User talk:Tom harrison/Archive 2008

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removal of Depictions of Prophet Muhammad

Sir,

I would like to take this opportunity to explain that any visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is forbidden in Islam. I request you, on behalf of Muslims, to remove the visual depictions. These are one of the main commandments in Islam, and it is very rude and derogatory to Muslims.

Please put your thoughts to this matter. It is very important.

Thank You

Regards Gauhar Kachchhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauharjk (talk • contribs)

This is not an area of my interest right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

tables formatting

I was needing some help in formatting a table for Years of coverage (social security) and since you're an admin I was hoping you could point me in the right direction, either a person or an article. Thanks. KV(Talk) 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you got this sorted out by now.Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Tom!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Amin, thank you for you kind good wishes. I hope you had a merry Christmas. Have a happy 2008. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles

We are going to go through another round of consideration for Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Last August your votes helped us decide our last round of promotions. Please consider the articles at WT:CHIASSESS and voice your opinion on whether they should be on the ballot near the end of January when we are considering our next round of promotions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, thanks, I'll look in if I get a chance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Tom. I just thought I would stop in and make a few quick edits to the project and maybe say hi to my old friends too. I hope things are good. SkeenaR (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian celebrations

Hello Tom, About your edit would you plese provide the full text of the source? thanks, Imad marie (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tom

Hope all is well. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, thanks, but busy, and less than eager to spend the time I do have on wiki. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent AIDS article edit

I'm fine with the term "conspiracy theory" in talking about many, if not most, prevalent non-scientific consensus theories about AIDS. So I'm not reverting your edit for that reason, though I know some would. It's just that it's a little too sweeping in this case.

Edward Hooper, who gets a fair share of treatment in that article, is not and was not (clearly, anyway) a conspiracy theorist, even though he wrote a whole long book about how bad laboratory work in Africa might have created HIV. And there are others, I'm sure, who believe some accidental iatragenic theory of HIV, but who don't think there's been some cover-up of that origin, only a systemic bias against the idea. For the case in question here, it's much harder to suppose that U.S. scientists might have created HIV in the lab, but that there's no conspiracy theory. At the very least, even if it was legitimately funded secret biological warfare research (or for some other purpose), how could we not know that unless there was a coverup? Still, it's better to leave it at "claims", I think. Structurally, I'd start with the less crazy theories, and only start using "conspiracy" where it was getting pretty clear, and "conspiracy theory" where you're talking about people who spin those for a living.

I sometimes make edits hastily, without reading carefully. Sounds like you're taking a bit of a vacation from working on Wikipedia intensively. Maybe you should be careful about this kind of minefield article?

I'm currently trying to resolve tricky (possibly WP:BLP) issues about the mention of Paul Farmer in this article. And I realize I've got my work cut out for me, because I know almost nothing about Farmer, or HIV epidemiology, or Haiti, or what Farmer might have said vs. what a friend of his, Noam Chomsky, might have said in joint forum appearances and in an introduction to one of Farmer's books. Editing these kinds of articles seems like it should be easy, because they are chiefly about people who have gotten things wrong. Sometimes amazingly wrong. So much of being Wikipedian is about making things right, and that makes us so much more on top of those who are amazingly wrong, doesn't it? Yeah, usually. But sometimes, people get things wrong for subtle and complex reasons, and accurately characterizing their positions and their errors is commensurately subtle and complex. And all broken clocks are right twice a day, so sometimes these wrong people are right, too, in certain ways.

Anyway, you're an admin, I'm not, so I really don't want to antagonize you. Obviously. I just want you to understand. I'm not the world's greatest living expert on AIDS and weird hypotheses about it (though my hopefully-WP:BLP-compliant work on Leonard Horowitz might someday -- shoot me first! -- qualify me as a specialist on the guy.) I just think you got it wrong here. Subtly wrong. Understandably wrong. But still wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. ;-) Yakushima (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparent inconsistency

In your recently-added section at the Cla68-FM-SV Evidence page, you say both Also, the noticeboard section where he added his question had already made that obvious to anyone with minimal background...WR believed that one of their pet targets lives in Swalwell (JzG) and, in the very next sentence, Cla68 pretended to ask an innocent question so he could draw attention to speculation about SlimVirgin's real name and where she lives. That appears to be inconsistent: it is illogical to simultaneously claim that Cla68 must have been aware of the speculation because the noticeboard already drew attention to it, and that Cla68 was being underhanded in order to draw attention to it. Either its already mentioned on the noticeboard, in which case Cla68's question is possibly rhetorical and certainly has no effect in terms of drawing attention, or it isn't, in which case Cla68's question could well be genuine. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why am I leaving Wikipedia?

Tom, take a good look at my user page! I believe it documents that fact that I have been a long time contributor of good articles related to my many years of engineering experience.

So why have I decided to leave Wikipedia? Because I have grown weary of the revisions made by unexperienced people who think they know a subject when they really don't know it. I am also weary of people who make revisions because they "know better than anyone else". In particular, the actions of one young postgrad student who calls himself Headbomb with whom it is impossible to reason because of his firm belief that he is infallible ... and that he and only he "knows better than anyone else". His attitude has finally been the last straw in making my decision to leave Wikipedia. I am simply tired of trying to reason with the likes of Headbomb.

Goodbye to all the friends I did make here in the past two and a half years or so.

mbeychok (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Tom - you've previously expressed interest in a Chicago wiki-meet. If you're interested in coming to another one, take a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and let us know your thoughts. best — Dan | talk 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have participated in discussion at either Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3 or Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as an active member. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now atrying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

respectful treatment

Hi Tom harrison. You wrote on the New antisemitism talk page: "I'm sure we all agree that each of us is entitled to respectful treatment from others." Could you expand on that? It seems unlikely that you are suggesting that Slrubenstein needs an attitude adjustment. If you think I have done something wrong, I will not fall apart if you just say what is on your mind. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed your behavior, and I assume in good faith that nobody on the talk page has done anything wrong or spoken an unkind word. That said, I do make unlikely suggestions from time to time. It would be nice maybe to get past 'You're uncivil!' and 'You're another!' and it would be great never again to read on a talk page any variation of 'I refuted you!' Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the discord is miserable. And I admit that I can sometimes be abrasive or sarcastic. But I do not think I ever used the words "I refuted you". I also certainly never said "you're uncivil", although I did many times ask two other editors to stop their incivility. I try to avoid accusations against other editors because I consider doing that vicious. I try to focus on the edits, not the editors. If you should see any occasion when I am editing in a way contrary to that, please point that out to me. I would appreciate that. It would really be a lot more fun to just give up on the article and do something else, but now that I have started (and am trying to do something I think right), I will follow through. If it should seem that I am harsh on occasion, I am sorry. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing, Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Can you please take a loot at and comment on Talk:Acid_attack#Motivation_of_Attackers.--CreazySuit (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I know nothing about that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed references

Hi Tom, I was wondering whether you could take another look at the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. page and the removed references. You removed two references, only one of which was from infowars.com (the other one was from a journal article). In addition, the infowars.com article is cited from another source, which cites Congressional sources on the amount that prisoners earn and their conditions. It would be concerning if the facts cited by these references were removed if the article consequently became whitewashed with regards to FPI. I've been hunting down some other sources, but I was wondering if you agreed that the Rolling Thunder source should be re-instated. Thanks.Sumthingweird (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So A. Stepanian, in a letter to Rolling Thunder: An Anarchist Journal of Dangerous Living, says Federal Prison Industries sucks? Probably not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Try these instead:

Hoover's. (2008, Aug. 26). Federal Prison Industries, Inc. Hoover's Company Records - In-Depth Records. Retrieved Aug. 29, 2008, from LexisNexis Academic database. (Try a local public library or college library; many have database access.)
"ABC News: Family: Prison Worker's Death Caused by Toxic Dust". Retrieved 2008-08-29.
"ABC News: Prison Work Program May Have Put Hundreds of Prisoners and Workers at Risk". Retrieved 2008-08-29.
"Slammed: Welcome to the Age of Incarceration". Retrieved 2008-08-29.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note on removing references and links

I think it is important to include why you're removing the references in your edit summaries. Also, in some cases there may be better sources available for the same information, so you might want to leave an invisible comment and a fact-tag if the information that was sourced by the reference might be disputed. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

September 11 attacks edits

Hi Tom,

Here you see that Tarage and I have been discussing a revert that you did. We're looking for better wording on introducing the last sentence. Have a look and see if you can come up with something.

On another note, take a look at the independent study by Purdue University in this section. I read it and it seems a lot more accurate to say they simulated what is described rather than confirmed it. If i missed something in there that indicates otherwise, can you quote it directly? I can't find it. Dscotese (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Government documents and reliable sources

Tom, you stated: "Hi Twoggle, I've asked for opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sorry for not letting you know sooner. I won't do anything until you've had a chance to give your thoughts there." Your discussion page starts with "Tom is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries."

But then within 30 hours or so, you went an removed it again without any attempt at talk on the discussion pages of the articles, without any knowledge of Editors of those pages letting them know of the discussion going on, without any chance for me to give input, and finally without a consensus on the Reliable Sources discussion.

I'm thinking that we are just not communicating well at the moment. I have start a discussion on the article's web page about these government references and how that might effect other government references in these aspartame articles and all Wikipedia articles. I think that is the appropriate first step to take. What do you think? Twoggle (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Resolution" of Egyptian Race Controvery Article Talk Page Discord

Given that three/fifths of my posts at the above page were responses to direct questions from other editors/contributors (including one response to your own query), and a fourth was a brief and balanced reply to a bit of reactionary attempted affrontery issued by the editor Dbachmann (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&oldid=236248176), the claim that I am "beating a dead horse" seems more than a bit off-base, particularly issued by a presumably neutral site administrator. Further, I have not tried to "keep slant[ing]" this, nor any other Wikipedia artricle, to my "point of view" (much the opposite, in fact). I executed the aforementioned word choice edits, and those edits were reversed by a particular editor of dubious intent as pertain Wikipedia entries of somewhat similar subject (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_of_Jesus&oldid=234868160 and within this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&oldid=236052184).

In response, I merely re-established my attempted edits. Another editor interjected and reverted the entry to its original station. I have not touched the article since. If my objective was to "slant" the article's perspective in favor of some POV, surely I would have made far more significant hay with its current content.

I say this with all due repect. It is not my intent to disparage you, nor anyone else in this site's community; I am merely seeking a balanced response, given the evidence at hand. Thank you.

sewot_fred (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you are asking? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wasn't "asking" anything per se, Tom Harrison -- my intent here was more so to clarify my participation on the aforementioned talk page (I placed my comments here in light of the threatened ban for "beat[ing] a dead horse"). But if I may pose two direct questions now: given the evidence at hand, "why the proposed ban?" and "where do my activities at the Talk Page or encyclopedic entry in question warrant such a measure?"

I forward these question, just so that I may guage the propriety (or the necessity) of any future participation on my part, and so that I may begin to attain some tangible insight as to the pragmatic, ideological and philosophical positions & objectives informing this community's editors & administrators. Thanks for your time,

sewot_fred (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the proposed ban? Because your posts to the talk page were becoming disruptive, and your goal is clearly to give undue weight to a fringe position. The section is "Recent Barlow Counter Edits". The sanctions are at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Don't keep revisiting the same issues; don't 'talk on stilts.' I suggest you work in some other areas for a few months. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"[D]on't talk on stilts". That's rich, Tom. Very best to you & this fine community of courteous wits.

sewot_fred (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

...And a cabal ganging up on you...!

Assume good faith, and remember that consensus-editing is Wikipedia working correctly, and a cabal ganging up on you.

I hadn't laughed that hard in a long time!!!! Glad you corrected the omission, though. "Assume good faith, it's just a cabal working against you, but that's normal for Wikipedia." Ooops!!! --Ramdrake (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I laughed myself when I saw my mistake:-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Essay template

Answered in Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Mukadderat (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On a personal note, I don't understand your hostile threats. Mukadderat (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, gentlemen. There should be no umbrage taken. Martin Bernal's quote on temporal sequencing in light of debate on non-mainstream propositions applies: he advised "expect your position to be ignore[d], dismiss[ed], attack[ed], and then absorbed[ed]" by the protectors of static consensus. Before him, Mohandas K. Gandhi said it in even more unforgettable fashion: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win." Best,

sewot_fred (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops!

Thanks for catching this boo boo revert of mine [1]. I havent been around here in a while and I'm pretty rusty. :-/ TheQuandry (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

VOA blocking

Tom, per the vandal User talk:Dine Peril and his "friend" User:Ace Trigonometry being puzzled per a WP:ANI posting about the reason for the block, I recommend placing the template {{uw-voablock}} when banning a vandalism only account, or one of the other fine templates to be found at [2]. Thanks for your vandalwhacking efforts. Edison (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind for next time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Theodore7

You indefinitely blocked User:Theodore7 in August 2007. This editor was making legal threats and personal attacks then (at least in 2006). He has been e-mailing me, asking if there is a way he could "prove [himself]]" and contribute to Wikipedia again. What do you think about giving him one more chance? Perhaps some sort of probation would be appropriate? He is an astrologer, and so his content contributions are very controversial, in addition to his personal dealings with a number of administrators. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think unblocking would be a disruptive waste of time. Mine was just the last of a dozen blocks over a year and a half. He should remain blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore NicoBloc

Please restore NicoBloc. I didn't create the article, but when I saw that someone had tagged it for speedy deletion, I added references to it, including one from BBC News which discussed how a hospital was testing the product, and other references from a magazine read by pharmacists in the United Kingdom. I think the references were enough to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Done; sorry for the inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Soothagel and Sarakan

Similarly, could you please restore Soothagel and Sarakan? I had located and added references for these articles as well, and I think the references were probably enough to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As above. Thanks for fixing these up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at RFAR

Absolutely. Before, after. Durova^Charge! 04:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, and exactly my point. Your comments on notice boards are taken seriously because of your contributions. You're here to write, and to help others write. Too many people seem to aspire to a career in site administration, doing little themselves, stirring up drama, and interfering with others. They'd do better to follow your example. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Primetime vandal

You're being hit by Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have to step away from the computer but you might need to protect pages and file a checkuser request (to find sleeper socks) to get this cleared up. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime I can help in a couple of hours if it's still a problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tip. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, turned out I didn't need to go after all - but you did it is as well as I could have. I wonder what you did to catch his attention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your input would be most welcome

Pertaining to the Patrick M. McCarthy issue, and your notes on the subject on the biography board. I would like to reach a consensus along the lines of what you have proposed (merge it with the subjects, do not cover the person). Thank you again for your input. It was spot on in my opinion.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

		The Original Barnstar
		I, User:Jayjg, award you this barnstar for consistently good edits and lucid, intelligent Talk: page comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Forest of Fear

Before I rewrite the page Forest of Fear, I would like your advice on how to make the article less promotional. What did I do wrong? Just looking for advice and clarification.

Saintjimmy777 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Find references to the attraction is reliable third-party sources like newspapers and magazines. They need not be available online. If it's sufficiently well-known, you might mention it on Talk:Haunted attraction and see if anyone has suggestions. Possibly you could start with a short paragraph about it on the page about the town it's in, or as a short section in some other article, and see what editors there think. For convenience I've put the deleted content at User:Saintjimmy777/fear. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much sir. I'll work on it.

Saintjimmy777 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

aaron russo

How is info on aaron russo removed due to BLP.. when he is dead? Im confused.. also why is the malkin confrontation removed.. it is well sourced and in the media.. not to mention filmed from many angles.. -71.232.179.236 (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh, my mistake about Russo then. Thanks. The material on Malkin does not have a reliable source, and is still excluded under blp. You can discuss that on Talk:Alex Jones (radio), or at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup- I've been unblocked- thanks pal. Uranium grenade (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sorry for the trouble. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A7 deletion of Gary Claxton

Hi Tom. You deleted Gary Claxton as not asserting notability or importance. I've been able to find a few newspaper articles about the guy in google news archives that actually establish notability. [3] [4] [5] [6]. It's local coverage, but I think it would be enough to pass an AFD. Would you mind restoring this article and dropping a note to its creator?--chaser - t 02:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Done; happy editing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Collapse of the WTC

Aude has initiated an effort to improve this article...as an engineer, your assistance would be beneficial. I recognize that you may wish to avoid such a place with all the drama it was festooned with in the past, but I think under yours and Aude's supervision, I believe it can now become featured level work. I am glad to help cleanup as I can...just thought you might like to know.--MONGO 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please recreate Brian Plante page

I did not understand how the Prod process worked, therefore did not contest the Prod. I can build the article up. The subject is notable as he has 40 SF stories published...and they are in major markets like Analog.TCO (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be wishy washy, but maybe it should die. There are lots other places that need new articles or need real research based content more.TCO (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neural correlates of consciousness

Hi -- I've reverted your edit. I'm actually indifferent to which of these two versions gets in, but I am opposed to reverting a good faith edit without explanation, and have reverted back on principle. Regards, looie496 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit was by a banned user. I'll see if I can improve on the edit summaries to make that clear in the future. Nothing wrong with what you did, but you could also assume I'm acting in good faith and know what I'm doing. Happy editing, Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been maintaining WikiProject Neuroscience for the past couple of months, so it's useful for me to know what's actually going on in the important articles. I'm a bit confused here -- if this is a banned user, why doesn't the user's talk page say anything? Where can I find the background for this? looie496 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ethics2med is a sock of User:amorrow. The blocking adimn may be able to give you more details about the block. One of amorrow's interests is Terri Schiavo. If on your project you see an editing pattern like Ethics2med's, it would be helpful to let someone know as soon as you can. Email the foundation if you prefer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. looie496 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:GenuineMusic

You blocked User:GenuineMusic as a banned user and deleted their contributions, but you didn't indicate which banned user this was an alternate identify for, or how you determined that they were a sock of a banned user. Could you provide clarification? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a sock of User:amorrow based on the area of interest and editing pattern. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Random revert-warring

Thanks for making sure you reverted the correction of "recieving food aid which hat to be collected", you truly improved the project with your edit-warring by insisting that an article be kept exactly as-is written by a small group of three authors with shared political views, and not even allowing grammatical corrections by anonymous users. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was grammatically correct as written. I don't understand what you mean about the hat. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom, shame on you...didn't you know that the taliban are actually "socially progressive"? And that William Ayers is actually a "freedom fighter"?--MONGO 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's all more than I can get my head around. Mullah Omar must be a community organizer. Back in the nineties a Democratic congressman made news by comparing the Republican congressional delegation to the Taliban. If the Republicans were like the Taliban, I have to think the Taliban must have been like the Republicans. Wild -- You need a weather vane to see which way the wind blows today. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you write a little known book, you can "honor" John Wilkes Booth and other poorly understood prisoners kept in confinement by an extremely far right wing U.S. Government...by placing him in the cover jacket....and this will suddenly make you an "educator".[7]--MONGO 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Metaform page

Hi Tom. I'm writing because you were the admin who had the final say for deleting the Metaform page. I of course feel this artist has notability not only in the San Francisco & Tokyo DJ scenes, but elsewhere. I have some sources to present for your consideration: [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]. In regards to the article contents, I think removing the Early Life section and slimming down the Music Career section would better the article. What do you think? Are more sources necessary to prove artist notability? If so, would you consider these references enough notability to create a Wiki Page for the album, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants (Metaform album)? Thanks! !C to the M! (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tom, another admin deleted the page just hours after you restored and before I had a chance to make changes. !C to the M! (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw that - take it up with him if you want. If multiple people keep reaching the same conclusion, that may mean the content isn't appropriate for the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Land Surveyor

Sorry if I'm more clueless than usual, but who is the banned user? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter_Damian. Avruch^T 22:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,Avruch. I don't say the block is unjustified, but it needs to be followed by an open consideration of the oversighted edits. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the accounts were brought to the attention of the Committee some time ago, we've just been slack in responding. This should have been handled last week. --bainer (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right

Sorry for the paranoia and inconvenience, but I'd need to hear from you via an email address I already know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mbeychok

I learned today that Mbeychok quit wikipedia because of me (he's back now). Since you said goodbye to him, you probably read his version of things, but didn't have mine. I don't really care for comments on the whole situation as it's water under the bridge to me, but I would at least like to have the chance to clear my name. You don't have to agree with me or even reply, but I wrote on a rant on my user page, and I would appreciate if you took a minute to read it. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments and support. They have been very much appreciated. Giano (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

David Icke

Hi. I see you have reverted my edits to the David Icke article. I have just changed these back. If you notice, I left in the bits from people who have labeled Icke as a New Ager, including: "a position that has been described as "New Age conspiracism."" right at the top.

Icke is not a New Ager. In fact he has dedicated a chapter in one of his books to criticising the New Age movement. So, saying he is a new ager explicitly has no place in an encyclopedia, but it is fine to have the claims that he is in there, so I left them in.

I forget which of his books has the aforementioned chapter. If you look through them you will probably find out which one it is or if there is more than one.

Just Googled up this from one of his books:

"My experience and observations lead me to believe that parts of the “New Age” scene are among the most easy to manipulate. It is the naivety which makes it so. I have heard Bill Clinton described as a “lightworker” by some in the New Age movement who have done no research whatsoever into the background to the man."

See it at: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/andtruthfreebook/truthfree15.htm

I have reverted the Icke article back to my edit, which also added some family info. --81.155.72.165 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Count of N.

No, there's no reason to wait. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Check this out

I figured you might want to weigh on this one. It's for deletion of a GITMO detainee article.[[13]] Here's another.[[14]] Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame and Aspartame controversy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

archive Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What are your thoughts?

[15] This is a list of habeus corpus petitions by GITMO detinees. Is there any reason why these should not be merged with their subjects?Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Some serious merging is in order. These Guantanamo pages have become like a walled garden. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)