about Islam. Aminz 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Your first sentence here shows what's behind all of this. Also, I find it interesting that you object to a perceived bias on the part of an editor. Arrow740 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More of Arrow

Hi Tom,

Please take a look at Arrow's original research here [40].

This is the first addition of his:

A Yemenese woman enveloped in Niqab dress. In general circumstances, Islam dignifies females with half the inheritance share available to males who have the same degree of relation to the deceased. The formulation is unaffected by any additional childrearing responsibilities that the female may have.

Some points: 1. starting from beginning "A Yemenese woman enveloped in Niqab dress. In general circumstances, Islam dignifies females" - Please note the comment:"In general circumstances," It tries to push the POV that niqab is an Islamic commandmend. In fact, it is not. Nobody in Iran has niqab. It is a cultural thing. 2. "In general circumstances, Islam dignifies females with half the inheritance share available to males who have the same degree of relation to the deceased." It is Arrow's original research that the inheritance share has a dignification connotation. The reasoning given in a hadith was completely of economical and social nature. That in traditional societies women didn't work and were dependent on men, so, boys inherit twice because they have to form the family and engage in business. In fact, there are dissent voices among the contemporary shia jurists in Iran because the nature of the society has changed. 3. "The formulation is unaffected by any additional childrearing responsibilities that the female may have." this unsourced statement is also telling 4. One can ask why the caption of this image should talk about inheritence. 5. Why the size of this image is big? 6....

--Aminz 06:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I revertd back an edit which largely fixed grammar mistakes and one unfortunate word choice is being used in some kind of impromptu trial here. Take out the "dignified" already. The fact that women don't get extra inheritance even if they have children is an interesting observation, especially considering that Lewis and others have commented on the ease with which women were divorced. But yes, that is somewhat inappropriate and I'll take that out. Aminz could have just made these corrections himself instead of wasting three people's time. I have to say that I think this is all stemming from my additions of sourced material to Islam and slavery, I'm sorry to have to say. As long as we're on the subject of bad edits, Aminz turned this:

Nevertheless, contact with the realities of the modern world and its ideology began to bring about a discernible evolution in the thought of many educated Muslims before the end of the 19th century. They may be fond of emphasizing that Islam has, on the whole, bestowed an exceptionally favourable lot on the victims of slavery. Yet they are ready to see that this institution, which is linked to one particular economic and social stage, has had its day... that the Quran (xlii, 4) forbade the making of new slaves... Without going so far, his illustrious compatriot Ameer Ali includes slavery among the pre-Islamic practices which Islam only tolerated through temporary necessity, while virtually abolishing them: man-made laws were later to complete the abrogation of it, which could not have been done formerly by a sudden and total emancipation. This thesis gradually found its way, to a varying extent, into the circle of the Ulama, already open to the older arguments of the Tunisian muftis, which were more restrained and more legalistic. But obviously it could not gain the support of the Wahhabis of Arabia, those uncompromising restorers of the sunna of the Prophet; up to the present day they have vigorously maintained their downright antagonism towards abolition.

into this:

The abolitionist interpretations of slavery has been widely accepted by Muslim scholars.

at least, that's what he indicated on the talk page. I think that this misrepresentation of a source is worth some kind of censure. Even if you take into account the EoQ quote this is still clearly a misrepresentation, and far worse than any evidence he has managed to compile against me. Arrow740 07:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Tom, Arrow is refering to this edit [41]. Points number 1,4,5 are still there.
In the case of slavery, Arrow has presented an straw man here. "The abolitionist interpretations of slavery has been widely accepted by Muslim scholars." was sourced to EoQ (not EoI)which says that even the conservatives "continue to regard slavery as opposed to the Islamic principles of justice and ..." --Aminz 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 needs to be nice and call everyone by his username unless invited to do otherwise. No calling people 'Allah', and no pretending to not understand how that could be annoying. I believe a couple of people have suggested this now, so I expect he will never again call anyone by anything other than his username. Proabivouac has some good points above that a mediator would probably echo, if mediation becomes necessary. About the editing disagreements, it sounds like he is prepared to recognize and correct his mistakes. Ideally, there would be a demonstrated change in behavior and no further dispute resolution. Tom Harrison Talk 13:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

White & Nerdy

Agent Harrison, I always had you pegged moreso as white & nerdy. LOL. (Netscott) 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Word. Tom Harrison Talk 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) and Georges Chatelain

Hi, You deleted two pages of which I am the author: Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) and Georges Chatelain, whose bio I was in the process of finishing, under the pretext of non-notoriety. Both the personalities are well known, not only in France but also in English-speaking countries and correspond exactly to the criteria of notoriety imposed by wikipedia.

(in fr_wikipédia : Jack Robinson Georges Chatelain)

Can you examine my request for restoration of these pages? Thank you Adrienne93 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you recently added those pages to the French Wikipedia too. I think my speedy deletions were correct, but you can ask someone else to restore them or take it to deletion review if you want to. Tom Harrison Talk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:It looks like you recently added those pages to the French Wikipedia too Is it the reason of the deletions ? because, I don't understand these deletions ... Adrienne93 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the pages under our policy on speedy deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So you're aware, Adrienne93's listed both of these on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 11. —Cryptic 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A request to the Wikipedia administrator

Hello! I have just placed the proper templates at my former user page and my talk page. I would like to ask you if you could protect my user page and my discussion page from being edited by removing the edit this page section as I have left the project forever. I do not intend to come back here and I want no Wikipedia members contact me in the future. In case you want to say something, I ask you to place your statement under this request message at your talk page, please. I will appreciate it. Have a nice evening! --Riva72 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

9/11 stuff

Whether or not much of the content of Loose Change is true or not (much of it is exaggerated, or based on urban myths), the fact remains that the person in the footage who is allegedly Osama does write and eat with his right hand. He also does not look very much like Osama bin Laden, but since many people have difficulty differentiating between peoples of different cultures (e.g. distinguishing an Arab from a Persian, or a Vietnamese from a Japanese), I would not object to omitting this part. Let the rednecks protest, "they all look the same to me!". − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for imposing the block on Harvardy. It's good to see the wheels turning, albeit slowly. --Gene_poole 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From one month to 31 hours?

[[42]] just curious why 31 hours when they month they last got blocked didn't seem to help any?--Xiahou 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because 31 is a prime number. Tom Harrison Talk 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

using that idea 31 months would work :-) --Xiahou 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it would depend on the vandal's life cycle, I guess. Tom Harrison Talk 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RS for Women Slaves in Islam

Hello, You gave the opinion that Arlandson is not a RS for Islam and reverted edits. Could you point specifically to what parts of Wiki policy you invoked to make that judgment? Please note that Arlandson has written not one, but many articles on Islam. Thanks, NN 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says I have to point specifically to some policy? Tom Harrison Talk 12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A rather aggressive reply to a question asking for information. If you do not wish to explain your edits that is your choice. Such replies to not help change minds and likely lead to edit wars. NN 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongo RfC

FYI, I have now posted an RfC on Mongo's behaviour.9.--Thomas Basboll 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, regardless of your position on the RfC, I had hoped you would certify the basis of the dispute. After all, you have tried to resolve the dispute in some detail. Do you intend to certify it?--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, certainly not; the dispute you describe is not one I ever tried to resolve. If I were going to certify any RfC it would be one about the conspiracy theorists who want to use the project as a soapbox. Tom Harrison Talk 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sad to hear that. One possible result of this RfC (if it lasts) seems to be to vindicate Mongo's behaviour. This would be a very strong signal to "conspiracy theorists who want to use the project as a soapbox" since it would indicate even to people like me (who have much more moderate aims) that we are not welcome here. As I see it, however, the conspiracy-POV-pushers are currently being dealt with as sternly as possible (what more could an RfC on that accomplish?) and the moderate sceptics are being pushed away. The result is a series of articles that are very, very difficult to improve and often less than good. My suggestion is to change the tone of the discussion and see if that might help. But the decision to certify is of course entirely yours.--Thomas Basboll 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Quest Software spam

Thanks for deleting Foglight Experience Monitor, one of the several Quest Software product spam pages that were also deleted. Admin Veinor chose not to delete one of the other product pages, LiteSpeed for SQL Server, however. I asked him about it, but I'm not sure he holds that page in the same regard as you do the other spam page. So I'd like to {{db-spam}} it again, if that's okay with you. — Loadmaster 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be better to send it to AfD and see what the consensus is. If it's deleted there, any recreations can be speedied. Tom Harrison Talk 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Is worshiped the spelling from the quote? It seems odd to me - I'm not sure what dialect spells it that way (the google gives 4:1 for worshipped). WilyD 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see both are used; I guess in general I have no preference. Anyway, we have to match the quotation, which I had not noticed, so I changed it back. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

press for truth

Hi, say, what's wrong with press for truth? Not notable? Disturbing? Lovelight 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent edit

[43] Cheers, :) --Aminz 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, it is not my purpose to write bad things about Chritians. I don't believe the very past matters much. What makes me sad is to see some contemporary people like Craig Winn who describe Muhammad as: "*Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet, qualifies as the most evil man to have ever lived.* Muhammad was the perfect Satanic prophet." Or Spencer who is willing to apply double standards to Islam and cover up as much as truth as he wants to prove his point.

I just would like to make the history and development of such ideas clear. Isn't it odd that the attitudes of some well-known missionaries toward Islam like Samuel Zwemer, was that "The aim of missionary work is not to bring a Muslim into another religion; it is to bring him out of Islam, so that he may become its opponent and staunch enemy." When Jesus commissioned his disciples to ‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations’, did he asked them to do that with the help of exploitative colonial powers? The close cooperation between certain missionaries and the colonial powers made most colonized Muslim to become bitter about and look at all missionary work with suspicious, regardless of its motives. At the same time there have been always very honest, fair and sincere Christians as well and that makes me full of joy. They are living signs of God on the earth. --Aminz 08:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there is much in what you say. When we consider empires and imperialism, we have to be careful not to forget about the Ottoman Empire, and the Mughal Empire. Like the British Empire, they did some bad things, and some good as well. Tom Harrison Talk 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right Tom. Humans are all sinful and are motivated by the same desires whether in east or west. Muslims and Christians were in war and in such situation everybody makes fables for the other side. I doubt Muslims in Medieval times ever tried to understand and appreciate Christianity because they were the enemies in war. Thanks again very much for your edit to the section. --Aminz 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Vedic Mathematics Removing External Links

Hi Tom, I wonder why have you removed my contributions to the Vedic Mathematics page. They were tutorials and slide shows and Videos meant to promote Vedic mathematics. I did not understand why did you say it is promotional links. It is meant to promote the subject not anything else.

Would request you to please reinclude the removed links. Or provide me an explanation for the same at

Thanks Gaurav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

They look promotional to me, and the content is not that great. If they are good, someone else will probably put them back in, and then we can discuss it at Talk:Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics. Tom Harrison Talk 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, the thing is that nowhere on the internet will anyone find such tutorials on the subject. There are exercises also at the end of the slide show which the students will find it useful. There is a link on the slide which means that the owner would like to keep it copyrighted thanks to the growing mass copying on the net. Whats wrong in that? Please let me know. Wishes Gaurav

Put them back if you want, and I will not remove them again unless someone else does first. Or, take it up on the article's talk page that I linked above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I have readded the link and also taken it up at the article talk page as you mentioned.If it is voted out I have no issues but we should consider the beauty of the tutorials and the history which has been explained.I hope you support it and not consider it promotional. Thanks

Why did you block me

Sorry I had to change my user name but I did not meen to vandle any thing i just whanted to tell the world about free toast Thank You Adam Davies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buzzard123 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, Tom

for this and this. Quick work! ElinorD (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All part of our fast and friendly service. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight RFC

As someone who has blocked Lovelight, I wanted to let you know of an RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lovelight) I just opened, I was hoping you'd have some comments or additions to it. Thank you. --Golbez 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read through it later today. Tom Harrison Talk 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Links on OK City Bombing

Hi Tom,

In your edit here[44], you removed citations to "" and "". I'm not familiar with the issues surrounding the removal of those links. Can you help me understand the motivations for removing them? Otheus 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a sock or meatpuppet?

What's a sockpuppet or meatpuppet? 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)User (Talk):

2005 civil unrest in France

I would remove most of the content in that section, which is a significant portion of the article. If you wish to have the template removed then find reliable sources (there currently are no sources) or gut the article. KazakhPol 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback

Rollback should not be used in content disputes. Don't do that again. It certainly should not be used for sterile edit warring in the manner you are using it. You have not bothered to address any of the points raised on the talk page almost two weeks ago. It's one thing for you simply to be rude, it's quite another for you to abuse admin tools. 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Restore the names again and I will block you for violating our policy on biographies of living people. Complain about it to whoever you like. Tom Harrison Talk 00:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop mischaracterising the policy. It does not say "there must be sources in the article", it says that the statements must be sourced. Which they are. Your threat of a block is nothing but an attempt by you to win an content dispute. Stop making threats. No policy is being violated. 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, as per "policy according to Tom", why have you removed the names of people whose articles include the references you claim are missing, and why are you applying BLP to things other than people? You are abusing rollback to edit war, and you are making threats which are not supported by policy. If you want to claim that this is some sort of an admin action, stop edit warring. 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take this in the spirit of your requested "review" of admin actions.

  • Your use of rollback would fit, as would your threats of a block. You used rollback not only to re-insert material as part of a content dispute, you also used it to reinsert an inaccurate template. Rollback is not meant for edit-warring. The fact that you didn't even bother to look at what you were reverting suggests that you were simply engaging in sterile edit-warring.
  • Your attempt to use threats of blocking to gain the upper hand in your edit war is also improper use of your standing as an admin to bully another editor.
  • Your misrepresentation of policy isn't an admin action, but is required to back up your improper threat.
  • Attributing your edits to BLP is simply a matter of falsely representing your actions. Even according to your definition of BLP (which doesn't match the policy), you were not acting in accordance with BLP. BLP does not say "revert wholesale".

The material is supported by citations. The fact that something is supported by a citation from a reliable source is what matters, not the location of the citation. Your allegation that the placement of a citation somehow affects its validity is nonsense. Don't hide your content-warring under the guise of BLP, especially when your claims are so transparently untrue. And don't make threats of blocking in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That's a betrayal of the trust of the people who supported your RFA. 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on that apology for your threats, abuse of admin tools, and use of untrue edit summaries. 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using misleading edit summaries. The material is well sourced. You keep making outright false claims. 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wood and Reynolds (space beams) at CD article

Hi Tom, I can see you are busy so don't feel you have to rush right to it, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion about the basis for including the "space beams" idea in the controlled demolition article. I've started a section on the talk page here to discuss it. My view, which I've also communicated to Arthur Rubin, is that if the idea is to stay there has to be more to say about it. I just haven't been able to find any solid sources to begin to elaborate the idea.--Thomas Basboll 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable block

I'm reviewing your block of, and I'm afraid I can't agree with you on several levels. 1) You're way too involved on the topic and should have sought another admin to review and make the block if necessary. 2) There has been no BLP violation by; as I pointed out to you at Template talk:Dominionism before you made the block, sources have been provided for the names you've been bent on removing. Those sources, Rolling Stone [45] Christian Science Monitor [46] and Harpers Harpers [47] (convenience link here: [48]), are widely accepted across the project as reliable sources, a point you conceded weeks ago: [49] 3) Repeatedly ignoring and trying to dismiss notable sources long deemed reliable across the entire project is not acceptable behavior from an admin, and by repeatedly doing so you've demonstrated sufficiently for me and other admins that you're personally far too wrapped up in this issue to be going around blocking anyone involved there. Considering these points, I think you're block of was unjustified. Therefore I'm unblocking him and urge to apologize. FeloniousMonk 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Of the links you provide above, the Christian Science Monitor does not mention Monaghan, as I told you already on the talk page. Neither does Hedges' article mention Monaghan. Only the Rolling Stone article mentions Monaghan, and only in passing - certainly not to the point of supporting a characterization of 'Financier of Dominionism'. I don't understand why you would list sources in support of including Monaghan that do not mention him. Tom Harrison Talk 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your block was clearly out of line. You should know better than to block when you are in the middle of a content dispute. In addition, repeatedly making false claims (like the allegation that "no new sources were added") is really pretty ridiculous. Please stop your POV-pushing and tendentious editing, and don't block to win content disputes. OK? 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Food, not Typos

Tom, thanks for catching my gnarly edit. I should wait until after my first cup of coffee to go after typos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gruber76 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

You are welcome, and thank you taking the time to fix all those errors. Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop violating the blocking policy

Stop hand.svg

Do not block when you are engaged in edit wars. This is not a clear BLP issue, and since you are engaged in edit warring over the topic, your block is a clear violation of the blocking policy. Just because you say this is a BLP issue doesn't make it so. This is not your first offense on this issue. Make sure it's your last. Guettarda 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a blp issue, and I will continue to handle it just as I have. Take it up on the noticeboard, or wherever else you care to. Tom Harrison Talk 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You are far too involved to judge. If you feel it's a valid BLP issue, an uninvolved admin is only minutes away. Blocking should not be used as a tool to win edit wars. That isn't too difficult for you to understand. Guettarda 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my reply above. Tom Harrison Talk 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But I appreciate your review, and am sorry for my abrupt reply. Tom Harrison Talk 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted to ANI here as this doesn't need to escalate to a wheel war. --Tbeatty 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There will be no wheel war, because I will not undo any other admins's actions, and I imagine Guettarda feels the same way. Tom Harrison Talk 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my edit: Student day in Iran

Any offical day has an official name and teh official name for this day is "Students day" and it is the anniversary of an event happened in 1964 and 1978. "Day of Death to America" is neither a "name" nor a "common name" and not the "official name", just a name that western media like to propagate. The common names are: "Anniversary of take over of Den of Spies" and "13th of Aban" as well as the official name, "Students day". I know that people will rally and say "death to america" but this not the name of the day! Please find a single Iranian calendar that uses this name! Sangak Talk 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And all those 5 sources are unreliable! The first source is a mistake by BBC (no mention of the source they used), the second one is unreliable as there are other mistakes in the article. The third one is a claim by an Iranian in exile and unreliable. The fourth one is again a letter by an Iranian in exile. The fifth one is not at all related to the event.

From one of these "sources": This date normally falls on November 4, but is alternatively featured on some calendars on February 6.. Isn`t it funny ???

And for your information, there are two different words in persian for university students and highschool students. Both are translated to "Student" in English. There are also two students day! In any case I am not going to edit that article any more. It`s just wasting of my time.

Sangak Talk 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I have nominate Ishmael as a GA article. Any comments on that would be appreciated. Cheers, --Aminz 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'll read it tomorrow morning. Tom Harrison Talk 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much Tom. Very good corrections. --Aminz 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Several days ago you added {{NPOV}} to the James Kennedy article. However, you made no comments on the talk page, so there is no way for your fellow editors to figure out what it is about the article that you think does not conform with the neutral point of view. In the interest of assuming good faith, I am assuming that you tagged an article that you believe to violate NPOV, and that the edit was not just another example of your tendentious editing. Please address the issue, and be specific. Your fellow editors cannot determine what you had in mind if you don't explain your actions. Thanks. 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt and User:Arrow740

Tom, please take a look at the following picture added to the Islam and animals(please take a look at the image at the top of the article here [50] supposedly the representing figure of the article)::

File:620768 52069243.jpg
According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.[1]

Here is the full quote from the source: "In a fashion similar to European medieval folklore, black dogs, in particular, were viewed ominously in the Islamic tradition.[1] According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.[2] Although this report did reflect a part of pre-Islamic Arab mythology, it had a limited impact upon Islamic law. The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal."

Any mention of "The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal." is wiped out from the article. --Aminz 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It conflicts with many other sourced statements in wikipedia about sahih hadith. This bizarre statement should be taken with a grain of salt. If it can be verified by a more prominent voice then we could possibly include it in some way. Arrow740 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, this was not the only concern you had. You were doing mass reverts and taking out all quotations as you did here and here. You have also incorrectly said that quoting primary sources is OR. If you want to add just that line somehow, we can work on that - but dont take out all the quotations saying its OR.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and my revert there was not primarily to keep out the minority view Aminz is promoting, but to undue his mass deletions. I'll have to read the whole article he is quoting before my mind is made up about that. Arrow740 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed all direct quotes from primary sources because it is OR. And "keep out the minority view Aminz is promoting"- what minority view? on what topic? --Aminz 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, direct quotes from primary sources are not OR. I have asked you multiple number of times to give me the WP policy that supoprts your view.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, the source that Arrow is refuting is "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature". Another example Tom: They wrote in the article that:"Muhammad said that dogs and donkeys - if they pass in front of men in prayer - they will void or nullify that prayer."

The source says: "In some such traditions, it is claimed that the Prophet said that dogs, donkeys, women, and in some versions non-Muslims, if they pass in front of men in prayer, they will void or nullify that prayer.[8] Interestingly, early Muslim authorities, such as the Prophet’s wife Aisha, strongly protested this symbolic association between dogs and women because of its demeaning implications for women. As a result, most Muslim jurists ruled that this tradition is not authentic, and that the crossing of women in front of men does not negate their prayers." --Aminz 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The hadith you reverted also was the one in which Muhammed said we should dip a fly becuse one wing contains disease and the other contains a cure. We can deal with the dog hadith somehow and make that mention in the caption (e.g.) but do you agree with the other quotes? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If Aisha protested then it must have happened. Arrow740 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, I am not against you putting in alternate interpretations of the hadiths. I am against you preventing direct quoting of primary sources. Its ok to quote. That is what my main complaint was. Please show an accurate picture to Tom here. I never said you could not provide sourced alternate interpretations, but you started out by deleting all the quotations saying its OR to quote primary sources (diffs given above). If you want to work on this, take it up on the article talk page and we can work something out, but by no way will anyone be allowed to prevent direct quoting of primary sources. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that we should not quote primary sources directly unless a secondary source mentions that and even then we have to quote the verse in the light of the interpretation that the secondary source says. --Aminz 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said, what you beleive doesnt matter. Policy matters. If there are interpretations to a text, that can be dealt with. We can deal with the dog stuff but the fly hadiths and others will stay. If there are any interpretations, we can add those to the article. So please dont take out the hadiths again. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I do not have time right now to give this more attention. Aminz is quite correct about the use of primary sources. Tom Harrison Talk 12:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, simply quoting primary sources is not against policy. Interpreting them is. Am I correct? This is what another user also said when I asked this question here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Quoting_religious_sources. If quoting primary sources is allowed and is actually the proper use of primary sources, as the user said. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "we should not quote primary sources directly unless a secondary source mentions that and even then we have to quote the verse in the light of the interpretation that the secondary source says." Otherwise people could say "Christians believe [insert outrageously misogynistic precept from the the Book of Leviticus]," and then cite the Bible. Or people could choose quotes from Martin Luther and the Renaissance Popes for no other purpose than making Christianity look stupid. Neither would make a good basis for an encyclopedia article. Tom Harrison Talk 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you all the times. Thanks for your input. --Aminz 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Tom, there are many places in which a direct quote or interpretation is made about Islamic issues, one example is the article Islam. If you see the list of references, you'll see many direct quotes of the Quran being referenced. If Aminz has any issues with any alleged OR in the Islam and animals article, he'll have to bring that up on a case by case basis on the article's page because OR is interpreting text, not quoting it. Also, I'm making no statement like the example you gave. I simply quoted Mohammed verbatim. This is not against policies as Aminz is claiming and as I also confirmed on the Talk page of RS, the link for which was given above. I didnt mean to disturb you as well here but Aminz started this debate. I like to go through the usual route, RfC etc. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's no bother or disturbance at all; drop by any time. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Undated 2007

Blocking IP

This appeared when I attempted to edit a page. In the UAE, most connections go through the sole ISP which dynamically assigns IP addresses. Therefore, when you block one, you are making it difficult for a large number of users. The one you want to target simply needs to wait a few seconds or minutes for his/her IP to change. Or disconnect and reconnect.

About HP 10 series link removed


I added the links to the several HP "voyager" calculator. Yes you're right, one link to is enough, but no it's not 6 time the same link : it's each time for 1 calculator type.

So please, think to the user which can easely follow the link to one of the 6 DIFFERENT calculators, and let them like I did.



copyrighted photograph


I see you surf into the Bomb Disposal page. Snozzer has added a photograph that is copyrighted. It's from the cover of a Peter Birchall book. He claims it is his own.

I am not going back to the Bomb Disposal page, could you look into this?

-Shawn High Order1

John Robert Kinahan

Sorry Wrong Kinahan. I mean't George Henry Kinahan a noted Irish geologist. Please delete asapNotafly

comment for DerwinUMD

I do believe it is you who undid my edits twice because you disliked my phrasing. The contributions I added to the page had nothing to do with the phrasing you did not like. I resent you threatining me with banisment because I attempted to restore my own edits which a user blindly removed (i.e. his edits made no sense and removed information pertinant to the topic). Please read over the whole history before sending me the threatening message. Secondly, the changes I had made had seemed to be the consensus(sp) of the talk page for the article, which one user had not read and changed the article against that found consencus(sp). Please take back your threatening words or atleast consider the circumstance before you make accusations. Thanks, DerwinUMD 23:29 10 December 2006 (UTC)

9-11 Truth

I appreciate your open mindedness into other people's thought process. The 9-11 truth movment is not a bunch of people trying to convince everyone that the government perpitrated 9-11. Its a bunch of people trying to get the government to stop refusing to investigate anything other than the offical story presented on day 1. NIST refused to investigate the theories. The 9-11 Commision refused to investigate them. Perhaps they are wrong, but what is the harm in looking.

You tout yourself as a defender of wikipedia from "9-11 conspiracy theories," when what you are really doing is oppressing people who only want to ask "what?" not "what if?"

"9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime."

"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method,'" Eagar said. "They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Those two comments seem to contradict eachother. How can you criticize people for not having a theory at all, and then jump on them for testing any theory the come up with?

Indeed they contradict each other. What you are saying is exactly what the government is doing with their affirmative version. As David Griffin said: "of all the conspiracy theories, the official one is the most absurd". Because the fact that the version of the government is the only theory that really used this 'reverse scientific method'.

Perhaps many of the theories have been absurd, but let the truth sort that out, not you, oh mighty purveyor of truth.

DerwinUMD 00:26 December 11, 2006. (UTC)

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [51]

So you mean anti-judaism (against the religion judaism) is antisemitism ?!

By removing the POV check out of anti-semitism where e.g. critism on judaism is definated as antisemitism. Is someone disagreeing the story of Noach and God(fictive person)'s drowning of biljons of innocent people also an antisemite ????(story is known not only to find in the bible but also in jewish tenach). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limboot (talkcontribs) 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Edit summary

Yes I saw that...but only afterwards. Apologies, SqueakBox 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but it is a good illustration of why you should use the edit summary to just summarize your edit. Tom Harrison Talk 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol, SqueakBox 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide a meaningful edit summary. Here are some diffs for edits in the past week in which you didn't provide one: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Thanks, and happy editing!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{weasel-inline}} & {{fact}} from Christianity

I'm not exactly why you removed these tags without a (written) reason. Were they in the wrong context? Why no comment? Thanks, Monkeyblue 10:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was, "Although Christianity has always had a significant diversity of belief, mainstream Christianity considers certain core doctrines essential." I do not see a need for citation, or a weasel tag, or an extended colloquy about it. I saw your remarks on the talk page, and will continue to follow any discussion, since it is on my watchlist. If I have anything to add I will post it there. Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


15 minutes? Why? Was it a mistake? GDonato (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to cool him off. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this one's likely to cool-off, I was thinking a bit more- also the blocks policy states that cool-down blocks tend to be more controversial the shorter they are, in the end it's up to you, though. GDonato (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I expect he is incorrigible. I'll check his contributions and make it indefinite if he starts up again. Feel free to adjust the block as you think useful though. Tom Harrison Talk 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Problematic redirect

[52]. Arrow740 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison Talk 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hassan Nasrallah

First off, are you sure that, even if true, " considered a terrorist" is appropriate for the lead, esp. as the 3rd sentence in, considering "words to avoid" and all. I'd be interested in knowing what the criteria that the Ottawa Citizen source goes by, since it does not seem to be available online it makes it a bit difficult to verify. Tarc 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I used Lexis/Nexis, which is available free at many public libraries and colleges in the US. The reference says, "Labelled a terrorist in both Washington and London, he has nonetheless shown unerring political instincts." That supports the statement, not that he is a terrorist, but that he is considered a terrorist by the U.S. and U.K governments. Maybe the factoid would go better under Leadership of Hezbollah, but then "He is also a Shi'a cleric who is a protege of Ali Khamenei" might go better in Personal life. Anyway, these are routine editing decisions that can be resolved on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Design and construction of the World Trade Center - This article is one of a series of articles on the WTC that should be improved to WP:FA quality. It's ready for review now. Is the article comprehensive, or is it missing anything? Are the concepts here explained clearly enough? Any other suggestions would be welcome, should you have time to look over the article? --Aude (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Underground cities of Turkey

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank You for your help and guidance on these obscure topics you are a God send! LoveMonkey 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you are very kind. I hope to be able to contribute more to these in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey uh since my article on athiestic persecution of various religions under Athiestic regimes was deleted. I was hoping beyond hope to create a Taoists and Buddhist persecuted under Athiestic or Socialist regimes article. I was hoping to get your take on it. LoveMonkey 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really an area I know much about. Doing a quick search I found Religion in the Soviet Union, Religion in China, and Suppression of Falun Gong. I thought we might have something on China's policy toward religion in Tibet - that might be a welcome article. Tom Harrison Talk 13:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the "catholic". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989. reference. What does it actually say? Prior to the excommunication of Eliz I (or whatever event you take), presumably there wasn't a Roman Catholic church, just a Catholic one. From this date at least officially the Church of England also claimed to be the Catholic Church. Is there a later date alluded to when the Catholic church was uniquely used to mean the Roman Catholic church? I am simply curious it is quite possibly all correct but the wording in the article kind of gives an impression it was a more recent thing. Of course in Papal bulls etc adding Roman was a recent thing (which was appreciated) but general use? --BozMo talk 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED says:
At the Reformation the term ‘Catholic’ was claimed as its exclusive right by the body remaining under the Roman obedience, in opposition to the ‘Protestant’ or ‘Reformed’ National Churches. These, however, also retained the term... As a consequence, in order to distinguish the unreformed Latin Church, its chosen epithet of ‘Catholic’ was further qualified by ‘Roman’; but see sense 7.
Sense 7:
7. As applied (since the Reformation) to the Church of Rome...
and under Roman Catholic:
A member or adherent of the Roman Church.
The first usage of 'Roman Catholic' is dated to 1605.
The entry is fairly long, and linked to others. I would have to leave it at 'since the reformation,' but it sounds like you are pretty familiar with the history. It would probably be worth your time to read through it if you can get access.
Tom Harrison Talk 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I get into Cambridge University Library from time to time. If I can think of a good way to ensure the article is clear on the timing of "Roman" I might try it (the above makes it pretty clear it was with the reformation not a recent claim to Catholicism) but its unobvious and I have another headache (basically trying to get some fairly neutral historical versions of the Christianity articles for this: ). A bit tedious but it gets a lot of use... --BozMo talk 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Dear Tom harrison,

  • User:Hetoum I already broke 3RR rule in Kaymaklı Monastery page.
  • I dont know wikirules well.I went to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR to report, but I saw there that warning required prior to reporting a user(Am I rightly understand?)
  • This users tone also is a personal attack (called others as "vandal").
  • Already I am posted a warning/message to this users Talk page for 3RR and civility.
  • Waiting your comments.Thanks.Regards.Must.T C 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
A warning is correct at this point. Tom Harrison Talk 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK(forgot I reached 3 times), then talk on the page to reach consensus adding or removing material with aim of destroying this article. Hetoum I 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Makalp has at this point made a habit of removing AG reverence from this article more than 3 times, and other articles as well. Clearly shows him as a vandal.Hetoum I 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I logged out. Sorry I did not notice it was 3. 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop calling vandalism edits you do not like. I put up a perfectly reasonable compromise version that included most of what seems important to you, and you reverted over it back to your preferred version. This is a collaborative process, and you have to work with other people. If you don't want your writing to be edited by others, you should publish somewhere else. Tom Harrison Talk 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I am not attempting to call edits I do not like vandalism. I assumed it would me more than clear that Makalps edits were vandalous in nature. I will try to say, please appreciate my point of view before reaching strong conclusion:

1. Did User Hetoum cite sources when he IMPROVED article? 2. Did User Makalp cite sources when he ADDED TO ARTICLE? 3. Did User Makalp look at article and check sources PROVIDED by User Hetoum before adding to the article before he REMOVED content and asked for CITATION? 4. Did User Makalp add VERIFIABLE information? 5. Did User Makalp add ACCURATE information? 6. Why did User Makalp remove what he did in the article? Did he JUSTIFY why he did it? 7. Is User Makalp editing this article in GOOD FAITH?

I would appreciate if you fairly look over these and my position. I thank you in advance. Regards. Hetoum I 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try to be as fair as I can, and I am sure we will all do the same. A couple of times now you have said I added poorly-written material, and that my editing was bad. This is insulting. I would rather you kept to yourself your opinion of my writing. In return, I will do the same, and not correct your errors in grammar, usage, and punctuation, and your abuse of capital letters. I will look in again tomorrow. Tom Harrison Talk 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom,

I did not even realize I was conducting a personal attack on you, I apologize and hope you can accept my apology. I do not have perfect english myself, and was frustrated that my contributions to this article were being take out. I will continue this on the talk page, item by item. I am sorry, at times I still feel like a newbie on some Wikipedia problems.

For images, I see no problem because they are scans of postcards, most over 80 years old. See Sumela page postcard.

Again, I apologize for making this personal attack. I hope we can start fresh and you will accept my apology.

Sincerely Hetoum I 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Clearly I was too quick to take offense where none was intended. I look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Tom Harrison Talk 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!--Hetoum I 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take look to:Talk:Kaymaklı Monastery for my comments.Regards.Must.T C 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Also User_talk:DGG#Hetoum_Help this one.Must.T C 20:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom harrison,

  • Please take a look, when you have time; here
  • I dont to involve in Kaymaklı Monastery to much for a period of time, only watching maybe.

Thanks for your all contributions.Regards.Must.T C 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom(I posted this in commons too),

I continue to get the feeling this user has attacked me based on the topics I am contributing to Wikipedia. He has personally attacked me by claiming I have no knowledge of Turkey without a basis. He has threatened me with reprisal and taunted me by engaging in hate speech referencing to the Armenian Genocide as "Genocide Allegations." He attacks me and my additions as well as uploads based on my race and topics I contribute to, being Armenian. This is racism, I demand apology. He claims to be a member of the Wikipedia welcoming committee, but I feel I am being "bitten" as someone who has accasional difficulty understanding wiki protocol. I have treated others who have come here as user Gevo with friendliness and if I ever felt I said anything amounting to a personal attack, I have apologized.

As for my uploads, I am sorry I made mistake of putting wrong tag for postcards, but I stood responsibly and corrected tag as a user in good faith. I did not know which tag at first to apply to antique postcards. I also noticed that the image I uploaded of Stepanos II was copyrighted and removed my own tag, agreeing to its deletion, the one from levantine website.

As for genocide medal, I am sorry I orignally said wrong site. I do 10 things on the computer at one time and I can mistype things. Here is the link:

Clearly author is Makhyan, from ebay. I am not a liar as this user unfairly has harassed me.

Finally, if he were working in good faith, he would fairly and unbiased inquire about questionable uploads by fellow WikiProject Turkey members as this one:

He attacks me because of my race and topics I contribute to. Sincerely, and thank you.Hetoum I 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) P.S.

He says: I dont to involve in Kaymaklı Monastery to much for a period of time, only watching maybe.

IS it good faith to leave article without reaching consensus and listening or answering to all. Is this user showing good faith and so forth? Hetoum I 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Truly, these things are better ignored if at all possible. There is an elaborate dispute resolution system, but it will take a lot of your time, and will probably give you little satisfaction. It is best if all of us focus on content and avoid both taking and giving offense. Misunderstandings are easy; many of us fail to write what we mean, or we misunderstand what others write; mistakes are made and people get mad. It takes an extra measure of forbearance to work here, but the result - the encyclopedia - is worth the effort. Tom Harrison Talk 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[citation needed];Dear Tom, which kind of citation needed and for which part of this sentence. I put some explanations in page talk. There is a monastery, this monastery located in a village(now a quarter), there is map showing the location of that quarter in references. And what is needed further.I may help to supply.Regards.Must.T C 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"The origins of the Turkish name Kaymaklı Monastery comes from the village Kaymaklı" - This suggests the monastery was named after a Turkish village that was already there. If so, we need some kind of citation supporting that. Tom Harrison Talk 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your motivation.Now there is two possibility that monastery named after "Kaymaklı";
  1. -"Kaymaklı" is something other than the name of village/quarter.
  2. -"Kaymaklı";is the name of existing village/quarter(a registered place in the references).
We know that Monastery located in Kaymaklı. No proof needed.
There are hunreds of thousands Mosques or any other buildings in Turkey.Located in a quarter or village and named after place. Like as Ortaköy Mosque, Galata Tower etc. We can not find any citation about these buildings which they are named after that place, this is obvious and no need any proof/citation.

Regards.Must.T C 15:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Your last edit;"Today, a farm located on the site utilizes the remaining buildings." utilizes as feed stock house
    • Farm is not located in site, Site is located in a farms.(Farm bigger than site)
    • about stockhouse; there are source touristic sites include this info-Turkish.

fell free to add or not. regards.Must.T C 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


[57]Proabivouac 04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Tom Harrison Talk 14:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Review of your role

Please read around before you merrily delete. Or in the least make an effort to find out if the content you are out to erase is indeed unreliable. If you do have other obligations which doesnt allow you the time to do research then maybe your role in Wikipedia is not the one for you to continue with.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

You don't need me to tell you that this comment about your deletion of a red link is out of order and inappropriate. I was wondering whether to block the IP for what they did to your user page but I cannot make up my mind whether its just all good humour and I should move on. --BozMo talk 19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. A block is probably unnecessary at this point. I did find sources for two of the names the anon added. Tom Harrison Talk 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the accidental deletion

I clicked the wrong button. Someone undeleted it before I could get back to it and fix it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate everyone watching out for me. Tom Harrison Talk 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre

I don't think protection is necessary, the reverts by three editors were all back to the same version, becuase of an editor new to the article who seemingly didn't understand the thorough and wide consensus that has produced its stable state (which is the version you've protected). I know you protected the article whilst being helpful! Please consider unprotecting it in 12-24 hours so that if this new editor does have some sufficiently strong citations, we can work with him in adding published material about the Paiutes. Thanks and... cheers! Gwen Gale 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check back this evening. If I forget please remind me, or ask another admin to unprotect. Tom Harrison Talk 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

check out the festivities in Criticism of Islam


Whoever this guy is, he needs to be blocked for violating 3RR about a dozen times. - Merzbow 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see a checkuser is pending. Tom Harrison Talk 23:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious Tom- did you do a checkuser on MomoShomo, or was it just obvious to block as H.E. from the circumstantial evidence (choice of article to edit, disruptive style of H.E. ) ? --ProtectWomen 01:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not, but I figured since someone else had asked for one in this case it was better to wait for the results. People mistakenly think checkuser makes a 100% correct determination of socks. It is a useful tool, but ultimately people have to look at all the information and decide. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

After doing a bit of research, I can see you have special authority in this case. I looked up His excellency's block log and see that the very first block was made by you in June of last year and it was an "indefinite" block. It was overturned to a 67 hour block by Bishonen a day later. After several weak blocks, Jeffrey O. Gustafson reiterated your indefinite block. Then Woohookitty overturned to a weak block (per AN/I discussion according to block log comment). It looks like this Bishonen admin exhibited some very poor judgement in repeatedly defending this user. Then His excellency's 6 month block was reset several times before Rama's Arrow finally came full circle to your first block and made it indefinite.
The moral of the story is that everyone should have respected your judgment and block in the first place. I can only imagine the disruption and frustration this user caused in June through August of last year-- I've only been frustrated in the last month or so with him. Keep up the good work Mr harrison. --ProtectWomen 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Tom Harrison Talk 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For shame

Was just looking at the total number of edits, and that moke Striver has got you beat -- he's in the Top 100 of All Time and you linger at 212! For shame!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but 'tiss not the quantity of the edit that counts, but more of it's quality that matters. ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Woah! and I think that does not include edits to articles now deleted. The foundation should send us coffee mugs or something. Tom Harrison Talk 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then Striver might be then elevated into the top takes more edits to be a POV pusher afterall.--MONGO 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lou Schuler

That was an wonderful feat of good research. I withdraw my nomination. But, please, add these information and references to the articles on Lou Schuler and National Magazine Awards, so the articles become more credible. I wish you were there when I kept tagging it for expert attention. Lend a hand in making a usable encyclopedia to people outside the community who doesn't read deletion discussions. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good advice, and I will take it. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Forest Academy

Greetings. I see that you deleted this article about a month ago. I'm not always the best at policy, so I was wondering what A7 was. Is that a reference to the reason for deletion? Was there a debate anywhere? Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In cryptic wikispeak, this is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles, section 7 - "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I can restore it if you want to work on it. Tom Harrison Talk 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha...cryptic wikispeak. I've only taken the elementary wikispeak course. If it can be restored, I'd very much like to work on it. I think it is one of the larger North American schools in Germany and its definitely one of the largest of a distinctly Christian nature. I worked there for several years in the 1970s and would like to get it a go. Thanks for your help.--Eva bd 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be mentioned in an RFC

At least, I think it is you. I have asked for clarification. Just thought you might like to know. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 09:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Giant eagle barnstar.jpg The MONGO complaint board Barnstar
As promised! Best complaints to the MONGO complaint board get awarded the Inflated Eagle Barnstar™! Flat Coke, eh? I'd sue's almost as bad as having coffee that is so hot when you spill it on yourself, you get burned.--MONGO 18:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All right! I wanted that eagle as soon as I saw it. I almost sent the black helicopters to get me a fresh drink, but probably Bubba down at the Conoco station will give me a new one tomorrow. Tom Harrison Talk 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe...I buy all my gas from Citgo...whatever I can do to help Hugo out! I mean...this is aweful. [59] jus down the street.--MONGO 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hey dude, the Dilbert link to Adam's Razor isn't working in the Great quotations section. Take a look may be? Aditya Kabir 04:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I found a new link where he talks about it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


I somehow did it while trying to return the Islamic Terrorism page back to where it belongs. You should move it back, if you haven't already. While you are at it, move the real page back to where it belongs. Long story short, I was trying to undo vandalism, and failed.--DrSprite 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Merkey SPAs

Tom harrison, an examination of the contribution histories of User:Nyet and User:Kebron show both to be single-purpose accounts created to stalk and troll Mr. Merkey, the latter of which has been allowed to do so for some time. Accordingly, I've removed both their comments from the RfC.
Merkey has his shortcomings, but that doesn't excuse our allowing him to be wikistalked and trolled. What do you think?Proabivouac 07:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. I should also mention that User:Nyet's username refers to a recorded conversation between Merkey and members of GNAA.Proabivouac 07:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have warned both. Tom Harrison Talk 13:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Another one, Tom: User:Poindexter Propellerhead, created 24 May, with two and only two interests: 1) hundreds of reverts against vandalism, and 2) !voting and commenting against Jeffrey Merkey.[60] Nothing else.
Make no mistake, this is a coordinated - and sophisticated - attack machine. Merkey's not getting away with anything, his problems are all out in the open, but these guys (as Merkey says, you can find them over here) are playing Wikipedia like a cheap flute.
The userboxes, mission statement and vast number of camouflage edits speak to the wikisavvy and determination behind this effort to game and exploit the community's assumption of good faith.Proabivouac 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Tom, see WP:AN#Anti-Merkey poster claims passed RfA, threatens bio, now User:Friendly Neighbour[61]
Obviously, neither you nor I nor MONGO nor Gwen Gale etc. are part of this conspiracy, but that such a conspiracy exists, and has been hosted here for a long time, appears to be a fact. None of these attack acounts are blocked, even after being exposed beyond any reasonable doubt. Is this Chinatown?Proabivouac 09:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot tell. Maybe an account is an SPA set up to troll Mr. Merkey, or maybe it was set up to make it look like that to generate sympathy. Is a posting on a message board a gloating revelation, or a lie to undermine the credibility of a critic? Is an account a puppet? Whose puppet? After all, Mr. Merkey concluded I was conspiring against him based on something he read on a site of doubtful reliability. I would not want to do the same thing to someone else. I have a finite amount of time to give the project. If a contributor is doing excellent work, being careful and honest about what references say, then I will use some of that time to dig into it. If a contributor edits from a pronounced slant, misquotes the source, is combative on the talk page, uses the project to promote some incomprehensible agenda, and then questions my integrity, I will use my time better by helping someone else. Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That is perfectly understandable.Proabivouac 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi, please take a look at the changes I made to the David MacMichael page, as well as the 40 or so citations I added to the deletion talk page. There are several articles in reliable sources that are devoted to this guy, and he played a key role in the World Court in the 1980s. I won't bug you about it, but you may wish to reconsider your vote. Thanks! csloat 07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work. The article is much improved. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Dear Tom,

Makalp keeps removing Armenian Genocide reference from page. Before adding it on last time, I went on talk page and justified myself. Makalp simply removed it, and did not justify why it was NOT POV as I commented on the talk page. Please see my latest comment there. This user has done similar disruptive editing on the following pages: Arabkir District, Musa Dagh, Kozan(Adana one) and just yesterday Pontic Greek Genocide to name a few, take a look at articles history. I think I have cited myself amply and this user still continually deletes things without talk consensus on this and numerous other pages. I have tried very hard and listened, and accepted verifiable and reliable resources presented by Makalp, and its only fair if he does not keep deleting it.Hetoum I 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom,

This user once again reverts back to his version without reaching consensus on the talk page. Leaves comment and reverts to his version. I did not revert so as to avoid a revert war, I am trying to remain diplomatic and patient.

On the talk page, he simply asks questions that were already answered, failed to look up sources cited (he asks where did u get 1915 abandonment date - AND clearly virtualani link says so.) He seems simply bent over removing Armenian genocide reference, no matter how well cited and explained. I think this is quite unfair to me. I listened to this user and remained respectful to him despite his rude provocative hate speech regarding denial of Armenian genocide. This is really unfair. Thanks for your time, sincerely, Hetoum I 19:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum, I found an article that suggests Armenian monks were there until after the First World War. It is on Google Books, but with only a limited preview, so I would want to have access to the journal before I cited it. I will see what I can get from the library, but it may take some time. The article is
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. 1951. Anatolian studies. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
Tom Harrison Talk 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I know of this reference, and I didn't have access to it via JSTOR, as I am not subscribed to the Art supplement. However, I saw it in Google books and nothing suggested that the monks stayed there until after WWI, nor would it suggest, as even the Bishop of Trebizond was deported and shot as I gave in the reference. Further here is another reference to the fire throwing that theory out the window: Either way, an institution wouldn't say the "G" word in a publication working out of Turkey for obvious reasons.

I think my version was quite heavily cited and Makalp has yet to offer to contradict me.Hetoum I 02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It says in part,
The Armenian Monastery of Kaymakli. Plan, Fig. 22. This monastery is situated about two miles from Trebizond on the west slope of the valley of the ancient River Pyxites, up which runs the great trade route over the Zigana pass to Eastern Anatolia and Persia. There were Armenian monks here until after the First World War, but the church is now roofless, the open belfry has disappeared (though its ground-floor structure remains) and the chapel and range of monastic buildings are gradually disintegrating.
The history of the monastery may be locked away somewhere in the archives of the Armenian church but nothing seems to be known of it locally.
That said, I would want to see the whole article before I reached any conclusions. Tom Harrison Talk 13:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Found more sources and references that support my version and added em to the article. The Ankara source cannot be impartial on date, as using Genocide would mean trouble for Anyone in Turkey. Have you gotten the article? Could we add reference to genocide back in?

Hetoum I 21:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So far I have not been able to get the article, and I would want to see the whole thing before I added anything based on it. We could not reasonably exclude a peer-reviewed academic journal because of concerns that it might have been censored. As for the sources you recently added, I will look for The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, but I would only be able to look at Kévorkian if it were available in translation. I rely on you to cite what we can usefully add to the article. If it is controversial, we can look into it more deeply. Unless more extensive sources become available, we probably say enough about the genocide to inform the reader. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on a review I could read online, Byzantine Monuments sounds like it would be an excellent source. Tom Harrison Talk 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will wait for you to take a look yourself and add, since I want to avoid trouble there. Also, I am wondering if you might be able to protect the Church of Kish article and moderate it's talk page. I have been attacked by 3 Azerbaijani editors who have gotten together 3 friends and revert my version without talking and reaching consensus, failing to listen to me or reason. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Hetoum I 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Church of Kish is too far outside my area of knowledge. You can ask for pages to be protected at WP:RFPP, or maybe open a request for comment about the article. Tom Harrison Talk 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion question

Hi Tom, I wonder if, as a general practice, you usually remove links to images that you delete from the articles? I noticed that you deleted several images lacking fair use rationale, which left a number of broken links in D.C. ~Da Capo~. I deleted some more of the images from that article and cleaned up the broken links. I'm of the opinion that doing so is a "best practice". Thanks --Spike Wilbury 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Yes, that would probably be a good idea, wouldn't it. Sorry, I will watch for that in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the same thing. Just make sure to clean up links, it really helps a lot, thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, I've made checking part of my routine. Thanks for mentioning it. Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Prison Planet forum

I thought I'd bring to your attention that you and I are under attack in this Prison Planet forum thread. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They say you can tell a lot about a man by his enemies. Tom Harrison Talk 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it actually legal to call for someone to be killed?Proabivouac 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's illegal, but I don't think he was serious. Besides, if legal action is taken then that guy becomes a martyr for those 9/11 Truth dumbasses. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I would not take any of that too seriously. If they really believed that stuff about conspiracies and secret agents they would not chatter like that online. Tom Harrison Talk 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA edits

Tom, hi. I noticed you reverted me at Wikipedia:No personal attacks without participating in the discussion regarding the edit I had made. Now the page is protected in the version from which you reverted, so maybe I could persuade you to provide some kind of reply to the arguments I've been making on the talk page against the "sites" wording. So far, no discussion has happened over the point that is, as far as I can tell, the only real issue with this edit war. I'd love to get some feedback from you. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have anything original to add. I'll speak up on the talk page if I do. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I ask because nobody has really explained why the benefits of that wording outweigh the specific and inevitable harm of directing traffic to the sites in question. Since you reverted, I thought you might have some... thoughts on that matter. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess you ask as a rhetorical device to strengthen your position. I have followed this argument for some time now, as have we all. If I see anything new, or have anything new to say, I will speak up. On the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You guess wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the WP:POINT is yours

There is no anti-"attack site" policy, and the links are not to personal attacks. They are citations. There is no excuse for deleting those citations. Mangoe 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You put them there to be deleted, so you could complain about it. I deleted them, and you complained about it. Now what? Tom Harrison Talk 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

I would appreciate it if you would explain your deletion of the material I added; at Talk:Holocaust denial#POV dispute: Millions of non-Jews killed. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Closure of BLP entry?

Um, what the hell happened there? FloNight can just arbitrarily call for he closure of a BLP complaint? Since when is Deletion Review the place to settle BLP disputes, isn't that what the board I brought this to is for? Shall I take this up at WP:ANI next? Tarc 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple discussions all over the wiki are feeding the problem. It has been through deletion review, and is now up for deletion a second time. She does not need yet another internet forum going on about her, and we do not need multiple pages of discussion about her. I hope you will let it finish in the deletion discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Would it also be prudent to not block [62] users who feel that the information should be included in the article? Admins are acting like this is set in stone already, which is clearly not the case. Tarc 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I routinely block to prevent re-insertion of material that violates blp. Those blocks are subject to review. I would be inclined to support this one by Doc Glasgow. Tom Harrison Talk 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

Tom, Thanks for removing semi-protection from the talk page, but when I said that vandalism isn't a problem I actually was thinking of the article. Would you be willing to remove it from the article too? Thanks. BRMo 00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not object, but you should probably ask User:MZMcBride, who protected it, or ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison Talk 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. BRMo 00:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tom,

After providing reliable resources for my article Double Dragon (Music Producer), why was it still deleted? If there's a question about note worthy information, the article that I wrote is of value to those individuals seeking more information on the climate of the Korean/Canadian music industry. Over the last 3 years Double Dragon is responsible for shifting the sound of popular Korean Hip-Hop music, and is one of a handful of producers out of Vancouver Canada to hit the international market. On a macro scale, the article helps paint the picture of the major players in the Korean, Canadian and Christian Hip-Hop scene, and it shows which artists are most current.

All of the artist mentioned also have articles in Wikipedia, it seems reasonable to me that the people responsible for creating the music for those artists should be profiled here as well. --Taekniq 17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it and let you know tomorrow afternoon. Tom Harrison Talk 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for restoring my article. The page still has an "information" tag saying that the article doesn't have citations. Will that be removed? --Taekniq 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Superficially the citations look okay, but having the tag or not is an editorial decision. The article is not a subject I know anything about. You can read about citations and sources by following the links in the tag. Tom Harrison Talk 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


It appears you've deleted this sound clip due to the lack of fair use rationale. While I support the current drive to add such rationales to media, I wasn't notified (a notice should have been placed on Talk:Doolittle (album) at least). If the clip is restored, I'd be happy to provide a fair use rationale. It was an oversight on my part (note that all other media has an appropriate rationale). CloudNine 12:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored now, sorry for the inconvenience. Please provide the rationale as soon as you can. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Input sought

Hi. I know you've said before that you'll comment at WT:NPA when you have something to add, but I just wanted to bring your attention to the most recent topic on that page, where there's some discussion of seeking mediation. I'd appreciate if you could have a look at that topic, which I think might contain a possible way forward. If you'd prefer not to discuss it in that venue, I'd be open to alternatives, such as email or IRC or what-have-you. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose mediation in principle, but cannot take active part right now. Tom Harrison Talk 08:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MomoShomo/Ibn Shah/H.E.

Might want to weigh in here. Ibn Shah (talk · contribs) has been confirmed to be identical to MomoShomo (talk · contribs), who you blocked as an H.E. sock. He is, of course, disputing it. - Merzbow 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He keeps disrupting the CU page; I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_H.E._socks_to_block. - Merzbow 18:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC) is an experienced editor who is revert-warring as an anon. Arrow740 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If this happens again, you should file a 3rr report. Tom Harrison Talk 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It was User:Kirbytime (based on a post to a child porn article) edit-warring using dynamic IPs. Arrow740 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So, it's started up again. Here's the history. Arrow740 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Note that we have a new method for protecting deleted pages, that should be more convenient than {{deletedpage}}; see WP:PT for details. >Radiant< 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an improvement. Tom Harrison Talk 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV for HHO gas

An editor has asked for a deletion review of HHO gas. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And the AfD does not seem to have been closed. If you have speedied/salted, isn't it appropriate that you close the AfD? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HHO_gas_(4th_nomination) LaughingVulcan 23:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that won't be necessary. Tom Harrison Talk 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for undoing your deletion, by the way. I should have discussed it with you first. But I came home from work, saw that the AfD was still open (or had been re-opened), along with your comment that you weren't going to undelete them, and took it upon myself. I didn't realize the DRV had already started.

Do you now agree that WP:CSD G4 and G11 didn't apply, though? (Specifically, were you aware of the previous DRV that said it could be re-created?) — Omegatron 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not big deal, please don't worry about it. I will look in when I get a chance. Tom Harrison Talk 08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd still like to know what you think, especially now that they've been deleted again, despite a 19:15 majority for keeping them... — Omegatron 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A Request for comment has been opened about my behavior. Your input would be appreciated. — Omegatron 00:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolls, miscreants and losers

Trolls, miscreants and losers...this is the price we pay for having an open editing forum. But we also have some really great editors, admins and photographers, as well as computer experts and people of rational thought. I suppose my love of writing my stubs still exceeds the idiocy I sometimes see here, but that too could change. Losing your contributions would be a very negative thing for this project. But if you find it to be more trouble than it is worth, I certainly understand.--MONGO 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; There are still lots of good people here. I remember when I first started editing, I didn't even know there were adminsistrators for six months or more. Tom Harrison Talk 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It's really disappointing about all the trolling, negative contributors, and harassment. It's difficult or impossible to make up for the great editors driven away. As is, the troll-management workload (and other backlogs) is a lot for the current number of admins and constructive users. I'm greatly concerned about folks that have left recently, and we can't afford to lose any more. I've largely been taking a break from 9/11 articles, though still intend to get more featured at some point. Since more people are helping on the 9/11 pages, I don't have to be there all the time. It helps to retreat to parts of Wikipedia that are quiet, like the glacier and national parks articles MONGO works on and other stuff I've been doing. But, if it's overly stressful to stick around, then Wikipedia might not be a good thing. --Aude (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
People are still doing some fine work here, Building of the World Trade Center and Gun violence in the United States not least. Tom Harrison Talk 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Tom, this is horrible to see. Was there a last straw involved?Proabivouac 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
H's departure was the latest example, but that is the fault of the people who harassed him. I do not want to blame capable and hard-working people who are trying their best to deal with what we have somehow let become a chronic and systemic problem. It has come to the point that I would actively discourage any friend from beginning to edit here. I hope things can change, but I am afraid that nothing will be done until a few months after the existence of the project is obviously threatened. Tom Harrison Talk 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Horrible indeed. Tom, I'm really sorry to see the changes to your user page, just as I was coming to thank you for your recent support at my RfA. I hope that whatever the problem is can be sorted out. I've been very impressed with what I've seen of you, and I was looking forward to working with you. I'm glad to see that you're not actually leaving, and hope that whatever vandalism reverting, csd work, or other tasks you do here will still mean that you'll be around enough to see things getting better. You'll be a huge loss if you do go. Thanks for the kindness you've always shown me. ElinorD (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very kind. I am rethinking how I can best contribute to the goals of the project, but I will still be here for now. It could just be that I am burnt out and need a break. I hope your good will and enthusiasm (and that of many others) can get things back on track. Tom Harrison Talk 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's always the good editors who leave, and the bad ones who stay.  :-( AGF and civility are great ideas in theory, but aren't really working in practice. The dickishness is actually made worse by the through-the-teeth incivility and all the wikilawyering mania. "Thank you for your contributions to the project, buuuuuut... I've reverted all of them and reported you and I'm going to criticize you with a bunch of capitalizedgibberish, etc. etc. etc." I wonder if we should have third-party experts in human relations/mediation/morale come through and try to clean up our interaction policies.

Another thing we all need is to encourage encouragement. When someone makes an especially good edit or deals with a troll fairly, tell them on their user page so they feel appreciated. Each act of sincere praise cancels out at least a few criticisms. — Omegatron 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"encourage encouragement" - good point. Tom Harrison Talk 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems I see on wikipedia is attracting and retaining good editors. Surely some really good contributors try it out and soon disappear, but what we need to do is help newbies get their feet planted. Whenever I see a new editor adding info to articles on my watchlist, I do what I can to try and prod them to stick around. More often than not, what I get is a response similar to "why is this website so hard to edit"...I think newer editors are often turned off by the various software intricacies of this website, including, but not limited to wikilinking, templates and formatting refs properly. We have made the website user friendly to those that have been here a while and have adjusted to these changes gradually...newbie editors try to edit a well referenced article and find the inline cites to be cumbersome and difficult to work with. User:El C and I tried previously to figure out some way to make the inline cites less intrusive, but I am definitely not very good with templates...perhaps, if you feel the urge, this would be something to play around with in your sandbox, just as a possible suggestion. Another area that really needs help is the images, checking for copyright issues and or simply helping clean up those backlogs...this is tedious and sometimes boring work, but it is always well appeciated...though, the occasional troll will still come to your talkpage demanding his image be restored.--MONGO 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The technical end of things is kind of the counterpart to my complaint. The mechanics are easy for an experienced user who knows the ins and outs, opaque to a newbie. Wkikispeak too: AGF, NPA, NOR, BLP, and the dreaded NPOV. There is good work to be done welcoming new people.
For templates and references, Zotero works very well for me. If I'm on a book's page at Amazon, or the Library of Congress, I can just click an Icon and Zotero sucks up all the bibliographic information from the page. I can export that as a Wikipedia citation template and copy and paste it into the article. So adding them is not so bad, but they are hard to maintain. I can never tell where the article text ends and the footnote begins. Maybe we could blue-highlight the ref tags or all the ref text in the edit window. Tom Harrison Talk 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that...zotero looks like a good idea. The thought regarding making inline cites blue may be hard to implement...seems all good ideas around here are though. You and I both agree that inline cites make it harder for everyone to edit, so for newbies, as they have expressed to me, it is even more confusing. Seriously, seems we have created a monster only the experienced can edit and that is probably going to lead to bigger problems down the road. What I had in mind was some way to simply create templates either 1,2,3,4 or a,b,c,.....etc, that link to the cites which are all posted at the end of an article...a lot like the way the old ref/note style used to work...the biggest problem is when we do sentence/paragrapgh movements, this numerical or alphabetical style gets messed up and is the reason ref/note was eliminated. But in the editing window, the ref/note was no bigger than that...taking up no more than a few keystrokes and easily seen amongst the rest of the text. When I first started Shoshone National Forest, I used that style...I'm sure you remember it...but look at the big difference between what we contend with now and what we had then....[63]...all we had to do was , as an example {{ref|shoshone}} in the article space. This was why we used harvard style referencing in Retreat of glaciers since 1850...though these are also very complicated for newbies, it eliminated the huge amount of space needed in the article iteself, as seen when someone is editing it. Doug Bell even created the "harv" style, which superscripted the footnote so it was less obtusive in the visible text, and in an article such as that one, with so many numbers, it was easier to read it without having a footnote confuse someone with a measurement. So lots of things are possible and it is something I might start working on myself even.--MONGO 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Tom's idea is feasible and wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement. User:Cacycle/wikEd looks like it already has some capabilities. It "can also be installed site-wide and can then also be used by not logged-in users." I haven't tried it myself, but a lot of users apparently have. Might be some other suggestions already submitted to Or new suggestions can be submitted there and feature requests do get implemented. Site-wide implementation of course would require broad consensus, but I think it's a feasible idea. --Aude (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
WikEd does have syntax highlighting for different things, which I find helpful, but I usually leave it turned off. It slows down page loading quite a bit and has some weird formattings that I don't like. Putting superscripts in superscript in the editing window, for instance.
I've been informally asking outsider friends about their experiences with Wikipedia, and am thinking of doing some IM interviews with "regular people" I know and posting them in my userspace. (Everyone else should do this, too!) For instance, I proposed a change to our interface after a friend refused to add a note to a talk page. She saw an error while talking to me, and pointed it out to me. I told her I didn't know anything about the article and she should leave a comment on the talk page, but after some convincing she couldn't figure out how. See the suggestion on the pump. This is just one small thing that we could do.
She also said she would be much more comfortable entering something into an anonymous one-line field that wouldn't be part of a discussion, but would be logged somewhere else for editors to review. Like a "lesser edit button" that just says "Do you see an error or other problem? Let us know!" and they can enter a one-sentence summary which will then be checked by regular editors.
The referencing system as atrocious. I've been complaining about it since it was first installed. It's great that we actually have a referencing system, but it's ugly and messy and unintuitive in the extreme. Wikipedia used to be a wiki. Now we might as well call it "Computersciencepedia" with all the extra codes and hooks that have been added to the syntax. My mother could never edit this, but she's should be able to, ideally. Wikipedia is supposed to be part of Web 2.0, but why do all the other websites have such much better-designed interfaces?
I'm glad you like Zotero.  :-) I'm the one adding most of the COinS tags to the citation templates and stuff to make them work together. Like if you click "Cite this article" you can do the opposite and import the Wikipedia article into Zotero and so on. — Omegatron 00:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice work on COinS. I was reading about that a few weeks ago in another context and saw what you guys had been doing. Tom Harrison Talk 17:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I do agree about trolls, vandals, POV pushers, and negative contributors making the editing environment difficult -- enough so that I wouldn't encourage people in real life to join and help out. Not at this time. In real life, I do know some of the scholars whose articles are cited in the gun violence article, and cited in other wiki articles. If not for the controversy and problems surrounding the articles, it might be possible for me to ask them (or their graduate students) to review wiki articles and help out. There is a shortage of reviewers at WP:FAC, especially people who can review for substance, versus simply looking at prose. Also, once a featured article is created, it's a lot of work to maintain that standard on some articles. Another reason I haven't done so is the articles are still in rough shape, with basic topics still needing lots of work. We are far from an editing environment which is welcoming for good new editors. Some time in the future, it might become possible to invite folks to help, if in time (1) some form of stable versions gets implemented, where anonymous edits don't go live immediately (decreasing gratification gained by vandalizing) (2) something like what Tom suggests is implemented to make editing more user friendly (3) wikilawyering, civility and POV pushing is better managed. All the chitchat on IRC isn't great either. I've tried going on IRC a few times, but can't figure it out and now lost my IRC password. It's too much trouble for a lot of people, and don't see how it's productive to be on there. --Aude (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder of a lot of our troubles result from immediatism without stable versions. Tom Harrison Talk 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else has probably already said it, but I expect any simplified markup language will expand until it is as complex as what it was to have replaced. Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that is a good point.--MONGO 04:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Very good point. — Omegatron 07:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk: and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Tom. Thanks. 03:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I've renominated the template for deletion. Let's push this template thru to deletion, and get as many of your like minded friends to vote.[64] 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

I believe that when it comes to editing wikipedia, if you are not having fun then you are doing it wrong. WAS 4.250 04:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say, Tom's complaints do not indicate he is doing it wrong...trolls and losers are jeapoardizing the ability of good editors and admins to do it right, especially when some admins enable trolls and losers by demanding we assume good faith of them, even if they are obviously here for purposes other than writing and administrating an encyclopedia.--MONGO 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
What I am saying is take the subset of possible behaviours you are calling "doing it right" (meaning roughly "right for wikipedia") and only do the subset of that that is consistant with having fun. In other words, edit wikipedia by only doing that which is both right for wikipedia and right for yourself (as that is what is sustainable). WAS 4.250 07:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, you're proposing to edit only those parts of Wikipedia that are below the radar of trolls and cede to them everything else. I think this is what Tom has decided to do after all, since there are no effective ways of combatting trolls, at least some of them. Beit Or 14:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have come to think in many cases it is better to let an article devolve into an obviously-unreliable mess, than to spend hours fighting out a compromise that leaves it only less bad, but with my having seemingly endorsed the result by participating. If a bunch of loons write the page without interference, at least the page is obviously the work of loons, and I have not wasted more time. Of course if we had flagged revisions that logic would not apply. I think I understand the spirit in which WAS meant his remark, and I appreciate the advice. Tom Harrison Talk 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

Apparently there is progress in development of a Flagged Revisions feature, as an extension (m:Extension:FlaggedRevs). Proposal and discussion are going on about using flagged revisions in enwiki - Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. --Aude (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks encouraging. Maybe we could put a dozen pages on this as a trial and see how it goes. Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Great! Now we can edit-war over which version is the "quality" one.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Raymond Arritt 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Tom's Day!

Featured article star.svg

Tom harrison has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tom's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tom!

21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

I concur!--MONGO 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And so do I! ElinorD (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Naturally.Proabivouac 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes :) --Aminz 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all. I appreciate your good wishes, and Phaedriel's generosity. Tom Harrison Talk 02:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


One reform (among several) that is desperately needed is to give any user in good standing the ability to block blatant abusive sockpuppets and vandals with less than a certain number of edits. This would not require RfA, but could be granted by any administrator, and withdrawn by any administrator in cases of abuse (just like blocks.) This would save us the incredibly inefficient procedure of non-administrators having to file reports in various places and await administrator attention when most of those administrators will know less about the situation "on the ground" than the reporting editors.Proabivouac 06:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful to give some admin tools by default to any editor in 'good standing'. We might tie it in with people marking sighted versions. I think it has been discussed in the past, but I haven't found where. There is kind of a myth about 'uninvolved admins' taking the days necessary to inform themselves of the background, and then act. This isn't practical and rarely happens, even in arbitration I suspect. Tom Harrison Talk 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice additions!

I just noticed your additions to the Kaymakli article! Thank you so much Tom!, makes me feel worse for being so aggressive earlier.

Armenian barn.png Armenian Barnstar of National Merit
I, Hetoum hereby award you the Armenian Barnstar of National Merit for your patience and contribution to the Amenaprkich Monastery article. Hetoum I 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~
Hetoum, thank you very much! Tom Harrison Talk 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
) It did sound like a good book, and I was recommended by an Armenian professor to it. I will try to get the book myself in the near future. D.O. publications can be expensive, but certainly worth every penny. Their works are done by quite competent scholars. I was recently reading some articles from the D.O. journal on the Armenian marchlands and it was quite impressive.Hetoum I 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Muslims persecution of Christians

Why did the article get changed to Islam and Anti-Christian sentiment? LoveMonkey 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you and Sefringle are discussing it on the talk page. It's not a topic I have followed very closely, but I will watch it for a while. Tom Harrison Talk 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tom,

I would be very thankful if you could help with Aisha article. Here is the dispute:

The quote we have:

As far as Ayesha's age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet is concerned, it is a matter of ongoing controversy among Muslims. Conservatives (and Western Orientalists) put her age as low as nine years, based on Ahadith that claim that she was playing with dolls when she got married. This could well be true since the concept of childhood is a relatively recent one, and the age of consent for women in most cultures in those days was quite low. (Even in the United States, the age of consent for women was between seven and ten as late as 1889 and was raised to eighteen only as the result of feminist campaigns.) As such, there was nothing aberrant in the practice of marrying young girls fourteen centuries ago (though it is today, given that we now recognize children as children). On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics" (Walther 1981, 75). However, most of what we know about Ayesha, including the details of her marriage, are reconstructions that remain susceptible to interpretive controversy and manipulation in view of the very different meaning of her life for Sunni and Shii Muslims (After the Prophet's death, Ayesha led an unsuccessful revolt against Ali, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, the fourth caliph of Islam whom the Shii follow as Imam.) Not only are Muslims thus particularly invested in specific reconstructions of her life, but the most definite work on it was begun a century and a half after her death. The work drew for its details on "oral reports transmitted over three to four generations"(Spellberg 1994, 2); thus, "even the earliest Arabic written sources on Aisha's life already capture that life as a legacy, an interpretation." As D. A. Spellberg puts it (191), in studying Ayesha, one therefore is studying "male intellectual history, not a woman's history, but reflections about the place of a woman, and by extension, all women, in exclusively male assertions about Muslim society." To what extent estimates of Ayesha's age or the details of her marriage also embody displaced male desires must then permanently remain open to question."

Source: "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an (University of Texas Press, 2002). page 126" Author of the book: Asma Barlas.

Dispute: User:Arrow740 and User:Proabivouac oppose adding the above information from the book. They want to write: "Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad." I want to write: Most Muslims (and Western scholars of Islam) hold that Aisha have been six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad...... A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19."

Some arguments for why the book is a reliable source:

1. The book was published by University of Texas press which practices the peer-reviewing process.

2. Reviews of the book (or other academic sources that cite this book, which means we too can cite it):

  • John Esposito reviewed the book saying: "This is an original and, at times, groundbreaking piece of scholarship."
  • Kirsten V. Walles, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin reviewed the book saying: "The book Believing is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society.However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history..."
  • David Robinson in Muslim Societies in African History (Cambridge University Press) says: "For the role of women, start with Asma Barlas' Believing Women in Islam:..."
  • Winkelmann, Carol Lea, Christine Shearer-Cremean (Survivor Rhetoric, University of Toronto Press) cite this work (p.236).
  • Josef W. Meri (in Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Routledge press) p.280 refers to this book.
  • And ...

3. Please see Asma Barlas article. She has for example edited a chapter in "Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an " among others. Barlas was named to the prestigious Spinoza Chair at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands due to "her prominent contributions to discussions about women and Islam".

Thanks --Aminz 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Watt says she was nine when they had sex. This femininist author is a tertiary source for this hadith analysis, though she might be good for other things. The real issue here is that Aminz is claiming that the sources say that Aisha had reached puberty (Pro removed it here), when they don't. This is an egregious misprepresentation of sources and deserves some censure. Arrow740 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The above source says the Western Orientalist (the category to which Watt and others belong) believe in Aisha marrying at nine. Barlas only reports that there is a controversy. Being a feminist might affect her judgments from the facts but not in reporting them. Even if Barlas is a feminist, she has been commended for "her prominent contributions to discussions about women and Islam"- hardly can anyone have prominent contributions to the issue of Islam and women but makes obvious mistakes about one of the most important women in Islam, i.e. Aisha
Of course Aisha stayed with her father until she reached puberty. Proab is only throwing accusation against me. Spellberg states that "all these references to the Aisha's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status, and, implicitly her virginity." Watt also says: "We must remember, of course, that girls matured much earlier in seventh-century Arabia." Others also say this. --Aminz 08:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You just hoisted yourself by your own petard. I think this deserves a block. Arrow740 08:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Block for you maybe but not for me. --Aminz 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Or, maybe a block for you. Arrow740 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, so Spellberg states that "all these references to the Aisha's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status," and you take home from this, "Aisha hit puberty?" As opposed to, you got this bloody unlikely notion from the fever swamps of internet dawah, and are falsely attributing it to what here pass for (a political scientist specializing in race/gender/you know the drill) reliable sources?Proabivouac 08:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
There has never ever been the custom in any society to consummate marriages before adulthood. Colin Turner (Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press) says: "However, such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood, which Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach at an earlier age that Westerners today."
--Aminz 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That makes the fact that Muhammad didn't wait all the more disgusting. The point remains that you blatantly misrepresented sources. Arrow740 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Asma Barlas's area of speciality includes "Islam and Qur'anic Hermeneutics, and Women and Gender". She has written about Islam in famous presses [65]. --Aminz 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
She is not an acceptable tertiary source for this material. Arrow740 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Barlas(2002) appears as note 3, and should be removed or listed in the references by title.
  • Barlas' can be presented as a minority opinion unless it is only her view and no other authorities have accepted it. If it is just her, it would be undue weight to give it that prominence. I have no idea which is the case. It looks like a complex subject with a lot of history, and I don't have the time or expertise to inform myself of all I would need to know to have an opinion.
  • It's not appropriate for us as editors to characterize Muhammad's behavior as disgusting. That will just antagonize people and make editing more difficult. Reliable sources have said whatever they said about Aisha's age at marriage. Our encyclopedia article should not use this as a way to indict Islam today, or to promote Muhammad as a moral example, or to somehow support one side in a political/religious dispute.

Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.
I would like to make a clarification: The dispute is not over Barlas's personal "view"s but rather over the truthness of the primary "report" she is transmitting. She is basically saying that there are a minority of Muslims who "based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina)..Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics"".
Please note that the question is not over interpretation of anything, but rather over truthness of the very report. --Aminz 01:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Resolution

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Im guessing that you didnt look at the talk page since we already reached a consensus...everyone agrees with me...and think the other editor is wrong. Of course since he has also edited the page 3 times in 1 sent him a email to also....right? We are in open Med...of course that didnt stop the wrong editor from going ahead and changing the page to his POV once again. How about doing something about that? GATXER 01:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If everyone agrees with you, then one of those people will restore the version you prefer. Tom Harrison Talk 13:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The other editor requested a mediator.....who now has agreed with us...however the other editor still wont stop making he POV edits. Hes in like 5 pages with a mediator all Bush pages all with him and his POV. Also Im not the only one delteing his POV edits. We can do nothing else since he wont listen to reason. GATXER 23:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It is very nice for you to make friends. However, you should start by not misrepresenting the facts.
  1. Tom warned you because you violated WP:3RR
  2. The fact I ask for mediation alot may indicate I am trying to avoid exactly the sillyness we are now having. For details of what I want to prevent see my page on Merecat and Zerofault.
  3. Further, you might want to start talking instead of blindly reverting. The fact you have not even noticed you deleted sources, I carefully inserted to address your claims of the comments being incorrect, proves you have no idea of what you are doing. Please try and find middle ground as this editor has already suggested to you.
Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You get a lot of Mediators because you force you POV on everyone. It isnt working with me. I will take the mediator advice and keep moving the Criticism to the Criticism section. Consensus on this has been reached and NO ONE agrees with you. GATXER 10:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Coming from an editor that only contributes by reverting others it sounds a bit hollow. Since this is somebody else's page I won't respond to this edit warrioir again here. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Its should be pointed out that I have contributed to another page and meet up with a editor not unlike Nescio who while they admitted my edit was 100% true they didn't want it....I then backed down and left Winki. That is something I wont do again. This is just another thing Nescio has said about me that was a lie GATXER 02:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

underground cities article has been vandalised

underground cities And no brain surgery was not first performed in Turkey. LoveMonkey 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Can you give me a diff? Tom Harrison Talk 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

BP Information

I liked what you wrote regarding BP, however it does not seem to connect. The section is about Operation Ajax obviously, and while BP is mentioned, the subject is not BP. I am not sure if the company is of interest to you, perhaps you can write something more closely related to the time period of the subject regarding BP or the company it was formerly known as that would serve as an intro, or outro. However the information you added takes place some 20 years later and seems disjointed. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BP is of course the successor of the Anglo-Persian oil company, and the nationalization of their assets (or fear of it), revolution, and (re-)nationalization seem to many to be all of a piece. Also, it leads nicely into the next para on Iraq, or would if I had moved the 'Asia Times' bit. Anyway, we'll see where it goes. Tom Harrison Talk 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you believe it leads into the section on Iraq, perhaps you can just reorganize whats there to achieve that. I am not sure how it fits really, but I am mainly into South America / Caribbean issues. --SixOfDiamonds 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Youtube talk on Undercover Mosque

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

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)


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)

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)
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)

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)

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)


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

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


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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)


I noticed a recent edit you made regarding a pejorative link [66] 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)

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)

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)


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)

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

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


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)

  • Of course I did not simply "revert to Morton's version" - [67]
  • 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)

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

Your input requested

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


Hi Tom,

I have asked a question here [68], 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)

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. GATXER 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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,[69] stating it is G that is contributing against consensus. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)


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)

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


Please ask MONGO to not vandalize my page anymore[70]. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)


I added to that disccussion the reply i was in the middle of when you archived it away. I got an Edit Conflict, WITH YOU, so I went in and added it. You'll notice that i redacted a number of the insults, but really, protecting MONGO like this instead of blocking him for incivility is ridiculous. At least I know who his defenders are now. ThuranX 23:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your patronizing commentary. Do not return to my talk page. You are highly unwelcome. ThuranX 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[71]. There's your proof that MONGO can't help but compulsively try to ramp people up for more trolling incidents. Compare timestamps to this,[72], where I redacted some of my statement, and explained myself more fully. That's who you're defending. I'm not going to reply, I'm just going to remove it. FOUR hours after I removed the insults, he brings it to my talk page. You handle this. Absurd. ThuranX 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, after you call others names, ban two editors from your talk page with snarky reversion summaries, you are coming here to complain that someone pointed out your insults after an interminable 4 hours after you made them? Seriously? --Tbeatty 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
ThuranX, I can't see any benefit in continuing this. The more people your complain to about MONGO, the more people will see the diff that MONGO was complaining about, which doesn't look very good.Proabivouac 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I read this fascinating article in New Scientist and thought it might interest you. --John 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a good read. I'll see if I can get the full text - it might be a good reference for Conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC) redux

FYI, since you were an admin involved in all the drama regarding "DWEECs" and Christianity-related articles around Easter of 2006, I thought you'd be interested in the latest reincarnation:

--A. B. (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. That's one for the spam blacklist. Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories question

Because of my limited wiki navigation skills, I discovered that you were an important decision-maker in March regarding the word choice of "conspiracy theories". However, I searched the archives in vain for a discussion of whether the 9/11 Commission Report would also fall under a NPOV definition of "conspiracy theory". Do you recollect whether such an objection was asked and answered during your review? Pablo says there was, but I cannot find it. Kanodin 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

yes it was. It was discussed under the "Al Qaeda conspired, therefore accusations that Al Qaeda was responsible is a conspiracy theory." This was dismissed by concensus, not the least of the reasoning being that it was ridiculous. --Tbeatty 08:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm also pretty sure that it was discussed. If it has been awhile since it was discussed, I don't object to the discussion being revisited. However, I'm certain that replacing conspiracy theories with alternate theories or any other such language will be resoundingly rejected again. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, taking this discussion back to the original talk section. Kanodin 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for taking action. He's back, of course: [73]. Arrow740 00:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. ElinorD (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps we need a noticeboard just for these DavidYork71 type-sockpuppeteers, as ANI reports refer us to WP:AIV, but a few WP:AIV reports have been removed as out-of-process (socks not vandalism.)Proabivouac 00:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Again: [74]. Arrow740 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again, on talk pages this time. See [75], which preceeded [76]. I thought it was BS who has usually used IP's to circumvent his block, but the talk page post had the bitterness of HE's posts. It would be best if someone were to block these socks and protect the talk page of Muhammad so this banned editor cannot attempt to influence the project. Arrow740 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Iantresman

Tom, do you intend to explain your administrative action concerning Iantresman, as I asked you to do? --Art Carlson 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I do not plan to spend any more time on it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a complaint against you. --Art Carlson 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the 'barn star' explanation. No offense, but are you watching me, or Giovanni33, or both of us? Chaser just explained how lots of people watch each other with watchlists. I had no idea. I thought that was just used for articles! 'Watchlists'. I don't know why, but the concept reminds me of the Pentagon's Domestic Surveillance Program. :-) Bmedley Sutler 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, no offense taken. I saw it on Mongo's talk page. I watchlisted your page after I left you the note, which I usually do so as not to miss a reply. I watch pages I'm interested in, or that are often vandalized. Tom Harrison Talk 12:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Nice: [77]. Dreadstar 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good of you to say so. Tom Harrison Talk 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's far superior to what I put there, it attributes the statement very very clearly to avoid further problems with that sentence(hopefully!). It's a subtle attribution that I didn't think of before, so I learned something new from it...aways a valuable thing! Thank you for that. Dreadstar 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

North American Union

I noticed last year you deleted North American Union, since then it has become a redirect to another article which appears to be the new home of the conspiracy theory. An anon has recently removed the redirect, but I restored it. I was wondering if it should be deleted again since the NAU references / claims in the Independent Task Force on North America don't appear that strong. --Dual Freq 11:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be some legitimate content in Independent Task Force on North America. I think for now we should try to remove the conspiracist stuff. If it devolves into what it was before, it may have to be speedied as a re-creation of deleted material - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Union. Tom Harrison Talk 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I pulled some of the obvious stuff, but there may be more. Tom Harrison Talk 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but it was recreated two hours after you deleted it. --Dual Freq 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP violations at Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement

Please note that adding the WaPo cite in no way supports Cberlet's claim, as the WaPo makes no assertion that LaRouche or his staff caused anyone to commit suicide. The WaPo is not run by amateurs, they know better than to publish something like that. Please don't mislead the reader by implying that the WaPo is somehow backing up this claim. --Marvin Diode 22:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist as a result of your request [78] on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Looks like an interesting exercise to try and keep this npov. Edison 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma Bombing

Removed reference to it being a terrorist attack as it is called the biggest pre 9/11 act of terrorism in the next sentence. I think this flows better and avoids a resource hungry piped link.User:Barliner Flag of Berlin.svg chat 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yours is better. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 13:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Aluminium helmet warning

Hello, I just watched the Colbert Report. They just documented that Fox News is still arguing that The Clintons killed their aide Vince Foster! Too funny! Thats 'journalism'? I thought it was a 'conspiracy theory'! What else could you expect from 'PR division' of the BUSHGOV who argues that Saddam was Osama's 'kissing cousin' and had 5000 litres of Anthrax or what ever they're outrageous lies are. Link The prosecutor Ken Starr who hated the Clintons the most cleared them twice about this phony 'conspiracy theory'. Hillarys polls are strong though, so the BUSHGOV 'shadow' PR divison at Fox must spring in to action. On Wikipedia too! Aren't you even the slightest tiniest bit embarassed? I went to the store to buy some foil like the Spooks here suggested. They were all out. The American right wing and Spooks on Wikipedia need it all. :-) Bmedley Sutler 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • So you get your news from the Comedy Central. That explains a lot. - Crockspot 12:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
All I can do is get the word out. I told you about the Aluminum/Tin thing. If you want to ignore my advice that's on you, and I'll say no more about it. One last thing though: helmet and hat are deliberate misnomers that lead people into making something ineffective. You can't just slap together a beanie and expect it to do anything. The tin foil has to go from the eyebrows, over the top of the head, and down the back to cover that area below the shoulder blades that always itches. (Ever wonder about the source of that itch?) The tin foil strip should be not less than four inches wide. A double layer is more robust, but not essential. Secure it in place with clear plastic packing tape, especially at the back of the neck where a certain amount of slack is inevitable. Using duct tape is counter-productive, for obvious reasons. Tom Harrison Talk 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's the way I wear mine. Even though I am supposedley on the "inside" I know how indiscrimate The Government is being right now. Heck, you don't even need a warrant anymore to target someone. I can't even check to see who's on the list anymore because the Patriot Act got rid of it. --Tbeatty 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Its enough to make me glad I live in the free world, even if the weather is awful this summer.... Seabhcan
I wonder if bad weather and good beer are connected somehow. Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
One demands the other, I find. --John 14:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely! ... Seabhcan 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Why??!? Have you been following what Squeakbox goes around saying? trolling and outing people when no such stuff is taking place. Fighting for Justice 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing he did excuses you. I stand by my warning. Tom Harrison Talk 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to suggest it excuses me. I was trying to say what about giving him a warning as well? Surely you can not condone what he says, or do you? Fighting for Justice 00:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Go complain to someone else. Tom Harrison Talk 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok. I'll take that as you do. Thank You. Fighting for Justice 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: September 11th Attacks.

The edit has been in place for MONTHS. Along comes Haemo. He removed from the motives section the testimony were the vice-Chairman point blank asks what the motive was (the only time it was asked in the 9/11 hearings) and an FBI Special Agent gives him the answer. And you don't think there is something wrong with that? He also removed the statement from the Former in Laden Unit Chief calling Clinton and Bush liars. Haemo's edit is from yesterday, the edit I am returing to was there for MONTHS. why did you take Haemo's side? bed fair Tom, you are simply not being objective and fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tel555 (talkcontribs).

Discuss it at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 01:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox 3RR

Sorry to bug you - I just ran across Squeakbox a couple of days ago. In regards to this decision, did you happen to see the problems with other articles, and with previous 3RR block? Videmus Omnia Talk 02:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I protected the page about an hour before the 3rr report was filed. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If someone is edit warring on another page, please report that on the noticeboard. If this is a longer-term problem, dispute resolution would be the appropriate mechanism. Tom Harrison Talk 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't have any dispute with this particular editor, and I don't have enough knowledge of or experience with him to draft an RfC. I just thought policy was that repeated 3RR violations led to progressively longer blocks, per this, that's all. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


A lot of material was added to the article and I just finished editing it. May I ask you to take a look and make sure everything checks out? Davies, Andrew 11:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This was the first time I worked for a couple of hours on Wikipedia as a registered editor. I was confused by the sheer number of citation templates required and copied/pasted the wrong title. Thank you for correcting those mistakes, among others. Davies, Andrew 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it looks like good work. I want to get a couple of references and then I'll go over it in more detail over the next week. Welcome to the project, Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Let me know if any help is required in getting specific quotations from the sources I've cited. After all, I've recently finished working with them and can find and produce them with ease. Regards, Davies, Andrew 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Here you go

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For publishing the Definition of Conspiracy Theory on your User page and suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for it. --Tbeatty 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Tom Harrison Talk 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with grammar

Hello, where can I ask for assistance with my grammar on an article I started? Link Thank you. I guess we can't joke around any more. :-( Bmedley Sutler 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Our article, English grammar, looks pretty thorough, and has some links at the end. The Elements of Style is a classic. Often a good dictionary will have a guide in the front or back. The way to improve, I think, is to read good writing in books or some magazines, write things yourself here, and watch what people correct. I don't see any big errors in Deetjen's Big Sur Inn. I'd be interested to hear what suggestions others might have. Tom Harrison Talk 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I had a hack at it; see what you (both) think. --John 20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Good. I added some more info too. I will work more on Big Sur articles, since I think there won't be disagreements there and its my favorite place in America. (Yosemite is great too) Bmedley Sutler 20:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you administrator Harrison. You are very helpful and funny too. Bmedley Sutler 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good luck with the grammar. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice article Bmedley. I lived in Santa Cruz for 25 years and spent a lot of time in Big Sur. About the only thing I didn't get to check out is the hot tubs at Esalen. - Crockspot 03:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom

I noticed you blocked the account that was vandalizing Morton's page. I thought the page had protection, per this note, but it appears that it may have only been protected against IP addresses, and not against registered users? Due to the controversial nature of his page, and This article that came out today, it appears he's being targeted, as that article specifically directs people to go vandalize his page/talk page. Would it be possible to protect both his user page, and his talk page for a week from this?

I'm not intimately familiar with the admin tools, but is there a protection level that allows established users to edit a page (such as +50 edits, thereby allowing the valid community to talk to him) but keeps those who have created a name simply to vandalize? (The article specifically directs people to make an account to keep from being blocked.) I personally have not read his page, nor did I really read the article (or care what it is about) but I have been dealing with the attacks on him for a couple of hours, and it seems it will only get worse over the weekend. If you can let me know what (if anything) you can do, (for future reference) I'd appreciate it. Thanks! ArielGold 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection isn't that flexible. The next level available is to allow editing by only administrators, which we can do if it becomes necessary. For now I have s-protected his talk page. Thanks for reverting the ongoing vandalism. That, and blocking the users who have come here to do that, is probably the way to go. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, alright thank you for letting me know. Could his pages should be put on the (IRC) watched list for the weekend (or so)? It would make it easier for us evil vandal fighter people, lol. I appreciate your help with the blocks! Thank you very much! ArielGold 15:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably, but I use Lupin's, and don't really know how the IRC things work. You might ask on one of the channels. Tom Harrison Talk 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee, okie dokie! Thank you again for your help today! ArielGold 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

removals of prison planet links

Hi Tom, can you discuss your removals on the Admin page Thanks. ... Seabhcan 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please Tom, you are removing republished articles, which is efectively removing sources. Not sure if you are using a script, but it is very sloppy. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Denial undo

Hi, I see you undone my change, can I ask, why? I believe, I explained myself well on the talk page.--Igor "the Otter" 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also appreciate an explanation as to why my edit was not acceptable. "Stop it. This is not a platform for you to promote your conspiracy theories." Ditto.--LoNDoN 06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Musical Linguist

Dear Tom, good to hear from you, despite the occasion. Ann is alive and well. She has been sick lately, though not badly, and has taken a summer job. Also, she has to finish writing some papers by the beginning of September. As you probably know, real life serious harassment resulting from Wikipedia caused her to lose some of the pleasure she had here, and also caused her to get behind in some study, which she now has to catch up on. She even mentioned a few months ago that she might request desysopping in the autumn, when she starts work on her thesis. I don't expect her to return to regular editing for the foreseeable future, but I don't think she's gone for good either. She probably will log on one of these days, and she's certainly still regularly at the computer. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope she gets well soon, and catches up with her work. Tom Harrison Talk 11:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that stinks...I was just wondering the other day about her.--MONGO 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain more fully

You protected Haroon Rashid Aswat.

I left a note on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat. If this was not an oversight, and you were planning on leaving an explanation, that is where I will look for it.

My apologies for not recognizing your wiki-id when I left the first note on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have since commented on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify for me:
  1. Your reply on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat -- did I understand you correctly -- did you actually consider blocking me from all editing? Without any warning?
  2. Are you warning me that you will block me from all editing if I edit this article any further, and you feel that my edits use sources open to challenge?
  3. You don't think the normal dialogue wikipedians are supposed to engage in would be sufficient to resolve any questions you have about my edits, and the sources I used?
IMO, whatever concern you had about my edits, and the sources I used I really think you should have recognized that I was making a good faith attempt to supply better sources for this article. IMO, as an administrator, you have a responsibility to be clearer when giving warnings. Those on the receiving end deserve to know clearly what they have done that is going to bring down a block.
Maybe it wasn't your intention to leave a warning? If so I urge you to be more careful.
Not knowing what might trigger a block I left a comment, on your most recent excisions, on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat. But I will look for your reply on the apparent block threats here. Geo Swan 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It would not be my first choice, but if it is necessary to prevent you from adding poorly-sourced controversial material about a living person, I will certainly block you. If you think that is at all remarkable, you should become more familiar with our policy on biographies of living people. I will address the specifics about content on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are noticeboards at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sean_Belnick & BizChair

Can I ask why you removed the pages for Sean_Belnick and on 14:08, 29 May 2007 ? Sean has been featured on CNN and other media outlets because of his unique story. Most recently, he was featured on at #2 of 30 on the 30 Under 30: America's Coolest Young Entrepreneurs

The company Sean started at age 14,, was named #272 of the Top 500 Internet Retailers, including being named in the top 10 Office Supply Internet retailers. Young entrepreneur has a busy summer ahead expanding

Thank you- Calmbluerage 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted both under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Tom Harrison Talk 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that

I copied the wrong template for the AfD notice. Argyriou (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison Talk 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Steven Jones

Hi Tom! You undid my addition to Steven Jones page stating that David Griffin's book was peer reviewed.

The book in question is David Griffin's "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out". When asked by Steven Jones whether the essays collected in the book, including his, were peer reviewed, this was David Griffin's response (email addresses have been removed to protect privacy):

On 8/1/07, David Griffin wrote: Steven,

Yes, all the essays were peer-reviewed. Most of the contributors were, in fact, asked to revise their essays on the basis of the reviews. And not all submissions were accepted.



On 7/31/07 9:44 PM, "Steven Jones" wrote:

Hello, David and Peter --

About the book holding my article, i.e., 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out -- were all the essays in this particular book peer-reviewed? If so, does the book say so somewhere?

This seems to be important -- someone is asking me, and we find the peer-review issue arising again.

Thanks, Steven J

Since the authors of the book describe a peer review process and indicate that on the basis of this process most of the manuscripts had to be revised (typical for any peer reviewed publication) or ommitted, what is your basis for claiming that the author's are lying?

You may peronsally disagree with the contents of these essays, but please do not remove my accurate inclusion describing this book as peer-reviewed unless you can provide me convincing evidence that David Griffin included Steven Jones' essay (and the other essays in the book) without asking anyone to review them. Please call or contact me if you would like to discuss this further.

Thank you!


Mark Patterson—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkCentury (talkcontribs)

Conspiracy theories usually propagate inside a walled garden of people who agree with each other, cite each other, and promote each other's work. That process is not peer review. Tom Harrison Talk 23:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, but the same can be said about so many other prominent scientific areas, (like String Theory, like Topological quantum field theory - i am not equaling those with cts). The question is if the group is critical enough to self-check, self-rebut. I think that CT'iers have proved that with rebutting Judy Wood's work in several papers, with rebutting various anti-Semitic theories, no-plane theories and others. Griffin's past as a prominent theologian with many publications stands behind this book and peer-review of Jones's paper. Anyway, Jones is going to write a paper with his recent findings about iron micro-spheres and spectroscopic analysis of 9/11 dust and send it for a peer review to serious scientific journals. I wonder about the outcome. SalvNaut 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza & Muhammad

Hi Tom,

It is me again :) I hope everything is going well with you. As usual I have a request :P (Sorry that I am always trouble). If you have time, I would be thankful if you could take a look at Arrow's representation of Peters and Robinson, and Lewis here and here and here. It is getting painful. User:Proabivouac in support of User:Arrow740 has accused me of being the one who is cherry picking. It is clear to me that Arrow has misrepresented the sources. I never ever used Peters and Robinson to update the article; My specific claim is that Arrow has misrepresented the sources but Proabivouac accuses me of being the one here who is cherry picking.

Also, Arrow and Karl Meier have started removing the views of Arafat and Barakat on Banu Qurayza. There is a section summerizing the arguments here. If you could comment on that as well, I would be thankful. --Aminz 10:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


I failed to make any head or tail of what you meant by "shh" added to my talk on precession (astronomy). Does it mean I should shut up ? -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This post:[79]? The one where I removed the bold and upper-case from the article titles, with an edit summary of "Shh"? I bet if you think about it you will be able to figure out what I meant by "Shh". Tom Harrison Talk 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was too bold. Now I will be regular, instead of shutting up completely.-Vinay Jha
:-) Tom Harrison Talk 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


FYI Geo Swan 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Can you do something administrative about this? Arrow740 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him. Tom Harrison Talk 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much responding so quickly. Arrow740 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome; glad I could help. Tom Harrison Talk 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

North American Union

I see you protected the above title, so I thought you'd be interested to know that it appears someone is trying to get around the protection with the article North american union. I found this in the course of assisting a reputable editor, BillCJ who's interested in creating an article on the subject that actually conforms to our policies and guidelines. As far as I can see from the AfD, there shouldn't be a problem if the AfD concerns are actually addressed. I've also suggested to Bill that since you've been involved in this, he should seek your input to avoid the appearance of improperly recreated deleted material. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that introduction, Alan :) Tom, I also came here to make you aware of the North american union page. While I have not read author Joe COrsi's book on the SPP and the supposed plans for an NAU, the page refernces him severl times in just the Lead alone! THere is alot of reference material in the article, but most of it seems highly POV. Having seen the old copy of the original page that Alan provided me, the old one is much better in trying to be NPOV, though that is a relative comparision, as it was still AFDed.
Given the fact that Joe Corsi has written a book on this, this is a subject worth covering, and I'd like to take a crack at doing it right. I've been interested in the idea in general for a long time, and certianly want to see it covered in an NPOV way that will useful to readers. When I have something useable, I'll run it by you first before filing a deletion reveiw. It would probably a page that will have to remain permanently semi-protected to keep the kooks out, in practice anyway. THanks, and I'll try to follow any advice you give in this endevor. - BillCJ 03:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

First, this is clearly a(nother) recreation of the article deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Union. My concern is not with neutrality, but with original research by synthesis. You could write an article about the North American Union conspiracy theory, if there were a few reliable sources who had written about it. That might be done in a section of New World Order (conspiracy). If it got long enough, it could be spun off to a suitable title. Alternatively, you could write about the Council on Foreign Relations' ideas for trade policy. We already have Independent Task Force on North America and Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. There are probably other options as well. What would not be appropriate would be to collect individual factoids and synthesize them into an original essay, or to present the conspiracy theory as if it were a real thing reasonable people were talking about. At this point I do not see why this latest page should not be speedy-deleted as a recreation of deleted material.

Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ihave spoken with the creator on Talk:North american union, and mentioned a few of my concerns. He is an admitted newbie, and says he wasn't even aware that Wiki is case-sensitive. I've suggested that he move his text to his userspace, and then apply at Deltion Review to have his page "reinstated", and he has agreed. If you could talk a look at what he has put together, and then let him now if it even has a chance of passing review, it might save hime some work. He does have "tons" off sources, though I haven't had time to check each one out - they may all be blog-sources, etc, I don't know yet. Anyway, I believe he is making a sincere effort to cover something that has been in the news he has several links to CNN stories), and is not just a kook trying to skirt the block. Anyway, the call is yours, as you're the blocking admin, and a bit more familiar with the subject. - BillCJ 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
THe creator has move the page to his userspace, as I suggested. I note above you've removed userspace pages on the topic before, so just wanted to let you know what was going on. Another editor has talked with him, and he's agreed to try to go through Deletion Review once he's completed what he is doing with it. THe page still seems like a retread of Corsi's book (which I haven't read and don't have, just commenting on the style of the page) at this point. THanks again for watching over all this. - BillCJ 01:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to give it much time yet, but I'll watchlist it and do more later in the week. Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of Bason0

Hi, Tom, as you may have seen, I blocked Bason0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) before I saw that you had processed that report as a warning. I'd be glad to discuss this with you if you don't think he/she should have been blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I should have checked his blocklog first. I don't object to the block. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of links.

I think your wholesale removal of 'suspect' domains is irresponsible in execution. While I think a lot of your removals are probably warranted, flagging them would be, in my opinion, a better approach. No, I don't expect you to heed this.Yeago 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


What is happening with these deletions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there is a discussion on the talk page. I'd rather see it integrated into the rest of the article/sub-articles. I don't really like 'criticism of...' sections, either for style, or content, or their effect on balance in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 11:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Criticism sections are discouraged. ElinorD (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Red herring. Why not take out the criticism section and keep the controversies section? How are existing controversies the same as criticisms?Giovanni33 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not like stand-alone criticism sections. But the material there needs to be incorporated into the article, rather than deleted, Tom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Tom Harrison Talk 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

What I think is important in the Yellowstone fires of 1988 article is that while I definitely don't want it to be an apology piece for the National Park Service, it needs to be made clear that existing fire management policies were generally working, but the events of 1988 were extreme and the forest was basically overdue to a large fire, and that is what that ecosystem has adapted to...a large fire about 3 times every millenium. Anything you can suggest on the talkpage or article there which might help make this issue better understood is are whatever changes you might see fit to make to my oftentimes poor sentence structures!--MONGO 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for some print references at the library. Until then I'll stick to small changes. It's not something I know much about, but it's interesting how the ecosystem adapts - probably futile for people to to try to maintain it as a static system. Tom Harrison Talk 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory problems

Tom, there is a user who has been adding what I consider to be consiracy theory material to the General Dynamics F-111, per this diff. THe passage uses one book as a source, but really delves into areas beyond the scope of an aircraft article. This is at least the second time it's been added and removed. I really have no idea how to deal properly with this type of addition. You seemed to be up on handling fringe theories, so I was hoping you could give me some advice, or at least point me to relevant policies and guidelines. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll watch it for a while. Tom Harrison Talk 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)



  • I am not trying to provoke you.
  • I am informing you of my recent edit, and my comment on the talk page, in the interest of transparency.
  • Your statement that you will block me, without warning, is still hanging over my head.
  • I really think the responsible thing for you to do is to either explain yourself more fully, or withdraw the block threat.

Geo Swan 02:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

it is against WP policy to remove NPOV tags unless consensus has been reached, you seem to be taking sides in the debate and as an involved party your deletion of the tag puts you in an awkward place I suggest if you are passionate about chritianity you may consider not editing the article and move on to other things, I will stop editing and observe what is happening around this issue and shall bring the attention of others on it if admins seem to be acting contrary to the spirit and letter of WP policy/guidelines. respectfully Esmehwp 04:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"it is against WP policy to remove NPOV tags unless consensus has been reached"
Can you point me to the applicable policy?Proabivouac 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think your removal was appropriate, Tom harrison. There needs to be a reasoned justification for INSERTING the tag...otherwise an article like Christianity would be constantly tagged. Good job with your vigilance of the article, particularly in the past few days. --Anietor 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


I thought is was a racist slur until I read your reason for reverting it. I would have reported it as vandalism if I had discovered it first. Thanks for clarifying it as part of your edit. Albion moonlight 07:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can you refresh my memory? Is this related to antisemitism? Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was. You made the revert on August 10th . I just now looked at the history of that page and can no longer see your explanation. That seems weird but I am a Wiki neophyte. Albion moonlight 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. All's well that ends well. Tom Harrison Talk 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


I think it is more likely that ThAtSo is the banned user Lancombz. They both use the same types of personal attacks and have a similar writting style. They also edit the same groups of articles. Why do you think he is Alienus? Endlessmike 888 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't contradictory hypotheses.Proabivouac 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. They could all be the same guy. I read up on your Christianity article dispute. I think you should know that when Lancombz was banned, he was suspected of being Esmehwp‎ as well. There was never any evidence, though. You can read about it on the Lancombz sock puppet page I linked to before. Now Esmehwp‎ is deleting warnings off his user talk page which is exactly what Lancombz et al did when he/they were found out. So a Lancombz/Esmehwp‎/ThAtSo connection is a good possibility. Endlessmike 888 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well spotted, Endlessmike 888. I'm not entirely certain about Esmehwp, but the others are plainly one and the same individual.Proabivouac 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Why did you block me without talking to me at least once before you do it? Panonian just accused me (falsely) with anti-Semitism (Magyarization talk page) and you won't block him? Tankred was also reverting at this page and you don't say a word to him? Squash Racket 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Now Tankred threatens to have me blocked AGAIN becuse I edited a false number in an unsigned comment that later turned out to be his. I believed the unsigned comment with the wrong number was vandalism in itself. Now what would you do? Squash Racket 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Violate the three-revert rule, get blocked. If someone else violates it, report them at the 3RR noticeboard. Tom Harrison Talk 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Are you sure about this reversion? I don't think it's clear to anyone what's in the video. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 77 is the one that hit the Pentagon. I must be missing your point. Are there reliable sources that say it is unclear, or that it is not flight 77? Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The video is unclear. In fact, it's so fuzzy, that if it wasn't from an official source, I'd suspect photoshopping. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
But how do the sources describe it? Does the Times say, "This is a picture of flight 77 about to hit the Pentagon," or "This is a fuzzy still from a video said to be..."? Tom Harrison Talk 00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:His excellency

User:Cheszmastre‎.Proabivouac 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if you caught how he set up User:Matt57 with a bunch of other socks. That's the second time he's manipulated the system to get someone else blocked.Proabivouac 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that does not list you as a party. However, I think that it would be appropriate for you to join the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, and sign on if you agree to mediate. --MaplePorter 07:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article history

Tom, I need you to look into the edit history of the deleted article Andy Stephenson. Back when I first started editing (spring/summer 2006 I think), an IP editor did a lot of reverts to my edits. I believe it resolved back to Germany. Compare it to this IP: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and let me know if they look connected. I think the whole mess of my RfA and collateral disruption was payback for the deletion of Andy Stephenson. - Crockspot 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That ip never edited the article, but it is a tor proxy so anyone could have used it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, at least it doesn't rule out anyone. That's actually helpful. - Crockspot 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement

Could you revert Zen's last alledged edit? I'm at 3RR, and I'm should have already been on WikiBreak. I'm supposed to be packing for a convention my wife and I are attending starting tonight. "alledged refutation" is wrong, it is a refutation. Whether the refutation is complete is argueable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, someone will take care of it if it doesn't have consensus support. Have a good trip. Tom Harrison Talk 18:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cheering me :)

Kind words are ever appreciated :) May this rose remain memento of my gratitude:)

Rose from enwiki.jpg

--Alexia Death the Grey 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How nice! You're most welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case for SevenOfDiamonds

As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed: Reversion of protected conspiracy article

The anti-Russian edit warrior Biophys is persistently whitewashing the article of anti-communist conspiracy theorist Jeffrey Nyquist, a non-entity follower of Anatoliy Golitsyn who thinks Pat Robertson is "pro-communist". After a warring session yesterday, the article is now locked on the wrong version - correct version here. I'd prefer to stay anonymous on this one for obvious reasons. Thanks 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I know enough about this to prefer one version to the other, though I do have doubts about the reliability of as a source. I don't mind that you asked me to look at it, but I do want to make clear that I am not the administrator in charge of conspiracy theories, and I do not want to be. You might ask for input at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

you reverted one of my edits.

I noticed you reverted one of my edits. I added a place for discussion of it on the talk page entitles "Edit reverted without cause." I encourage you to add your opinion there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debeo Morium (talkcontribs) 18:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Tom the same source used for the quote also indicated (on the same page) that it was a "liquid eutectic mixture", so the citation is already there. Please remove your citation needed on the word molten.

Also it seems as though you may have violated the 3 edit rule you warned me about with the reversion of the citation needed comment (third reversion today on this article). I certainly dont mind as you seem to have good intentions. But im a bit upset that you warned me about this when i did 2 reversions and now your on your third right after warning me Debeo Morium 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I added a new cite request to a new addition about molten iron. Again, you should carefully read and understand the policy, but if you think I have violated it you can report it at WP:AN3. Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Im not trying to attack you, and have no desire to report you because, as i said, it seems to be done with the best of intentions. You added a citation needed to the end of the sentence, and when reverted you added it back two words earlier (refering only to the molten part). However like i said, you should revert it yourself because the citation was already given. Debeo Morium 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not revert. I added a new citation request to a new assertion - that molten iron was found. Tom Harrison Talk 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The source i cited for the FEMA quote also said a few sentences after that quote "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron..." and goes on to verify the other things stated in the quote and surronding text (Teh sulfur etc).. so yea, FEMA was the proper source for indicating the iron was molten. Debeo Morium 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Big problems at Battle of Jenin

The section you looked at in this article (and took out the reference to is actually one of the least objectionable, but even there good/fundamental information such as "*May 7 - The PA statement to the UN estimated that 375 Palestinians had been killed in the attacks on the West Bank.[80] Amongst these would be the 80 Palestinians (and 4 Israeli soldiers)[2] killed in Nablus in April." has been ruthlessly exised out. PalestineRemembered 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really follow that article. My only concern is the inappropriate use of as a source. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful clarification removed from 9/11 conspiracy theories

In one of your recent edits of 9/11 conspiracy theories, you made a consensus supported revert (using conspiracy theories instead of alternative theories). However, your edit also removed the following sentence (and footnote):

  • Although the official account theorizes a conspiracy between Al Qaeda members,[3] this article is titled 9/11 conspiracy theories to refer only to theories of an "inside job".

This sentence had nothing to do with the edits that changed "conspiracy theories" to "alternative theories". In fact, this sentence buttresses the use of "conspiracy theories". Why remove it? —Kanodin 04:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it inaccurately calls the mainstream account the official account, and inaccurately implies that any theory involving a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the article needs to mention what scope the title refers to. You last comment has two objections. The first objection states that the sentence inaccurately calls the mainstream account the official account. The second objection states that the sentence inaccurately implies that any theory involving a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory.
With regard to the first objection, I do not see how the sentence involves anything "mainstream". The sentence does not use the word. The first part of the sentence refers to the 9/11 Commission Report, and even specifies text from the report in the footnote. The second part of the sentence refers to the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, which by no means equates with mainstream perceptions. I do not see where you get mainstream.
Your second objection is more salient. I understand that you do not want the article making unattributed claims (implicit or otherwise) that explanations involving a conspiracy are automatically conspiracy theories. I agree that the sentence addresses the possibility that the reader can interpret the 9/11 Commission Report as a conspiracy theory. The sentence rejects such a characterization and reminds the reader how the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article categorizes the official account. The official account is not a conspiracy theory.
If you think that the sentence above implies that all explanations involving a conspiracy are conspiracy theories, I will welcome ways to rephrase the sentence so that it only addresses the possibility that a reader may make such an interpretation. You know that some people make such an interpretation. The sentence above goes a long way to answering POV objections. If we can put the "9/11 conspiracy theories" language in as much non-pejorative connotations as possible, then readers will appraise the acceptability of the 9/11 conspiracy theories based on their merits, and not on any prejudicial basis. If someone rejects a 9/11 conspiracy theory, I want them to reject it based on, for example, defective evidence, or inconsistent claims. Such reasoning would be much better than "Oh, the Wikipedia article called it a conspiracy theory, and you know conspiracy theories are wrong, so don't listen to them." The sentence above turns the title of the article into a designator, removing as much connotation from the words as possible. Without the sentence, the reader continues with preexisting connotations, which conspiracy theory famously details. Can you understand my concern? —Kanodin 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss this, so that others can more easily take part. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your most recent edit to 9/11 conspiracy theories, demolition section

Hi tom, i didnt want to just go and revert, or blast you ont he talk page (as ive been trying to figure out the best way to handle this sort of thing, i figure ill try this first)... I noticed you changed the following "Samples of a molten mixture of iron, aluminum, and sulfur were found in the rubble and analyzed by FEMA," to remove mention of molten iron or sulfur, or aluminum. Did you read the FEMA reference that is cited for the quote that follows it? or are you just basing this on the quote itself. I have a copy of the fema report in front of me, and while it isnt in the quote just a few sentences before the text i quotes the report clearly states that it was a liquid mixture of these compounds. So that is very clearly cited by fema itself. So why did you remove that? Debeo Morium 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually i see i pointed this out to you before.. copy and pasting what i said a few lines up on this talk page...

The source i cited for the FEMA quote also said a few sentences after that quote "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron..." and goes on to verify the other things stated in the quote and surronding text (Teh sulfur etc).. so yea, FEMA was the proper source for indicating the iron was molten. Debeo Morium 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So why remove mention of finding these compounds in a liquid state? Debeo Morium 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also you changed it to read "Jones believes the sulfur is a result of deliberate demolition using thermite." but it wasnt just the sulfur that lead to this, it was the combination of all the compounds that led jones to this conclusion. Debeo Morium 14:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They did not find the samples in a liquid state. "Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field." Please use the article talk page to discuss the article, so everyone can more easily take part. Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Started my first political article, will you help?

Hello, I started my first political article. And thought maybe you and some of your RW friends could help write it with me, so we can learn to get along. It is the very important new RW group Freedom's Watch. They justed debuted today. Let us join hands and work in harmony. Will you tell your RW friends, or should I? (I told Tbeatty) ΞSMEDLEYΔBUTLERΞ 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much news coverage it has had, but I will put it on my watchlist. Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

F9/11 reader

Would you kindly explain the reason behind the redirect. Ta. smb 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Essentially everything in The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader was already in Fahrenheit 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

did no study was cited

You removed my edit about NIST not doing a study, however this was cited, in the FAQ. I wont revert your edit, but please revert it yourself if you agree after looking at the source that was cited. I will quote the FAQ as i did on the talk page for you "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." Do you think i should add this quote instead of just citing the reference as was done? Debeo Morium 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NVM, i saw you only added citation needed, and didnt actually remove the phrase. So i added the citation. Sorry Debeo Morium 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)



我国气垫船充满鳗鱼! -- 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

IUTDKHGVOLbjjhgu!--MONGO 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
我烧烤汉堡,我对双方的!我不值得去迎接它尾部排气管!可能你的猫爆炸,在一个意想不到的时刻!有点讨厌的事情发生在你身上! -- 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The exclamation mark at the end is a nice touch. It's like those boorish travelers who shout at the 'natives' in English. Tom Harrison Talk 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree...he seems very excited.--MONGO 17:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Google, he's saying "I barbecue hamburgers, I both right! I do not deserve to celebrate its tail-pipe! May your cat explosion, in an unexpected moment! A little nasty things happen to you". Mmm. Don't know what that means --Aude (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Yahoo babel it's: I □roast □the fort, my □□side! I am unworthy go greet its rear part exhaust pipe! Possible you □the detonation, in one □to be unexpected □engrave! Has □□□the matter □lives on your body. - Crockspot 17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm yeah, this goes on my userpage quote section.--Isotope23 talk 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Хорошо, он должен иметь говядину с Томом ...., но это беспокоит меня, так как Том - один из наших самых прекрасных администраторов.--MONGO 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
或许他会愿意把他必须在英语中说的放这样我们帮助能够有他的处境的他?--MONGO 17:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Are those capital letters? Raymond Arritt 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Non sono sicuro. ...I sa come scrivere cinese semplice, ma non ha idea che dico. ..does che fa qualunque senso?--MONGO 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

您現在去! - Crockspot 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Har du folk så mitt nytt og utrolig essay ?...Her--MONGO 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk about Bmedley like that, even in VRWC pig latin! - Crockspot 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME...did the word "utrolig" somehow get mistranslated from Norwegian to English as "troll"?--MONGO 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's great how Mongo is still recognizable, even in other languages. I think the anon is mad that we block tor proxies, and so prevent him from helping write our encyclopedia. Well, it's our loss I suppose. I too barbecue hamburgers, but I have no cat. Little nasty things happen. Tom Harrison Talk 17:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this is about TOR and Yamla not unblocking requests for IP unblocks from TOR editors. The think I can't figure out is that there was actually an account created to troll ANI about this... I don't get why they don't just create an account and edit from that. I know it may be hard to explain a softblock with the language barrier, but you'd think the idea would dawn on them when they created the account and edited pages from it...--Isotope23 talk 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
He needs to speak to someone in Category:User_zh (这些用户会说中文。這些用戶會說中文。) --Aude (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid some of your removals of links to, in cases where I thought the links were relevant and proper. I tried to avoid linking to the front page of the site. Regards, Mike R 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison Talk 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

North American Union

Hello. Could the deleted, protected North American Union page be replaced with a redirect to Independent Task Force on North America? Both American Union and North american union are already redirects pointing there, and several of us are very diligent about keeping Independent Task Force on North America focused on the facts and clear of WP:OR, conspiracy theories, etc. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tom Harrison Talk 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


WTF dude.. why did ya block me for no reason? 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement revision deletion

I am curious, why did you delete this revision on the Arbitration Enforcment noticeboard? I don't see any private information in the diff, and it seems like reasonable evidence that may merit investigation. --Krimpet 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet, No investigation is necessary; it's currently being discussed with the Arbitrators.Proabivouac 02:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


I support your reblock of the account. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you had earlier mentioned supporting a reblock. If not, I'm sorry I didn't approach you first to discuss it. Tom Harrison Talk 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No big deal; I mentioned at the arbcom page that if a reblock was needed and suggested, I was not objected to it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Meetup

Tom, thanks for coming out. I think it would be great if you went to WT:CHIASSESS and nominated Union Stock Yards. It would also be great if you voted at the bottom of WP:CHIASSESS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Thank you sir. I do what I can. KyuuA4 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Do you really think that the images I've deleted, and you've restored have any encyclopedic value? Do you imagine any of them in Encyclopedia Britannica for instance? M0RD00R 21:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, how not? Feel free to bring it up at Talk:Antisemitism around the world and we'll see what other people think. Tom Harrison Talk 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


That was rather quick... he hasn't edited since before the CSN discussion started. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I think it would waste less time to have have people discuss or undo my block. Tom Harrison Talk 22:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well my position is clear from my endorsement, I think. Let me know if a discussion occurs which doesn't appear here on your talk page, please, so I don't miss it (if it occurs at all, which I much doubt.) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Tom, If you have a need that you believe I can help out with, you are welcome to leave me a message. I live in Wisconsin, but what's physical distance on the Internet. Best, --Ancheta Wis 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ancheta. It looks like we have some interests in common. I hope you'll do likewise. It was good to meet you, Tom Harrison Talk 12:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

HE is back

He's at Council of American Islamic Relations this time. He's been here before, and he's ignoring 3RR as usual. Arrow740 06:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He keeps posting incivil comments on my talk page, can you please semi-protect it? Arrow740 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like another admin protected it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Just noticing your work on the Freedom's Watch page.

Gold ingots.jpg You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Estulin

You made a mistake about Daniel Estulin; if you consider the sources as as unreliable, you should look for some good ones. Just a suggestion. --Equidistant 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Evidence

Hi Tom, I found a bunch of new sources discussing the film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie and listed them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie. Obviously some of this needs to be incorporated into the article, but I think this is more than sufficient to make this one a keeper. Was hoping you could take a look and reconsider you delete vote, or if you still think it should be deleted perhaps you can elaborate on your rationale.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Up to your old tricks again?

Abusing admin tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute again? Guettarda 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that he ever did it before, Guettarda, and when he blocked an IP on grounds of BLP, and immediately reported the block at one of the noticeboards for feedback (which he wouldn't have done if he had been trying to sneak in the version he wanted by falsely claiming BLP), I think he was defended by other admins, including Morven. (Not that being an admin or arbitrator means that you're right, of course!)
In this case, I've just looked at the history of the article. I assume that you're referring to Regnery Publishing, but if I'm mistaken, I apologise. I've looked at the history of the entire article, searching for Tom's name, and I can confirm that he has never edited it, prior to his protection. It seems that THF reported it at AN/I as a BLP violation (whether rightly or wrongly) in three edits [81] made between 14::42 and 14:44. Tom presumably saw that, went as a completely uninvolved administrator, decided that THF's claims had merit (and I make no claim as to whether he was right or wrong), removed the bit which was seen as problematic, and protected the page. That's perfectly in accordance with the BLP policy, which, incidentally, allows admins to use their tools even if they are involved in the article. Of course, that exemption can be abused, as an admin could technically, be involved in an edit war to remove well sourced material about a living person that he was personally an admirer of, and could then claim BLP in order to enforce his POV. However, since Tom has never edited the article, I don't understand how you could possibly think that he was "abusing admin tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute". Also, Tom has invited review at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Regnery_Publishing. ElinorD (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Tom didn't just protect the article, he inserted himself into the dispute by taking one side (which he did when he made the deletion) and THEN he protected the page, so the claim of not being involved is codswallop: he didn't protect "the wrong version", he protected HIS version. And THAT is abusing admin tools. --Calton | Talk 16:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Haven't you read WP:BLP? "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves." We can disagree over whether or not Tom's judgment that it was a valid BLP violation was the right judgment. If it was right, it was completely appropriate for him to remove the material and protect it in that version. If it was wrong, then, since he had never edited the article, and had come to it as a completely uninvolved administrator who saw a complaint on the noticeboard, it's obviously a case of making an error, not of abusing the tools. ElinorD (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, as another uninvolved admin looking through the pages I would have done exactly the same. Tom is too adult to be bothered by the personal attack but Guettarda should perhaps consider an apology.--BozMo talk 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page of the protected article, it appears that Tom was responding to an initial report on BLPN. Further, as WP:BLP states, there is nothing improper with him using admin action to enforce BLP, regardless of whether or not he edits the article as part of his hobby time. He is owed an apology. - Crockspot 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact I think I saw it first on ANI. Tom Harrison Talk 18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for cheering me up

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for making my very very favourite talk page post ever! ElinorD (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Tom harrison, why did you remove the reference to Associated Content from the Zach Slater and Kendall Hart article, as well as from the Supercouple article?

Even though articles from that site are written by some of its users, they have been deemed as a reliable independent source in plenty of articles on Wikipedia, such as the Anakin Skywalker article. Flyer22 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, is not in general a reliable source. Tell me in what cases you think it might be. Tom Harrison Talk 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, sure, Anakin Skywalker was not the best example of a Wikipedia article to use, but Associated Content is called an independent source, and from what I've seen of it, it is reliable.

As for the deeming, I mean, in having talked to other experienced Wikipedian editors while fixing up the Supercouple article (though, yes, I'm still fixing up that article) who checked that reference from Associated Content and the only thing that they pointed out about it is that it mentioned Wikipedia, as in referring back to us in one mention, which is the only thing that caused a feeling that we should go with a different source for the instance where Associated Content is used within that article. And, also, I meant that I've seen countless deletion debates, where no editor brings up Associated Content as not being reliable. Flyer22 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like is a hosting service where anyone who wants to can write what they please. I suppose if a particular author were a recognized expert we might use that, but I don't see how it differs from an individual's webpage. If you want, you could add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/ Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel that it differs in that I haven't personally seen any inaccuracies with it...yet, so there must be some sort of condition that they have in making sure who types there is typing the real deal. Anyway, so the use of Associated Content is being debated? You feel that I should talk this over with other editors before using Associated Content as a source in Wikipedia articles? Flyer22 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd avoid using it as a source. Certainly it should not be used for any controversial material about living people. I see you do a lot of work with television and popular culture. That's not an area I know well, but I have seen a few books about television shows that could be cited. There is some critical commentary from academics, and reviews in newspapers and magazines. Lost (TV series) is a featured article. You might see what they used for citations as they were bringing it up to featured status. Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television has some ideas. Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Tom. You don't mind if I call you Tom instead of your whole name (user name), right? I went ahead and weighed in with my thoughts at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/, but you certainly brought up a few good points concerning this matter. Flyer22 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Tom" is fine, thanks. Happy editing, Tom Harrison Talk 21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain more fully...

You excised a reference -- but you didn't explain why.

I encourage you to return to Talk:Aukai Collins and explain this edit.

Cheers! Geo Swan 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


What kind of issues are we having with this guy? Is he going all Alex Jones on our asses or something? - Crockspot 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Tom Harrison Talk 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case

I have requested arbitration regarding WP:BADSITES and its derivative in WP:NPA, and named you as a party in this case. Phil Sandifer 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency...

In the interests of transparency I think I should advise you of these recent comments I made.

I told Crockspot, during his {{rfa}}, that I admired his ability to recognize and acknowledge when he had made mistakes in the past. I said in the {{rfa}} that an ability to acknowledge error is an extremely important quality for a wikipedia administrator to possess.

I am telling you this in case there are any aspects of the stands you have taken that you are now reconsidering. I went to the reliable sources noticeboard you recommended. I noticed that you asked for opinions in that forum about the reliablility of -- you characterized it as no better than prisonplanet in your discussion with me. Did the discussion for the noticeboard cause you to reconsider that comment?

I am going to remind you that you have threatened to block me from editing -- without any prior warning -- if you thought I was using references that you thought were not up to your personal interpretatiosn of the standards of WP:BLP. If you are now willing to accept that globalresearch is not a kooky conspiracy site, perhaps it would be a good thing for you acknowledge that? Geo Swan 13:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That comment above had nothing to do with you, it was in reference to Don Murphy, and his apparent attacking and outing of Wikipedians, and encouragement of others to harass Wikipedians in real life, from his own website, much in the same way that Alex Jones did recently, when he named and attacked Wikipedians, including Tom harrison, on his website, The only connection to you is the coincidence that my comment was in a section that followed your comment above. This has nothing to do with you, conspiracies, or Right Wing Cabals. See the Don Murphy AfD for further context. (You'll note that in that AfD, I am !voting against my alleged cabal). - Crockspot 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jaranda,

Please reconsider your deletion of the fring article.

The deletion of this article seems very biased, seeing that skype, pidgin IM etc all have articles and this is exactly the same type of article. fring is a new mvoip system but it is in over 150 countries already making it very notable. The references are valid and there is no difference between references in the fring article and the skype article.

I beg you to reconsider.

regards simon Goplett 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Judd Bagley

I don't dispute the basis for your stubbing this article, but it strikes me as strange that you did not take any action concerning the personal attack above which you posted your talk page comment. [82]Was this an oversight or did you not feel it should be removed?--Samiharris 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Too much to do, too little time. I support your removal of it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Tom, I have downgraded to semi-protection. The deletion debate is underway, I strongly suggest a merge for this one, but I don't think we can really justify blanking and protecting. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Guy, full protection may not be needed (though I think it is), but blanking is certainly necessary and appropriate - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Tom Harrison Talk 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tom, I'm Rambutan and I nominated the article for deletion. Just to let you know that Phil Sandifer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has twice reverted your stubbing of the article; it's currently in unstubbed form since I can't be bothered to do anything about it now. Would you? Thanks so much!--Rambutan (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Judd Bagley where people can state their concerns. Tom Harrison Talk 16:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bane on Society

Hi Tom, I just thought I would stop by to remind you that you are a bane on society. Perhaps you are able to make these edits, because you don't believe they have effect in real life. You are wrong. Just a friendly reminder, after reviewing some of the articles you heavily edited, you have successfully turned Wikipedia into a worthless and unreliable propaganda machine. —Slipgrid 19:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And I am his obedient acolyte.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems like about all this guy does anymore is insult people. I already cautioned him recently. Oh well.--MONGO 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Is "bane on society" even correct grammar? I think it should be "bane of society". - Crockspot 01:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe being a bane on society is some special thing that only Tom does.Proabivouac 04:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If my page be troubled with a troll, I need not give ten thousand ducats to have him baned. I ban him myself. Tom Harrison Talk 12:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Notespace is Getting Blocked

No objections to an indefinite block. My other question would be whether there's a connection between this user and User:Kamaki06, where Kamaki's block should be extended (but not to indefinite) for use of multiple accounts to evade 3RR. If you think Notespace is Getting Blocked is likely a sockpuppet, I'll extend that block to 72 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Navou indef blocked already. It's pretty obviously Kamaki's sock. You could extend the block if you want, and/or unprotect the page, or maybe a cooling off period will do it. Tom Harrison Talk 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about Flight 77 discussion

I don't like discussions through reversions very much because they kind of tend to convey an aggressive or hostile tone no matter what one says. In the interest of clarity I just want to make sure I didn't come off as aggressive/hostile/etc. I'm sorry for the disagreement. Anynobody 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not seem hostile at all, and I hope I didn't either. You're right about discussion via edit summary. I'll check the talk page. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 10:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Tom, I posted this report on ANI for comment, but now I need more immediate attention. User:Skatewalk has been making a lot of cut-and-paste moves and I feel my hands are tied because of all the accusations he threw at me today. Would you mind fixing them, and maybe giving some suggestions on how to handle the situation with him? Thanks, — Zerida 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks like someone at least has started reverting the improper page moves. — Zerida 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you list the pages? Or are they taken care of? Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like they have all been reverted [83] by Shoeofdeath. — Zerida 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


If the point of his posting on Pro's talk page was not to harras, then what it was? Beit Or 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And if so, why isn't he blocked yet? Beit Or 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But not, if I may observe, inaccurate

Those of us who have suspected problems like this in the past have, from time to time, been accused of "wikilawyering." Fair at this stage to point out a certain high-water mark for hypocrisy, I think. But let it go. BYT 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


The Toast article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to flagged revisions/sighted versions. Tom Harrison Talk 12:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that you have 9 more edits than I do to the September 11, 2001 attacks article...making you number 1 and me number 2...our vast right wing conspiracy (VRWC) to suppress the truth is apparently working! Kudos.--MONGO 07:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abacus Vandalism

The most recent, several, edits to Abacus appear to me to be vandalism. I don't know why this page is being vandalized. I am too new at this game to be confident in reverting vandalism and I noticed that you reverted the last time it was done. Perhaps you could catch it again? I have requested a Semi-protect for this page, I hope that will help Softtest123 19:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I see someone else has already fixed it. You could whack this if you want.Softtest123 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect Intellegent Design

How about unprotecting ID? There is no edit war of any substance, your protect is unnecessary. There had only been 4 delete=reverts in the last 7 days. With regard to the images, the protection solves nothing. --Michael Johnson 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If people have worked out a solution on the talk page, ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Refractory period (sex)

Hi Tom harrison. Could you change the Refractory period (sex) protection level to semi-protect? The edit warriors have not returned, nor made any attempt to discuss their differences on the talk page after their blocks expired. You can block the editors themselves should the engage in further disruption, and semi-protection status will ensure that new sockpuppets and anon editors will not muck around with the article. The editors in question are User:Notespace and User:Kamaki06 who has at least one sockpuppet (called User:Notespace is Getting Blocked, already indef blocked). I can help keep an eye on them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The protection has already expired. I removed the tag. Thanks for watching it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Tom harrison. The arbitration case in which you are listed as a party to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence... What if they had an arbitration and nobody came? Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
ElinorD and I are arguing about who is going to provide the there will be plenty of that to go around. I am definitely posting my evidence there though and am using very very secret embedded links to "fool" everyone.....--MONGO 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC) you have a MONGO-cowstar. Aren't you lucky?
So far ElinorD is ahead because of the grated Cheddar. I like the cow though. Tom Harrison Talk 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Figures...I entended to use microwave popcorn anyway...maybe Jimbo will provide the beer then.--MONGO 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be nice. You'd think those parasitic communities we support with links and banned editors would pony up. But then I guess they wouldn't be parasites. Heh; "para-sites", get it? Tom Harrison Talk 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Microwave popcorn is of very inferior quality, and is less healthy as well. ElinorD (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard microwave popcorn causes cancer or something. Tom Harrison Talk 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That's whats wrong with me, I have micropopcornkemia.--MONGO 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I got an email from some guy who offered a discreet cure for that. Or you could just eat blueberries. Tom Harrison Talk 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


I am puzzled by this block. Frankly, it is unclear why the user has been blocked. Can you perhaps provide an explanation on their talk page? I am considering unblocking them. Banno 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

His edits looked deliberately incoherent. I think he's trolling. Undo the block if you think otherwise, but please keep an eye on his work if you do. Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You may well be right about the trolling. I wasn't expecting you to answer so quickly, so I requested a second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion on block for User:Malbrain. I'll wait and see what response that gets. Best wishes, Banno 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Workshop#Seeking_Clarification.2C_not_Permission

Hi, sorry to bring the above here - but I am uncertain as to the direction of your comment "actions speak louder than words" and would like clarification. Is this a comment, a supporting or opposing statement? I may or may not respond, unless you so request, depending on your point - but I am anxious to understand it. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a comment, generally expressing skepticism about the accuracy of the proposed finding of fact. It's probably better to use the arbitration talk pages for discussion, so others can more eaxily follow along. If I have anything to add, I'll add it there. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to admit to dumbness on individuals talkpages, word gets around more slowly that way! ;~) Thanks for the clarification. LessHeard vanU 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Deep Run High School

The Deep Run High School article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Obscurantism article

Great additions to the section on Lacan in Obscurantism. I was looking for a citation or two for that section, but couldn't pin anything down. Do you have cites? Sunray 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but sorry, I have no citations. I'll look around over the next week. Mark anything you think especially needs attention and I'll try to find something. Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes. As I looked closer I realized that your recent edit in the Lacan section wasn't an addition, but rather a move of some text. In any case, In any case, I've put "citation needed" tags on the section, so if you can find anything, that would be great. Sunray 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article

I saw you deleted the article I created regarding John Deering. I believe this information was notable and deserved a page (or maybe to be incorporated into another page). I would like to know your thoughts since I did not see any discussion about the deletion of this article. Remember 17:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the page. It will need better sources or it will probably be deleted again. Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Section revert

Might i ask why you reverted the changes i made there, they were not pov or anything and you didn't give any reason .. Ravain 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page. If I have anything to say I will say it there. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Sunjata

Please do not delete the words spoken by Mr. Sunjata concerning 9/11 truth. The mp3 and transcrips are of the said interview are available all over the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyxbo (talkcontribs) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All over the internet or not, we need a reliable source. is not a reliable source. Tom Harrison Talk 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your block on User:

I note at Special:Contributions/ that the vandalism is occurring consistently just before 14:00 UTC (09:00 Texas time). Suggestive of a student in home room. Any way to do a daily block for say 13:50 to 14:05 automatically? LeadSongDog 15:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. We don't have that capability right now, but it might be worth looking into. Tom Harrison Talk 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)


Please refer to the above page for a suggestion on getting this article back on track.

Cordially, Drieux 03:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Drieux, yours sounds like a positive suggestion. I'm not an expert, but I will watch and help out where I can. Tom Harrison Talk 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


--DHeyward 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Tom Harrison Talk 19:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I have unblocked Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) so he can participate in an appeal. His editing is limited to the arbitration pages. Fred Bauder 22:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman ban appeal

Hi. As noted above, with permission from an arbitrator, Iantresman has filed an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, seeking review of the ban against him imposed after discussion at the Community Sanctions Noticeboard, and listed you as a potentially interested party. Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#iantresman indefinite ban appeal. Newyorkbrad 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth

Could you at least revert it to the correct version, please? GreenJoe 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well no, that won't work. But I do think you might drop it to semi-prot. All of the recent edit-warring from one side has been anons William M. Connolley 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh, I thought I had done semi. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

North American Union

In reference to our earlier conversation [84] on the topic of the NAU, it would appear that the article has been recreated (again). Since the standard title was protected after the last delete, an enterprising user re-created the latest version of the page at North american union instead. In the past twelve hours, it appears the page has been blanked at least three times so far (some things never change). --Kralizec! (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've protected it and redirected to Independent Task Force on North America. Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. As promised, I and others keep a close eye on this topic. I wonder why it is such a magnet for original research and/or conspiracy theories? Regardless, any time it shows up, the totally un-sourced Image:Flag of the North American Union.svg stands out like a beacon that shouts "this article is pure OR!" --Kralizec! (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please create a redirect to the task force article from North American Union (capitalized) as well? Otherwise, when people search for "North American Union" (as I just did about 15 minutes ago), they come up with nothing. Search4Lancer 01:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Done; sorry for the delay. Tom Harrison Talk 14:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

national labor federation article

I'm having considerable difficulty with user cberlet. He keeps reverting every edit I'm in the middle of. Progress is exceedingly slow. Can you look at the history please? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's because nobody understands what you are talking about. Some of your edits seem reasonable enough; others apparently have nothing to do with the article, or are incomprehensible. Likewise your remarks on the talk page. I thought at first that you were being intentionally disruptive, but it may not be something you can entirely control. Either way, the result is disruption. Tom Harrison Talk 13:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to examine my work. Yes, it is true I suffer from bi-polar disorder. This manifests itself in what appears at first to be out-of-sequence material, but has always historically straightened itself out without opposition. Does this help? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I surmise from your lack of response that you are not interested in excuses. Well, fine. I'm not actually "disabled" in any event. I work full-time as an electrical engineer as Chief Programmer, and I'm applying through TWO DIFFERENT ALREADY EMPLOYED FRIENDS at Google for weekend overlay. Have a nice day. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm just busy. I'm sorry for your troubles, and glad your career is prospering in spite of it. The burden is on you to make yourself understood and convince people on the talk page. User:Banno seems interested in mentoring you or maybe mediating, so you might approach him with any concerns you have. Tom Harrison Talk 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for allowing User:Banno to go ahead without interference from you. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl Riseley page deleted - query

Hi Tom

I started a page with the above title for one of the contestants on Australian Idol 2007. I'm not sure if I was supposed to link it to something immediately so that the administrators here could see that it was a valid topic. I hope to hear from you soon regarding this and in the meantime I will go back and have a look at the instructions more carefully!! sorry!! I'm presuming that I am able to start this page for Carl though?

Cheers Kathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathybrio236 (talkcontribs) 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the page, sorry for any inconvenience. The request for speedy deletion said, "Not significant enough for individual article; All information here can be incorporated into the main Australian Idol 2007 article for now. Not significant enough for individual article; All information here can be incorporated into the main Australian Idol 2007 article for now." Unless more sources are added, someone else is likely to delete it again. Beginning with a section in the main Australian Idol 2007 article might be a good idea. Tom Harrison Talk 13:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Informations about Bilderberg Conference 2005 / 2006

Please stop vandalising the pages. --Lord Chao 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites Closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed.

You may refer to the case page to view the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not what I was hoping for, but it still pretty much reaffirms that we should not link to harassment.--MONGO 16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to handle things just as I did before the arbitration. Tom Harrison Talk 17:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how removing obvious links to harassment could ever be construed as wrong.--MONGO 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No, me neither. Tom Harrison Talk 17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask you to undo your recent edit to NPA [85] before the edit war commences in full? The prior MONGO decision has been superceded by the recent ArbCom case, further discussion and policy development is proceeding at the replacement proposal Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, and continually reverting at NPA does no one any good.—AL FOCUS! 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No, but you can prevent an edit war by not undoing my work. Discussion can continue while you make your case for the change. Tom Harrison Talk 17:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't intend to. Dan T had some other version MONGO seems to at least partially agree with: [86], so maybe we can settle on that.—AL FOCUS! 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Noting...the MONGO arbcom case was not superceded by the attack sites case..they are related, but one doesn't trump the other IMO.--MONGO 17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


I reverted your edit because you mentioned "no longer reflects consensus," but I didn't see any actual discussion. Maybe I'm just dense, and you've already discussed this elsewhere, but that section about using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny seemed important. - Jehochman Talk 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In WP:BRD, we are now at D. Tom Harrison Talk 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

An arbitration case already

John254 (talk · contribs) has filed an arbitration case on the Miltopia issue, but didn't seem aware you had reblocked. I noted this and added you as a party. Picaroon (t) 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Picaroon (t) —Preceding comment was added at 01:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


I've reset your block of miltopia, I think you forgot to leave autoblock enabled. If I'm mistaken please reblock with ABD. Best regards, Mercury 04:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 14:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

About two months ago you protected Colyton Grammar School. Is there any reason for it to still be protected? --Carnildo 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, just my oversight. Unprotected now, sorry for any inconvenience. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No inconvenience, I came across it when ImageRemovalBot told me it couldn't remove a deleted image from the article. --Carnildo 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom

I'll keep this short, because you've been open about your opinion of me. Just please please please please at least make a note on the talk page (of Robert Black specifically) when you remove material. There's an RfC running very smoothly, and it's important to at the very least note, if not discuss your actions. I've left a similar note as a reply at AN/I. Please do drop me a line if you'd like to open any dialog. I'm firm in my conviction that that way lies the solution. Thanks. Privatemusings 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My recreation of Stephen Tiberius Colbert

Based on a google search, this name does appear to be used in Colbert's presidential campaign. I think it's important to try to give this user the benefit of the doubt; he has shown a willingness to stick to talk pages and simple pages like disambiguations, redirects and the like. A middle name of "Tiberius" is also mentioned in the article - even though Tyrone is the actual actor/comedian's middle name, the character doesn't appear to have one consistent middle name, and Tiberius is one that he has used. —Random832 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tom. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look in when I can. Tom Harrison Talk 03:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A Charge To Keep

I was removing SD tag and I got edit conflict message. It is very hard to grasp that book written by most powerful person on earth, President of USA, went unnoticed till now. At first look, it looked hoax. But when I googled, this book really exist. Very strange things happen in this world. Sorry about goof up. sharara 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, corrections are what we do best ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 14:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not about hurting feelings

It's not about hurting somebody's feelings, Tom, although I suppose you knew that before making your sarcastic remark. It's about whether we wish to model desired behavior, act professionally, and avoid drama, versus whether we want to set a terrible example, act as hypocrites, and generate further ill-will and unending cycles of harassment. You seem to have tossed your hat into the latter ring; not sure why. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bilderberg Meeting Detail

Hello Tom,

I haven't found any reason why you redirected the detailed participant lists for the Bilderberg Meetings 2005 and 2006. As there is rational to be found in WP::BLP, could you please explain to me why you removed (and protected) these pages?

--Lord Chao (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion might be better at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#2006 Bilderberg Meeting, so others can follow it. The list of participants is sourced to, which is not reliable. Tom Harrison Talk 13:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer into the right direction, will talk there. --Lord Chao (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MONGO 2

I would like to notify you that you have been added as an involved party in the MONGO 2 request for arbitration. --krimpet 15:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Rather than blindly reverting a policy page, please do participate in the debate on the subject. I notice you haven't posted on the talkpage in the last 400 revisions. Relata refero (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting on ANI

You should take care not to get into edit wars on ANI. Reverting once is reasonable, reverting two times in quick succession less so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, RlevseTalk 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

North American Union no longer create-protected

North American Union no longer appears to be create-protected, and this thrice-deleted article has again been resurrected. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fork substitution

As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


No matter what I do, two editors simply revert back to the lead they prefer, and one has suggested that the scholars I cite a simply wrong, and therefore do not need to be considered valid. What am I supposed to do in situations like this? We have asked for comments, and that was fruitless. The page was locked for edit warring. As soon as the protection expired, the reverts began again.User:Smerdyakoff and User:EliasAlucard were involved in a previous fracas with me at Nazism for which I was blocked but they were not. The last time I tried to work out a comproise I was blocked for "sterile edit-warring." Suggestions and intervention greatly appreciated. I am tired of going to mediation. I am also leaving this message with User talk:Heimstern.--Cberlet 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tom,

I hope you are well and doing fine. Do you remember the controversy over Aisha's reaching physical maturity before consummation of the marriage? (where I had copy pasted those material from another article [criticism of Muhammad] directly; didn't know the meaning of the English term used for physical maturity; and had heard myself orally from an anthropologist that marriage was not consumed before physical maturity). Here is what Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures, Brill Academic Press has to say on this:

The Prophet deliberately delayed consummation of the marriage until she reached physical maturity. His example set a religious standard for the appropriate age for marriage of females just after the onset of menses. Engagement or betrothal, however, often took place much earlier. This pattern of female marriage soon after reaching reproductive capability is typical of premodern societies in many parts of the world. In those settings, fertility is central to adult female identity; childhood ends and adult responsibility begins with physical maturity.

Just wanted to point out that the view that Arrow and Proab were forcefully rejecting, that is "The Prophet deliberately delayed consummation of the marriage until she reached physical maturity". This is mentioned in the above source. Indeed exactly as that anthropologist had told me "female marriage ... after reaching reproductive capability is typical of premodern societies in many parts of the world." --Aminz (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)



I've been having some problems wich I think must be catagorised as harassment on Wikipedia.

I checked the Wikipedia-article, for the subject 'harassment', and I saw that you had edited on that subject, so I was just wondering if you by any chance, would have the oppertunity, to have a look at one or two of these incidents, and give maybe give some advice on the catagorisation of the incidents.

Only if you have you have got the time for this of course.

Then that would be very fine I think.

So thanks very much in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, s.v. �Dogs in the Islamic Tradition and Nature.� New York: Continuum International, forthcoming 2004. By: Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl
  2. ^ Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus. Retrieved 9th Aug 2007]
  3. ^ The 9/11 Commission Report often refers to many of the highjackers as conspirators, and labels the organization of the attacks as "the 9/11 conspiracy" (9/11 Commission Report, p. 88, p. 160, p. 172). The official report is available here.