User talk:Tom harrison/Archive/Dec06

Would you please comment on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Request_for_Comment Thanks --Aminz 10:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your presence Tom in discussions on Muhammad's talk page. Tom, aside from these heated discussions, would you please have a look at my work here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death#Christian_interpretation . Of course it is all original research but I tried to write what I've learned from the Bible. I tried to write it in a way that is most understandable to Muslims. Your correction/feedback is very appreciated. --Aminz 09:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is very well expressed. You have understood Paul at least as well as I ever do - I often find Paul's letters difficult. I would not say it is original research, but a good summary of a main branch of Christian thought. If people want citations to something other than the Bible, we could include a reference to something by C.S. Lewis. It is interesting and valuable to have a Muslim inrepretation of Christian thought. I will read the rest of the page, and watch it for a while to see how it goes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. I considered it original research because Bible, itself, is not a secondary source. But I cheated here :) Thanks very much anyways, --Aminz 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. We are facing a very tendious editor at the article. There was a concensus about not inserting a large section that deals w/ a specific case of Mohammed Reza Taheriazar. User:DAde doesn't seem to understand the way it works over here. Could you please have a look? -- Szvest 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]

I appreciate your asking me, but I am trying to reduce my work on controversial pages right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. I understand that. No worries. See you around. -- Szvest 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}}

I've tried to get rid of this erroneous spelling in most articles and titles (except where first word), but an administrator has to fix this problem (=> ancient) in all the categories. All references to "ancient Greece" and "ancient Greeks" (and the Roman and Egyptian and other equivalents) should be spelled that way. In the case of the language "Ancient Greek" as a noun and adjective and the demonym "ancient Greek(s)" as a noun and adjective, one has to be careful where to capitalise and where not.

Is there some way of automating this kind of correction in numerous articles? --Espoo 10:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That template is to ask an admin to edit a protected page. You should be able to correct spelling errors without needing an administrator. If an article you want to edit is protected, put the {{Editprotected}} template on that article's talk page. If the mispelling is in the title, you can move the page to the correct title. See Help:Moving a page. If I have misunderstood what you need, or can otherwise help, please leave a message on my talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you misunderstood me; categories are protected pages and can't be edited or moved by normal users. I now figured out what was wrong with the directions for and automated links on CFD as explained on User_talk:Espoo#Category:Finland-Swedish.

And my second question was is there a way of automating the manual correction (that i have been carrying out tediously) of identical problems on many different pages and page titles? E.g. is there some bot that can find all instances of "Ancient Greece" not at the beginning of a sentence and correct them to "ancient Greece"? Thanks, --Espoo 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I'm glad it's sorted out now. To deal with the the repetitive edits, AutoWikiBrowser is popular, or you might try a scriptable external editor, or look at Wikipedia:Text editor support. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the translation of SFCG Co., Ltd. from the Japanese wiki that you requested (some time ago now). As I wrote before, the article is very POV, but I translated it as it was anyway. I haven't investigated, but it seems like the news over the company has died down a little now - perhaps no-one is interested in the article any more? -- Grgcox 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I do not know much about the subject, but I will try to go through the article and make it neutral. Even if some of it has to be deleted, your translation will still be available as a resource. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was asked to prevent the recreation of Skinu, which seems reasonable. I have never done it and I thought I would ask you as you seem to be online. Sorry to bother you. --Guinnog 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. --Guinnog 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am writing you in regards to a "improper use" message I received. It was said that from my computer (IP address: 216.83.116.2), there was a wiki "vandalism" on a Grapes of Wrath article. I can assure you that I was not the culprit, as I am a physicist, and would never think of editing (or even visiting) a grapes of wrath article. To see that I am a serious wiki user, check my addition of the article on the "Curie constant".

If you are unrelated to this incident, could you please direct me to someone who is? Thank you very much.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.83.116.2 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for your contribution. If the warning does not apply to you, please ignore it. Unless you choose a user name and log in, all edits are attributed to the ip address that they come from. These are the contributions from 216.83.116.2. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom clearly has an Islamic bias against all other religions. His admin duty is being compromised by either his hate for Christianity or his biased preference for Islam—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.86.22 (talk • contribs) .

I am keeping this one; no doubt it will come in handy one day. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niiiiiice... lol. (→Netscott) 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh; I need to keep a list. I do not think any Parsis, Sikhs, or Taoists have accused me of bias yet. These are just some religions that come to mind. That I mentioned or did not mention a particular religion should not to be taken as an indication of favor, indifference, or hostility. This is about recent edits to Job (Biblical figure), by the way. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to place this award on your user page. User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1

Thanks! It's always nice to see a friendly face. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! Okay. I mixed what Lewis says about heretics and what Esposito says indignents and non-mainstream. Let me check my sources again. --Aminz 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. --Aminz 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, you are incorrect. It makes more sense to link from that because the phrase is more applicable when discussing controversies. Prominence never crossed my mind. Secret ties to Hamas IS one of the controversies, Tammy Lee's accusations are not, and for that reason I am reverting your edit again.

By the way, the way you throw around wikipolicy is arrogant and unnecessary. I have read the policies and I think you need to get a hobby other that Wikipedia. Thanks. V105memorial 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)v105memorial[reply]

Quick request - withdraw and close out the AfD you started? Since you've suggested keeping at this point, it falls well within the speedy keep criteria. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go and say I withdraw my recommendation and support a speedy keep, but I would prefer that someone else close it as keep. If you want to close it as keep, I'll support that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw you were active, can you see [1]? The guy is out of control. Thanks. --AW 16:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked him for 31 hours for this edit summary: [2]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --AW 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, I think that Thatcher131 misunderstood the situation: see my reply of 16:44 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fys_breaching_probation.2C_breaking_article_ban.2C_edit_warring_again. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has continued posting personal attacks, with "f--- you, wh---" in turkish being their most recent post. JBKramer 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. It might be best to ignore him and see if he cools off. His user page can be protected if it gets too bad. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom Harrison, Sorry for intervene.I dont aim to discuss your block decision for User:Shuppiluliuma. In reality he is a good editor, but I think a litle bit sensitive and nervous. As you can see, many Greek editors pus unilateral POVs to Turkey related pages. I saw that this user had been one side of edit-rv war. I will send a message to this user to calm and look for consensus,just now. Is it possible to lighten block period.Watch him later, if he would continue in distrruptive manner than block again for more long period.(Just an offer) Regards. Mustafa Akalp^TC 17:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom Harrison,

here

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_harrison/external_links

you wrote: "I downloaded a database dump from a few days ago, and was able to extract a very rough list of some of the sites we link to, sorted by how many links we give them".
On your list there is my website: sengpielaudio with the number 96.
Are there problems? Can I help you?
I am retired sound engineer and I try to give to the students what they need.
My homepage is my hobby. There are absolutely no advertisements and there will never be. I love Wikipedia. I am no firm and I am alone.
As an example here is the Wikipedia word "Cutoff frequency"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutoff_frequency

At the end you find my External links:
Calculation of the center frequency with geometric mean and comparison to the arithmetic mean solution

• http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-geommean.htm

and
Conversion of cutoff frequency f_c and time constant τ

• http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-timeconstant.htm

See for yourself, here are only helpful hints, nothing more and nothing less.
My most famous website is

• http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Calculations03.htm

and my Wikipedia vita is here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eberhard_Sengpiel

Now think for yourself, or ask me.

Kind regards from Berlin, Germany

Eberhard Sengpiel

• mailto:webmaster@sengpielaudio.com
• http://www.sengpielaudio.com

There is not necessarily a problem with your links or any of those listed. It is just a list of external links. As you see, we have more than 10000 links to Amazon.com, wolfram.com, cnn.com, and others, 546 to wordpress.com, 50 portlandtribune.com, and so on. So what? I don't know. I have not really tried to extract any useful information from it. Certainly having your site listed there does not mean you are a spammer, any more than amazon.com, mit.edu, or nasa.gov. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that my pure human doing without any ads is not often to find. More over we find really heavy spam. I hope you find the right way. Thank you and kind regards. Eberhard Sengpiel --Ebs1 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I have no intention of making a negative picture of Christianity. I just want to write against the prevelant myth of Islamic violence and persecution. I had formerly added a sentence comparing treatment of non-orthodox christians (Syrians, etc) under Muslim rule and Christian rule. But it was reverted saying it is irrelevant. When I was encountered such strong opposition, I tried to aviod this comparison by simply presenting facts. Now, I see it is also reverted. There is nothing in that section which suggests how Syrian Christians welcomed Muslim rulers and even helped them so much that they were exempted from taxation for awhile. Nothing showing relative good behaviour of Muslims towards Christians. Again, it is not my intention to make a negative picture of Christianity though it is easily possible, you know. If editors there don't tease me, as they did before by reporting me for 3rr reversion over *rarely* *sometimes* change causing me a 24 hour block, then I have no bad intentions. Cheers, --Aminz 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, I do not doubt your good intentions, but how Syrian Christians welcomed Muslim rulers twelve hundred years ago just does not belong in the main article about Christianity. I even tend to think that it is accurate. It is consistent with what I know about the Byzantine Empire: Loukas Notaras, the last grand duke of Constantinople said something like, "I would rather see a Muslim turban in the midst of the City than the Latin miter," Of course things did not turn out so well for him, but there was that initial optimism. And yes, I do think that Islam a thousand years ago was a tolerant and enlightened institution for its time. Taxes were low, trade was good, there were worse places to live. My own ancestors were sitting by the side of the road with their faces painted blue. But there are hundreds of bits of interesting and important history that do not belong in Christianity. They belong in their own articles.

About 3rr, unfortunately you did violate it, but many people do once or twice. Any time you undo another editor's work, either by re-adding something or by taking something out, that is a revert. All you can do is live and learn, and be careful not to revert too much from now on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, about 3rr, the blocking admin considered it as a content dispute while it was not. I was restoring sourced material in which case 3rr rule doesn't apply. I was okay with your changes with minor edits as long as a positive sentence about the general position of Christians under Muslim rule would be added, especially when we see that how Christian persecution of themselves and others is downplayed. No mention of discriminative laws Christians were applying to non-orthodox christians or forcing Jews to change their religion, or restricting the place of residence and profession of Jews. That section is written extremely conservatively and is much shorter than "Persecution of Christian" section and doesn't mention any details(while the other section does). Tom, as it is evident from this edit [3], we are far from any compromise.

P.S. (Lewis 1984 p.18), Lewis (2002) p.57, and (Esposito "Islam the Straight Path" p.34(I think) talk about the statements I made above. Cheers, --Aminz 06:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[WP:3RR|] does apply to restoring sourced material, and to removing unsourced material, except about living people, and except for simple vandalism. If someone removes something new you add, they have reverted. If you restore it, you have reverted, sourced or not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask some Jewish editors to come in. --Aminz 06:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. The more the better. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to thank for being friendly, Tom. --Aminz 22:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit works. JPGordon may disagree however, so hopefully a little negotiation will help him realize that "Jews were forced into moneylending" is not only unencylopedic in tone, but also counterfactual. -RatSkrew 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to other phrasing. Mostly it was a copyedit, though I do think it is useful to say explicitly that Christians were forbidden to charge interest. Certainly the Jews were highly 'incentivized', and the whole thing fed on itself. In some cases they probably had to choose between lending it and having it taken by force. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me speak in generalities, since Mr. Wikipower needs his fix. SOME people on here can derive no enjoyment in real life so they must marginalize good people on WP. It's a sad life and those people should try to be more accepting and caring. Some people need to look in the mirrow and realize that they are not WikiGods. I'm happy to be the latest victim and am sorry to have made a "personal" attack. Looks like I was right, though, so I guess I'm not that sorry. Policy is one thing, acting like a good human being is, sadly, sometimes another. Take care Tom. V105memorial 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)v105memorial[reply]

Aside from working on 9/11 articles, I am working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic, and I'm perhaps entering a minefield here. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article or making it more NPOV? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Since this can be a POV minefield, if you prefer not touching the topic, that's fine with me. But, any help would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks interesting. I will at least read it and watch for a while. I'll probably get back to you about it early next week. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom Harrison, I've started a new article about Saudi Arabia's first feature film: Keif al-hal?. I invite you to contribute to it if such an article might interest you. Thanks. :-) (→Netscott) 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing Tom, much appreciated! :-) (→Netscott) 15:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, I enjoyed reading it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can i ask why you deleted the page anyway when quite clearly proved it was worthy of inclusion?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt Jack Doicy (talk • contribs) .

We discussed it, and the result was delete. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I am trying to make changes to Fuse_(explosives) but User:Georgewilliamherbert just reverts my changes as if he owns the article, he then goes to another page Page and blatently asks for help as he has already 3RR today, I then made good faith changes to the document adding fuse/fuze as the term fuze is not commonly in use out side of North America, and you revert them as well, you warn me about 3rr, but you fail to warn him as well, which is a trifle one sided, after all, he just reverted me 3 times, when I have an extremely good reason to say fuse. After all the us of the z is an Americanism, and WIKI is not American biased."TheNose | Talk" 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, saw your vandalism warning on User_talk:Bunny123; note the recent serial attacks this user has been making on Muhammed - can you block him? Thanks. MarkThomas 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to discuss this issue with Berlet endlessly--Berlet refuses to address issues. There is a WP:BLP issue which berlet refuses to discuss.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject

I would also appreciate the invlovement of admins other than the two thus far, both of whom are heavily involved in the editing of the Berlet Wikipedia entry. BabyDweezil 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am just dropping you a note because you signed up to participate at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. We have not heard from you since we started, so I'm just asking whether you plan to participate further. If so, we need you to agree or disagree to the criteria for including images we have developed. Important note: The criteria will be used only if the group decides to include images, which will be later in the mediation. Agreeing to the criteria does not mean that you agree to including any images. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you apprise yourself of all the facts, perhaps by reading talk:Host desecration, before making false allegations of incivility.--Lance ^talk 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my day[4]. Peace out. Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom,

If you could comment on this [5], I would be greatful. --Aminz 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tom. --Aminz 21:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, could you cast your eye over the rfc on Talk:List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state and the very liberal use of WP:NOR and WP:V on that page. Much appreciated. --Zleitzen 19:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look when I get a chance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification on this. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's something to it. :-) (→Netscott) 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, who knew? If there are no events that the term would describe, maybe it will not gain currency. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems:

1. You removed the dispute tags that I attached to the article citing: "inaccurate tags." You failed to make any other comment to justify this assertion either on the discussion page or at all; and you further failed to attach another tag that addresses both the supression of fact and the assertion of certain religious opinions as fact. Accordingly, I shall reattach the tags.

2. A new Wikipedia password was requested, not by me; and I suspect it is someone involved in the dispute about this article.

--Lance ^talk 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People disagree. I guess we disagree about the accuracy of the tags you added. As far as your password goes, I would say just ignore it. I may be wrong, but you seem to regard me as somehow against you, so you may want to ask a different administrator to look into it for you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom,

Lewis says: "President Khatami of Iran, in his interview on CNN, pointed out—correctly—that "anti-Semitism is indeed a Western phenomenon. It has no precedents in Islam or in the East. Jews and Muslims have lived harmoniously together for centuries."

"Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism..."

Claude Cahen states: "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism".

Now, with this background, please read the section which was removed. Thanks. --Aminz 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please have a look at this, a comment from way back, where Gren agrees with us [6]. --Aminz 04:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Norman Stillman states that during the 19th and 20th centuries, the antisemitic ideas and literature were introduced to Muslim world through increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world. At the beginning these antisemitic ideas were "too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims" and were only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. However due to the conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, these ideas started to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books. The antisemitism greatly increased from 1948 till it had its peak by the 1970s and then declined from 1980s and 1990s "as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved. --Aminz 05:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really only watch the page for vandalism and incivility right now. I guess you are talking about my remarks to Truthspreader's on his talk page. There I commented on his edit summary where he wrote "Removal of WP:RS and WP:V sourced text is Vandalism, text removed was WP:OR. kindly join talk page before reverting instead of asserting your Original research)." I told him that removing sourced text is not vandalism, and not to call someone's work vandalism just because it removes sourced text. Somehow people have got the idea that "Removal of WP:RS and WP:V sourced text is Vandalism." It is not, and people should stop saying so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your advice and thank you for having Good faith. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, I noticed your reference regarding the number of external links from wikipedia, here. I notice that you concatenated your listing at 50, with about 5,556 listings having 50 or more links. Could you please provide, if possible, the unconcatenated total, even an aproximation? I am one of the developers of the Blue Letter Bible, an internet-based Bible, which I notice is on your list with 183 links. I'm wondering how that ranks on the total list. I'm trying to provide justification on the talk page of the Blue Letter Bible provisional article, as it may be deleted for lack of notability. I have been getting very helpful and candid advice from one of the Wikipedia editors, please see my talk page. I cited your informal data on the take page of the BLB article. If this is not appropriate, I will delete it. Many thanks! Frank --Frank Rabinovitch 06:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for adding a 'new section' for this. I'll try to remember to do that next time!--Frank Rabinovitch 06:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your help in helping resolve a dispute with the Beretta Cx4 Storm article. Thanks Yaf 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is not something I know much about. All I can suggest is try to work something out on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Tom, some time ago I messed up and did a C&P to move an article (before I knew how to properly go about moving an article). The original article is PT-141 which I c&ped to Bremelanotide... is there anyway that the original history could be properly brought over while maintaining the since accrued history? (→Netscott) 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think histories can be merged. I'll have a look at it tomorrow morning, after coffee. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiiee, that bad? /me searches a cat o' nine tails for steps towards penance. Sorry... (→Netscott) 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer that I just follow the steps here? (→Netscott) 04:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never actually done it, so that's what I'll do. If you want to take it on, feel free. I don't really think it's hard, but maybe tedious and open to mistakes. I just don't want to start something late in the day. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to that page I'd just tag it {{db-histmerge|PT-141}} and let the history merge specialists take over. But if you'd prefer to have it as a project I'll just leave it for now. (→Netscott) 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the assistance Tom. :-) (→Netscott) 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caught a little something.... I suspect that may be slightly more difficult to bring over. (→Netscott) 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everything was in both places, so I blanked redirected the talk page at pt-141. I'm not sure that's the thing to do, but if not it should be un-doable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, can you please check why User:Truthspreader is blocked? He was blocked yesterday but it should have been expired now. --Aminz 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he has a few more hours to go, unless I am misreading the block log.[7] Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would not do such a move, but in this case it was necessary. This is the only acceptable title for the article. There should not be any discussion. The only way the article will ever be improved is if users are allowed to improve it. As incivil as it may be to say, NetScott is not interested in improving this article. His edits are consistently counterproductive and push his pov. KazakhPol 04:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Islamic terrorism. I just want you to understand my reasoning here. KazakhPol 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KazakhPol, quick to make a WP:POINT. (→Netscott) 04:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tend to agree with KazakhPol about the move funny enough but reverted due to the rather long discussion and consensus that arrived at that title. (→Netscott) 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. When I am done with Terrorism in Kazakhstan I will reopen discussion on this, as I hardly see "consensus" for this ridiculous article title. I will notify you when I do. I'm sorry for the disruption, KazakhPol 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, please reconsider that revert of the Jones lead. All the information is in the article, and the lead is much messier than need be. See his retirement as a resolution of a complicated affair and let the lead be simplified accordingly. I'm not doing a lot of editing these days, so I'm not going to argue the point. Just a friendly appeal to your judgment and experience. All the best, Thomas.

Fair enough; I will read the article in detail and consider your point. Have a nice holiday, Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Thomas Basboll 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree at least partly. I kept 'conspiracy theorist' in the intro, since it is central to his notability. Further tweaks can probably be worked out on the talk page. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Like say, I'm not paying enough attention to WP these days to keep up with the talk page discussions. I'm may return to the fray in the new year. I moved the refs down into the article to make it easier to read. I do disagree with leaving "conspiracy theorist" in in the same sentence as "is an American phycisist". What a man is notable for and what he "is" are not necessarily on the same level. He's been a phycisist all his professional life (even as a CTist, his being a phycisist is what makes him notable.) I have a feeling this disagreement runs pretty deep among editors, however, and I haven't thought my position on it through (that's what my break from editing is about.) Anyway, thanks for taking the time to look at this. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 20:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"oops, I should not have said that."

Must have been the water-boarding that made you confess :-). --Cplot 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe that's what I want you to think... Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair. When we water-board you you're supposed to tell the truth: not just make something up so we stop! --Cplot 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust no one. Telling people what they want to hear is a survival skill. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was a good idea, well done :) Mattabat 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you suggest, I did comment on content. I commented on the scholarly quality of arguments. When there's nil, there is nil. And when all a person does is slander people who disagree with him, then pointing that out is not a comment on the person, but on his arguments and behavior. And I am very much qualified to judge the scholarly merit of arguments. --OliverH 11:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom,

This anonymous user, 206.15.235.3, is a serial vandal who seems to be operating over a long period of time --

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=206.15.235.3

Regards,

Flask 12:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, I've reviewed your block and I have to respectfully disagree. [8] --  Netsnipe  ►  15:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how those are not two reverts. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to review. You should probably log your unblock at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right if you want to intepret what a revert is as a pedant, but I think the intention of the revert parole remedy is to limit edit warring by Irishpunktom in a dispute -- not tie his hands to the point where he can't even replace an entire sentence with a clarification. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling limits him to one revert per week. If you want to say that one didn't count, there's not much I can usefully say in reply, and I'm content to let your unblock stand. I hope some word other than 'pedant' might be closer what you mean. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Tom, hoping you might be able to be of some assistance on a report I filed on ANI. User:Pschemp blocked Mactabbed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a week for lieing about a copy-vio image, incivility, and racial slur related editing, now there's a sockpuppet of this editor that's appeared, Exclusive bad apple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This newly appearing sock is continuing to be disruptive. Ordinarily Pschemp would be the person to block this sock but he/she doesn't seem to be around. Could you take a look at this case? Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nvmnd, User:Pschemp has answered the report... see ya. (→Netscott) 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan--MONGO 07:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Tom, again, I feel my patience so strained that I know I will not contribute constructively. But please look at this [9] and talk some sense to these people.--Thomas Basboll 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the page is back under its old name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Thomas Basboll 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Zenmaster's user page and talk page, and I guess I see now why you asked. I'll have to look him up in February when he's back on Wikipedia. It would be good to have more support for uhpolding Wikipedia policy and providing bettter NPOV compliance than you would allow. --Cplot 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He won't be back. His ban was repeatedly reset for using sockpuppets, and now he is indefinitely banned. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is attempting to communicate with an idefinitely banned editor questionable?[10]--MONGO 08:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unwise, but probably harmless, as long as no one is encouraging him to evade his ban. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, articles should not link to copies of press reports archived on any site in violation of copyright. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Intermediate sources: State where you got it, citations should state the original source (i.e. the LA Times) and the intermediate source (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006"). Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied. For violation of his previously imposed article ban, as well as edit warring, block evasion, and sockpuppety, Arthur Ellis is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

For the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you remove references to this site, and I wonder why. I have no special interest, though I have, for unconnected reasons, tagged the Sufism page. Gwaka Lumpa 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion about the site, but it looked like the user was adding it to several pages for promotional purposes. If it is a good link, please restore it and I will leave it alone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you would like to help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your point is that there are conspiracy theories on both left and right, you are correct. In fact, as with contemporary antisemitism, the far right had an early lead, but some who think they are on the left have been working hard to catch up. Conspiracy theory is a vortex of folly that sucks in people from many ideologies. I tried for a while to work on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda without much success. If you really care, I suggest you work it out on the talk page or try mediation. Otherwise, visit another of our fine pages listed at Category:Conspiracy theories. Any one of them will suck up unlimited amounts of your time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this article 'special' is that it is composed largely of conspiracy theories presented as facts that have been specifically disputed and denied by the US Gov. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not special, but work on it if you find it interesting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment here: [11]

This guy is back with another IP-adress: [12] Thought you might want to know. --Regebro 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed material, in an unconstrutive maner, from user_talk:cplot talk page.[13] If you continue you may blocked. Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you for your attempts to improve Wikipedia. However, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored for minors, not even for profanity or pornography. You are welcome to remove gratuitously offensive material or inappropriate obscenities if they were added as vandalism, but please do not remove/censor profanities or remove/disclaim sexually explicit material or links that are relevant to the article. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --CyclePat 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per ArbCom rulings those links can be removed at anytime by any user. It is vandalism to restore them. --Tbeatty 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, quite apart from the fact that Tom was carrying out a perfectly appropriate action, please do not use warning templates on established users. Those templates are intended for newcomers who may not know the rules. Tom, as an administrator, can be assumed to be familiar with the policy, and in this case he has the backing of the Arbitration Committee. AnnH ♫ 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the title I typed (which is usual not well perceived, changing other users discussions) and thank you for making my request a seem a little more civil. Back to cplot changes, I would like to point, as per arbcom, that usespaces are not supposed to be altered.[14]. I would actually be interested in proceeding towards mediation and arbitration because I fail to see eye to eye. Unless of course you can link me to the precedence I still believe this was vandalism. Please do post a link to the removal of those specific urls so I may read over it. Furthermore, we should perhaps place a request to officially update the WP:VAND page with this exception. (Of course that is if this is a generally accepted revert.) Thank you again, and I hope we will be able to make wikedia a better place. --CyclePat 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration quote you refer to says "A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks)". (Emphasis is added by me.) That implies that there are certain things a user may not say. Users can be blocked for adding links to sites that attack other users. And at least one user has been blocked in the past for linking to one of the sites that Tom removed a link from. AnnH ♫ 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reconsider this ban. This has no merit. I have not edit warred here, which is what the arbitration was about. See [15]. Intangible 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the situation carefully before I imposed the ban, and I see no reason to reconsider. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&curid=986140&diff=91315337&oldid=91302647#Federal_agents_vehemently_deny_disrupting_Wikipedia_for_the_money:_.22It.27s_merely_to_gain_sexual_favor_with_President_Bush.22

Was shocked to see this? What is it? swadhyayee 06:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an example of Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you letting them use Jihad-watch, faithfreedom and answering-islam as references. They do not fall under WP:RS. Each time they revert my changes it is followed by your minor change. You do not revert their changes why? Do you think I can also use Christian and Jews hate site? Obviously not then please stop them. Even for criticism a source should be neutral and reliable. Nothing allows them to use blog and hate website. -- ALM 17:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a minor error of grammar, and earlier reverted a change to the website used to cite the Qur'an. My edits should not be taken as endorsing any particular version. I don't revert their (or your) changes because I don't really want to edit that page much, or involve myself in an edit war. I watch it for vandalism, and to make sure things go smoothly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an admin what is your stand on using jihad-watch, faitfreedom and answering-Islam in Islamic articles? Where should I report them if they continue to mis-understand WP:RS? Thanks. --- ALM 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it depends what they are being used for. If "Jihad-watch says the Qur'an is wrong...[cite]" then the only question is how notable Jihad-watch is (and I do not know how notable they are). If "The Qur'an is wrong...[cite Jihad-watch]" then I would say that is not a good cite. You might consider opening a requset for comment about the article if you want to get input from others, or to bring more editors to the page. Excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is mainly a blog and people who hate Islam uses it. The neutrality of all the websites mentioned above (jihad-watch, faithfreedom, answeringislam etc) are in Questions. I do not want to fight an edit war for the things clearly in violation of wikipedia policies. I wish if someone can tell those policies to them. Looks like you are not interested in helping me? Anyway thanks for your help and you reply very quick. --- ALM 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to this issue about the reliability of these sources. Are these sources reliable in this context?--Sefringle 00:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it depends on how it is used, and whether or not it is notable, as I said above. I will not mediate this, and I do not want to edit this page for content. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You froze the page at BhaiSaab's version. He wantonly removed material cited to a dozen sources. The people who have been working on this article for weeks on the Muslim side hadn't had an issue with these. Then BhaiSaab, one of the worst editors on wikipedia, comes in, cuts out half an article because he doesn't like it, gives incoherent reasons for doing so, and had already begun revert warring with me when you locked the page. I guess it was chance that you locked it at his version. But please, the article has been relatively static for weeks, then BhaiSaab comes in one day and cuts out half of it, and you locked it at his version. I would suggest that you just block BhaiSaab from editing this article. He is likely headed toward a one year ban anyway, and I think all of the rest of us can agree that we can work together on this article. Arrow740 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was chance. No harm will come from having up the wrong version for a few days. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that rant by Arrow is so funny. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom harrision. This db attack article is highly inappropriate. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove due to copyright concerns?  Glen  02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I thought we were removing links to external video sites, but looking at WP:EL that may not be the case. I'll have to look into it more closely. Feel free to restore them, if you want to and it is apporpriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we are, due to unknown copyrights on the free sites; I just know all Jones' videos are uploaded by himself so not applicable in those cases (you'll see his details on the vid links themselves as the creator). Just a heads up :)  Glen  02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:SunStar Net/Rachel Marsden, this is a sandbox version that people can work on to avoid edit-warring on the proper article; when a version is agreed upon I could copy/paste it into the proper article. --SunStar Net^talk 15:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, but I don't really know much about Canadian politics or Rachel Marsden. This is not a page I am following any longer. I hope you are successsful in your efforts. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I know your probably busy, but we need some help again. As you are aware, User Harvedy is once again at it over at the DoM article. Under the arbitration decision, he should be banned. Can you do this please? Thanks.. Davidpdx 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly endorse this request. Johnski has been using several sock accounts and anonymous IPs to co-ordinate vandalism of Empire of Atlantium as well. The accounts that require immediate blocking are Harvardy and FairHair. --Gene_poole 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Harrison, you locked the article but didn't offer your opinion on the use of sources like answering-islam.org. Please do that. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. I'll offer no opinion beyond what I have already said. Please use the article talk page to talk about the article. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion. Do you think a vote might be a good way of ending the edit war?--Sefringle 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way would be careful sourcing, giving all views due weight, and moving forward through discussion and consensus. Requests for comment and mediation are also options. People who disrupt the page by edit warring can be dealt with individually. Voting may be useful in rare cases; what did you want to vote on? Whether or not to include answering-islam.org? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom, I expect you to add appropriate warning at other parties' doorstep too, if you fail to do that I'd suggest you clean that mess you left at my place… thank you. Lovelight 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... Lovelight 15:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you block my ID, i have corrected an information in Metro Dubai and i want to change the nternet site of metro dubai which is www.dubaimetro.info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.42.2.11 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What is the blocked ip? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karl_Meier, who is under probation, has made nearly 40 reverts recently and is already making personal comments? What do I do? BhaiSaab ^talk 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you stop making massive deletions of valid information in order to censor critical views of Islam? Or how about that you stop making false up reasons to

justify you doing something like? You already know that the article wasn't deleted because it was "not notable". Regarding the so-called personal comments, if you are so :sensitive about anyone questioning your motives, then why did you yourself did just that the other day, here: :"C'mon Karl. :We all know where your loyalties are. When Gren mentions the anti-Muslim brigade, which group of editors do you think he's talking about?". An admittet admirer of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad like you should expect to be exposed to some criticism. -- Karl Meier 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sympathize closely with CltFn - now you're telling you're ashamed of that? When you bring up issues that are already being discussed in arbcom as you did on the ANI page, along with CltFn, I question your motives for waisting administrative time. "Massive deletions" about non-notable people are entirely appropriate. I would do that with any article that has been deleted and I have edited. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you that I am ashamed of what? I think you are making things up again BhaiSaab... I have never said that I was ashamed about anything. Something else is that it is a fact that you continue to insist on removing large amounts of referenced information from a large number of pages, using the excuse that it is not notable. Fact is however, that it is just your personal opinion, and your personal opinion doesn't matter. Policy is what matters and you should end your campaign deleting large amounts of information just because you don't agree with it. -- Karl Meier 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue this discussion on my user page, but I don't think your arguments about notability are holding up on deletion review. I'm sure we can argue all day long about who has what campaigns here. Cheerio. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 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.

Hi Tom. When you have a moment can you explain the reasoning behind "physicist and conspiracy theorist" on the Talk:Steven E. Jones page. Thanks in advance.--Thomas Basboll 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? For the sake of argument, I'll grant that he is a conspiracy theorist. What's the argument for putting it that way in the lead?--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what I suggested in the first place?--Thomas Basboll 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the link contains nothing but WP:RS and WP:V sources I would like you to explain why you removed it. Its normal after reverting someone to use the talk page to explain why. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a page for the timeline, and several for conspiracy theories, and I think we already link to CNN's timeline, but maybe not. Beyond that, see my replies to similar questions in the archives. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid a fishing expedition do you have a specific archive I can check? Not sure what conspiracy theories has to do with the link however as its a timeline. The only other timeline is an archive.org one that is in video format so not viewable by all, this is in text so much better. Also the archive.org link as its goes on to state the creator is attempting to disprove certain theories etc, which is obviously bias. In the future I would appreciate it if you drop me a message on my talk page or on the articles talk page when reverting. --NuclearZer0 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through 20-25 and the only discussion I found relating to a timeline is arguements over conspiracy theories and none regarding the legitamacy of that particular link. It is used as "evidence" to prove a point, but noone seemed to deny the sources in it etc. just deny towers fell in such and such way, which really isnt the issue for a WP:EL. I will give it a day to hear back from you if you have a specific archive for me to check, but after checking the last 5 and finding nothing I will just consider it a misunderstanding in something you read if you have no further complaints regarding the link. Thanks for your quick replies. Enjoy your wikivacation. --NuclearZer0 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the limecat article and protected it from recreation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limecat shows six votes to keep and three votes to delete. For some reason it was decided that there was no consensus despite there being double the votes to keep than to delete, and as mentioned, you deleted and protected the article. Further, the only claims the few "delete" votes put forth is that limecat is "not notable," "non-encyclopedic," and "just a joke." These claims, which, once again, are in the minority, are unsubstantiated or irrelevant.

• The fact that limecat may be a joke (though it is more correctly categorized as an internet meme) does not preclude it from having a wikipedia article.
• "Non-encyclopedic," as everyone knows, is just a term of art which really means "I don't think this is worth anyone thinking about but I don't have any factual argument to present to defend that position."
• Limecat is absolutely notable, and far outside the GameFAQs message boards where it was supposedly formed (note that I'm not sure this is true, because the article I was going to, to look up such information, was deleted).
  • A search for "limecat" on google returns over 34,300 results, with a few variations of the limecat image displayed. Note that the first result on the google search page (ignoring the obviously spamdexed one) is the Wikipedia entry, which is now empty. Users who want to know more about the limecat meme and do a google search on it are sent to a page telling them it isn't notable enough to be worth talking about. [16]
  • There is a limecat myspace account, with over 500 "friends." Limecat's Myspace
  • There are users and communities on LiveJournal who list limecat as an interest [17], there is a user who has taken the limecat user name, complete with limecat avatar [18].
  • There exist YTMND tributes to limecat [19], and limecat is well known on 4chan.
  • The delete voters themselves were well aware of limecat, as is clear by their joking comments about limecat not being pleased with the quality of the article.
  • I work part time as a technology consultant in a computer lab at my university, and there is a large, 36x56 inch poster up with the limecat picture and the text "Food and drinks in the computer lab? | Limecat is not pleased," which both the staff and users appreciate, it being a nod to the huge popularity of this Internet meme.

Because the articles of deletion votes showed a two thirds majority in favor of keeping, and because the reasons the minority of delete voters expressed are shown above to be invalid, I respectfully request that this article be unprotected and, if possible, restored to the state it was in before being deleted, with full history intact. If the previous quality of the article was not up to Wikipedia's standards and contained original research, this can be fixed, and I would be willing to clean up the article myself. Deleting it for want of quality is not a solution when there is a clear interest in the subject and people willing to improve it. If for some reason you feel the article is subject to vandalism, it would of course be reasonable to protect it from unregistered users and new users, but please, at least unprotect the article and give us a chance to fix whatever problems existed. --stufff 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom - One of my dearest friends added me to the Wiki in an article you deleted yesterday. I was wondering if you would or could send me a copy of the text of the article to my email address for memories :) Thanks! - Andrea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megatronsuicide (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC). [reply]

I think this was meant for you. Fan-1967 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

There is a discussion going on, on the talk page, you really should not just engage in an edit war without at least participating in the talk page discussion. If you have more reasons to refute CR or to show CNN as a better link fele free to chime in, however blindly reverting without reason is not proper behavior for an admin, or anyone. Edit summaries and talk page participation please. --NuclearZer0 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second message on this topic. You are currently engaged in a revert war over a link that you have not made a single arguement on the talk page to justify or remove. Your only arguement currently has been "We have an article on the timeline. I'm not sure we need a link here at all. Tom Harrison Talk 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)", which is not based on any policy or guideline. WP:EL does not require the link to contain information not in any other Wikipedia article, but to contain information relevant to the current article that could not be covered in it once it reaches Featured Article status, which CR does. CR provides a more detailed timeline then can ever be provided inside the article, and further that is shown simpyl by the existence of a timeline article. If th einformation in CR could be included in the article, we would not have a split off article obviously. So I ask you to participate on the talk page and use Wikipedia guidelines and policies to make your arguement as it would be more pursuasive then simpyl reverting without explanation based on more then personal opinion and feelings. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 15:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such modesty! LOL! (→Netscott) 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the red was a bit much... Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. (→Netscott) 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]