Tom harrison
At least there is one senseable person around here. Thanks--Beguiled 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
For new users
If you are new here, welcome. The page Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.
Archives
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Blocking IP 213.42.2.22
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
Hello,
I added the links to the several HP "voyager" calculator. Yes you're right, one link to MyCalcDB.free.fr 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.
Thanks
Philippe
copyrighted photograph
Uh,
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 srh@esper.com 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?
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)
re: Oklahoma City bombing
(diff) (hist) . . Oklahoma City bombing; 14:20 . . (-31) . . Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rm dispute tag)
hi Tom, you just deleted the dispute flag - without explanation?
I had assumed we agreed to disagree. During my wikibreak Peephole deleted the flag.
Please either explain yourself or put the flag back up. — Xiutwel (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is not a dispute just because you don't like what the article says. The dispute tag cannot reasonably be used semi-permanently, or to hold the page hostage until everyone is satisfied with it. The sources are clear, and the facts are not in dispute. I'm going out, so excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison Talk 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion. We can keep it on the article talk page from now on. I'll watch for your remarks there, and post there anything I have to say. Tom Harrison Talk 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it, for clarity, if you would motivate changes to the article on the talk page of the article, or if you must, on MY User Page in stead of your own. I initially missed your explanation, causing me a lot of extra work. Thx. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation, and your away-notice. I see this differently: the matter is not that I disagree with the facts presented in the article (though that may be the case); the matter is that I think an important fact is omitted. I judge this to be not a POV dispute, but a factual accuracy dispute (cherry-picking the facts). I agree we cannot use the flag semi-permanantly, and I hope you will work with me to find a solution to this. Surely it must be possible to find some wording for the fact that these news stations aired these reports? — Xiutwel (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Some user moved obturate to obturating ring, but that meant the article content didn't at all fit the title (obturation being a process, obturating ring being a single application example). I moved the contents back to obturate, and pointed obturating ring to driving band, which I though was a better fit. Upon some additional research, I decided that there was only a partial overlap between driving bands and obturating rings, and decided to create a new article for obturating ring that linked to driving band and had additional content covering items such as breech seals and mechanical components such as the plumbing fittings. There are probably more engineering uses that could be added (do a Google search) but I'm not up enough on the subject to do it without a lot more work. scot 16:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. It all looks good. I thought at first might have been a cut-and-paste move somewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 16:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, done from scratch. Also put together gas check this morning, since it's tangentially related to the driving band. Today it's either Wiki or watch Blue's Clues with the kids... scot 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
F.Y.I.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). TheOnlyChoice 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive my ignorance, but what does turnip mean? Grandad 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I meant it as kind of a commentary, or maybe a metasyntactic variable. Page deletion is not stricly a vote, so some people avoid saying 'keep' or 'delete', and just present an argument. I meant to expand on Hipocrite's point, so I used the same random word he did. I was tempted to say Pecans, or maybe potsherds. Deletion is in practice unlikely, so I might have said 'speedy close as keep', except I do think the page should be deleted, or maybe merged in much abbreviated form to 9/11 conspiracy theories. As far as I know, there is not yet a conspiracy theory involving turnips. Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
CD Hypothesis "two camps" citation request
Hmmm. I looked at that one. To me it looks like citing the obvious. Please bear in mind that I thing the hypothesis is WP:BALLS and am simply interested in a good article when I say this. It is a statement thatappears to be borne out by all teh available facts rather than a single one, but I donlt think you want a stream of ever single ref after it ;). I think it is unanswerable, but equally I feel the statement is valid. I'd appreciate your thoughts on how one might handle your tag, please? Fiddle Faddle 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- My reply is on the article talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tom. I'll continue there. Fiddle Faddle 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad pictures
Can I discuss here with you about Muhammad pictures instead of at Mediation page. I really liked your previous stand and you had helped us to maintain one picture in the article and it provided a peace of long time (with no major edit war). Now I feel sad that you also have change your position. I wish to discuss it here for better understanding if possible? Thanks --- ALM 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that I want to add pictures to the page, I just don't want to remove them for a reason that will set a bad precedent. I think something like two pictures would probably be appropriate - one for the section Depictions of Muhammad, and one somewhere else. But one, or two, or one and some calligraphy, or anything else reasonable would be fine. I care less about the specifics of what we decide than about the reasons for our decision. Whatever we choose to do, we should not do it to avoid offending people, or for religious reasons. Though it is in general good to avoid offending and to respect everyone's religion, changing the article for those reasons would encourage people to change other pages for similar reasons, or to demand other changes. Scientology comes to mind. Like I said on the mediation page, if we want to remove stuff that offends Muslims, but keep stuff that offends Christians, we can do that. But because of what I expect will happen, and for simple justice, we should not. I think we can agree on a reasonable solution that will keep the page stable. Please let me know what you think. Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Tom Harrison, I am very busy until 10th Jan night. I am very sorry that I am not able to reply. I will reply before 10th when I have to take some rest or after that definitely. I hope that you will not be mad and will continue to talk about this (even if I am slow in replying). best wishes --- ALM 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all, take your time. There is no deadline. I'm busy myself, so I'm happy to take it slowly. Tom Harrison Talk 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I can now reply every day finally I guess. After reading your above post it looks like "secularism has more or less a system where goal is to offend everyone, Christians or Muslims or Jews". It has become closer to communism which was against religions. New Goal of secularism is "not to bend on demands of anyone even though they are reasonable enough". For example if you follow trend then this article should not have any picture of Muhammad because
- That is norm followed in almost 99.9999999% books as well as in most encyclopedias. (wikipedia is a big book)
- Secondly Muhammad has 99.999% represented in calligraphy and may be 0.00001% in pictures. If we wish to give everything right weightage then we cannot have 99 calligraphy pictures in the article in order to justify one picture showing Muhammad face. Can we have 99 picture of calligraphy in the article?
- Hence asking for no picture of Muhammad in article is according to history and literature is a valid demand. However, we just want to have picture to up held secularism and not making any group happy. We want to give 0.000001% extra weightage of 20% to make a point. This kind of bothers me.
- I being a Muslim do not like picture of him in any article that include Depiction of Muhammad and that newspaper cartoon article. However, I tolerate them with big heart and I do not go there and contribute (delete those pictures). Now some people want to add his picture in Kaaba in Muhammad where they are even not informational and there main point is that we will not let censor any thing (or make Muslims happy by mistake as it will set a wrong trend).
- I said many times if you show me 5 books published by reliable sources and with historical picture of Muhammad then I can change my position. However, they do not give me just 5 books to end this dispute but goes back to see not censor. We will offend all. --- ALM 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if you feel my above post is harsh. I am not good in expressing myself but I have written that with all the respect. I just wanted to convey my feelings. --- ALM 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is not too harsh; I will think about what you said. Tom Harrison Talk 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If we do remove these pictures, it will be for religious reasons, and I think everyone knows that. There is a lot in Wikipedia I don't like, but to remove any of it on religious grounds puts all of it at risk of the same thing: Drug resistance, Psychiatry, History of Rome, and any number of others. Religious based censorship has a long and dismal history, and cannot be allowed to take root here.
There are many pictures, and whole pages, that I would remove if I took a narrow view of my obligations as a Christian. But my obligation as a Christian to promote education, literacy, and reason over-rides my obligation to discourage other people from looking at inappropriate pictures - that one is pretty far down on my list, after quite a few other things. Trying to coerce public morality is a bad idea on several levels.
To the extent that it is a matter of you not wanting to see the pictures, you could use AdBlock. If as you say they are not pictures of Muhammad anyway, can we adjust the captions to avoid giving offense while still accurately describing the picture? Tom Harrison Talk 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- What I have learned from our discussion that new religion secularism is become extreme superior and it is against all religions. The idea of secularism is no more that it will tolerate (care) about all religion but is that it will not allow any religion (like communism).
- There are many reasons of not including Muhammad picture even if I do not say it that it is because of Islam and I do not like them being Muslim. I will try that during this mediation I will not give religion reason because that is not required to convince any neutral person. Do you think if I give good enough reason (without mentioning religion) then you will accept them? Even if they are against putting any picture of Muhammad in the article. -- ALM 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly. I'm not so concerned about having or not having pictures, but about the reason why. But it should not be a pretext. It has to he a real, valid reason that would apply as well to other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well I have now started to hate secularism. It is worse then I thought of.
- If they will follow the tradition then they will never include any picture in articles like Muhammad. Otherwise I will try to name as many books as I can find in local library that have no picture of Muhammad (because I am sure no one of them will have any picture) and I will keep challenging them to give ONLY 5 books or 5 mosques that have historical pictures of Muhammad. Otherwise I will ask them to give reason to make wikipedia different from reality (going against vast majority of publications). Is that plan sound good to you? --- ALM 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure I like secularism much myself, but it seems less bad than any alternative. If most neutral scholarly biographies of Muhammad do not include pictures, I would find that a persuasive argument that we should not. I'll check at the library myself. I doubt whether or not mosques have pictures would be persuasive - we already know that most Muslims oppose having pictures of Muhammad. Incidently, I thought all depictions of people and animals were forbidden, and yet I remember parades in the eighties with giant pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini. How does it work? Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that all religious Sunni will not like to have any kind of painting of animals, human. However even sunnis are divided about usage of photo-graph (from camera) because hadith in Shahi-Bukari is against painting (there was no camera at that time :)). However I do not think any Sunni will like usage of Muhammad pictures at all. I used to believe same about Shias but came to know a fatwa by a Shia scholar (who has some followings) to use Muhammad pictures in good manner. But given that all Sunni (who are in vast majority) and mostly Shia still also do not allow picture of Muhammad hence I believe that a group which allow them is in real minority among Muslims. I think Shia use pictures of their imams widely.
- Once again I am *not* going to use above argument but will tell them to follow what we have in books in real life. If they can give me give me 5 books with historical picture (not cartoonic pictures) of Muhammad then I will let them have Muhammad picture in the article. Otherwise I will ask there reason for this huge change. --- ALM 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure I like secularism much myself, but it seems less bad than any alternative. If most neutral scholarly biographies of Muhammad do not include pictures, I would find that a persuasive argument that we should not. I'll check at the library myself. I doubt whether or not mosques have pictures would be persuasive - we already know that most Muslims oppose having pictures of Muhammad. Incidently, I thought all depictions of people and animals were forbidden, and yet I remember parades in the eighties with giant pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini. How does it work? Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theories
Hi Tom,
We're having a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a 'Conspiracy Theory' over at the Conspiracy Theory Noticeboard and would like yours here, >LINK< if possible. TIA - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That hypothesis article about the collapse of the world trade center is up for deletion I see. But most of the people have voted to keep it. So now what do we do?--Beguiled 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unless there is a consensus to delete, the article gets kept. People who are interested can work to make it neutral, well-sourced, and informative. Tom Harrison Talk 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
about A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services/Temp
You changed it with "(probably not a speedy - use afd if needed)" - what is "afd"? I'd like to make the article better unless someone else wants to take it on....--Smkolins 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, too much Wikispeak. I meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Feel free to improve it if you like. Tom Harrison Talk 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
the 9/11 TM template and the CD Hypothesis
I hope you take my thoughts on the CDH talk page at their face value, a genuine request for understanding the rationale for deployment. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. I'll try to articulate the main points as soon as I can get to it. I have to go out in a few minutes, so I may not reply until later tonight. Tom Harrison Talk 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tom, about a week ago, you blocked User:Moscatanix indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned user. I suspected User:Moscatanix as a possible sockpuppet in this ArbCom case. Could you reveal who is the banned user to which reference is made in the block? Thanks --BostonMA talk 02:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, the answer to my question is User:Rootology. --BostonMA talk 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem. You did put a notice on the talk page, and someone pointed it out to me -- doh! --BostonMA talk 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm always pleased when my mistakes cancel out:-) Tom Harrison Talk 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Your message
Gosh, I hadn't noticed until I got your message. If it's not too painful a subject, what happened? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I mistakenly rolled back a bunch of your edits. I think everything is back as it should be now. Email me if you want the details. Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's OK — all's well that ends well. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Cunning Folk
Hi, Tom. Do you know who wrote the original comment about cunning folk and witches, please? Only I referred to it in a book I'm writing, and the editor would like to know more about it. When I checked back, it had vanished from the page. I'm new to Wikipedia's ways, but tracked down the changes you made and hope you can help me track the source. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Velveteen Rose (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
- I'm not sure what comment you mean exactly. My contributions were to remove an advisory tag, and a minor edit changing 'folklore' to 'history', on 23 February. The article was started by an anonymous contributor on 30 May 2004, and added to by a few people since. You should be able to step through the edit history one version at a time examining the changes to see when everything was added. Please let me know if it's not clear how to do that, or if you need anything else. Tom Harrison Talk 13:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
the 911ct template
Well, it seems to have caused something. Perhaps you would like to look at Template talk:911ct and make whatever comments you wish. As I said when I created it, it is there to use. I have no emotional commitment to it either way. Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that a couple of editors do not like the template, or one editor and their logged out self do not like it. I thought this was likely to happen "just because it is about 9/11" more than anything else. Since you contributed to the tmeplate by adding a number of articles to it I was wondering if you might both keep an eye on the deployment without getting into a revert war, and consider which other articles might benefit from inclusion and adding it to them and them to it. Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll keep an eye on it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
More vandalism
Please block Runtshit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , and advise what steps can be taken to prevent this recurring harassment. Thank you. --RolandR 10:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see SlimVirgin has already blocked this one. Because of the concerns you mentioned in your email, I suggest you contact the foundation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you please explain why you deleted this article? I fail to see how it didn't meet the notability guidelines; there was even an external link to an IMDb page for him. Anthony Rupert 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see an assertion of notability, or any basis for one, but I have restored the article so it can be expanded. Tom Harrison Talk 12:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: What's Up
Never mind, I see what happened too… thanks for good faith. Lovelight 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Morton devonshire is stalking me again
Hi User:Morton devonshire followed me to an article that he never edited Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and is now harrasing me. I ask him to stop, but he hasn't. I know you intervened with User:Morton devonshire and I before, can you ask him to please stop? I want to avoid each other for a while and maybe things will cool off. Thanks Tom Travb (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- What page is it? Tom Harrison Talk 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Travb (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot find any edits by Morton Devonshire to that page or its talk page. I guess I will need diffs to persue it further. If what this boils down to is that he had the temerity to comment on the notice board and at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I guess I will have wasted my time investigating this. Tom Harrison Talk 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I wish I could say that I am surprised by your inacation. If Morton asks you to warn a user, you warn that user, User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#Distance. But later, if that user you warned asks the same thing, you refuse.
- I am reminded of NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults's comments on this small group of editors and admins.
- Thatcher131 also refused to get invovled.
- And now User:Tbeatty, who is actively advising User:Mobile 01 in a section that attacks me, is getting invovled also in a page he has never edited. Travb (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I said above, I cannot find any edits by User:Morton_devonshire to that page or its talk page. I will need diffs to pursue it further. Tom Harrison Talk 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Morton has never edited Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, as I wrote above: "User:Morton_devonshire followed me to an article that he never edited" that is why you "cannot find any edits by User:Morton_devonshire to that page or its talk page."
- He then wrote: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01#Third_opinion [1]
- And started to actively advise User:Mobile 01 in a section that openly mocks me User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Travb_and_his_Pursuit_of_HappYness.[2] [3] He then states that my edits are a Chewbacca defense and starts to call me "chewie"[4]
- He then gets involved in the ANI, defending the Bridgestone employees who secretly edit the Bridgestone/Firestone. [5][6]
- At this point, I ask you to intervene, which you have not.
- Since then, Morton continues to actively work on this alledged Sockpuppet's page.[7][8][9][10][11][12]
- Since then, User:Tbeatty another admin, who appears to be watching User:Morton_devonshires page, has got involved in the sockpuppet case also.
- I only ask that you or User:Thatcher131 give Morton the same warning that you have given me:
- Your warning: User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#Distance.
- When you asked me to stop commenting on User:Morton_devonshires page I did immediatly.
- When User:Thatcher131 asked User:NuclearUmpf and I too stop commenting on AfDs and stop editing the alledged terrorism page, I did voluntarily for a month.
- Morton can ignore this warning, that is up to him.
- I think we both can agree that editors, especially admins, should be unbaised and equal in monitoring, refering, and commenting in disputes. Past disagreements on certain wikipages should not color an admins referee priveledges, which were given to him/her by the wikipedia community. Travb (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I said above, I cannot find any edits by User:Morton_devonshire to that page or its talk page. I will need diffs to pursue it further. Tom Harrison Talk 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot find any edits by Morton Devonshire to that page or its talk page. I guess I will need diffs to persue it further. If what this boils down to is that he had the temerity to comment on the notice board and at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I guess I will have wasted my time investigating this. Tom Harrison Talk 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Travb (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If he has never edited the page or its talk page, I don't see how he has followed you there. He can comment on the noticeboard like anyone else - that's kind of the point of posting there: so people not otherwise involved can have a look. I can't see how it is inappropriate for Morton to say Mobile-1 is not a sock, but okay for you to say that Mobile-1 is a sock (and I have no idea whether he is or not.) It looks like you two disagree about something that has not been determined, and may not be. Wasn't the checkuser request declined for technical reasons? I looked into this a little, and only found that Luis Posada Carriles worked for Firestone, which is mildy interesting but maybe a bit peripheral - I'm not really clear on the points in dispute at Firestone. On the assumption that 'Chewie' in the edit summary refered to you rather than to Chewbacca, I will ask Morton not to call you anything but 'Travb.' But Chewbacca didn't make the Chewbacca defense. That was Johnny Cochrane, I think, so his edit summary probably meant the defense rather that the person he thought was making it. And finally, if you think I am biased against you, ask someone else to intervene instead of engaging in some kind of exercise to demonstrate my bias. Post about it on the noticeboard if you want, but don't then complain if someone replies in a way you don't like. Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- thank you for your time. Travb (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's one thing to say, "I disagree with Travb's analysis"; saying "Never mind Travb, he has a history of making false accusations" is needlessly stirring the pot. I have removed a part of his comments that do not relate to the present case. Thatcher131 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Block threat from admin User:FayssalF
Dear Mr. Harrison, I am being threatened with a block by User:FayssalF on what I see as nakedly specious grounds. See User talk:Proabivouac#POV edits and deletions. My aim is to ensure that this situation does not play out in a "dark alley," as it were - I cannot imagine that FayssalF would act this way if he thought his actions were under review - and I wonder if you've any recommendations as to how I might proceed.Proabivouac 11:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It was not nakedly specious grounds. Proabivouac was removing well sourced material on Islam page. Also, please have a look at the link Proabivouac provided.--Aminz 11:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look at this [13]. Please see the history. Many times, when I wanted to complete the section further, I had an edit conflict because Proabivouac had removing the section completely. --Aminz 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- This looks like a good-faith content dispute. The parties should seek mediation. I don't see any vandalism on either side. I don't see a basis for any blocks, and I will review any that occur if that seems necessary - Whoever blocks (Szvest says correctly that it will not be him, since he is involved in the dispute) will probably post on the notice board. If not, there is email. If there is a basis for blocking, there are places to request that. Likewise page protection. Everything should be, and I expect will be, done in the open. And as ever, use the talk page and focus on content, not each other. Tom Harrison Talk 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
== Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is now on RfA ==
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for more details and add your tuppence to the debate... — Rickyrab | Talk 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted
That's ok, mistakes happen. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please be informed that a request for comments has been started. Beit Or 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
a 9/11 researcher
Tom, I don't want to name names at this stage. I have just looked at the user page of someone with whom you and I disagree over templates. S/he states that they do not always log in when editing, but often/sometimes edit with IP address only. A few days ago I noticed a major volume of template removal coming from a pair of IP addresses and from this user. At the time it looked to me like a mechanism for stepping around the 3 Revert Rule, but I am unsure whether it was broken or not. I am assuming good faith (one of the reasons for not naming names, because I do not wish to be seen as accusing the editor) but find the user page statement bewildering. If it had been "Guys I sometimes forget to log in" I would be able to understand easier.
I also recognise that we are entitled under policies to use an alternative (or anonymous) user id when editing articles that we feel we do not wish our regular id to be associated with, but this is different. I suppose I should by now be an experienced wikipedian, but this one is outside my experience, and I wonder if it is within yours. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- The three-revert rule applies to the person, whether using different accounts, logged in or not. I mentioned this on the user's talk page a few months ago. If it becomes clear that 3rr is being violated, it should be reported at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser under code E. Tom Harrison Talk 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- It does seem to go back a long way. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
William Henry Carroll
I'm curious as to why you removed the Speedy tags from this article, without any explanation of why it shouldn't be deleted, along with the author having made no arguments in it's defense -- febtalk 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't look to me like it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Take it to AfD if you want. Tom Harrison Talk 03:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- ok, thanks for answering that so quickly -- febtalk 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, after all it was easy; I didn't really say anything. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- ok, thanks for answering that so quickly -- febtalk 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Messy Situation at Uncyclopedia
User:Miltopia has reverted atleast 4 times, if not more, within 24 hours, [14], [15], [16], [17]. He has had run ins with admins before, and accused an admin of doing something as a "face saving" act [18]. While I dont really think hes here to do much other than troll around, in the very least he has made a concrete violation in exceeding 3 reverts. The changes he is making are controversial and really need to be discussed on the talk page, but he isnt allowing any of that to occur and is instead pushing forward. After 2 AFD nominations within 24 hours, this is quite a bit of chaos that should probably be stopped one way or another. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ho hum. The first diff shows a different set of reverts. All of the people reverting me used person reasons or no reason. The drama is over for anyone concerned with actual improvement to the article. I've been accused of a fair bit myself - like right here. Milto LOL pia 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- A revert is a revert, its on the same page. Please read the 3RR rule. Its now reached atleast 6 reverts [19][20]. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, I misudnerstood the rule. I've self-reverted. Milto LOL pia 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, someone else beat me to it. It's odd that you'd rather have self-reference and unverified statements in than keep them out, simply because you're making non-existent parallels to ED. Milto LOL pia 04:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, I misudnerstood the rule. I've self-reverted. Milto LOL pia 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
9-11 Talk Page Response
Tony,
I would very much like to respond to your response (and Zbl's) to my posts on the 9-11 Talk Page. However my attempts to edit the page now fail because the page has become semi-protected. Please add me to the authorised users. Many thanks.
Regards --Angryjames 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is no whitelist I could add you to. It is soft-protected, which means the page that "cannot be edited by unregistered users or accounts less than four days old." You should be able to edit. Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the quick response. I have tried another edit and that worked just fine. I think this is a case of "stupid" user error on my part. I'll now respond to your points on the 9-11 talk page, and hopefully I wont offend you too much ;) All the best. --Angryjames 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Signature
Oh, I've had that for a long time, just that I'm an erratic editor (see WP:Peer Review/Penwhale and look at the edit link). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)