User talk:Tom harrison/Archive12

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 October 2006 and 31 October 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/Archive13. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Tom, please take a look at new edit. I didn't know of you before, so I couldn't make a direct and personal request to you the way Levi P did, but after your recent involvement I came to your user page to let you know that I have made another attempt to edit the Kevin Barrett page and to keep it neutral and well sourced but Levi P has already reverted it without discussion or explanation. I thought Wikipedia policy was against reverting good faith edits. Please do something. 70.39.159.197 04:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, Pihanki has now knowingly violated WP:3RR. I am not going to revert again, since I believe I am at my limit. Since he has also insulted me, and told bald-faced lies in his edit summary, it seems something should be done. Thanks for looking into this. Levi P. 04:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a violation, and if he did it after being warned, you can report it at the noticeboard. Probably no great harm will come from letting it all sit for a day or two. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, and I'll do so. I did warn him, and that coupled with his other actions has gotten me annoyed. I'm going to go do something that doesn't involve editing with strangers. Thanks, Levi P. 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Do you have some specific objection to Morton Devonshire's? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See [1]. Tbeatty has now refactored my remarks to avoid repeating the offensive and possibly actionable remarks. Morton has, in trying to tone down the libel, actually made it worse in my opinion, as I intend to tell him. I don't see why anybody needs to have material like this on a user page; it's hard to think of an encyclopedic reason. --Guinnog 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't want anybody to think it was personal; it isn't. I'll consider your advice of course, but I think my polite request to him to remove potentially libellous and certainly unencyclopedic content from his user page is a reasonable enough one. --Guinnog 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I am not a lawyer and don't mean to come across like one. There's something though about having controversial stuff like this on a user page that I find rather uncollegial, and maybe I should focus on that rather than my very real worry that we could leave ourselves open to legal threat by publishing such material, even in user space. --Guinnog 05:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing protected broken redirect

Good evening, I have found that you are working on removing pages tagged for speedy deletion. I came across a broken redirect that is fully protected, and need a admin to can it for me. Sharpshade affect is the page name. Thanks for your help. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbushka

Have you got a rationale for me, Tom? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was mildly interesting, but I don't care a lot. Put the tag back if you want and I'll let someone else decide. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorbushka

—Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-04 17:00Z

All I want is an apology

I only want a simple apology form her. Thats all, there was a misunderstanding on her part. She should apologize to me with respect to that misunderstanding. I am being extremely reasonable here. If she apologizes to me then there will be no problem. --Street Scholar 16:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

Kornz 20:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC) why was the avi eurlich page deleted?[reply]

The page as it was made no claim that would meet our standard of notability. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Talk Page

I'm not actively interested in unprotecting the page, after all it is Mongo's space and he can do with it as he sees fit. I'm more interested in having a dialog on the ethical rammifications of protecting moderator talk pages, and whether it is out of alignment with their responsibilities to the community, which I obviously think it is. If you're interested in persuing the subject let me know, and I'd love to talk out the various points with you. Urek

Revert War

There has been a long revert war at Paraguay supermarket fire with User:Hyperbole insisting on putting information regarding William Rodriguez. I don't know what to do anymore.--Jersey Devil 02:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baragalophobia

i am really disappointed about removal of Baragalophobia, i did so much research before coining the word, how else English has so many words without being borrowed from other languages and new words being coined. At least it should have been discussed before being deleated.--Ganesha1 06:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a very fine unblock review

"I do not believe you are here to help write an encyclopaedia" - bang on the money, I will steal it shamelessly :-) Guy 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley

nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My speach impediment.

Why do you make fun of me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brunky (talk • contribs) .

I'd need a link to know what you are talking about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance

Hi there, I'm pretty new here... like 2 days old :) Primarily, I'm reverting vandalism and nonsense, and I've come across a tricky situation where I don't really want to stuff it up. The article for Garlic has had some section blanking done to it, and I've left some messages and had a short discussion on the user in questions Talk Page, though I'm concerned I'm doing something wrong. Would you mind having a quick gander for me? Hopefully I'm helping and not hindering. :) Sorry for the trouble. Pursey 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any significant problem with the content, or your handling of it. To the extent that it's controversial to say that some people dislike the smell of garlic, it is cited. We could probably use a better, or another, citation if you run across one. Cumin likewise, except I see we need a citation for 'Their smell can also be detected in the eater's sweat...' Maybe some print cooking reference would have something. Clearly Abossone is working in good faith. In the case of Cumin, he removed something that was uncited, that I assume he thought was inaccurate. A citation should be added there. Of course if one can't be found, the statement should be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Prefer not to get things wrong past where I need to do so to further my own understanding of things ;) Pursey 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightning-Feather

You blocked him for making a legal threat, but now he is harassing me by e-mail. Do you know the appropriate venue to report that here? CRCulver 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't think there is much we can do about that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

It's Ok, Feel Free to Delete it, I was Just testing if i can create another user page for myself, Sorry for that :)

Kind Regards.ColdFire 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more user page

Hi. I was wondering if you could cast a second pair of eyes over User:WhisperToMe and see if you think I am being ridiculously picky about the 9/11 joke the user has there. I find it distasteful to make a joke like that about an event where 4000 people died; the editor is refusing (so far) to take it down. Be grateful if you have the time to take a look. Thanks. --Guinnog 05:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not offend me, but I do not really understand it either. I guess I reserve the right to take offense later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. User took it down after intervention from MONGO and Gwernol. Best wishes. --Guinnog 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Roman page deletion

I'm confused as to why that page was deleted. Could you point out my mistakes so I don't do them again? Poonerpoob 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for the links! Poonerpoob 02:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Elitism

Is it too much to assume sometimes someone else knows a bit more about certain subjects than yourself. Just simply deleting an entry because it is uncited is not a way to encourage contributions. If you are in doubt about a validity of an entry, make an effort to verify it yourself which might take a little bit more effort than just deleting it with such glee.This deprives readers of Wikepedia of information just as much as the vandalism.

Alvaro Noboa was a very well known Roseen,I submit the follwing for verification. If you feel these are adequate then kindly replace the said entry.

Regards.

http://www.pmcomm.com/guayaquil/alvaronoboa.htm Life magazine issue May 7, 1965—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.78.66.235 (talk • contribs) .

We have a page on Álvaro Noboa, but I have never edited it, so I am not sure what you are refering to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's elitist...how dare you:)--MONGO 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The high pay and prestige of being a Wikipedia editor have gone to my head. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this has nothing to do with a pro-Peruvian conspiracy to eradicate Ecuadorean related articles....nothing what so ever...--Jersey Devil 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Important.

Thnx for telling me about the sandbox, big help really. Now I can stop fooling with reall articles. Sorry for any inconvieniance.

Marsden

Hi Tom. I've undone your revert to Marsden, which I think undid about two weeks of small changes by several parties (here is the diff). Since this was something that you quite rightly corrected me for here, I'm sure you won't object. I'd like to welcome you to come and help us make the page better. Perhaps some of the sections that have been removed should be. But can we do this one stage at a time? Best, Bucketsofg 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

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

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 03:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Elitisim

This refers to the merciless deleting that takes place on the Institute Le Rosey article. Entries are simply removed without any verification. Its accepted occasionally entries are made which are completely unsubstantiated and thus should be removed (a recent one is Princess Diana) however there are names submitted, though uncited which to anyone somewhat moderately well read will make sense or if not at least merit subsequent verification by the Wikipedia admin. Álvaro Noboa was one such entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.194.138.132 (talk • contribs) .

You would need to provide a verifiable citation to a reliable source to support what you want to add. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian mathematics

Hi Tom. Thank you for the huge clean-up on Ancient Egyptian mathematics. I'm hoping you have some expertise in this area, because there is still a lot of work to be done on the article. If you're interested, we might try to tackle it together. If not, fair enough. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am interested, but I have no particular expertise. I look forward to working with you on further improvements, but progress may be difficult until we can attract enough editors. I see it is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Maybe we can make it also part of Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Tom, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 04:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you!

Thanks for the nice comments. Happy editing! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I happened to come across your name while browsing Wikipedia, and noticed your talk page is incredibly long. You may want to consider archiving. I can't point you to an exact link, but I can explain it fairly well if you ask. Dooms Day34 9 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should install User:Werdnabot. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellison

The rewrite was a simple statement of facts, supported by legitimate news sources. Rather than simply removing content you don't want out there, how about improving the edits? I have tried to rewrite without bias, and I would appreciate an explanation of your objection, so that if YOU'RE too lazy to improve the article, then I can take the time to do it well. And if you're going to revert, how about reverting to one with good grammar?! V105memorial 17:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)v105memorial[reply]

September 11, 2001, attacks

Hi Tom. The paragraph you edited a few minutes ago starts "In an audiotape aired on Al Jazeera on May 21, 2006, bin Laden said he had personally directed the 19 hijackers.[49]". The linked reference [49] is to a video tape, not audio, and it was taped in October, not May. Moriori 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it is a video tape. My mistake. Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thx

Thanks for the star, its my first one =) Lostcaesar 14:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom harrison,

Just wanted to let you know that on your user page, on fav. quotes, you put "adams' razor", but the real name is actually "occams' razor" after william occam, who "invented" it. (you know, whatever seems simplest is probably right). Yeah, might want to change that. Well, bye. Your Face

You are right about Occam's razor. If you follow the link, Adams' razor is explained in a blog post by Scott Adams. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading some of the comments posted there...some of them such as "becuase it's easier to win a second term if you're already in a war" and simply "Iran" with qualification, does actually make some sense...maybe I just nned to get off line.--MONGO 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a good blog, but the comments are a mixed bag. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DR DIY

Hi there, would you like to close the above, since you seem to have already speedied it. -MrFizyx 22:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deleted it but forgot to close it out. Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I should learn to do that myself sometime. -MrFizyx 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming template changes

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of the word "pact"

Tom, Please let me know why did you remove it? Watt says that there was *certainly* a general agreement between Jews and Muhammad cf Encyclopedia of Islam Qurayza article. Could you please let me know the reason for that? --Aminz 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At that particular time I was editing to correct the grammar. Since then I see that there is disagreement about whether it was a pact, or an imposition of terms, which looks to me more likely. I'm not an expert but something I read the other day, maybe by Lewis or Hourani, makes me think so. It sounds like str1977 has a cite from Lewis. If there are two views, I think we present both without endorsing either. And again, as a general principle, detailed discussion about the Constitution of Medina should go on that page, not on Islam. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much interested to see the Lewis or Hourani's quote on whether the Jews were forced to agree or were given the choice to refuse. --Aminz 21:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the key, what the citations say. I'll see what I can find when I get a chance. Meanwhile, searching Amazon for "Constitution of Medina" might show us something. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will check with the encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia of Qur'an and Encyclopedia of Religion. But right now, I am looking for books written on Muhammad. Will work on it soon. Cheers, --Aminz 21:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little (spammed) thank you

➨ **ЯEDVERS** awards this Barnstar to **Tom Harrison** for reasoned, thoughtful production of ideas when asked for them in a debate that have helped me and others and have thus improved Wikipedia for everybody. Thank you.

My Editor Review

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my edits. If you have the time could you possibly leave a review or comment on Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]