User talk:Tom harrison/Archive11

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 September 2006 and 30 September 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User Talk:Tom harrison/Archive12. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

User: Oafcmetty

Yes please do that! Was a work in progress whilst I figured out how to load the image which I linked to.

User: Oafcmetty

Hi - please can you explain why you deleted the page for 'Pine Villa' football club?

Dear Mr. Harrison, I see you have recently intervened at the user page of 'Uberlol' on the grounds of 'personal attacks'. I can tell you I'm the depicted person in question, if you need proof of identity I can provide it in the form of scanned documentation. I just need a secure way to let you see it. I'm not putting it online anywhere.

This same vandal has published the same libelous spew under the Wiki account name of 'Louis Shum' but the account was removed by another admin [1]. Now the same vandal is back under the different name 'Uberlol'.

While its not a article per se, doesn't every Wiki user page have to abide by standards on the biographical depiction of living persons?

Streetball

Why have you removed the external link to streetball.co.uk?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmac1811 (talk • contribs) .

You mean "Streetball.co.uk - UK based Streetball website, currently the number 1 Streetball site in the world"? I thought it looked more like an attempt to promote the website than contribute to the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's the number one search result in google for "Streetball" and is far more popular than the other sites currently mentioned in the article. So surely that merits its inclusion? By the way, I have no direct involvement with the website itself, I just visit it occasionally.Jmac1811 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Tom, I did add nonsense a few days ago. I added a line about Joseph Smith in the opening description, out of sheer curiosity to see if it actually worked. However, my edit of removing Christian Martyrs from the article made very good sense. Joseph Smith cannot be considered a Christian martyr. Mormonism IS considered heresy by every mainstream Christian denomination and this fact is well-established. Additionally, Smith is hard to consider a true "martyr", as he died in a shootout with the federal government. Compare this to the scores of true Christian martyrs who died for their unwavering support of biblical doctrine and their commitment to Jesus Christ, as He is described in the Christian Bible. I'm sorry, Smith doesn't compare. This edit stands.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 (talk • contribs) .

The page Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. is available as a place to discuss changes to the article. If a consensus supports your edit, and it meets our other standards (see welcome above), then it probably will stand. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati Summons

User:Mirror Vax vandalism at Template:AfdAnons. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at his entries on that template, and consider a block. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he has been warned. I'll block him briefly if he persists. You have to be quick around here. I need 750 more to level up, and people keep beating me to the block. Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Tom harrison/Archive11: Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Wiki eZach| talk 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Bro, you have already been on ANI for the template, are you sure you want do to this? --Striver 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy buffs" is a direct quote from the Times article cited. If you think I have done something wrong, take it to ANI if you want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverting edit to MAJ12 page to include SOM101

Why have you removed (basically simply reverted my edit) the Special Operations Manual (SOM101) text from Majestic 12 page? That SOM101 document is one of the documents in the "official" http://www.majesticdocuments.com/ site, just like the docs already listed in the Wikipedia article...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk • contribs) .

The extract you posted is far too long, but most important, majesticdocuments.com is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks. The talk page Talk:Majestic 12 is available as a place to talk about what might be included in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls at 9/11 Truth Movement

I do not want to engage in an edit war about inclusion of these polls, yet Striver insists on placing them in the article rather than build consensus first. [2] Next steps? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed these polls on several different pages. I don't think they are appropriate for this page, and as original research they may not belong anywhere. If there are enough editors following 9/11 Truth Movement, maybe a consensus will emerge in the next few days. If not, maybe a request for comment (just about the page's content, not about user behavior) is in order. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The polls are important because a key issue here is who is actually right about the events of 9/11, the "mainstream" or the minority of "911 truthers." If the latter become mainstream or even a large minority, then the burden of proof and credibility etc is going to shift. So it's important for all readers and editors to know the lay of the land in the realm of public opinion.

Another thing, I think the quote from Rolling Stone is vulgar and illogical and adds nothing but only brings the tone of the article into the gutter. It should be deleted. I would like to delete it with that comment: obscene, non-factual, detracts from the gravity of the discussion.

Also the reference to ECREP (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof) seems out of place and rather cryptic. 9/11 was an extraordinary event, and it was a conspiracy, those are plain facts. The official conspiracy theory is certainly no less extraordinary than the minority one. Since the government has the machinery to produce proof that we citizens do not, the remark should be tagged to the 9/11 Commission first, if the remark is true at all. So to me this seems to be a rhetorical diversion. What is extraordinary is a subjective measure so this doesn't inform the reader further. Further, the remark is probably not true. Proof is proof. Subjectively, people require more convincing of something they see as extraordinary, but this is a problem of psychology, not of logic; the term "require" implies this is true in logic. To turn it around, for what is completely ordinary (the sun rises every day) we require no proof at all. So I don't think it holds much water. JPLeonard 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GreekWarrior again

I'm not sure if you've seen his latest comment...

time is coming for revenge soon turk, i will avenge my uncle, my hatred of turks is unreal, you would have to experience it for yourself to understand it, i am totally dehumanized to the suffering of turks now, i dont laugh when turks die, because it is only a few when Kurds attack, i am like a 1/8th full glass, only a massacre of turks, a huge massacre, will placate my need for vengence, and even then it will only do it for while, i need to see dead turks, i want to see them die en masse. i hate them so much, i wish every turk in the world died of the most painful cancer imaginable, eating their intestines, god in heaven holds my words to be true or strike me down, i reaffirm again that i dont hate turks, i loathe them, from the pits of my heart, i need blood vengeance for what they did to my family, we are coming turks, get ready.

Can you please do something about this guy? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the ip for one month. If this happens again, we may need to request checkuser. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 17:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I would like to speak to you about your list of questionable links, what makes the links from chabad.org questionable? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just that there are so many of them - four hundred is too many. Some are justified, but I think we are being taken advantage of to promote the organization. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific links that you believe to be questionable? As was discussed on WP:AN chabad.org is the largest Jewish website in terms of visitors and one of the top in terms of content. The website that the organization uses to promote itself is lubavitch.com. While chabad.org is the content wing which spreads the message of Judaism. I will be happy to take a look at any specific links that you find questionable and either explain to you why it is there, correct the description, move it to a more appropriate article or if found that it doesn't belong there, to remove it. If you perfer to use email for this you can email me by clicking on the email this user by my userpage. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the pages that link, and I have not followed the links. My concern is that there are so many links at all. My interest is not particularly in chabad.org, as you can see from User:Tom harrison/Pages with questionable external links. I searched for links to chabad.org because I knew about the links from AN. No doubt other sites have more links with less justification. (I have not figured out how to get a list of sites with more than 100 links.) Prisonplanet.con and its satellites have over a hundred. More are added as Alex Jones writes the material. User:Striver would probably tell me that each individual link is justified and informative. I think he is misled by his enthusiasm for Jones' work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Paris

Greetings. I noticed your comments on the above article's long-standing revert war this morning, and added some notes of my own that may also be of interest to you - there's more amiss there than what first meets the eye.

Regards, THEPROMENADER 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Just to let you know that I'm impartial in this story. There is no 'right' side in that argument - both sides are ridiculous actually, and neither can be right because both have no references to refer to - both are making fictitious claims. This is not something I can correct, if not to eliminate the chart completely: one cannot compare the inexistent. THEPROMENADER 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

I unprotected Steven Jones article...I thiought a week was long enough, but they seem to be editing ferverishly over there again.--MONGO 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it will settle down. The only reason he has a page at all is his 9/11 conspiracy theory; without that he would be a non-notable academic. If that can't be mentioned neutrally, it can't be mentioned at all, and the page needs to go. At the same time, the page is a bio of Jones, not a pov fork to allow an exclusively favorable presentation of his theory under cover of WP:BLP. It looks reasonably balanced and sourced right now. If it stabilizes that way, we won't have to stub the page and start over. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why it's necessary to reduce the WTC section. As you say yourself, it's why he is notable.--Sloane 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all has to balance. If his theory is to be presented at length, criticism of it has to be presented at length. Then the whole business dominates the article. It stops being a biography and becomes yet another pov fork of 9/11 conspiracy theories. So it's not necessary to keep it short in theory, but may be in practice, in order to get a stable page that is legitimately a biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Badlydrawnjeff

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I feel your block of Jeff was extremely ill-advised. Civilized discussion is never disruption and without a doubt not block-worthy. If you feel the discussion was "clogging up" ANI or wasn't headed anywhere or was unproductive, fine, advise the participants to move it somewhere else, a user talk page perhaps. But blocking someone because they're arguing a minority viewpoint is in no way constructive and will never solve any problem. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was being disruptive. He was responding to every single comment and numerous admins made it clear he was being disruptive.--MONGO 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He was being disruptive because numerous admins said he was being disruptive," is a nonsense argument. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your opinion of my block. If you want to talk to Mongo, it might be easier to use Mongo's page, or your own. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hoffman

I see that you warned Locewtus about the three revert rule. He has continued to censor out sourced material and has reverted the article around 6-8 times today. Levi P. 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that he has been warned, I hope he will stop. If not, he will have to be reported, just like anyone else who violates 3RR. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's another dispute over at the Jim Hoffman, we could use your input.--Sloane 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing

The infoboxes on the 9/11 article are taking over the page...is there a way to reduce the size of the infobox on deaths, etc. or at least give it better spacing so the article text doesn't but up against the box..see this edit window...[3]...I only come to you as I know you're better with this sort of thing than I am...I've been looking for the guidelines on these types of templates, but can't seem to find them due to other disractions as of late.--MONGO 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'll see if I can come up with something. You might also ask Phaedril; She might be able to improve the whole layout. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is apparently on a long break, maybe permanently. I have already made some adjustments I think it looks fine now. I am also making sure all the cited references work, and updating them all to reflect when they were accessed and using cite templates. I hope to get half of the cited references done and will let you know where I stop if you wish to pick up from there...it would be nice to ghet the article as straight as possible in the next day or two. I'm shooting you an email as well.--MONGO 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as the section on Motive. Mainly, I'm just making sure the cite templates are used, checking the links to make sure they work, ensuring the retrived date is in the citation, so we know when it was last checked, and getting rid of those embedded links.--MONGO 09:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of SFCG Co., Ltd.

Hello. I'm considering doing (at least some of) the translation you requested back in January for SFCG Co., Ltd. However, before I start, I'd like to confirm something. As I've commented on the talk page, the article in the Japanese Wikipedia has been criticised for lacking accuracy and not taking a neutral point of view (and I agree with these criticisms). If you're still interested in this article, perhaps you could tell me - do you think that it would be useful to do the translation, given these problems? Grgcox 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. I think the Japanese article needs to take the lead on this. Let the contributors there get it in order and then it can be translated. If we translate something that's not neutral, we just multiply the problem. Thank you, though, for looking into it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbrCom Question

Just wondering, when an AbrCom is filed and there is a section titled "involved parties" do I add the parties involved or do I just leave myself and the person the AbrCom is being filed against and wait for others to place themselves as "involved parties"?--Jersey Devil 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but I would err on the side of not adding anyone unless you are sure he is involved. It seems like a name can be added later more easily than removed. If they take the case, the arbcom can look at anyone they want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I could have sworn that Striver had 2 RFCs. One by Zora a long time ago (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Striver) and another one but I can't find it. Am I mistaken? I think I might be.--Jersey Devil 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look, and post a link if I find anything. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9-11 Commission

I just signed up. Don't know what I'm doing. The 9-11 Commission article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report#Criticism ) has a quote from Paul Craig Roberts that says "citation needed." I believe the article is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html If you would like to tell me why this is wrong, I'm teachable. Vine&FigTree 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. The simple version would be to replace {{fact}} with [http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html]. I'll leave a boiler-plate welcome message on your talk page. It has some useful links to tutorials and policy pages. Happy editing, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Re: [4] the troll doesn't even know his/her politics. The right wing is adolf, not the left wing. "ADOLF STALIN" is juvenile. Travb (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And gratitude from my part for referencing that BBC link in aftermath article... Lovelight 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, both. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edit on barter

I was making a contribution on barter and do not understand why you reverted it. As I did not even achieved half of the explanation, I am shure you could not understand the meaning of what I wrote. It is the synthesis of a hard job of 3 year, that Idecided to present publically. My contribution to the subject is a software algorithmic approch to the unexplored area of barter. You should ask to an economic expert before considering my contribution as vandalism. I did not unedit nor remove anything, I just brought new ideas that are not yet verified by evrybody. Is it what you call vandalism? If you limit your encyclopedia to the consensus, I really think it is useless. I simply ask for an honest verification of what I write. The page barter is considered as of very low quality, and I really agree with this. The only contributors are private barter corporates, but no economists, or good experts on the subject. Is barter the favorite field of battle for vandalism fighters? I really appreciate the work made on this encyclopedia, and that is the reason why I contribute to It, but it is the second time I am accused of vandalism without any explanation. I expect you will change your mind, give me some advices, or at least explain your act.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olivierchaussavoine (talk • contribs) .

Looking more closely, I see that your edit was not vandalism. I'm sorry for mischaracterising it. It does, however, appear to be your own original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. In fact, we do pretty much follow concensus. New ideas that are not yet verified really have no place here. I am in no position to peer-review your work. I suggest you publish elsewhere first. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have a better comprehension of the ideological battle of money in the economic field, please have a look to my user page. The consensus is not the truth. Galileo paid a lot for it. It explains very clearly why contributions on money are excellent, and the low quality of barter article.

I understand your position if you consider your responsability is limited to the reputation of this encyclopedia, but most contributors consider it very wider. I suppose you are well aware of it, and that your readers will not be desappointed.

No academic publications are interested on the subject, so I put my contribution on the discussion page, explaining the real stakes of the debate. Very few experts are really working on the subject, and the article will remain a no man's land as long as it will be considered as a field of hostility.

If the administrative aspect of your work is determinant, ( I know, I am French), You should also consider that:

there is only fool and economists who think that an unlimited growth is possible in a limited world.

and the urgency there is to give new lights on this ideological economic debate.

Finally, It is not a research, (I made it very silently since a long time), but the real consequences of a research. When I said it will be verifiable, I meant it is not yet verifiable on line. It is only a small and very real software that I can run in front of anyone interested to it.

Olivierchaussavoine 11:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An other amaizing detail that looks like an abuse of power in the semantic field. Do you understand why barter is in the numismatic wikiproject since barter practice, in it's common sense, does not use any monetary system? Olivierchaussavoine 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an area I know much about. You might ask on Portal talk:Numismatics or Talk:Barter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Over for "Truth Professor" Jones

BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See [5]. Morton devonshire 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenkins said BYU's reputation was a consideration, too. "It is a concern when faculty bring the university name into their own personal matters of concern," she said.[6] - I wonder how long it will be until "9/11 researcher" becomes a pejorative. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to intrude, but I think you'll both get a kick out of this: [7] --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, and amusing. I think she has a future in tv. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it not so amusing if people 'erroneously' suspect the wrong suspects, and demonstrate at a place which is very emotional for the relatives and survivors.  Xiutwel (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For months the Jones article has either explicitly said that Jones' work has not been peer-reviewed, or, as is probably more appropriate, said nothing on the subject, but pointed out that he had not published in a reputable journal. Ironically, today, the day after he has been suspended by BYU, which in explanation said, " BYU has a policy of academic freedom, but what's expected is that professors submit their work to academic peer reviews so it can be challenged and debated by experts", there is now a line in the article that says his work has been P.R. So, now we have BYU stripping Jones of his teaching duties, in part because they say he has not submitted his work to P.R., but our article now says his work was P.R. As I am unable to edit the article, and it looks like you and Mongo were involved in the edit today, I guess I am just wondering what your thoughts are on this subject. Thanks Levi P. 02:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully in the next few days things will settle out into a balanced and accurate presentation of what the reliable sources have to say about it. Stay tuned, I guess. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

Hello Tom,

I have found you to be a very neutral admin and so I am asking to review a case concerning an editor you have had experience with in the past [8].

Thanks, BhaiSaab ^talk 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it, probably later today. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway though! :) BhaiSaab ^talk 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered - you can still look at [9] considering CltFn got no response from an admin to his incident notice. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like interesting material, but it's not something I'm ready to get into right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Travb#Page_moves

RE: User_talk:Travb#Page_moves

Thanks for all of your hard work. I have been really pleasantly surprised with your ability to build consensus and comprimise. I see why you were elected and continue to be an admin. You are a uniter, not a divider. :) Travb (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CT AFD List

Hey, User:GabrielF made a very helpful list of CT afd's. User:GabrielF/911TMCruft--Sloane 01:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be useful as a central list of articles. I think some of those duplicate material that is already in others. Maybe some merging or reorganization is in order. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-naming Consensus

Yes, at the current time it does show 3-2 to keep the current title (although 'Allegations' is a weasel word) Wiki eZach| talk 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or more correctly, it shows 3-2 against renaming to political violence by the united states. Please read my messages before assuming it's the big obvious poll LinaMishima 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that allegations is a weasel word, or that WP:WTA trumps WP:V and WP:NOR. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellison page

hi there,

i changed the word "anti-semitism" to "racism" because the daily article he wrote never mentions anti-semitism but is instead concerning accusations of general racism. his letter that is later quoted is in reference to the nation of islam and farrakhan, as well as other leaders in the nation of islam. the way it was orginally posted made it appear as if ellison's letter was directly addressing anti-semitic comments by farrakhan which he had earlier defend in the daily, which is a misrepresentation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.6.169 (talk • contribs) .

It's a direct quote from two major papers, which are cited. We can't very well attribute to the Washington Post something they did not say. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that makes sense. quoting the letter of ellison's to the star tribune might be more accurate. would it be ok to cite the letter directly instead, since it seems like the washington post's quote inferred farrakhan only erroneously?

If his letter is published and verifiable, yes, that would be great. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is the letter's link. www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/keithellisonletter%20JCRC.pdf

A blog is not a reliable source. I thought his letter was in the Star Tribune. Even if it were only on his campaign website, we could say, "According to Ellison..." Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, the letter, an authentic copy, was only posted on the blog, which i agree is not a reliable source. is it ok since the quote from the letter is introduced as such in the wiki text?

The letter can only be included if it has been published in a reliable source. In this case, that might include Ellison's campaign website, or a press release. Then we could attribute it to him or his campaign. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old version is a completely biased version of a politian who is up for office today. if this biased version is locked in, the next 5 hours people will be getting online to read the wiki version created by his oppostition. then if he wins and the headlines go national, everyone looking him up will be introduced to the biased parties point of views. the other version did not delete their points but instead brought other points, all of which were supported with legit sources. so whats your angle on this?

I do not care what is in the article, as long as it is neutral and reliably sourced. If it can't be both, I (or someone else) will reduce it to a stub. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, the Washington Post article is citing the original wikipedia on keith which contained the misinformation. it seems like the journalist took that information directly of this wiki page when writing the article instead of reading the Daily article being reference on the wiki page. the actual article that is being referred to, both by this wiki page and the washington post, says nothing about anti-semitism. if i post some misinformation on wiki, then a journalist uses it, does that suddenly make it accurate? please read the original article by Keith Ellison in the daily, which is cited.

The Washington Post article does not mention Wikipedia. I do not see any indication that either Patrick Condon of AP or Alan Cooperman with the Washington Post relied on Wikipedia for any part of their reports. Both say 'anti-Semitism.' The bottom line is, we summarize what reliable sources say. Two independent reliable sources say 'anti-Semitism'. If you want to say something else, you have to find a reliable source to quote. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, the wiki page is attempting to sum up an opinion piece of Ellison's which can be found here: http://www.mndaily.com/archive/download.php?archives/1989/11271989.tif

nowhere in that opinion piece does he mention jews or anti-semitism. therefore the "reliable sources" are not talking about the same article which is being discussed on the wiki page. thats why, even though they are reliable sources, they are not appropriate in the context of what is being talked about on the wiki page. please read the 7th page of the pdf file containing the opinion piece being discussed on the wiki page. after reading it i hope you will be convinced that racism is the appropriate word instead of anti-semitism and that the two reliable sources are talking about some other article or they are in error.

It's not up to a bunch of random guys on the internet - us amature encyclopedia writers - to characterize the article one way or the other. That is the job of journalists, with real editors who review their work. We do not examine primary sources and draw conclusions. We summarize what journalists say. If you don't like what AP and the Post said, email them and make your case. We can't 'correct the record' here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i was seriously wondering if that is what i had to do. do you think there is a shot i could actually get in contact with them? if so, how? if not, please have a laugh at my expense for asking.

You could certainly email the reporters and make your case, or get in touch with other local news people. Also, I would think Rep. Ellison's campaign has press people on staff who might give you advice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2001 attacks

Hi there. I've reverted your edit to September 11, 2001 attacks [10], but welcome you to either put it back if you feel strongly, or join the discussion at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks about where or if to place that link/footnote. I understand that you made this edit in good faith, and I hope you will see my attempts to appropriately locate that information in the same light. Thanks, and happy editing! -Harmil 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

Please limit your remarks to discussion of the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --TV Lover 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for you to block

User:70.146.61.200 Morton devonshire 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Here are some pictures from yesterday on Flickr. We ran into Dylan and Alex here, and were less than civil. Alex's behavior was particularly outrageous (disparaging the FDNY, alledging that they were "in" on 9/11), as were some of the regular ny911truthers. Anyway, pictures are tagged with "loosechange" and related terms, with links to debunking sites. Haven't yet a chance to see if/where any would be useful for Wikipedia. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good work. Some of those pictures will add a lot to the encyclopedia. Thank you very much for the barnstar. There was the inevitable vandalism, stupidity, and promotion, but I was pleased to see how many people worked hard to improve the page, including a number of anonymous contribtors. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Also, want to add thanks for watching the main 9/11 article yesterday.--Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at Medieval Greek

Hi, why did you revert this edit [11]? Seemed like quite a good edit to me, actually. Was that a mistake? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a mistake. Thank you for catching and correcting it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cremation of Care

Hey Tom, I noticed you merged Cremation of Care into Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove. I think that's actually a bad idea, since it actually exists and stuff. I'd rather suggest merging it into the Bohemian Grove (not including the transcript). and and I would put the Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove article up for deletion. --Sloane 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. Maybe the "transcript" can go in Wikisource. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe it's copyrighted.--Sloane 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

]] 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. We can remove the text and just link to it, I guess. Or just not link to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove. Morton devonshire 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sub

Sir, Please do not make changes to the Rosey page. The place is not meant for everyone. People who actually spent time there know better. Not all are created equal and some should not get involved in areas and circles they do not belong to. You do great work on other parts of Wikipedia and keep up the good work.

Best Regards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.104.184 (talk • contribs) .

Contest

The best reply to the above comment gets a nice, wholesome cookie. The page is Institut Le Rosey. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First entry -- fitting that an all boys school would be named Institut Le Rosey, also known by its full name Institut Le Rosey Palms. Morton devonshire 02:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And its companion, Le Rosey Rectory. Looks like they are known for turning out Communists, given all the "red" links in their list of "notable" grads. Wahkeenah 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma

I think no-one can claim to posess the truth about Oklahoma. Therefore wikipedia should present the facts, all facts, unfiltered, and leave it to other gremia to decide what really happened. Wikipedia is not a research unit or High Court.

Please see Talk:Oklahoma City bombing#ready to insert?  Xiutwel (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(citing)

I oppose the inclusion, for reasons discussed at length above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not reasonable to oppose inclusion, instead of trying to find a neutral wording together. There has to be some way to describe facts in a wiki article such that it meets wiki standards? Why else do we bother writing wikipedia? Please reconsider.  Xiutwel (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PBS mentions Wikipedia

Glaser, Mark (September 11, 2006). "Reliving 9/11 Without Glitz of Big Media". PBS. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

"September 11, 2001 attacks — Wikipedia entry: Though I’ve had plenty of reasons to shun Wikipedia and its attempts at a neutral point of view, I’ll give it credit for this entry, which covers a vast array of details about the attacks. There are simple timelines, photos, and the entry even includes some of the conspiracy theories in a relatively balanced way."

--Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice to hear. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rv September 11, 2001 attacks

I think my addition

in particular Building 7, must have been

is useful, since WTC7 is least debated among those conspiracists. It is more accurate, and is not an undue elaboration of any conspiracy theory. It is simply more accurate.

I will alter my addition. Please explain yourself if you disagree.  Xiutwel (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been extensively discussed on the talk page. You might want to read through the archives there. If I have any thoughts beyond what I have already said in the archives, I'll post there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tag

Hi i removed the citation tag you just left. Here's what i said on the discussion page:

I removed the [citation needed] tag from the first sentence because obviously no citation is needed, since this page is explaining precisely what the Controlled-Demolition Theory is. If that doesn't make sense, please state your reason(s) here. Thanks! Mujinga 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Shall we continue the discussion on the talk page if there is a need to? Cheers! Mujinga 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgon's Head Lodge

Mr. Harrison,

The Gorgon's Head Lodge is a secret society dating back to the early 1900s at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. I am currently a member and can provide you evidence that we have existed for over 100 years. We are rival societies with the Order of the Gimghoul and should be and are cited on their Wikipedia website. If you have any questions or would like any evidence, please feel free to ask. Thank you for your time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.68.166 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, but Wikipedia does not publish original research, which your personal knowledge would be. I noticed that the page was deleted in 14 December 2005, so I deleted it today as a recreation of deleted material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just finishing splitting the old and new nominations and it turned to a red link. Grrrr :) Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm learning

Thanks for the help with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comedy_and_Tragedy_The_Theater_Masks_named_Sock_and_Buskin&oldid=75892700

this is my first attempt at writting an article. I hope I was headed in the rigt direction.

You deleted all of the citations to articles in wickoedia. Aren't they necessary?

Adding in the further reading links was started but the way the internal links was done is still a mystery to me.

Citations for the use of the names "sock and Buskin" can be found in uite a few articles and titles in Wickpedia. Do I simply add a link to those pages as a citation?

Certainly you are headed in the right direction. I thought the material was very interesting, and a good contribution. I moved it from its own page to Theatre of Ancient Greece#Comedy and Tragedy masks, which is in need of good material. We generally try not to cite one page to another within Wikipedia. When we want to refer the reader to a related page we use an internal link, e.g. "see Abbey Theatre." The Wikipedia:Tutorial is a good place to start to learn about the mechanics. A good citation for the names Sock and Buskin would be a book on the theatre: Professor Marlowe's guide to theatrical lore, by Kit Marlowe, St. Martin's press, 1982, to use a fake example. I don't know much about the subject myself. Welcome, and thanks for your contribution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A plea for Paul Thompson

Hi Tom, I notice you voted to delete the article on Paul Thompson. While I know we disagree on many things, somehow this judgment call surprises me. If you have time, I'd love to hear your reasons. (You can just pop over to my talk page at your convenience.)--Thomas Basboll 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment to the AfD. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd say writing a book (and doing all that research) is a bit more of an effort than that category of pseudo-newsworthy people you mention. I see your point, but I do think there is plenty of independent coverage and use of his ideas. My suggestion was that he's notable now but will probably be outright famous soon, at which point it won't be an issue. His inclusion in the Dec. 2004 "genius issue" of Esquire is pretty telling; as is Richard Clarke's use of the book as a teaching resource at Harvard. The congressional briefing is also suggestive. Like I say, I doubt this will be an issue in a couple of months. I really think you're being too hard him. Anyway, happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 21:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pot calling Kettle

Hi Tom. I guess you don't understand the etiquette of Wikipedia. You should not remove a person's contribution just because you disagree with the source. You need to prove the source is unreliable in order to justify your deletion. How many people's contributions have you deleted because of your misunderstanding of this guideline? --Demosfoni 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is our policy on verifiability. Right at the top it says:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

That seems contrary to your suggestion that I need to prove the source is unreliable in order to justify deletion." Or have I misunderstood you? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say the source is reputable. You say the source is not reputable. Who is correct, you or me? Nowhere in your 3 points does it say who is responsible to prove that the source is reputable. Just because you say "it is not reputable" does not make it so. I could say "encyclopedia brittanic: not reputable" which is false and yet according to the 3 points that you listed, I could remove someone's statement simply because I do not trust the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is your flawed logic. --Demosfoni 00:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom is correct. His logic is not flawed. THe burden is on you to prove the claim is verifiable and part of that is proving the source is reliable. In this case, it is not reliable and fails a number of tests. --Tbeatty 02:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... what are these "tests" that WRH has "failed" according to Mr. Beatty? --Demosfoni 04:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first and second of many. --Tbeatty 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston's Hidden Restaurants

I noticed that Boston's Hidden Restaurants was being considered for deletion because I added links to the page from various pages (Boston, New England, restaurants, New England cuisine), since I noticed that the Boston's Hidden Restaurants page had a note saying there were few incoming links.

I took all these links down from the Boston, New England, restaurants, New England cuisine pages, since it appears that this is what triggered the consideration of deletion. If so, I apologize for this, since I was unaware of what the deletion policies were.

Sincerely, Marc—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurler4 (talk • contribs) .

You din't do anything wrong. I did notice the page when you added a link to it, but the reason I think it should be deleted is that it fails the notability guideline. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock?

Erm, Hi.

I appear to have been blocked and I don't know why. i have added maybe two articles on wikipedia, and didn;t realise I was doing anythign wrong. Could you please enlighten me as to what has happened?

I replied on your talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hello, I had reported User:Axam on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, and another administrator had noted that he had already been blocked (for a 3RR, and not for personal attacks), and moved him to the "open cases". After returning from the block he has blanked his talk page warnings, and wrote "what a great nerd you are" This in itself is not much of an issue, but the personal attacks have gone now gone way past the point of acceptable.

First of all I'm a Baha'i living in Canada, and this user has made reference to Hojjatieh, a very anti-Baha'i organization in Iran that has persecuted the Baha'is in Iran. He first wrote "Say, do you know about the Hojjatieh Jeff?" [12], he then wrote: "How's Canada? is it a good country? I should visit sometimes." [13], and then "There shouldn't be too many Baha'i'communities in Canada, in a few cities perhaps, like Toronto, Ontario, or in Nova Scotia. Must not be hard to find people." [14] and finally "::::I sense fear in your tone. Your action is more uncivilized than any of my tone. Provocative and coward. Hidding behind friends to make a stupid illogical point. I will be visiting Canada Jeff. Trust me it's easy to find people." [15]. This is a direct personal attack, not only in terms of words, which I can easily forget, but much more. You can check my words to him on his talk page (need to check diffs as he's blanked his talk page), all civilized, but he has continued his attacks. What can be done about this. -- Jeff3000 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked him for a week. If he makes any more threats, I will block longer. Please let me or another admin know if there is any more of this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- Jeff3000 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block on the account to indefinite, having been the one to block him for 3RR in the first place and been following his edits since. There are no significantly useful edits from the account, and we should show zero tolerance to people who are only here to disrupt. He'd been trolling all the way through his block period, including evading his block through an IP, and although I didn't see a future as a productive contributor I have to say I didn't expect him to go this far over the line. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block is fine with me. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley

Re: this revert. Please outline your reasons on the talk page. In particular, there is no original research, no citation of wikipedia (only a link to wikipedia as a primary source for angela's comments), and all statements are supported by cites, contrary to your edit summary. --Coroebus 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alva Noto repair

This article Should Not be deleted. But I guess it does need repair (I did not create it). I just added-in some new helpful info. But, being new here, I'm not sure how to boost this article's citations or credibility. Can you make recommendations for this article and reasons why you thought it should be deleted? Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scootdown (talk • contribs) .

It looks better now. Links to independent reviews are helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're cheap!

Ha...[16]--MONGO 11:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "inexpensive." Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation request (controlled demolition)

Hi Tom, you want a reference for "the controlled demolition hypothesis proposes that". Does this mean that you want a source (or set of sources) that proposes this, or someone who confirms the existence of the hypothesis? The best source for the first is, of course, Steven Jones (but the article provides many others as well); the most authoritative statement of the hypothesis, in the latter sense, is probably the NIST report and the recent FAQ. But you already know about those, so I'm a bit confused about what claim you want referenced.--Thomas Basboll 13:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want a reliable source who says there is a controlled-demolition hypothesis, and who says what it consists of. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't NIST such a source. That failing, Bazant and Verdure 2006?--Thomas Basboll 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as long as it supports what the article says. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. Do you have any doubts about that?--Thomas Basboll 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have doubts, but I'll remove it for now, and see what citations are provided to support what is said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've opened the discussion on the talk pages. It would be great to have at least that first section in plain language that also has your approval.--Thomas Basboll 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror Timeline

Thank you for your objective and precision recent edits to the above. I've made a minor amendment for accuracy — I presume "front matter" is not quite the same, but, if it is, feel free to rv. Tyrenius 21:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navayāna Buddhism on the Indian Buddhist Movement page

I have cited sources that show that scholars have called Ambedkarite Buddhism navayāna. Dhammafriend refuses to believe that Ambedkarite Buddhism could be branded

Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India so you can not brand is Old OR Neo! Its Buddhism. People from Europe /USA are converting to their own found Buddhist practices. All are Buddhist so newly converted people are not branded as neo ! Please also visit www.e-b-u.org. In Indian Context Buddhist from Ladakh, Assam, Maharshtra, Karnataka etc. are a fighting unitedly for Buddhist Revival. Do you know All Indian Buddhist Monk Association ? Especially for Mahabodhi Temple Liberation Movement world Buddhist are united. Buddhist monk from Japan Bhante Surai Sasai is doing best in Central Region of India Nagpur to mobiliese masses Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

the fact is all Buddhism is branded something or the other and scholars have branded Ambedkarite Buddhism as navayāna. Ambedkarite Buddhism is the only Buddhist movement in India. Buddhists from Ladakh, Assam, or Darjeeling are ancestral Buddhist populations that did not get extinguished, hence, the "Indian Buddhist Movement" should only be applicable to Ambedkarite Buddhism, which has been called navayāna Dhammafriend is stubborn and keeps reverting the article and removing statement "or Navayāna Buddhism (Pāli नवयान navayāna, literally "new vehicle")". May I put this back in, along with my citation. Thegreyanomaly 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is nothing I am familiar with. You might ask for a third opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am addressing you as an neutral, dissintrested and uninvolved third part admin: Could you please revert this, tell the person to not delete "citition needed" and tell him to stop adding that the letter is disputed unless he presents any sources that do so? The fact tags are not there to questioning the statments, but the simple fact that sources are needed. Thanks and peace. --Striver 11:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i see that he did add sources, but they are in Arabic... could you then tell him to stop removing fact tags? --Striver 11:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Arabic sources. I would understand if it were primary sources, but i can not see how it is helpfull to add Arabic secondary sources. --Striver 11:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Al-Dhahabi, born in Damascus, is a Syrian scholar, would not Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, born in Nishapur then be an Iranian scholar? I think instead people would say al-Hajjaj was a Persian scholar, or maybe an Abbasid scholar, and that Al-Dhahabi was an Umayyad scholar. Anyway, it sounds like there is a reasonable disagreement, so the {{fact}} tag should remain until more verifiable sources are found. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, FloNight 02:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dhammafriend has attacked me again

While the complaint is still pending, he just made more ethnic attacks against me. He called me "anti-Buddhist" and characterized my alleged "Caste" by referring to me as a "Brahmin"/"Shudra" (amusingly, I'm not even a Hindu).I am adding diffs to that effect in the PAIN report but I humbly request you to please intervene. His inflammatory comments in the talk page of Talk:Indian Buddhist Movement are making it very difficult for us legitimate editors to create a good article. The diffs of his most recent attacks are below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndian_Buddhist_Movement&diff=77509724&oldid=77417417

In particular, the comments from the diff above:

“

If kelkar Or all anti-Buddhist people who are unaware of the Present Indian Buddhist Movement can come and understand the status.

”

“

anti-Buddhist hate is too much in Brahmin Shudra Hindu minds

”

Referring to both me and User:Nat Krause

and

“

Mr.Hkelkar you are not the first anti-Buddhit person on this planet.

”

“

The Language used by u like which planet etc.. shows you are full hate towards Buddhist so debate is a civilised manner

”

.

Despite the fact that I have made no attacks against anyone.

Hkelkar 09:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have pasted a copy of his recent attacks on PAIN and request some intervention here. Thanks very much.Hkelkar 09:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar has attacked me as anti-Hindu even though I write only about Buddhist Movement in India. His clain that he is not attacking anyone is also strange. Coz on this same page we can find he has attacked others also. Dhammafriend 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limecat

I see you have deleted the above entry. What did not get deleted was the talk page assosicated with it; does that not go with the article. thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limecat

Hi... I saw that you deleted the article I created recently, titled "Limecat," with the reason that it had been deleted previously. I never saw the previous article, but I did see the "debate" (someone pointed it out on my article's talk page) and I think I had addressed the concerns. Could you at least restore the article so it could be vetted again the way the previous version apparently was? Thanks. Anonymous 57 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you are welcome to take it up on deletion review. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do, thanks. Anonymous 57 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merkabah

Hi Tom, A quick message to say thanks for the great job of combineing Merkabah and Hekalot. I was just checking if it had produced any messages on the talk pages and found it was already job done. That should make life easier for people researching this stuff like me. Regards -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good of you to say so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar personnel attacks

i am trying to improve of Tipu Sultan but user Hkelkar has said me a Islamic Thinkers Society though i am not a muslim.

"there are entire countries in the muslim world that massacre non-muslims and spread hate against them (Pakistan against Hindus, Saudi Arabia against Christians" i tired to warn him about critising against a relegion.

THIS IS CONVERSATION BETWEEN HIM AND A MEMBER

The present ref does not say that Tipu founded the Jacobin club, only that he was a member.Hkelkar 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In the article it clearly states as hazrath Tipu Sultan as a founding member and not a member! there were 59 early members of which hazrath Tipu Sultan was one of them. Is a there a difference between a founding member ( might be tipu as it was the very beginning of the club in mysore) and a member,could you please explain.

Mujeerkhan 12:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Nowhere in either of the references is the word "founder" even mentioned.Hkelkar 05:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What do mean "rubbish" after the efforts i have made in the improvements of the article. oh "founder" is not given the sources which i have provide but its said in the article of hazrath tipu and we have to check who made the error. I have made so many corrections for the errors in the article and for quite a while you have been telling me whats "wrong" and whats "correct" instead of helping me out. is this the way you treat other wiki members for thier contributions.

Mujeerkhan 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly within my rights to point out gibberish when it is there. Since it is a comment on content, not on contributor, it is neither incivility nor a personal attack. The fact remains that 90% of the article is balderdash, hooey, jive, bakwaas, drek,and other similar such descriptions from any number of languages that anyone can think of. What's more. the edits are colored by the worst case of religious/nationalist fundamentalism I have ever seen on wikipedia so far. Hkelkar 08:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In this instance a member is trying to correct the article but user Hkelkar is making fun out of him. he wants the article to be in his own ideas.

could you please do something about the user Mysorebhai 14:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask for help at the noticeboard. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comments were on the content, not on the contributor, they do not satisfy WP:NPAs criteria for a personal attack. I think that new users should read the policy before wasting admins time.Hkelkar 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Devonshire

Thanks for the note. I don't do feuds... just wikipedia. However, I will take your advice and disengage, as he sees it as very personal. I'll leave it to you and others to keep a weather eye. Tyrenius 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I noticed you made a reference to Angela Davis - which rang a bell.... Tyrenius 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You mentioned her recently in a talk post as an example, which would be relevant to those of us of a certain age. Not that I'm giving away mine. I just picked up on it, so I thought I'd say I got the reference, as it probably escaped most people. Tyrenius 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recommended that I back off from Morton for a while, and I have shown good faith by doing so. Unfortunately, it has not been reciprocated. Morton made this unfounded statement about me. I have asked him to withdraw these remarks, which I believe merit an apology also. He has simply ignored this, and archived the talk.

He has also archived this post from another admin, Runcorn, and stated that he has acted on suggestions to remove offensive content from his user page. However, as Runcorn has pointed out, the same content remains unchanged on [User:Morton devonshire/conspiracy theory this page]. I also note on User talk:Morton devonshire/Archive04, firstly a copyvio of the Che Guevara image, where permission is only given to "propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world". The usage does not do this. Secondly there is an attack on "Alex", which in the context of Morton's stated views can only be interpreted as Alex Jones.

I might mention that Runcorn is now the third admin to ask Morton to remove this content. User pages are, as you know, for building up the encyclopedia, not for content which is guaranteed to be provocative and cause disruption. I would be grateful for your attention to this. Thanks.

Tyrenius 14:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this Che Guevara image? I thought he removed it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara can be found here.[17] Tyrenius 17:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. A picture of Che Guevara remains in an archive of his talk page, after he removed another at your request from his user page. And you say this is a copyvio because it is contrary to Korda's terms for use of the image? Reading those terms, I think its use there is acceptable. Unless I misunderstand the basis for your reasoning, either it can be used as Morton used it, or it cannot be used in any neutral biography of Che Guevara. Since it can (apparently) be used in our page on Che, where we record considerable criticism of him, I think you misunderstand Korda's terms. I do not see any basis for saying Morton cannot use it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the request that Morton should remove the Che Guevara picture. That was made by Guinnog. No matter. It was clearly Korda's intent that it should be used to support Guevara, so I think the use in an article with hostile comments would not pass muster, though that of course would not preclude fair use. I'm not interested in pursuing the matter.

Why have you only responded to that, and not the other points mentioned? Thanks. Tyrenius 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that I'm not sure what you are asking me to do (and I even misunderstood what you wanted about the picture). If you are asking me to mediate, you should find a better mediator. I'm not very good at it, and although I do not share his rather generous opinion of el Che, I think Morton is more right than wrong.

Beyond that, what? I think Alex Jones' followers (and others) use Wikipedia to promote and legitimize conspiracy theories. Conspiracism is a fallacy. Identifying conspiracy theories and theorists as such is a good thing, and improves our encyclopedia.

You want me to chide Morton for not assuming good faith on your part, while you manifestly assume bad faith on his? You want him to not archive his talk page until you say it's okay? Unless I'm mistaken, the bot has already archived the thread from the noticeboard. He has seen what people have said to him, he has made some compromises, he has moved away from at least one page you edit. And now you say he is ignoring your request for an apology. You accused me without basis of defamation, wikilawyering, and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; I'm (mostly) ignoring that. Many things are better ignored. For everything else, there is dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say I don't agree with what you have written, but I'm not interested in point scoring (I am not saying that you are either) and I do agree that many things are better ignored, so I shall apply that philosophy here to save even more wasted time. Tyrenius 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not unaware of your conversation here. As such, I have taken yet more steps to calm things down. I would appreciate it if that would be the end of things, and that you would respect me request to disengage. Thank you. Morton devonshire 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Morton. I regard this as a good-will gesture which I respect. I have backed off myself from editing The Terror Timeline following your gesture there. I have also spoken against ArbCom hearing the case against you (though there's little chance of that anyway). I will post to Runcorn and say that I think the best thing now is to put this behind us. Tyrenius 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tbeatty block

It wasn't very well expressed, but there's no need to pick up on a technicality. I used WP:BLP as a shorthand, I must confess. The basic point is that he was making a defamatory comment, was warned, and made another one. I am sure you know how seriously libel on living persons is regarded, and his response was flippant about the whole business. I discussed it with MONGO and invited him to shorten or remove the block, but he declined and also left a warning. Do you have a problem with this? Tyrenius 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I am concerned about using BLP this way. I wonder, is Tbeatty subject to the same protections BLP affords Steven Jones, as you understand BLP? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly say what you mean? Tyrenius 17:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hkelkar's language

Sir,

Could you please check Mr. HKelkar's language.for instance [1]Insted of giving references/documentation/proofs he is threatening others. I understand Wikipedia is made for all the people on this earth and have equal rights to express their views. If the other person has different view he should come up with valid arguments rather that putting warnings, complaining to administrators.

You have blocked my brother's id, I hope you had valid resons but you are allowing Mr. HKelkar's nonstop nonsense? May I ask/request, why you are allowing him to continue?

He has unnessarily posted warning/puppet notices on my talks even though I have told him that I live in USA and Dhammafriend lives in Germany.

Thank you.--Bodhidhamma 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at dispute resolution and follow the procedure listed there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar I have asked you to come for open and healthy debate. Why are you branding me as Sockpuppetry? Bodhidharma is my elder brother is USA. If you are in USA, Europe Or Germany I'll arrange meeting for discussion on Buddhist Movement in India. So don't be a hidden attacker. If other users are writing anything on Hinduism you should not relate me with them. Dhammafriend 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Harrison The Bodhidharma is my elder brother in USA. Hkelkar has branded me that I am using another username. If you want contact details we can meet anywhere. These hidden attackers only to spoil articles. Dhammafriend 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Hkelkar branding everybody as anti-Hindu is strange. He has done lot of personnal attacks against me by branding me as anti-Hindu but it is ur decision if u want to him blacklist or not. All Wikipedia Administrators should take care of such Hidden Users Dhammafriend 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot shutoff button

That does not seem to be an issue on FF. Go ahead and move/preview until it looks fine, I wont mind.Voice-of-All 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I am reading wikipedia policies and procedures now.

My apologies for the irresponsible changes I made. I will stick to the wikipedia policies and procedures and expect same from administrators and "so called administrators" to follow the same.

Thank you.--Bodhidhamma 21:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dispute flag

Hi Tom, please see Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#summary_FBI_poster_dispute_flag. I've put the flag back. Regards,  Xiutwel (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get what I'm saying?  Xiutwel (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look?  Xiutwel (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhammafriend and Truthlover

Dhammafriend (and Truthlover) has completely reverted [Indian Buddhist Movement[|this page]] to how it was prior to his/their ban. He/They did not only remove the navayana concept, which he/they question but also all the citations that cleared up citation neccessity's. I have reverted the page to how it was prior. Thegreyanomaly 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to note that "they" reverted the 'official-style' referencing back to their informal previous citations, they also removed claims of dubious assertions and etc. the proof is [[18]], [[19]], [[20]] Thegreyanomaly 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know enough about the subject to be able to help. You might look at dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL block

Hey Tom your block of Jon W, while justified, has left a ton of AOL subscribers locked out. I can't even create my own user page.

Please consider lifting the block before too long.

Thanks!--HomeComputer 06:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

Thanks for your note. I have left a comment. Tyrenius 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up edit to yours.[21] Tyrenius 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in understanding how to report hypocritic people

Sir, I was looking into policies and procedures. I could not find how to report such people. I have been discussing About Buddhism on History Of Hinduism pages, Insted of having healthy conversations, other people are just engaging in to threats and "block" user game. insted of countering my arguments.

I follow this methodology for any arguments to reach its conclusion. 1. I ask about the percetion of each user about the subject. 2. If there is a difference in opinion I prefer inference. Read all the reliable sources I have and other user has provided and try to think logically to find answer. [A=B, B=C hence A=C] 3. If there is no clear logical answer I demand valid testimony. an Authorative document which clearly describes the topic in length.

I expect others to follow the same but insted they continue to have vague arguments which does not lead anywhere and continue with their personal propaganda. If I change the document they complain that I am vandalising the article. I get warnings. How do I report such hyporitic and autocratic people?

How do I request third party intervention?

Thank you --Bodhidhamma 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try the noticeboard for personal attacks, and the dispute resolution system for everything else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

I am not "habitually uncivil". I do however take great exception, that when I take pains to improve articles and compromise with other editors, and then someone else comes along and calls me everything under the sun (even threatening real life retaliation), I get treated as though I am just as bad as him. And I take even more exception when, after this insulting mistake is made, the insulting admin refuses to apologise. And I get absolutely apoplectic at the thought that there is no way of getting this appalling insulting mistake deleted from the record, so that anyone might happen on the circumstances and assume that he had in some way been justified in what he did.

That makes me very angry indeed. And justifiably so. Of course people who have not been involved, coming in and misreading the situation, does not help. David | Talk 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have just realised that you were the admin who was the first to block me for a non-existent 3RR when I was trying to compromise with another editor. So you have no excuse for getting it wrong. The French have a proverb: Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l'attaque, il se défend. David | Talk 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the English wiki, translated, "This animal is very mean: When one attacks it, it defends himself."--MONGO 16:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to [22] Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Under Revision tag on the 9/11 article

Hi Tom. Obviously your prerogative to be bold and remove this. However, at present the article is undergoing such massive revisions that it would be better to rephrase it to be more inclusive to new and casual editors than to remove it comepletely. Do you think we could take this to the article talk page, please? On the basis that we are discussing everything I am about to revert your removal, but only once, and justify that on the talk page. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barrett

Hi Tom. I was hoping you could take a look at this article. There is a new editor over on the Kevin Barrett page who has started an edit war over the notion that Barrett "was suspected of planning to teach CT." He keeps deleting sourced material ( lying in his edit summary), and screwing up the sources, both in the reference section and in the article. If you look through the edit history you'll see he has tried to insert several different unsourced assertions. He has called me a liar when I have deleted his unsourced contributions. I've tried to reason with him, but he just keeps reverting to "his" latest version, despite never having demonstrated a deficiency in the status quo. He seems intent on theorizing about what Barret was "planning" to do. Anyway, on the talk page, he has said he hopes an admin will look things over. I posted this on Mongo's talkpage as well, but the other editor has again reverted, and again asked for admin assistance. If you have the time...Thanks Levi P. 20:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording, per talkpage, and added back in the uncited quote you removed. That was my mistake...I thought I had to do something different to cite the source (it is a video of a news appearence). It appears to be alright though. Thanks for looking at the article, and please let me know if I have cited that video incorrectly. Cheers, [[User:==User: Oafcmetty==

Yes please do that! Was a work in progress whilst I figured out how to load the image which I linked to.

User: Oafcmetty

Hi - please can you explain why you deleted the page for 'Pine Villa' football club?

User: Uberlol

Dear Mr. Harrison, I see you have recently intervened at the user page of 'Uberlol' on the grounds of 'personal attacks'. I can tell you I'm the depicted person in question, if you need proof of identity I can provide it in the form of scanned documentation. I just need a secure way to let you see it. I'm not putting it online anywhere.

This same vandal has published the same libelous spew under the Wiki account name of 'Louis Shum' but the account was removed by another admin [23]. Now the same vandal is back under the different name 'Uberlol'.

While its not a article per se, doesn't every Wiki user page have to abide by standards on the biographical depiction of living persons?

Streetball

Why have you removed the external link to streetball.co.uk?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmac1811 (talk • contribs) .

You mean "Streetball.co.uk - UK based Streetball website, currently the number 1 Streetball site in the world"? I thought it looked more like an attempt to promote the website than contribute to the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's the number one search result in google for "Streetball" and is far more popular than the other sites currently mentioned in the article. So surely that merits its inclusion? By the way, I have no direct involvement with the website itself, I just visit it occasionally.Jmac1811 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Tom, I did add nonsense a few days ago. I added a line about Joseph Smith in the opening description, out of sheer curiosity to see if it actually worked. However, my edit of removing Christian Martyrs from the article made very good sense. Joseph Smith cannot be considered a Christian martyr. Mormonism IS considered heresy by every mainstream Christian denomination and this fact is well-established. Additionally, Smith is hard to consider a true "martyr", as he died in a shootout with the federal government. Compare this to the scores of true Christian martyrs who died for their unwavering support of biblical doctrine and their commitment to Jesus Christ, as He is described in the Christian Bible. I'm sorry, Smith doesn't compare. This edit stands.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 (talk • contribs) .

The page Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. is available as a place to discuss changes to the article. If a consensus supports your edit, and it meets our other standards (see welcome above), then it probably will stand. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati Summons

User:Mirror Vax vandalism at Template:AfdAnons. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at his entries on that template, and consider a block. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he has been warned. I'll block him briefly if he persists. You have to be quick around here. I need 750 more to level up, and people keep beating me to the block. Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Tom harrison/Archive11: Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Wiki eZach| talk 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Bro, you have already been on ANI for the template, are you sure you want do to this? --Striver 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy buffs" is a direct quote from the Times article cited. If you think I have done something wrong, take it to ANI if you want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverting edit to MAJ12 page to include SOM101

Why have you removed (basically simply reverted my edit) the Special Operations Manual (SOM101) text from Majestic 12 page? That SOM101 document is one of the documents in the "official" http://www.majesticdocuments.com/ site, just like the docs already listed in the Wikipedia article...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk • contribs) .

The extract you posted is far too long, but most important, majesticdocuments.com is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks. The talk page Talk:Majestic 12 is available as a place to talk about what might be included in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls at 9/11 Truth Movement

I do not want to engage in an edit war about inclusion of these polls, yet Striver insists on placing them in the article rather than build consensus first. [24] Next steps? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed these polls on several different pages. I don't think they are appropriate for this page, and as original research they may not belong anywhere. If there are enough editors following 9/11 Truth Movement, maybe a consensus will emerge in the next few days. If not, maybe a request for comment (just about the page's content, not about user behavior) is in order. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The polls are important because a key issue here is who is actually right about the events of 9/11, the "mainstream" or the minority of "911 truthers." If the latter become mainstream or even a large minority, then the burden of proof and credibility etc is going to shift. So it's important for all readers and editors to know the lay of the land in the realm of public opinion.

Another thing, I think the quote from Rolling Stone is vulgar and illogical and adds nothing but only brings the tone of the article into the gutter. It should be deleted. I would like to delete it with that comment: obscene, non-factual, detracts from the gravity of the discussion.

Also the reference to ECREP (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof) seems out of place and rather cryptic. 9/11 was an extraordinary event, and it was a conspiracy, those are plain facts. The official conspiracy theory is certainly no less extraordinary than the minority one. Since the government has the machinery to produce proof that we citizens do not, the remark should be tagged to the 9/11 Commission first, if the remark is true at all. So to me this seems to be a rhetorical diversion. What is extraordinary is a subjective measure so this doesn't inform the reader further. Further, the remark is probably not true. Proof is proof. Subjectively, people require more convincing of something they see as extraordinary, but this is a problem of psychology, not of logic; the term "require" implies this is true in logic. To turn it around, for what is completely ordinary (the sun rises every day) we require no proof at all. So I don't think it holds much water. JPLeonard 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GreekWarrior again

I'm not sure if you've seen his latest comment...

time is coming for revenge soon turk, i will avenge my uncle, my hatred of turks is unreal, you would have to experience it for yourself to understand it, i am totally dehumanized to the suffering of turks now, i dont laugh when turks die, because it is only a few when Kurds attack, i am like a 1/8th full glass, only a massacre of turks, a huge massacre, will placate my need for vengence, and even then it will only do it for while, i need to see dead turks, i want to see them die en masse. i hate them so much, i wish every turk in the world died of the most painful cancer imaginable, eating their intestines, god in heaven holds my words to be true or strike me down, i reaffirm again that i dont hate turks, i loathe them, from the pits of my heart, i need blood vengeance for what they did to my family, we are coming turks, get ready.

Can you please do something about this guy? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the ip for one month. If this happens again, we may need to request checkuser. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 17:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I would like to speak to you about your list of questionable links, what makes the links from chabad.org questionable? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just that there are so many of them - four hundred is too many. Some are justified, but I think we are being taken advantage of to promote the organization. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific links that you believe to be questionable? As was discussed on WP:AN chabad.org is the largest Jewish website in terms of visitors and one of the top in terms of content. The website that the organization uses to promote itself is lubavitch.com. While chabad.org is the content wing which spreads the message of Judaism. I will be happy to take a look at any specific links that you find questionable and either explain to you why it is there, correct the description, move it to a more appropriate article or if found that it doesn't belong there, to remove it. If you perfer to use email for this you can email me by clicking on the email this user by my userpage. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the pages that link, and I have not followed the links. My concern is that there are so many links at all. My interest is not particularly in chabad.org, as you can see from User:Tom harrison/Pages with questionable external links. I searched for links to chabad.org because I knew about the links from AN. No doubt other sites have more links with less justification. (I have not figured out how to get a list of sites with more than 100 links.) Prisonplanet.con and its satellites have over a hundred. More are added as Alex Jones writes the material. User:Striver would probably tell me that each individual link is justified and informative. I think he is misled by his enthusiasm for Jones' work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Paris

Greetings. I noticed your comments on the above article's long-standing revert war this morning, and added some notes of my own that may also be of interest to you - there's more amiss there than what first meets the eye.

Regards, THEPROMENADER 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Just to let you know that I'm impartial in this story. There is no 'right' side in that argument - both sides are ridiculous actually, and neither can be right because both have no references to refer to - both are making fictitious claims. This is not something I can correct, if not to eliminate the chart completely: one cannot compare the inexistent. THEPROMENADER 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

I unprotected Steven Jones article...I thiought a week was long enough, but they seem to be editing ferverishly over there again.--MONGO 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it will settle down. The only reason he has a page at all is his 9/11 conspiracy theory; without that he would be a non-notable academic. If that can't be mentioned neutrally, it can't be mentioned at all, and the page needs to go. At the same time, the page is a bio of Jones, not a pov fork to allow an exclusively favorable presentation of his theory under cover of WP:BLP. It looks reasonably balanced and sourced right now. If it stabilizes that way, we won't have to stub the page and start over. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why it's necessary to reduce the WTC section. As you say yourself, it's why he is notable.--Sloane 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all has to balance. If his theory is to be presented at length, criticism of it has to be presented at length. Then the whole business dominates the article. It stops being a biography and becomes yet another pov fork of 9/11 conspiracy theories. So it's not necessary to keep it short in theory, but may be in practice, in order to get a stable page that is legitimately a biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Badlydrawnjeff

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I feel your block of Jeff was extremely ill-advised. Civilized discussion is never disruption and without a doubt not block-worthy. If you feel the discussion was "clogging up" ANI or wasn't headed anywhere or was unproductive, fine, advise the participants to move it somewhere else, a user talk page perhaps. But blocking someone because they're arguing a minority viewpoint is in no way constructive and will never solve any problem. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was being disruptive. He was responding to every single comment and numerous admins made it clear he was being disruptive.--MONGO 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He was being disruptive because numerous admins said he was being disruptive," is a nonsense argument. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your opinion of my block. If you want to talk to Mongo, it might be easier to use Mongo's page, or your own. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hoffman

I see that you warned Locewtus about the three revert rule. He has continued to censor out sourced material and has reverted the article around 6-8 times today. Levi P. 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that he has been warned, I hope he will stop. If not, he will have to be reported, just like anyone else who violates 3RR. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's another dispute over at the Jim Hoffman, we could use your input.--Sloane 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing

The infoboxes on the 9/11 article are taking over the page...is there a way to reduce the size of the infobox on deaths, etc. or at least give it better spacing so the article text doesn't but up against the box..see this edit window...[25]...I only come to you as I know you're better with this sort of thing than I am...I've been looking for the guidelines on these types of templates, but can't seem to find them due to other disractions as of late.--MONGO 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'll see if I can come up with something. You might also ask Phaedril; She might be able to improve the whole layout. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is apparently on a long break, maybe permanently. I have already made some adjustments I think it looks fine now. I am also making sure all the cited references work, and updating them all to reflect when they were accessed and using cite templates. I hope to get half of the cited references done and will let you know where I stop if you wish to pick up from there...it would be nice to ghet the article as straight as possible in the next day or two. I'm shooting you an email as well.--MONGO 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as the section on Motive. Mainly, I'm just making sure the cite templates are used, checking the links to make sure they work, ensuring the retrived date is in the citation, so we know when it was last checked, and getting rid of those embedded links.--MONGO 09:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of SFCG Co., Ltd.

Hello. I'm considering doing (at least some of) the translation you requested back in January for SFCG Co., Ltd. However, before I start, I'd like to confirm something. As I've commented on the talk page, the article in the Japanese Wikipedia has been criticised for lacking accuracy and not taking a neutral point of view (and I agree with these criticisms). If you're still interested in this article, perhaps you could tell me - do you think that it would be useful to do the translation, given these problems? Grgcox 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. I think the Japanese article needs to take the lead on this. Let the contributors there get it in order and then it can be translated. If we translate something that's not neutral, we just multiply the problem. Thank you, though, for looking into it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbrCom Question

Just wondering, when an AbrCom is filed and there is a section titled "involved parties" do I add the parties involved or do I just leave myself and the person the AbrCom is being filed against and wait for others to place themselves as "involved parties"?--Jersey Devil 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but I would err on the side of not adding anyone unless you are sure he is involved. It seems like a name can be added later more easily than removed. If they take the case, the arbcom can look at anyone they want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I could have sworn that Striver had 2 RFCs. One by Zora a long time ago (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Striver) and another one but I can't find it. Am I mistaken? I think I might be.--Jersey Devil 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look, and post a link if I find anything. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9-11 Commission

I just signed up. Don't know what I'm doing. The 9-11 Commission article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report#Criticism ) has a quote from Paul Craig Roberts that says "citation needed." I believe the article is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html If you would like to tell me why this is wrong, I'm teachable. Vine&FigTree 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. The simple version would be to replace {{fact}} with [http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html]. I'll leave a boiler-plate welcome message on your talk page. It has some useful links to tutorials and policy pages. Happy editing, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Re: [26] the troll doesn't even know his/her politics. The right wing is adolf, not the left wing. "ADOLF STALIN" is juvenile. Travb (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And gratitude from my part for referencing that BBC link in aftermath article... Lovelight 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, both. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edit on barter

I was making a contribution on barter and do not understand why you reverted it. As I did not even achieved half of the explanation, I am shure you could not understand the meaning of what I wrote. It is the synthesis of a hard job of 3 year, that Idecided to present publically. My contribution to the subject is a software algorithmic approch to the unexplored area of barter. You should ask to an economic expert before considering my contribution as vandalism. I did not unedit nor remove anything, I just brought new ideas that are not yet verified by evrybody. Is it what you call vandalism? If you limit your encyclopedia to the consensus, I really think it is useless. I simply ask for an honest verification of what I write. The page barter is considered as of very low quality, and I really agree with this. The only contributors are private barter corporates, but no economists, or good experts on the subject. Is barter the favorite field of battle for vandalism fighters? I really appreciate the work made on this encyclopedia, and that is the reason why I contribute to It, but it is the second time I am accused of vandalism without any explanation. I expect you will change your mind, give me some advices, or at least explain your act.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olivierchaussavoine (talk • contribs) .

Looking more closely, I see that your edit was not vandalism. I'm sorry for mischaracterising it. It does, however, appear to be your own original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. In fact, we do pretty much follow concensus. New ideas that are not yet verified really have no place here. I am in no position to peer-review your work. I suggest you publish elsewhere first. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have a better comprehension of the ideological battle of money in the economic field, please have a look to my user page. The consensus is not the truth. Galileo paid a lot for it. It explains very clearly why contributions on money are excellent, and the low quality of barter article.

I understand your position if you consider your responsability is limited to the reputation of this encyclopedia, but most contributors consider it very wider. I suppose you are well aware of it, and that your readers will not be desappointed.

No academic publications are interested on the subject, so I put my contribution on the discussion page, explaining the real stakes of the debate. Very few experts are really working on the subject, and the article will remain a no man's land as long as it will be considered as a field of hostility.

If the administrative aspect of your work is determinant, ( I know, I am French), You should also consider that:

there is only fool and economists who think that an unlimited growth is possible in a limited world.

and the urgency there is to give new lights on this ideological economic debate.

Finally, It is not a research, (I made it very silently since a long time), but the real consequences of a research. When I said it will be verifiable, I meant it is not yet verifiable on line. It is only a small and very real software that I can run in front of anyone interested to it.

Olivierchaussavoine 11:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An other amaizing detail that looks like an abuse of power in the semantic field. Do you understand why barter is in the numismatic wikiproject since barter practice, in it's common sense, does not use any monetary system? Olivierchaussavoine 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an area I know much about. You might ask on Portal talk:Numismatics or Talk:Barter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Over for "Truth Professor" Jones

BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See [27]. Morton devonshire 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenkins said BYU's reputation was a consideration, too. "It is a concern when faculty bring the university name into their own personal matters of concern," she said.[28] - I wonder how long it will be until "9/11 researcher" becomes a pejorative. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to intrude, but I think you'll both get a kick out of this: [29] --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, and amusing. I think she has a future in tv. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it not so amusing if people 'erroneously' suspect the wrong suspects, and demonstrate at a place which is very emotional for the relatives and survivors.  Xiutwel (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For months the Jones article has either explicitly said that Jones' work has not been peer-reviewed, or, as is probably more appropriate, said nothing on the subject, but pointed out that he had not published in a reputable journal. Ironically, today, the day after he has been suspended by BYU, which in explanation said, " BYU has a policy of academic freedom, but what's expected is that professors submit their work to academic peer reviews so it can be challenged and debated by experts", there is now a line in the article that says his work has been P.R. So, now we have BYU stripping Jones of his teaching duties, in part because they say he has not submitted his work to P.R., but our article now says his work was P.R. As I am unable to edit the article, and it looks like you and Mongo were involved in the edit today, I guess I am just wondering what your thoughts are on this subject. Thanks Levi P. 02:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully in the next few days things will settle out into a balanced and accurate presentation of what the reliable sources have to say about it. Stay tuned, I guess. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

Hello Tom,

I have found you to be a very neutral admin and so I am asking to review a case concerning an editor you have had experience with in the past [30].

Thanks, BhaiSaab ^talk 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it, probably later today. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway though! :) BhaiSaab ^talk 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered - you can still look at [31] considering CltFn got no response from an admin to his incident notice. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]