User talk:Tom harrison/Archive 2009

Not that you want to be dragged into this mess...

...but this is starting to get ridiculous. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Better to deal with it now than later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And better still for somebody else to deal with it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, if someone not an admin, called in their buddies to gang up on another editor, they'd be WP:Meatpuppets. Some animals are more equal than others, eh? Now if I were to edit every article you've contributed to, changing words around just to suit me regardless of meaning -- alleged implies a claim http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allege, apparent means something open to view http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparent> -- you'd probably call me a WP:Hound. Some animals_are_ more equal than others. And the credibility of Wikipedia has dropped precipitously IMO. News4a2 (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thanks, Tom and a Happy New Year to you as well.--MONGO 15:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why have you undone my contribution to the article?

I included links to the reliable sources, just as Piano non troppo wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Un-protect

Tom, you protected the redirect anti-Estonian sentiment back in July of 2007 [1], due to an editing dispute. This must have slipped under the radar, July 2007 is a long time ago and I don't think anyone is going to dispute it now. I'd like to expand this redirect into an article as a main article to articles like eSStonia that have been recently created. Could you unprotect it please. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. - 7-bubёn >t 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In re WTC collapse edit request

Hi Tom, just a quick note to say there's a baby in the bathwater. The sentence that I asked Jehochman to fix is still wrong in the article. It's an easy thing to fix.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I seems like there ought to be a page associated with each article where points like this can be made. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the talk page is sufficient. It's interesting, though, that such a simple error can be left standing so long even after it's been pointed out.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

aspartame controversy

Thanks for putting the close-comment where it belonged. Maybe I'm transplanting seedlings while the forest is still burning, but I'm trying to make the thing NPOV, and make the refs. support the statements they're stuck on. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. As you see, I misunderstood your edit at first. More on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert. That article needs semi-protection because it is constantly under attack from anti-aspartame activists. The edit history is almost half reverts of such attacks. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911tm

Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's. Sloane (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones & Your User Page Vandalized

Yet again this day I vandalized Alex Jones. Yet a very short time latter I noticed you indeed not only kept my vandalism of your user page but added a neat-o image of Saint Barbara. Since you seemed to take my "personal attack" is such good sportsmanship I have reverted my last un-constructive edit to Alex Jones. 142.161.185.16 (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Some.Canadian.IP.Address.and.Troll

I figured by my comment you would realize I left Alex Jones alone, and stopped editing him. Anyway I don't know how many time he's been protected in the past, see Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on him to find out where all this vandalism started. 142.161.143.218 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Some.Canadian.IP.Address.and.Troll

Page protection for Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Your protection is totally premature. Zara escalated the conflict, but neither party involved (neither she nor I) violated 3RR, and I clearly opted not to respond to her edit warring with a revert and, instead, took the matter to the discussion page. There was, and is, no need to protect the page at this point. For chrissake, at least give participating editors the opportunity to discuss, debate and come to some kind of consensus without stepping in unnecessarily to abort the editing process! Heated disagreement on a topic like this is to be expected. We haven't begun to reach the point where such precipitous intervention is called for. deeceevoice (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the protection, under the remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, is appropriate. You can all discuss, debate, and work out a consensus on the talk page. As you say, heated disagreement is to expected. I hope everyone will help keep the heat down by avoiding inflammatory language. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, with Dbachmann on board, you can pretty much forget about that. ;) What we need here is room to disagree without an admin hovering over us like a mother hen. If and when we reach an impasse and edit warring begins, then, it seems to me, protection is called for -- but, it seems to me, not until. Such a measure is an extreme one and should be used only when things have gotten out of hand. You've clearly jumped the gun. deeceevoice (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I echo Deeceevoice's sentiments here: I would suggest that if you feel you must protect the article, that you 1)put up the appropriate template and 2)make this a definite-term protection (protect it for x number of days) rather than some indefinite protection. I would also challenge your interpretation that the article's subject should be construed as being within the scope of Pseudoscience without the proper clarificationfrom ArbComm.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to request clarification from arbcom. I will of course go with whatever they decide. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Lighter weight option" as opposed to what? The better/best option would have been to leave it be and let us continue to try to work things out, and then proceed with building a better article. So far, no 3RR's, no impasse. Page protection was/is completely unwarranted. Period. I'm done. deeceevoice (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to what Ramdrake said. deeceevoice (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Tom, have you assumed that the article contains pseudoscience. That does not seem neutral. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Banning

And you've banned me on what basis? deeceevoice (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions#Imposed by the Committee, Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted. Again, you can appeal this to arbcom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. I'm not appealing anything at the moment. I just want information. I visited the page, but saw nothing pertinent. Perhaps you can point me to the applicable language. Thanks. :) deeceevoice (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I can tell you anything you would find persuasive or useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tom, I don't understand too why you have placed a ban on Deeceevoice. I haven't seen anything said that is innappropriate. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree, Tom. I think what you might have to say could be very useful. It's a simple request. I mean if you're going to content-ban someone for -- what -- however many months, the least you can do is point me to the relevant governing language. Again, it's a simple -- and civil -- request. Just show me the relevant language, so I can determine if your ban is warranted/justifiable -- in which case I won't waste the ArbCom's time. Thanks -- again. :) deeceevoice (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you repeatedly and seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of the project, and its expected standards of behavior. You've been persistently and disruptively uncivil, routinely attacked anyone who disagrees with you, and are trying to slant Ancient Egyptian race controversy toward a fringe viewpoint. I guess that would be uncivil pov pushing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you won't explain, I'll request the demand be removed; Tom, you are obliged to explain or recant. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think anyone has demanded I recant before. "Eppur si muove!" doesn't seem to be the right reply. Maybe someone knows the Italian for "He's still a disruptive pov pusher." Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I know I've done nothing of the sort. Your explanation appears little more than a throwaway excuse. In fact, I've spent the last couple of days trying to build some sort of consensus on the rewriting of the lead paragraph in wholly value-neutral language that, from the looks of it, is likely to succeed -- and nothing more. If you have evidence of POV pushing -- rather difficult, seeing as how the article has been locked down over the past few days -- where is it? deeceevoice (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me explain. The article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is placed on probation. There was some discussion on the talk page and a rough consensus was achieved to add some more material. This particular user did then not actually add the material that was roughly agreed on in the discussion, but completely changed the lead of the article. Although some other editors did not object to this, I objected to it, and I reverted as soon as I discovered the changes. Take note that this was not any article, but an article with a notice of article probation on the talk page. Quote:

"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information."

I wrote long entries on the discussion page, specifying my objection to the changed lead. The discussion already started out polemical and it rather soon came to personal attacks, although you have to read it yourself if you want to know the details. If we just look at the patter of reverts: One substantial change (without prior discussion) would have been justified in accordance with wp:brd if this hadn't been an article on probation, but then also would have been the partial revert. A second revert, restoring the substantial change, while this substantial change was heavily disputed on the talk page, can't be justified at all. And that is what happened. Zara1709 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like this is just a misapplication of one ArbCom sanction when another one would have been more appropriate. "Pseudoscience" isn't the issue here, but the article is under probation via Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, and so the restriction is legitimate (whether or not I agree with it -- the loathesome "any admin" sanctions apply here, and would have been correctly executed if correctly attributed.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting (mis?)characterization of events, Zara. You see, the problem is I can't tell if you're writing of my purported actions and exaggerating them, or of yours and wildly understating them. If you're doing the latter, then, gee, it looks like you forgot to add how you slapped an "in use" tag on the article and then proceeded to block revert and massively rewrite the article without consulting the other editors -- which raised several objections on the article talk page.  ;) deeceevoice (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Hello. At this stage I'm not going so far as to ask for a "recant" as much as a more complete timeline, and maybe some diffs. My view (from only a very short exposure) was that DCV was working to build consensus and had engaged in meaningful dialog on the same. Admitedly (and I believe that she'd say the same thing) she has some strong opinions and is not afraid to voice them. But (again, happy to be pointed to specifics where I'm wrong) I had not seen behaviours outside the norm for contentious topics.

I'm going to make a request for Arbitration comment, (again) not because I'm asking you to recant but because there is currently ambiguity on the consequences of how we should proceed. I'd already expressed that I thought that exactly this situation was a risk of the current motions/etc. As I understand it:

• You've made a warning and placed DVC on a topic ban. BUT
• That's not actually an admin action, per the committee. THUS
• I can say she's not banned and I won't fall foul of the "wheel war at your peril!" clause. BUT
• What happens if you go ahead and block? Does that block then have the extra staying power of an ArbCom enforcement or not?

Not that any of that has actually happened yet, of course. Thanks for your continued patience on this, brenneman 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose what is acceptable behavior for the page is a judgement call. This exchange with Paul Barlow is typical, as is [2]. A more complete timeline and maybe some diffs? No, sorry. I'm not going to spend the evening collecting diffs, or putting together an arbitration packet. There's an appeal procedure that deeceevoice can follow. The arbs (or you, if you like) can investigate and satisfy themselves one way or the other, or someone can ask the arbcom to clarify. Of course I won't block unless deeceevoice violates the ban. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So, if I get this straight, you have banned Deeceevoice at least in part for voicing her protest against your locking the article? Because that's one of the prominent parts of this diff. I don't have to tell you what that looks like. --Ramdrake (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that wasn't part of the reason. Still, good thing there's an appeal procedure. Have I mentioned the appeal procedure? 'Cause there is one. You can appeal to arbcom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, Meow? Anyhew, Now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_of_User:Deeceevoice. I hope that I'm reading the tone of the above wrong, and that you're not at all taking this as anything other than a good-faith attempt to understand a situation. - brenneman 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My brusque reply was to Ramdrake's suggestion that I banned Deeceevoice for objecting to my locking the article. I welcome your good-faith look at the situation, and anyone else's review of my admin actions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Tom, so maybe I let sarcasm get the better of me. I did insinuate something I shouldn't have. For this, I apologize. However, several editors have come to your page, asking you to either reconsider or better make your grounds for Deeccevoice's banning. I'm counting 4 or 5 of them at this point, in just over 12 hours. That should be enough to tell you it may be a bad ban. Aaron opened a subject at WP:ANI about what it should take to get such a ban reversed and consensus so far seems to say community consensus is sufficient. From this, I'd say it's only a matter of time before someone actually opens an ANI discussion to get the ban reviewed and either confirmed or reverted. I believe it would look better if you asked for a review yourself; I know that's what I'd do in such a situation. In any case, apology given, and advice too. You're free to follow or ignore my advice, though, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"maybe I let sarcasm get the better of me" - no problem, I'm as prone to that as anyone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I've looked in more detail at this, and I've reached the same conclusion as Jpgordon, that is your ban of Deeceevoice isn't valid. You have tried to ban Deeceevoice under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, however these clearly aren't applicable in this instance. I've moved your log of the ban from the pseudoscience case page to the talk page. Obviously, an edit war would be unseemly, so if you disagree, I suggest you gain clarification directly from the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Was Deeceevoice ever formally notified about the Pseudoscience case? I'm not seeing her name on the "list of notifications" at the case page. In order to impose a ban, there's a requirement that before banning, the editor is clearly notified of the case (there's a template that can be used), and the editor must also be given clear instructions on what they can do to avoid any future sanctions. I scanned Deeceevoice's talkpage, and the only message I'm seeing from you (Tom) is the notification of the ban. Was there a warning from some other admin that I missed? --Elonka 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On 18:01, 29 January 2009, and in some subsequent interchanges on the article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's not enough to simply announce the case at an article talkpage. There needs to be a formal notification to the user's talkpage, and this then needs to be posted, with a diff of the notification, to the case page. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications. So the steps are: (1) The user must be clearly notified on their talkpage about the case; (2) The notification must be logged to the case page; (3) (sometimes combined with #1) the user "should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.. Then if and only if the editor still continues with disruption, should a ban be imposed. My recommendation at this point is to wipe the slate clean. If Deeceevoice is still disruptive, post a formal notification, and if the disruption continues, then proceed to a ban. Trust me, the formal notification itself is often as good as a ban, because it's a clear wakeup call. Even without a formal case notification, just posting a clear and unambiguous warning from an administrator on a user's talkpage, is pretty powerful. So I recommend keeping the notification "card" in your hand, and only playing it when other steps don't work. Ditto with bans, because they're so controversial, it's better to refrain from using them until it's clear that other methods (talkpage warnings and notification) have not worked. --Elonka 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks, I look forward to you (or whoever) handling it better. The whole business has satisfied my appetite for racial pseudoscience and bureaucracy, and I wash my hands of it. Best wishes, Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It actually highlights the need for better training on how to use arbitration enforcement, which is probably worth bringing up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement. There's no use making a mistake, if we can't learn something from it.  :) So the question I'd ask here, is where would we put such a guide? If you would have been looking for an "administrator guide to AE", where do you think you would have looked? --Elonka 17:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in any training opportunities like that. In no circumstances will I look for an "administrator's guide to AE." If I want to involve myself with that kind of thing I'll go hang out at the water cooler outside HR. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, that assumes Harrison was acting in good faith. Even if I'd been notified of the pseudoscience matter, my case could not reasonably have been shoehorned to fit its parameters -- and Harrison must know that. From where I sit, he simply did not act competently/knowledgeably as an admin; he didn't even act in simple good faith. There's no way I credibly could have been charged with pushing pseudoscience for my actions in this matter.

Thanks to all of those who became constructively involved in this matter. Since Harrison won't apologize, I will. I'm sorry that one admin's precipitous and ill-conceived decisions/actions wasted the time and consumed the efforts of so many.

Harrison, thanks for the notification that the ban is no longer in effect and that you intend to have nothing more to do with the article. I'd be lying if I said you'll be missed. deeceevoice (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Antisemitism

You've reverted without any real explanation. The terse statement "it's not really a good fit" certainly qualifies as an opinion, but without actual substance vis-a-vis an argument, your edit, while destructive, is also exactly useless. We Wikipedians can't give it any serious value, unless you follow tedious tradition and explain yourself. -Stevertigo 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

Please avoid using disruptive edit summaries, to gain attention, as you did here. You should know better. Prodego ^talk 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm learning better. Politely asking for enforcement wasn't doing any good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we to understand that you will repeat these tactics in the future? --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'm deeply sorry for my behavior, and I'll never do it again. Thanks for taking time to set me straight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask me if you need something enforced. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are about one stupid move away from a block for disruption, per the foolish thread on Jimbo's talk page. Go away, calm down, come back later when you're going to help. If it helps, this is a formal warning not to disrupt Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your forbearance. I'll take a break, and try to do better when I return. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A wise idea. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom, whenever you're feeling up to it, I would like to understand better what happened here and why. I can't imagine any useful reason to come onto my talk page and lie to me about a block in a situation that I knew nothing about. I started looking into it, in good faith, and wasted a good 15 minutes puzzled about what was going on, only to find out that I had the wrong starting point from the beginning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I am genuinely sorry to have wasted your time. It seemed to me that requests for assistance with a long running problem (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Contrivance, BLP, and 9/11 conspiracy theories) were being ignored. This was becoming a source of increasing frustration. To attract attention to the request, I made a number of nonsensical and inflammatory posts to noticeboards. User:Jehochman generously stepped up to deal with the request for enforcement. I'm sorry for the disruption and wasted time I caused. In the future I'll articulate my requests like a sane adult, or I'll keep quiet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, without hesitation. Just looked at your BADCITES page, I love that kind of work. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront as a reference

Hullo Tom. I happened across your BADCITES page and followed up some of the Stormfront links. It was quite galling to find Stormfront threads used as reliable sources in ethnicity articles. I removed all the mainspace links I could find outside the Stormfront and Don Black articles, with the exception of one of two links in Revilo P. Oliver for which I couldn't find a replacement.[http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/PEARLH.htm] As a suggestion, if you could filter your BADCITES page by namespace and publish a single list of mainspace articles that contained them, it would be a lot easier to root them out. Regards, Skomorokh 21:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree the links are appropriate for those articles. After the list of BADCITES is a Sed script I use for filtering, generating a work list of main-space pages which I go through with an external editor. In the past I've posted the result as a page on the wiki, but since I pretty quickly went through the list removing links the page was always out of date. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Have you considered taking the initiative to the Wikipedia space and advertising it around a little? Once dodgy sources are identified it is very easy to have bots track them, and quite easy for editors unfamiliar with the topics at hand to judge whether or not the references belong; as such, it could be very productive to set up a centralised list akin to the spam blacklist, and have Hugglers and New Page Patrollers respond swiftly to any attempts to introduce bad references. Skomorokh 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fine idea, but not really the kind of thing I'm good at. Anyone who wants to should take it and run. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not my cup of tea either, but perhaps dropping a note at WP:BOTREQ or Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist might find someone. Skomorokh 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I think I'll stay away from BOTREQ for a while. My talk page may be more heavily watchlisted than usual just now, so maybe someone will see it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence my attempt to distract from the drama ;) Ciao, Skomorokh 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones/William Cooper

I am somewhat lazy so shall just cut and past another editors comments to you above - this time relating to this article:

You've reverted without any real explanation. The terse statement "Cooper is not a fit person to use" (to paraphrase) certainly qualifies as an opinion, but without actual substance vis-a-vis an argument, your edit, while destructive, is also exactly useless. We Wikipedians can't give it any serious value, unless you follow tedious tradition and explain yourself. The7thdr (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you refuse to answer I will take this to arbitration. I know, "wow" etc. I will certainly do so if you threaten once more to block me without reason. The7thdr (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's necessary to enforce WP:BLP, I certainly will block you. The way to avoid that is read and follow the policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

in, dii

I am aware of the policy, and have yet to see how you think it applies in this case. Again, discuss on the Alex Jones Discussion page, per my recent reply or I will seek arbitration. I am sure that there are many, including Admin, who would be interested in looking at this. I am attempting to assume good faith but it is difficult in the the blatant threats, miss use of your admin rights, and your rather rude comments about William Cooper. The7thdr (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell whomever you like. Jones is not a reliable source for material about, for example, Larry Silverstein. The late Mister Cooper's writings are not a reliable source for material about Jones. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"I assume form your tone you are also "sane" moderator at Alex Jones' Prison Planet forum." Wow, I'm stupefied. Do you suppose Jones knows Wikiedia has a man on the inside? Or that Wikipedia knows Jones has an admin here to do his bidding? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that this sort of childish comment instills confidence in the maturity of WIKI's admin staff? At least you remind me why I automatically fail students who reference WIKI articles. The7thdr (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Says the man who wants to cite the works of Milton William Cooper's radio show for a criticism section in the biography of living person. That's just daft, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it. I'll temporarily suspend your editing rights if you restore the material without reliable sourcing. Again, report me to whomever you like. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's up to you to show that Cooper is a reliable source that satisfies the policy, not to me to prove that he isn't. But briefly, the source you are citing is self-published, and Cooper did not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer your questions. Starting with your first point:

"The source you are citing is self-published" I think you will find that self published refers to websites, books, etc. What we are discussing here is a national shortwave radio show, of a "journalist" who was independently published and made many media appearances - including on the Alex Jones. Even if it did refer to self published items these are not always disallowed under WIKI referencing guidelines. Whether you believe or not in the "paraniod fantasies" of people like David Icke, Willaim Cooper or indeed Alex Jones, is unimportant to the fact that Cooper WAS an expert (a published expert I might add) in his "field" This is the same "field" of expertise as Alex Jones. If you look at the TM article for example, the website - self published - # ^ www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm is used as a reference cited by the editors that the webhost is an expert in his field. Should this also be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of WTPRN

WTPRN has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous afd. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTPRN (2nd nomination). Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC) fggg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.54.112 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[3]. After reading through the rants on the Alex Jones talk page, and his other talk page contributions, I blocked him for 24 hours. I think he's had sufficient warning. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've protected his page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Calgaco (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cawcawpigeon

• Cawcawpigeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After reviewing this editor's contributions, I think an indef block as a vandalism-only account is in order, perhaps in conjunction with a {{2ndchance}} on their Talk page. As the blocking admin, I thought I'd ask your opinion before doing anything. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection, and it'll probably save time in the long run. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Is this intended to be a warning, or just an advisory on Wikipedia's policies?

I would note that I have made zero edits to the September 11 attacks page, and only one edit the Talk:September 11 attacks page, which was to cast my vote on the article's neutrality, together with my explanation for my position on that vote. Was that an inappropriate thing to do?

I have no intentions of getting involved with any "conspiracy theory" issues. If I bring anything up, or join in any discussions, it will be on matters where there is an abundance of well-documented reliable source, so that there will be no need for cherrypicking or discussing weakly-founded hypotheticals. Historically, most of the edits that I have made to Wikipedia articles have been to merely fix spelling errors or broken links, and my discussion in the talk areas has generally been brief and polite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Original Wildbear (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a warning, per the archived discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. See 18:18, 29 March 2009 and 12:48, 30 March 2009]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Thermite

Thanks, I wanted to remove it, but I didn't know if his sources held water. Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see I took out more than I intended - fixed now. In that article, any paragraph should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I also added names to those unnamed authors of the letter and essay so ppl can see how few Truthers there are. Soxwon (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

September 11 attacks project spanish-english iniciative

i Tom, ok you say, but this does not extend to the English wikipedia, but, as is common, but an article that explains what will happen from 8/06/2009 to 09/09/2011 in almost all wikis. ervinn.22@hotmail.com --ervinnnnnnn (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your answer to my question about Wikipedia:Project September 11 attacks. For now I will watch the page. Happy editing, Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering how you know Level493 is a sock puppet and why you reverted pages.

Hello There Tom,

I am just curious about this because it seems that you believe that he is a sock puppet for someone banned three years ago.

I checked the edits on the pages I was monitoring and his request and they seem reasonable. I checked the histories of both users and while I can see that they both editted one page the same I do not see how you could conclude sock puppetry conclusively nor have I found a precedent for removal of, well honestly anything, from a discussion page (that was not out and out vandalism). I am willing to accept

I await your reply. Thank you for your time. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

His writing and interests are recognizable. User:Lagelspeil is the same guy. He's banned so he can't edit or participate here in any way. I understand if you don't want to just take my word. Email arbcom if you like. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I do not mind taking your word for it but it is just an odd case for me. Thank you regardless. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It is, fortunately, an unusual case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Illuminated manuscript

No, they refer to the main article Miniature (illuminated manuscript)... this ambiguity blocked the interwiki bots for months... now illuminated manuscripts have the interwikis of the only wikipedias which splitted the two arguments. Do you agree? --Sailko (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Endgame page

Hi Tom. I noticed you delete the page I had created about the endgame movie. Sorry if it appeared as advertisement. It wasn't my intention. Other documentaries, like zeitgeist have similar pages. My intention was to created a skeleton on which other people could add more information. Can you please undelete it? I will then try to re-write it and add critics to it as well.

thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Game_(2007_film)

Echofloripa (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to restore it, and suggest it not be restored at this time. If you want, start a sub-section in Alex Jones' article. Be sure to include the reliable sources. If it gets big enough, we can see about spinning it off to an independent article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But it is a published movie, it's on the imdb and all, doesn't make sense to have it as a section on the producer's page. I had added all the sources to it, which gave me a lot of work. Can I have that sent to me please? echofloripa at gmail com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The only source I see is IMDB. We'll need reviews in mainstream publications, legitimate coverage of the film as news, etc. Anyway, I've put it in your user space at User talk:Echofloripa/End Game (2007 film). Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very surprised it isn't covered by mainstream publications. Actually there are 6 entries on google news. Anyway, I can't find it on the user space link you pasted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Alex Jones Supporting the New World Order

Hey, Tom, just wondering why you took out the footnoted and referenced article that said that Alex Jones was employing someone who supported president Bush from his Wikipedia entry.

That's strange. NWO people are always railing against how the government changes history.

If you can find something in error about our article we'd be happy to correct it.

Otherwise you guys are as bad as what you say you're fighting against.

Freedomhaters.org is not a reliable source for material about living people. If the "we" who'd be happy to correct it is you who operates the site, then please stop adding links to your own site. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Basboll

Basboll is now setting up a sandbox page which does nothing but serve as proof that though he recognizes his ban in directly editing articles related to 9/11, he still is using this website solely for that purpose indirectly...as shown in this page which he started 4/18...furthermore, he has been using talkpages and surrogates to do his bidding for him on this matter. I'm thinking that if the only purpose he sees that this website exists for him is to promote CT and minimize known evidence regarding 9/11 issues, then maybe he needs to be banned outright. I previously encouraged him to help us write articles that were outside the scope of 9/11 and he refused...this is a matter perhaps arbcom needs to address. Here he is trying to get Wayne to edit for him [4], here he advocates in defense of disruptive socks regarding 9/11 [5]...a list can be made that is pretty exhaustive. Banned from editing articles related to 9/11 but using surrogates to do his work for him, encouraging those that share his CT POV and acting in defense of those that are, in all liklihood ban evaders. On a lighter note...no doubt the CT nonsense seems to be waning...the quick and long overdue retitling of the CD hypothesis page has now finally happened....I am surely glad to see the title finally reflect what it really is. Thanks for you input.--MONGO 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted a request for clarification Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, 14:12, 21 April 2009. Like all conspiracy theories there will always be true believers, but popular interest may be waning, or at least shifting focus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does Tom Harrison appear to be a gatekeeper?

He locks down pages, censors content and is ruining Wiki with personal, unsubstantiated thoughts. His loathing for anything in the realm of clandestine agencies and their relationship to the subject of conspiracy (political) is painfully obvious. His loathing for Alex Jones(radio host) in particular is obvious from his contributions here.

Why does "Tom Harrison" appear to edit one genre of Wikipedia--namely pages related to the September 11 attacks? This user appears to specifically target Alex Jones in his edits. I see no reason for this. It is very detrimental to Wikipedia for personal attacks and edits for the pure sake of censorship.

Are there only a few "administrators" that scan Wiki as a full time job in order to spin information in a specific direction? Some of the comments by this Harrison character on his "diff" are questionable at best. Because there is no editorial board to report censors to. I write to you Loremaster for your input at this point. The next step will be to contact the CEO of Wikipedia directly and utilize a more advanced version of Wikiscanner. .--peterbadgely (Peterbadgely (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

That's you told. – iridescent 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just do what The Grandmaster tells me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  07:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment

I'm just curious why this article was deleted. It was not a very complete article but it is an actual astrophysics experiment. --Mk421 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was created by a banned user, User:Pinktulip. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Can it be restored? As far as I know the information was not false. Alternately, can I recreate it from scratch? The experiment made an important discovery in the study of gamma ray bursts which resulted in it being featured on the cover of the journal Nature. So it should probably have a Wikipedia page. --Mk421 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It should not be restored, but you can recreate it from scratch - sorry for the inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

BAPTIST UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA, Prominent South Africa Baptists, Rev Thomas Aitken

Hello Tom

I'm an avid of Wikipedia, enjoy browsing through various subjects on a regular basis.

After years of researching my ancestry, my own late Grandfather was proving elusive, until through a stroke of good luck and fortune, I discovered, very recently, that "Baptist Church", is actually 'Baptist Union'.

Silly me!

Anyway, imagine my delight in turning to trusty, faithfuly Wikipedia, as always and finding an interesting and informative section on 'The Baptist Union of South Africa'.

Then I was even more delighted to find a section on 'Rev Tom Aitken'. Click on it, aaaaaahhhhhhhh, it's been deleted!

Please re-instate, as I am burning with curiosity to see it.

Many thanks

Linnea Lynch

80.0.108.249 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The deleted article lacks sources, does not make any claim of notability, and may be largely copied from somewhere else without attribution. I'm not willing to restore it, but here's a summary of what the deleted article says:

Thomas Aitken was a devout, hard-working, and well-liked Christian minister. Following his education at Harley College, he was at Cape Verdes Island from 1896 to 1897; St Helena from 1897 to 1905; Port Elizabeth, South Africa from 1905 to 1910; Durban from 1910 to 1918; Wynberg from 1918 to 1920; Germiston from 1920 to 1924; and in Kingwilliamstown from 1924 to 1935. He was General Secretary of the Baptist Union of South Africa from 1919 to 1935.

Hope this helps, Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

George Shultz

Did something offend about the article, or was it just one of those misclick things? Ray^Talk 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I removed some material added by a banned user. Sorry for any inconvenience, Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

Any reason why you've taken the Hoover institute reference out? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As above, just because it was added by a banned user. No opinion on the content. Sorry for any inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okey Dokey. Thanks for responding so promptly. I've changed it back. By the way, are you sure that Thaiverb is a banned user? There's nothing to that effect on the user talkpage, and the edits s/he's done seem harmless to me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

Tom, thanks for semi-protecting the Carly Fiorina article. I was actually just posting at wp:blp/n when you protected the article. Unfortunately, just after your protection, another editor reinserted the poorly sourced, controversial content. Would you consider taking another look at the article? The weekends tend to be a bit of a vacuum here at Wikipedia, and I'm afraid this might fall through the cracks. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Full protected and watchlisted. Looks like you said it very well on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your keeping an eye on things over there. Take care, user:J aka justen (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bored now

No longer working on 9/11, conspiracy theories about 9/11, Truthers, Deniers, Architects & Engineers & Scholars for Truth & Justice, nanothermite, magic pixie dust, or any of that nonsense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BADCITES

What happened to BADCITES? I'd like to get a copy of that page for my userspace. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know anyone used it - should have checked for incoming links. I'm moving on to other areas, but I wish all the best to those of you who promote good sources and remove fringe fancruft. You're welcome to take over the page, move it wherever you like, or leave it in place and continue to use it as you have. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I do use it on occasion. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Neda Agha-Soltan

I saw you have changed protection level for "Neda Agha-Soltan". Her real name is Neda Agha-Soltan and not Neda Soltani. Neda Soltani should be moved to Neda Agha-Soltan. Thanks. (Koohkan (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, could you point me to the reliable source? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See this interview with his fiance :[6], under the photo you can see Neda Agha-Soltan. (Koohkan (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

I second the above, as her surname has been mis-reported partly due to this article's incorrect title. --Veratien (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you make good points. I've asked on the talk page what people think about moving, under the heading Even more discussion regarding article name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NOR noticeboard

Your advice and comments would be most welcome, as I think you've dealt with User:WLRoss before. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"There seems to be an ongoing pattern of problematic edits." Yes. That's been the case for some time now. GM food or 9/11 conspiracy theories, the community has been unable or unwilling to do anything substantive about people pushing their fringe theories. I've had to deal with it in my own way by no longer working in those areas or with those people. Sorry, Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite understand, dealing with this is no fun at all. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the vandalism

Enforcing your OWN views in the Death of Naser Amirnejad is total vandalism. There are so many reliable soruces in Persian which I have added to the article plus I have added an English language source which is Guardian newspaper. And you still insist on deleting the page's content which only shows what you are doing is totally biased and unfair!--Breathing Dead (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rapture

I have demonstrated on the talk page that skywriters edits are original research, do not represent any christian organization or theologian's views, and has used false and fictious sources, to control page. There are three or four editors who are working together to control the page. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

People aren't conspiring against you to control what Wikipedia says about the Rapture‎. You can't keep reverting to force in your preferred version. It's disruptive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8 DVD Section

I have told all the other users, many, many times there are three release dates for a reason. The first one, for a release through TLC/Discovery, the second for a store release, both in the U.S. only and the third one is a store release in Canada, since for some reason it was delayed here. Yes I checked around stores, couldn't find. Not to mention (which I've told other users) I checked on a store's website - Chapters/Indigo and that's where I got the release dates from.

I put the dates in, no one objected, I put the table in with all the dates, no on objected. So why now after all this time? Why didn't someone else put the table or the dates? Why didn't they change it when I created it? Why doesn't someone else verify facts instead changing it and telling me I'm wrong?

I keep putting all those dates in for a reason, which everyone ignores and it's really bugging me. I'm tired of "discusiing" it, when the only answer I get is that I have no clue what I'm doing or saying!! R7604 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I would like those dates back and be done with it. If other show have more then one release for one region, why not Jon & Kate Plus 8? R7604 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't own the section and, if you would bother to discuss this on the talk page, you'd see there's currently a favor building toward keeping the current version (IE: not yours). --13² 23:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:R7604

User:R7604, the user I reported to WP:ANI (and you subsequently protected the page to intervene) is still adamantly refusing to discuss and gain consensus on the talk page of the article (where several people have started building a consensus) and, instead, has started coming to my talk page to harass me about this issue and has called me a "buttinsky" which, while rather juvenile, would still be considered uncivil. I'm at my wit's end here. I'm getting increasingly frustrating and feeling more and more uncomfortable. Could I please get some advice or help on this issue? Thank you. --13² 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask the user to disengage. It's probably best to try and ignore anything you find uncivil or provocative. Best case, the user will respect the clear consensus on the talk page and let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and help in this matter. I really appreciate it. --13² 12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why I'm in the wrong and yet apparently I am. Interesting how this happens and I still haven't gotten any answers. You leave me no choice...... R7604 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh

My concerns about this one exactly match yours. We should not be accepting the 'majority' of sources, we should be careful about the reliability of sources. I had one 'incident' with this editor (which I walked away from) where he accepted a source that was to my mind obviously biased (Leonard Peikoff) and which did not reflect mainstream academic consensus. Skomorokh's view seems to be that whatever views are published and are represented in the majority of Google hits, have consensus. Hence his tolerance of the Ayn Rand articles, whose representation in Wikipedia grossly overstates her acceptance in mainstream academia. You seem to have been swayed by the fact that the 'community' overwhelmingly supports his RfA, but in my experience the 'community' rarely makes any careful investigation of a candidate's background, and prefers to rely on whether they are 'nice' and therefore 'seem' to understand policy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The community today isn't what I could wish, but it's the only one we have. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Leprechaun

Hello. As a major contributor to this article, I thought you would want to know that it has been placed on hold as a result of its GA Sweeps Review, which can be found here. –Whitehorse1 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8

A few weeks ago you protected Jon & Kate Plus 8 after an editing dispute where one editor kept refusing to discuss the issue. On the talk page, other editors were able to build a consensus, you removed the protection, and things seemed to settle down. Recently the same user came, fully removed the table because it wasn't their version, ignored the consensus on the ages, and made other unnecessary changes to the article. I've reverted their edits, encouraging them to discuss this on the talk page, but I doubt they're going to and I'm positive they'd ignore any consensus anyway. Could I please get some advice about this? Should I just keep reverting? Should the article be protected again? I just don't know how to deal with this user. Thanks for any help. --13² 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Should I just keep reverting?" No, definitely not. Wait for a consensus to form on talk. If it takes a while for everybody to speak up, try to be patient. It's frustrating, but we have to accept that the article will be in a state we don't like from time to time. (I don't have any preference myself; I know nothing about John or Kate; whatever you guys agree on is fine with me). The page is on my watchlist, and I'll check in again later this evening. If you need help urgently, for a WP:BLP concern or something, ask at WP:ANI. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. I will mention though that we got a consensus over those two issues. Several editors agreed that her version needed to be changed and agreed that this version was better. She left one message on the talk page and it was basically "Either keep my version or I'm taking the whole thing out." which is what she did. She refuses to discuss the issue unless it's in her favor and she throws a fit when it's not (you can see the few messages by her on that talk page as well as mine). She claims she cites everything, but, in reality, she'll throw a website name out there, which hardly ever says what she says it does. She's also said before that she refuses to discuss issues and refuses to gain consensus. She's had several edit summaries for that article with stuff like "Survey says..." when she's never even done a survey (at least not on anyone but her). It's immensely frustrating. --13² 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to put in my two cents here (as I've been dealing with her on the same article, as well)...if you look at this user's talk page, you will see many instances of other editors trying to engage her in discussion on this topic, and she stubbornly refuses to communicate. She often edits without a reason in the summary or without gaining any consensus. When she does have an edit summary they are usually extremely haughty and rude. She refuses to discuss changes on the talk page, but instead goes to user talk pages or argues her point in the edit summary. I'm with 13 that it's been extremely frustrating. Her user page says she's "learning the ropes" still, but I believe she needs some additional guidance. Cactusjump (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, she's back again making the same changes although she has not gained consensus on the talk page. I reminded her as such, but she has yet to go to the talk page to discuss. Cactusjump (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

...And back again, adding the info yet again. Cactusjump (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

With this as an edit summary: "The Canadian dates and the one UK *are* staying. Do the work with the sources I've given in previous comments. On that note, I can now get rid of the rediculous "Region1" link." Just more of that same old ignoring of consensus and own-y stuff. --13² 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this user seems to have no intention of resigning their position, should the WP:ANI report be updated, or what is the next step? Cactusjump (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

She's back and reverting again. Cactusjump (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And she back....yet again. --13² 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

Hello. I noticed you were the most recent person to protect Fiorina's page. Did you mean to indefinitely protect it? APK that's not my name 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced it to semi-protection, which is probably appropriate because of blp concerns. Leaving it at full protection so long was a mistake; thanks for catching it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. APK that's not my name 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

J&K

I don't know if you caught my message above, but R7604 is back edit warring again. Can you please advise us where to go from here? --13² 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 3 months, and will keep the page on my watch list. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --13² 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Duck?

User:BC223 is making nearly identical edits as R7604 on the J&K page and just started editing today. I don't know if this is a block evasion, but right now it's looking like a duck. Any suggestions? Should we just keep an eye on the page to see if they continue? --13² 18:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the most recent diffs by each user: BC223 and R7604. Aside from adding italics to one of the DVD titles, the edits are identical. --13² 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the last month or so, R7604 has edited in all but two of the articles that BC223 has within the last hour. --13² 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly the same user, now blocked. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Gmacnroll

Hi, user Gmacnroll (talk · contribs) who you blocked has returned as 174.116.36.197 (talk · contribs). He was also 142.162.18.39 (talk · contribs) at some point. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Maybe best for now to Revert, block, and ignore. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

NPG

Sources - This page used many sources I have challenged. The only one that people attempted to refute is the NYT piece. It provides very little and nothing new, so it doesn't matter with notability.

The others I refuted as reliable are: Artnet, not a reliable new source on legal matters and lacks an author, BJP, the same as art net and lacks an author, Amateurphotographer, not a reliable news source on legal matters , and NYLawLine, a blog and not a reliable source for "facts" and not allowed for notability. Then there is a 2007 source Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy, which obviously lacked the ability to predict the future. etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

<ref> tag for editing and adding a reference

Tom, Thank you for your note welcoming me. I am attempting to add a sentence to the article on George Whitefield and add a reference to document my content addition. My reference addition for the book by John Pollock was saved and accepted, but the content addition I've tried to save tells me something is wrong with "<ref> tag. Can you help me with his now? Thank you.Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exuberate (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I regret that I still don't understand specifically how to enter my sentence in the "Advocacy of Slavery" section of the article on George Whitefield with the proper symbol(s) or whatever is needed at the end of the sentence to correct the <ref> tag issue. Specifically what do I type besides the sentence I want to add? This may be rudimentary but it is not clear to me. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Exuberat (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 August 2009

Another duck?

Another user making nearly identical edits as R7604 on Jon & Kate: diff. --13² 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked; thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And another. :| --13² 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that one. Let's assume good faith and give it some time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Blocked, Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I decided to notify you since it was nearly identical to the last one (except for one link and fixing the capitalization of a name (which needs to be removed anyway as it was an unexplained change by someone else prior to this)). I'm cool with waiting and seeing; I just wanted to bring the name to your attention. --13² 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Treat the user nice and the reaction will tell us a lot. Best case, maybe a new user - we could use a few. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No joke. My sister joined up this afternoon. So far so good! :) --13² 02:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because I'm an anon doesn't mean I'm incapable of anything besides vandalism

Care to explain how this makes the article better? Next time, *review* the edit before jumping to conclusion. I commented it out because I didn't know if it was important, but I know it's not supposed to be like that. Edit summaries are nice too unless IPs aren't worthy. Remember you "established" users are where we get these bad habits from. Don't be so bitey. I'm guessing you're an admin or something too. Wikipedia used to be a much friendly place. 71.155.241.19 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for taking time to make the project a better, more friendly place. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quack

Another duck of R7604? --13² 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A Possible Doppelganger

TomHarison2 (talk · contribs) has edited Jon & Kate Plus 8. I am suspicious that the account might be used to impersonate you. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

banned user

FYI, this is also him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Global warming FAQ

Why on earth did you delete the FAQ? Shouldn't there have been some discussion first? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, restored now - see the section just above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good to have that sorted out. I was wondering what was up with that guy, he's been screwing up a bunch of FAQs throughout the project. Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Evolution FAQ

WHY IN THE WORLD DID YOU DELETE OUR FAQ?! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored now. Please see the section above. Sorry for the inconvenience, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your egregious conduct is now featured at AN/I. Enjoy. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you forget Talk:WIRED Science btw ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles

For the rest of this month we are looking for more candidates to be promoted to Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. We are hoping to bring the list of category members to a total of 50. Either you have participated in past votes and discussions or you have recently signed up to be a part of WP:CHICAGO. In either case, please come visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment where we are determining who to add to the September 1st ballot. Some candidate debates have lingered, but there are many new ones from the project's top 50 according to the Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. Help us determine which pages to add to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far. Please consider commenting at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Donald_Rumsfeld. Also, make sure to update your active status on the project member list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:R7604

Hi Tom. You have helped in this issue before. User:TomHarison2 seems to be a puppet of User:R7604. The issue of linking in the infobox that R7604 made, TomHarison02 is making as well. S/he may have even the created the second account in retaliation of your block. Any help you could give would be helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO voting for Top-importance Chicago articles

You voted in one of the two most recent ballots. Feel free to come vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates for our next Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Voting continues until September 10 and nominations/discussions are ongoing for future ballot candidates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom Harrison's list

1. History of Chicago
2. Navy Pier
3. 1968 Democratic National Convention
4. Jane Addams
5. Saint Valentine's Day massacre
6. Millennium Park
7. Chicago Pile-1
8. Northwestern University
9. Black Sox Scandal
10. Leopold and Loeb
11. Shedd Aquarium
12. National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago -- signature

sibel edmonds

I dont understand your removal of the video deposition. More comments on the Sibel Edmonds talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I removed the semi-protection of the article, it appears you did so with a conflict of interest and haven't been around to explain it. Please do so. tedder (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The explanation is, "Bradblog.com is not a reliable source. But, so far from having the conflict of interest you accuse me of, I don't really care, and won't have anything more to do with it. You or anyone who cares can see what pages cite bradblog.com as a source, and check those pages for blp compliance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My votes here and rationale for your further consideration

Hello Tom. I have cast my votes at the above-named location - scroll down to my name at the end of the list. I would not normally come to your page to tell you of such an edit but in this case I have used a particular rationale and method which I think is deserving of your further consideration; and so I ask you to re-visit and make further comment if you wish. If there is some other way that I can assist or if you have any further questions please come to my talk page at any time. With thanks --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a useful compilation. I'm not really very active in that or any project, but it looks like something every project could usefully maintain. I think popularity is important in its own right, parallel to importance. So I'd take it into account, but wouldn't make it the determining factor. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Glock page

I noted that you restored the section about Gaston Glock's "service" with the German Army during World War II. Perhaps you can enlighten me to why that tidbit is encyclopedic, and not merely trivial, given that it amounted to "a few days" when he was "16 or 17". I made my objection known in the talk page, and the revert occurred without any counter-justification.

I maintain that it is insignificant and should be eliminated, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a silly revert war over trivia. I do have concerns, however, about why that is important except to show some sort of tenuous link with the Nazi regime. It's not like it's Otto Skorzeny or Erwin Rommel, or even Pope Benedict XVI, who was actually in the Hitler Youth, it's a guy who, according to the very source you restored, had a non-notable association, not even membership, in the organization.

The ball's in your court, sir. As you restored it, it is an indication to me that you know more than I. So if you could provide some justification for it being in the article (added 5 days ago, I might add), it would be appreciated. 125.213.207.141 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistook your edit for section-blanking, a common form of vandalism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

End Game (2007 film) informal review

An apparently new editor, Varks Spira (talk · contribs), moved User:Echofloripa/Endgame (2007 film) back into mainspace as Endgame (2007 film). I would like you to treat this as the first step of WP:DRV, on Varks's behalf. (Personally, I don't think it's ready for mainspace, but I can't really confirm that it still meets WP:CSD#G11.) At this point, I'm not sure whether WP:DRV or WP:RM (request to move it into mainspace) would be the appropriate method if it's suitable for mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. This isn't an area I follow anymore, so I'm content to leave it to your judgment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

R7604

I'm fairly positive that User:TH43 is User:R7604, whom you blocked for three months at the end of July and indef blocked a number of socks. What tipped me off and got me suspecting is threefold. First, the user delinked the internal links for actors on 7th Heaven, which is something that R7604 did several times, even after being reverted. Second, the user is extremely focused on the same articles R7604 was, including: Jon & Kate Plus 8, 7th Heaven, 18 Kids and Counting articles, 90210 (TV series) articles, The Waltons, Degrassi: The Next Generation articles, John Schneider (television actor), Murder, She Wrote articles, as well as many others. Third, the user started editing one day after the most recent sock was blocked. While I, personally, haven't had too many issues with this suspected incarnation, TH43 has been involved in some edit warring, a block for vandalism, and some slightly snippy communication with other members if they changed their edits (including R7604's favorite method: arguing at people in edit summaries). Since I noticed it, I just figured I'd give you a head's up as well. --13² 19:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

!!

Hi Tom, would you please take a look on this ridiculous article? To me, this is not at all a WP article. Phrases like "is a master in conveying..", "Swami Dayananda's deep scholarship..", "A teacher of teachers.." or open advertising stuff like "Swami Dayananda has written scores of books, available through Amazon.com and other bookstores, as well as his own Ashram and the Chinmaya Mission" makes it more of a WP:advertising than an article. For what I understand the guy took the name of an old Hindu teacher and every WP ref to the old one is now redirecting to his ..Holiness article. Nice work for "a distinguished Hindu teacher of Vedanta and Sanskrit in the tradition of Adi Shankara" isn't it?. Cheers, --Factuarius (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a subject I know anything about. You might consider prod, speedy deletion, or AfD. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not my cup of tea either, just passing by. I would started the necessary procedure but I am afraid for my soul's salvation in confronting with his Holiness the teacher of teachers. Thanks for your time anyway and have fun (artical articals).. --Factuarius (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger

Dear Tom, the articles on Islamic Emirate of Waziristan requires a merger with Waziristan as nothing like Islamic Emirate of Waziristan exists. There is no organization that claims that name. None of the sources provided in the article use or even mention this name. As discussed on the discussion page of Islamic Emirate of Waziristan , please go ahead to delete or merge the article. In fact the organization that exists in Waziristan is called Tehreek Taliban. The few sources on the internet who mention such name use wikipedia as a reference. This is against the credibility of wikipedia. I expect an action becuase it is too long now. I am an administrator on URDU WIKIPEDIA and you can leave you comments on MY DISCUSSION PAGE - thank you . Sayyid Salman Rizavi--91.172.125.141 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed that page for some time. If you like, log in and make the changes. If others object it can always be undone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

9/11 CTers

They never stop do they? At some point, one would figure that an education might help.--MONGO 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the educated ones just write better. Conspiracy theorists aren't ignorant (necessarily); they're crazy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point...I forgot about the dysfunctionality issues.--MONGO 03:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is different...seeing your moose edits...--MONGO 03:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just kind of wandered into it. It's interesting, but I'm not too familiar with the best references. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a lot of work...I had a long standing issue when I brought the Elk article to FA...in the US, what we call an Elk was known as a Red Deer in Europe...what we call a Moose is called an Elk in Europe...the problem in my article was solved after DNA evidence indicated that our Elk and European Red Deer are seperate species...so the articles were split...the elk is also found in east Asia, but not naturally in Europe...anyway...a good article on the Moose would be interesting...--MONGO 03:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are four subspecies of Moose in N. America....here's some book refs...[7]...--MONGO 03:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another here--MONGO 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thidwick the Big-hearted Moose, and If You Give a Moose a Muffin -- got those. I'll have to borrow some of the others. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation

You have been named as an involved party in a request for mediation WP:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire for your involvement in the article Byzantine Empire. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another sock for your attention

Twyla8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has picked up where the sock you just blocked left off on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. It seems to be another member of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tinpac sockfarm; I've reported it to SPI for CU attention. It's repeatedly disrupting the article at the moment, so could you please block it until the CU results are in? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Tom. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Away

Any admin should feel free to change or remove my recent blocks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

CRU article

Tom, the unprotection isn't going well. We've had 5RR from an anon, with Tillman then restoring the anon's contentious edit without prior discussion and instead challenging others to justify its removal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If at all possible I'd rather we aggressively revert and block individuals but leave the page open for legitimate users, including anons. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU article, IPCC chairman comments

Regarding this discussion. I'm a bit surprised you decided to ignore ongoing discussion despite the agreement to avoid edit warring? Especially after stating that "I'm going to revert and block just about anyone who edits disruptively"?
—Apis (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"you decided to ignore ongoing discussion despite the agreement to avoid edit warring" - lots of inaccurate assumptions there. I hope you don't bring that style to the article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing as Apis, except I see that he has already stated the obvious. Tom, you say you are going to revert and block anyone who edits disruptively, yet I see no action by you against editors like GoRight. Why is that? Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel I failed to assume good faith I apologise, but I noticed later that WMC also objected to the edit, and you reverted him. The wording of that section was currently under discussion and there was no consensus as far as I could see. Have I misunderstood something?
—Apis (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if there are significant objections I'll step away from it and let others handle it. At this point the page is locked (though I think that's not the best choice) so there shouldn't be anyone to block. Thanks for your input. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)