User talk:Tom harrison/Archive02

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2005.

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/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Troop 34

I suggest you reconsider your vote to delete the Troop 34 article, pending further edits. Also, all troops deserve a wiki article, and especially this one, it is quite remarkable.

Thanks

Dear Mr. Harrison Thank you very much. It is very nice to have one’s work appreciated. Most of my literary efforts tend to get deleted, as people seemed to think that this reflects my point of view, so I’ve been forced to dull down my style. Personally, I prefer substance over style, but also think that articles should be clearly written and easy to read without tying to dumb them down. Offhand, I can’t think of any occasions, when one might use the phrase “thinly veiled admonitory allegory”. Thanks very much; after having to endure comments from some of the more ill-manned contributors, it is very good to hear some words of appreciation. Yours Sincerely A.S. Brown 03:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Conspiracy Theory discussion on other page

Hi, some of my recent edits are based on a big discussion on this page:

[1]

Please join in.--Cberlet 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirigisme

I'm a bit unhappy about your copyediting. For instance, as far as I know, manuals of style usually specify that one does not use a capital after a colon or semicolon. I reverted your changes, feel free to let me know your opinion. David.Monniaux 18:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Jesus

Thanks for your quick fix after my error of omission. --Dpr 00:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington edit summary

Howdy. Changing "Washington first gained prominence as an officer during" to "Washington first achieved prominence as an officer in" isn't exactly vandalism, as your edit summary indicates. If you disagree with a grammatical change like that one, please say so in the edit summary rather than referring to it as vandalism. Thanks, android79 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. See User talk:Android79 and User talk:209.7.119.170. Tom harrison 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superscan

You can let it run, or enter a comment saying that you withdraw the nomination. The choice is yours. Don't let my single keep vote bully you into withdrawing it if you still have reservations about it. If you do withdraw it, I know the markup to mark it as closed. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had some concerns at first, but I think they can be addressed by expanding the article. See Talk:Superscan. I'm inclined to let the vote run its course. Thanks, Tom harrison 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melchizedek

Mr. Harrison, why do you want to start with the article about DOM that is less balanced and less complete as a starting point? KAJ 12:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined both, it looks to me like the version I suggested is in fact better-balanced and more complete, and is preferred by a consensus of editors. Tom harrison 13:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The version I chose to edit, had more quotes in it and gave two sides of the story, so I'm not clear why you feel that it is better-balanced and more complete. KAJ 13:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having come to this through the request for comment, I know little and care less about the Dominion of Melchizedek. I looked at both versions and reached a conclusion based on my own judgement. Other reasonable men might disagree. The place to argue the merits of the different versions of the article is on the talk page.

Like the rest of the editors you can do as you please; But so far that doesn't seem to be working very well, having resulted in an edit war, request for comment, and suspicions of sockpuppetry. Like the rest of us, you want to improve Wikipedia; Your methods aren't getting you what you want. If you'll excuse some gratuitous advice, I suggest you take a day to pause and think, and then try to build consensus for what you want to do a little at a time. Tom harrison 14:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this gratuitous advice, which I will follow by taking a day to pause and think about it. KAJ 14:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Harrison: Have posted my first attempt to build consensus about the first line of the article about Dominion of Melchizedek entitled "just the facts". Please have a look and let me know what I should do next. KAJ 19:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melchizedek sockpuppets

Please be aware that KAJ is one of the sockpuppets used by Johnski, who has been attempting to insert his outrageous POV concerning Melchizedek into multiple articles over many months, despite a strong consensus against this by many other editors. His actions in this regard have been identified as persistent vandalism of Wikipedia - for which he has been reported numerous times. For evidence of sockpuppet activity see here. This editor is strongly suspected of being an active member of Melchizedek - and quite possibly is a member of the Pedley family. He is incapable of rational discourse on this subject and should not be encouraged. --Centauri 23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of the discussion on the talk page. Unless there are IP addresses confirmed as the source of edits under multiple names, I'm going to suspend a conclusion. In one sense it doesn't matter except for votes and discussions. The writing is good or bad no matter who wrote it.

Still, I understand your concluding point. I have no interest in seeing the article adopt a tone of naive credulity. In fact, I have only a limited, and waning, interest in the DoM. I will say that so far KAL has behaved reasonably with me. Maybe taking the article a paragraph at a time and considering his recommendations would be useful, if time-consuming. I welcome your opinion on the proposed first paragraph. I understand it must be exasperating to keep re-hashing old arguments. After all, I'm the new-comer here, via the request for comment. I don't want to seem to come in and impose anything on people who have researched this in detail. Tom harrison 00:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered response. The reason I say that Johnski should not be encouraged is for precisely the reason you outlined above. He uses a very specific technique in attempting to insinuate his pro-DOM POV into articles - and that is to initially conduct what appears to be a "reasonable" discussion with parties unfamiliar with the dispute/s or his prior editing behaviour, on a "line by line" basis. This results in the discussion being dragged out interminably, endlessly regurgitating matters that have been discussed at length with other editors previously, while simultaneously giving him the apparent pretext to revert the article to his preferred version, using wildly misleading edit summaries. This is the well-practised technique of a fraudster whose intent is to deliberately mislead. The real intent is to exhaust those with whom he disagrees by entangling them in pointless circular arguments that continually sidestep the real issue, and which are devoid of evidential support. In the end most people throw up their arms in frustration and run screaming from the room - which allows him to continue unhindered. Just ask Davidpdx, who has gone from an outlook not dissimilar to your own, to adamant opposition, all within a few short weeks. --Centauri 01:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I wanted to address the comment you made in the above conversation: "I will say that so far KAL has behaved reasonably with me. Maybe taking the article a paragraph at a time and considering his recommendations would be useful, if time-consuming. I welcome your opinion on the proposed first paragraph. I understand it must be exasperating to keep re-hashing old arguments."

First, Johnski (aka KAL/Saumelspade/etc) will not act in good faith. There have been many well documented cases of this user reverting and not showing good faith. I urge you to take the time to look back through the archieve talk pages as well the history of the article itself in terms of his behavior in reverting the article.

Second, I did try in good faith to come up with a compromise. Each time I asked for proof I was told by Johnski (aka KAL/ Saumelspade/etc) that they (they being his multiple personalities) had provided it. Even during the time we were trying to compromise, Johnski (aka KAL/ Saumelspade/etc) claimed he had seven people that supported his version. "I counted at least 7 different IP addresses and User names that showed tendency towards the versions that I worked on."-Johnski (see current talk page). This begs the question, where are those seven people? I respect the fact that you may not have a large amount of time to spend on this article. However, given the situation it is important to know the background of the situation and the lies that this user has commmitted and the fraud in which he is pushing.

Third, don't your think it is suspicious that these "new" users pop up out of no where, but Johnski suddenly disappears? I guarantee you it is no coincidence. There have been several users who have spend a large amount of time making sure to keep in check the fradulent material that Johnski (aka KAL/Saumelspade/etc) have been pushing. His newest campaign is to create as many articles (regardless of quality or noteablity) to push DOM. With in that last few days, he has also been caught trying to edit talk pages in archieve.

Certainly, you don't have to believe me. However, the evidence is there if you want to read it yourself. I urge you to make yourself informed. Davidpdx 07:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Harrison: It is unfortunate to have to read through the history of talk that Mr. Davidpdx encourages. But if you find the time, you will learn what I found, that Johnski was not the first one to throw stones, and he did list the IP addresses and user names he thought supported his versions which were more than 7 as he claimed. Also, other users since have edited the versions that Davidpdx will not let stand (even on Solkope). It also appears that Johnski instead of insisting that Melchizedek is an ecclesiastical state decided to compromise for "aspires to ecclesiastical statehood", or something like that. Davidpdx instead insisted that Johnski prove that Melchizedek is an ecclesiastical sovereignty instead of trying to compromise. It appears to me from my understanding of the rules at wikipedia that quoting reputable media and government web sites is enough and that we are not to prove or disprove what those articles state, but just quote from them. Perhaps, Davidpdx and Johnski don't understand these rules, and although I am a fast reader and learner, I still have not be able to grasp and digest all of the rules I've been reading. So I shouldn't expect others to get there any faster. I hope that you understand these rules better than us and can be some kind of fair referee. I just don't understand Davidpdx's argument that because Johnski has been silent that that is some kind of evidence that I am his sock-puppet. It seems more reasonable to conclude that Johnski quit after the way Davidpdx failed to give an inch and found so much fault with him. It really appears to me that the efforts of Johnski and his supporters were to remove the bias of Gene Poole backed by Davidpdx. The exercise for a compromise apparently wasn't done a little at a time as Davidpdx claims, but the effort was a wholesale effort. It seems that as a last ditch effort Johnski tried to take a point by point approach, but at around that time Davidpdx had refused to talk any further with Johnski claiming that Johnski wasn't following the rules (it's not clear whether those were wikipedia's or Davidpdx's rules) nor was Johnski giving "sightings" of credible evidence as demanded by Davidpdx. KAJ 07:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

______________

Tom i completely respect your editing skills and your dedication to this website... however, i want you to know my edits are not vandalism and are in fact true corrections to erroneous information. in the interest of accuracy please let them stand. i will be adding more information as it arrives to me. thanks and keep up the great work! Hirpa511 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Math rendering

Hope you didn't mind but I forced the Kappa on your user page to render consistently. Thanks for the copyedit at torque btw. Samw 03:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I was hoping someone would fix that. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theory"

I disagree with your interpretation of my changes, please discuss specific problems you have with them on the talk page. zen master T 02:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Zen-master has added a {twoversions) template that on the verge of deletion (actually he subst'd it) to the article. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Twoversions for reasons why this notice should not be used. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 17:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping ball on DOM?

Hello Tom, I noticed that you expressed interest in helping with this article. The Slim Virgin protected the DOM article after a round of rapid fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts broke out. In the past all I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see I need help. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is a fraud, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser, KAJ, tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here?

Here is the proposed text:

According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." [2] However, the only offical website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [3]

If you agree that it is correct to add this sentence to the paragraph, please consider unprotecting the article for a moment and replace the above with the current section? The last sentence in the above paragraph is the only addition to the current version. Wouldn't this quote from the US OCC's official website help to give balance to the article? Sincerely, Johnski 08:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have only a very limited interest in Dominion of Melchizedek. That interest will be well satisfied if editing proceeds with honesty, order and civility. I do not recommend adding anything to the article that does not enjoy consensus support. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 12:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and RfD

I de-listed Brotherhood of the Golden Dagger from the regular AfD page and re-listed it at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. You may want to head there and vote. Cheers, Marskell 19:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in China

Your RC work is fantastic--thanks for saving that section on WWII from deletion. Best, Dpr 02:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SO CLOSE

Hello Tom, the name is Jay.

I was this close to reverting the Ryan article, then you ruined it for me. Thanks bud. There's no more room for another RC patrol man, I guess.

[[Master Jay 01:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)]][reply]

Don't worry, you'll have lots to do. There's plenty of vandalism to go around. Names seem to attract a lot of attention. Regards, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting user page vandalism

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my page! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Hey friend, my name is Tom also. Good name. I would like to talk on behalf of my friend who has no sense, and has vandalized two pages while I was in the bathroom. Please forgive my friend for his wrongdoing, though a little school-to-school rivalry is not always bad...[reply]

Thanks

Having a big Margarita instead just waiting for the "you messed" messages. Guess it'll be real Tequila Sunrise.Thank you again--Dakota ^t ^e 23:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration

Here is the excerpt, I will document the article.

Below are excerpts from Runciman's narrative of the fall of Constantinople -- which began at 1:30 A.M. on May 29, 1453; an apocalyptic tragedy that marked the end of Byzantium and is still remembered in the Greek world as "Black Tuesday":

"[After Turkish forces succeeded in entering the gates of Constantinople] They slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra towards the Golden Horn . . . They overpowered [the Imperial Palace] and started to snatch at all its treasures, burning books and icons once the jeweled covers and frames had been wrenched off, and hacking at the mosaics and marbles round the walls . . . [In the monastery of the Holy Saviour] they destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest picture in all Byzantium, painted, so men said, by Saint Luke himself . . . [Upon the soldiers' entry into the Hagia Sophia,] The worshippers were trapped. A few of the ancient and infirm were killed on the spot; but most of them were tied or chained together. Many of the lovelier maidens and youths and many of the richer-clad nobles were almost torn to death as their captors quarreled over them. The priests went on chanting at the altar till they too were taken . . . The inhabitants were carried off along with their possessions. Anyone who collapsed from frailty was slaughtered, together with a number of infants who were held to be of no value . . . Most of the books were burnt . . . There were scenes of ribaldry in the churches. . . . . . Five days after the fall of the city [the Sultan] gave a banquet. In the course of it, when he was well flushed with wine, someone whispered to him that [the Byzantine Megadux] Notara's fourteen-year old son was a boy of exceptional beauty. The Sultan at once sent a eunuch [to] demand that the boy be sent to him for his pleasure. Notaras, whose two elder sons had been killed fighting, refused to sacrifice the boy to such a fate. Police were then sent to bring Notaras with his son and his young son-in-law into the Sultan's presence. When Notaras still defied the Sultan, orders were given for him and the two boys to be decapitated on the spot. . . . . . [Byzantium] was now half in ruins, emptied and deserted and blackened as though by fire, and strangely silent. Wherever the soldiers had been there was desolation. Churches had been desecrated and stripped; houses were no longer habitable and shops and stores battered and bare. The Sultan himself as he rode through the streets had been moved to tears."

-- Steven Runciman, "The Fall of Constantinople 1453" (Cambridge University Press)

Haiduc 14:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/05/11/21a

Evidence

Hi; You may have already figured this out, but you may want to post links to the diffs, as for example this one. It took me a while to figure out, so I thought I might save you some time. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, thanks for the advice. I'm working on the links. It's going to take quite a bit of time however. Especially since I'm covering two months of edits. Not sure how to show evidence for some of the things I'm trying to prove, but I'm learning. If you have any more tips, I'd appreciate it. Thanks... Davidpdx 02:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the POV bot gang to stop playing games

How plausible is it that you and your POV buddies show up to the same article at around the same time? Do you appear to be random editors concerned with neutrality or editors with a POV mission? What is with your new algorithmn to never risk 3RR but instead secretly bring in more and more POV-bots to the game? I don't like it. Even after the most recent edit warring my most recent comments have yet to be responded to on the talk page (surprising given the 4-6 editors reverting my changes). zen master T 17:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vargo

Hi; I see in the deletion review "Blooferlady, who claims to be Vargo..." Was this in an email to you, or have I overlooked it somewhere? Thanks, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

70.187.67.246 claimed to be the copyright holder on Talk:Joseph Vargo and Talk:Nox Arcana. In the request for deletion review, Blooferlady claims that content as his own. —Cryptic (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quit. I have a life and can't waste anymore of it here arguing with other people. Tom, I see you list yourself as admin... would you be so kind as to remove all my discussions and all the pages I contributed to, including my latest request for deletion of this page. I see that this is going to end up as a situation where I am trying to please others, and probably checking up to see what got changed and why, and that just seems impossible. If the facts can't please them, then I say forget it. This place seemed like a great spot to do research and add my own, but it turned out to kinda suck.

I am sorry things went so badly, and that you were harshly treated, especially as a new comer. I wish I could say that Wikipedia wasn't like that, but actions speak louder than words, even here. I'm not actually an administrator, but I've forwarded your message to someone who is. Best wishes, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying again. I really cut a lot from my earlier attempts and reposted the articles. I also deleted all my earlier discussions because at this point they are irrelevant and I don't want editors to waste time looking for dead links and reading old issues. I'd like to start fresh. One little prob though. I edited my talk page so I could save all the links that you and others gave me, but now I can't edit the links or add to them. I can't edit the top portion of my talk page. Any suggestions? Blooferlady 12:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

[4] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development) and September 11, 2001 attacks

The Policy page is inactive. Therefore the 'truce' is probably not in operation - last edit made on 9th June 2005 -max rspct 14:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your blatant biasness and hypocrisy -max rspct 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max, please read: WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and Terrorism--MONGO 18:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already have and given the circumstances I am being polite. -max rspct 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can take a look at this

You wrote: "If a term is in current use and is notable, it should be included." Can I ask you to make your best call here? [[5]] BrandonYusufToropov 23:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Word of thanks.

Your contributions regarding the entire American terrorism debate are much appreciated. (Barnstar-worthy, even!) The contributions to the (redirected and restarted) article itself are also excellent: NPOV, factual, and cited. Thanks for all the work! Tom Lillis 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to edit the American Terrorism page then please cite sources in the same way that you request them. The first para is a generalization which makes no sense . Which Government , which period who where? That is what I tried to correct in the intro I inserted. So please insert the details , Thanks --CltFn 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Methodism (philosophy)

Hello, good work on Methodism (philosophy), and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Methodism (philosophy)? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 05:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

Hi. I'm currently attempting to revise the intro on Conspiracy theory. I would appreciate it if you would join the discussion on Talk:Conspiracy theory about how it could be best presented, and how we can have a consensus on the article, ideally one including Zen-master. Thanks.--Sean|Black 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

From Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. I agree with your position. Here, let me characterize their position and you might want to reply to it on the talk page:

The delete key always supports the neutral point of view. Keep deleting moral references and a moral discussion, and eventually you are left only with the encylopedic facts.

Also, note that they mischaracterize my position as promoting a narrative or official voice of the Wikipedia to take moral position., What I want is to include the consensus condemnation of the September 11, 2001 attacks by Lower Manhattan, Manhattan, New York City, New York State, United States, the Western World, etc. in the September 11, 2001 attacks article, and let the Al-Qaeda adherents provide balance to that point of view. patsw 15:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reply to my earlier discussion of the uselessness of the examples ("Shining Path"). I took that as indifference to its deletion. patsw 05:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that providing examples of how to use the word "Terrorist" turns "Words to Avoid" into an echo of the the "Terrorist" article. On the other hand, I could be convinced if some really good text were provided in "Words to Avoid". patsw 15:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:209.232.148.110

Back at it. Last threat was a level-4 (by you), so now I suppose we have to act. I can't do anything about it, not an admin, alas. Best, Bill 19:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea what's going on now with that editor? The edit history all of a sudden shows nothing but a single level-1, not by you.... Bill 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, weird! You see a Level-4. On my computer here I see a Level-1 dated October 6, and no further history. I may have a race condition. Anyway, it seems to be a fluke, ignore it! (As for the larger problem of anon vandalism, the solution is simple, require registration for editing, just as now, as of a few days ago, registration si required for article creation because of the Seigenthaler mess. Best, Bill 00:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix St. Amour

I think you were overly generous with that greeting. I think you'll find that "Felix" is a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, who has been indefinitely banned from editing articles related to Freemasonry.

September 11, 2001 attacks

The talk page is looking more and more like a political discussion board.

It's time to lay our cards on the table (i.e. Describe, Identify, Cite). It's starting to sound like Holocaust denial, flat-earth, and the Moon landings were faked. patsw 02:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the talk is going nowhere and I might initiate an RfC on the issue.--MONGO 01:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IN all liklihood yes. I don't attack indivduals, just their edits and or arguments. I am still not concrete on the issue.--MONGO 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing...the RfC process is slow and contenious. I am hoping (though less so) that issues can be resolved in the talk pages. The RfC doesn't always bring in those you want or that have a good understanding of what the arguments are, no matter how well you surmise them in the RfC. Each party is allowed to make there case and then, oftentimes, a vote is held to achieve a concensus of some sort. If that doesn't work, then mediation can be sought out. I'm sure I'm just preaching to the choir. But I'll keep you posted.--MONGO 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you've been around here for 2 years almost and have almost 3,500 edits. Though you only have about 115 wikipedia edits (project such as Afd, etc.) you do apparently do some vandal wacking. Have you considered an admin post? I'd be happy to nominate you but would advise some more contributions to the boring admin areas.--MONGO 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say RC Patrol is the basic, but working on deletions, especially on speedy deletions and closing out Afd's are areas that always needs help. When doing RC Patrol, if you see an article is absolute nonsense, don't hesitate to tag it with a speedy delete tag or nominate it for Afd if you are unsure. Give a read through of WP:AFD and WP:SD to get the full low down. The instructions to nominate an article for deletion are at the botton of WP:AFD. I am not a deletionist, but some stuff simply isn't encyclopedic. You can also read up on redirects(WP:R) and merge (WP:MM)--MONGO 03:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michigamua

The article isn't written that well. They are a secret society in that they conceal activities from outsiders and have/had connections with top university people. Members have included Gerald Ford and several University of Michigan presidents. The university gave them a permanent rent free lease in the tower of the Michigan Union starting in the 1930s. These websites [6] [7] have a bit more info on them. If you read more about them it starts to sound like a conspiracy theory, but I guess thats what secret societies are all about :). commonbrick 19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gladio

Thank you. I'll try to collect more quotes for Gladio. Most of them are in the related, more specialized articles, and lot of them are in foreign langages. As can be seen, not much on Gladio has been written in English, most of what i found is in Italian or French. For the English part of Gladio (citation required for the list), i didn't write that part, but will try to find something. Considering the difficulty of access to sources concerning such a matter, i tend to think that it would be better not moving those parts to "talk" page: the "citation need" that you add is very precious, as it push any readers (even not used to Wikipedia) to try to add one if he knows where to found it. Kaliz 01:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Words to avoid

Thank you for the post. I'll try to answer in a clear way, see if we can sort it out. A lot of my response is summarized on the talk page under Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Double_negative_edit and might be worth reading and considering carefully first.

The edit you asked about was this one. Here are my comment by comment observations on the edits it reverted:

It is argumentative and advocative. Phrases such as "The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited" are replaced by "Both terms can definitely be used".

The versions reverted added the following duplicated material:

• "There is not a consensus that terrorist or terrorism may never be used to describe a person or act" -- article already states "Most terms have a place if they are used accurately and correctly" already stated
• "Disputes are less likely when the term is used in an attributed quote, or if the person or organization calls themselves terrorist" -- article already states "The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves terrorist." already stated
• "Both terms can definitely be used as part of a cited quote or a cited summary of a quote where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist" -- unnecessary duplication and again that word "can definitely" (both duplication and word use being suggestive of advocacy by editors) already stated, argumentative and advocative
• "If the vast majority of available reference material supports the useage of the term terrorist or terrorism in descriptive tone to describe the actions of individuals or groups of individuals and is widely accepted by the vast majority of reference sources as an accurate description of said actions, then the useage of the such terms here in articles is not in any way a violation of WP:NPOV" -- not an argument why terrorist is an encyclopedic term, nor factually accurate as Wikipedia policy. An attempt to push a point of view into a list of the key debating issues. POV pushing in a list of debate points, also inaccurately claims policy which it isn't
• "If no other descriptive word more accurately depicts the actions of certain individuals or groups of individuals, then the useage of the the words is fully acceptable" -- ditto
• " If numerous mainstream citations are available that clearly demostrate an overwhelming concensus that the actions of individuals or groups of individuals are identified as terrorism, then the useage of this term in article space is within the bounds of WP:NPOV" -- ditto

All the edits added are either duplicates of existing points, or advocacy of Wikipedia policy (and inaccurately stated) pushed into a list of debate themes.

By contrast the Wikipedia consensus that the term is pejorative is well documented and a consensus on multiple articles, and prima-facie that its use in the form "X is/are terrorist/s" is usually likely to be a breach of WP:NPOV.

For these reasons, which I explained on the talk page, I reverted the edits.

Hope this explains. FT2 04:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Points read, and digested. I appreciate the openness of them, and will try to respond with the same, and with discussion. My first thoughts addressing specific issues raised are:

• I'm not sure what else "paramount and non-negotiable" can mean. That's the wording of WP:NPOV, and it's a pretty high standard. It means, the article must be neutral in its approach and wording, there's no exceptions in that one area to that one rule. Although Wikipedia is a community and we work together, the plain reading is that NPOV rates above consensus, in the sense that if there is a consensus, but that consensus were not written from the NPOV, it is more important that it is neutral than that it is the consensus. (Otherwise the Arabic Wikipedia would have some very interesting articles on the USA, to give one example)
• It's also important to me, to say, none of this is personal. You are not being accused of being argumentative. The style of writing of a few specific edits is, but that is just the style of specific edits, and anyone, including myself and you and Jimbo Wales, can write an edit in a good or poor style, it's not a comment about them personally.
• If some/all points are redundant or inaccurate, then I'm not sure what the problem is with removal. Surely one can honestly look at the quotes specifically, look at the comment on each, and agree "yes that one really was redundant" or "yes that one really was whatever".
• Some of the edits seem (to me) to be POV pushing. When a list is "reasons why some people think terrorist is a valid term" has three new points added that say "this definitely really is NPOV", and a further "definitely" outside, I think any experienced editor would say someone's pushing a viewpoint. Not least because of the contexting.
• Much of the debate you refer to subsequent to reworking the page, has been on terrorism. In fact the majority has been.

• If you look at the debate on (say) conspiracy theory, you'll see I have said that although I personally think it might be POV, even so, "dont add it unless theres consensus" [8]. Thats because it wasnt in Words to Avoid before.
• But terrorism is different. Terrorism/terrorist was in WTA already before then. Look back at history, it was already there and with the same basic decision: quoting a cited source is OK, characterizing as a terrorist probably isn't. [9]
• What I have done has added a structure to WTA and cleaned up style differences, plus some minor wording changes. But compare terrorism to beforehand, you'll see in fact not much has changed at all.
• With regard to terrorism, maybe re-read my comments on terrorism as a term first #Double_negative_edit and comment specifically on each of these, if theres any of my statements there which are in fact inaccurate? That would help, I think. To me that's pretty compelling reasoning.

That said, if you feel despite the above, that there's more to the issue, I invite discussion amicably. The above is why I'm taking a view on terrorism, and recent changes to it, because they are for the most part, not only very likely breaching NPOV, but also are changes to the original consensus too. Beyond terrorism you'll see I'm not adding content to WTA, or changing it really, I've tidied up the ramble and flow and styling and organization a bit, which were issues beforehand.

I hope that helps, I'm sure you'll want to discuss more, and I'm open to it, to reach consensus. FT2 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights.

Yes, about the copy-rights. I've notified the person who owns the copy-rights I'm waiting for a reply. However it doesn't really matter, for the reason that one member in particular keeps editing the article and starts inserting biased information into it. His primary source is the infinite-foundation which is owned by a Hindutva terrorist, who has his own ideology. And I've even told this member not to use information from there, however he never seems to listen. So I've just gave up. Actually this person is an anti-Semitic. If you look at the talk page of the article then you can see my sources and his sources I listed all my sources. And the letter he quotes, about the so-called massacre which never happened, there is no proof the letter is genuine, there are no dates to the letter and its pretty vague. For a start you can't find the full letter any-where. Hindutva, extremists have been known to lie about historical facts. The well known one would be about the Babri Mosque the Hindutva extremists claimed, the mythological Hindu god Rama was born there, so they decided to desecrate a mosque and killed Muslims. Actually, Hindus in particular are known for there intolerant attitude to other minorities in India, like the Operation Blue Star were the Hindu Indian govrmrment attacked the Sikh holy Shrine, in the city of Amritsar in Punjab, India.

---

User page vandalism

Thanks for fixing my user page. That was the most bizzare bit of vandalism I have seen. I had to go through it several times to figure out what had happened. Thanks again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FROM GHava

Please do not delete us. There are tons of Ghava™ collaborators listed on Wikipedia that discuss projects in which Ghava™ has been involved in creatively. We are in the process of adding more information discussing the art exhibitions GHava™ has been involved with domestically as well as internationally.

On a separate note, The Designers Republic are listed here. Why is GH avisualagency™ being marked for deletion. GHava™ is the same type of collective and have collaborated with many of the same people. This is not making any logical sense.--lerner

Ghava™ for Tom

• I think misunderstood what I wrote. By no means am I interested in deleting TDR. That would be like deleting a contemporary Saul Bass listing. TDR should be listed on this site as well as GHava™. Thats the point you seemed to have missed. There has not been one helpful person in this process that has explicitly described why GHava™ should not be listed here. Keithlaw keeps pointing me to the "Wikipedia standards". As I stated above From reading those documents I see absolutely no reason why we should not be listed here.

Keithlaw is making accusations regarding vandalism that my group has absolutely nothing to do with. He seems to have some sort of vendetta against us for a reason unknown to me. As you can see he is the person that marked us for deletion probably 5 minuets after our listing was created. I really do not think that we should be penalized for someone else's vandalism.

We are in the process of adding to and linking further information to our listing here. This whole process started because I noticed that there are quite a few of our projects and collaborations as well as collaborators listed here and I felt that it was proper for our information to be accessible for people that are researching those endeavors. There has been quite a lot of press, books, discussions, and college level papers written about GHava™ and the work we do.

Any help you can offer would really be appreciated.

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my user page. What a charming character that Spinksman is. --Spondoolicks 14:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

Since we so strongly disagree about the article I think we should include both intro presentation methods/word choices until we find a bipartite solution on the talk page, what do you think? I agree it is possible the repeated lack of clarity and lack of disassociation is potentially inadvertent, I just currently interpret otherwise, though, I will gladly accept you at your word and give you the benefit of the doubt if you assure me the lack of clarity was inadvertent? zen master T 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi

i read your comment on the GH avisualagency AfD page and saw that you have extensive experience on here. i am trying to contribute to the GH article but everyone on the discussion page keeps giving me the wrong advice. most insisted that i have to prove notability, then they said that it was wrong to list articles about the collective. i don't know who to believe as they all keep leading me astray. if you could please offer me any advice on how to make it better or make any adjustments to the article yourself i would sincerely appreciate it. even if it does get deleted, at least i will have known that i tried my best to make it a better article. thanks so much.

• for editing reference, these lead to some other wikipedia articles i feel are similar: List of graphic designers, artist collective, art collective

Inspectorpanther 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you Tom. I think that that is good advice. --Chris Brennan 03:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion on Methodist page

I have noticed that you have restored a deleted reference to a Wikipedian on the Methodist talk page. Thank you for helping to maintain the historical context of the message.

In researching the ISP 69.207.47.147 I have found that it is registered to RoadRunner/AOL in Herdon, VA.- so there a million people that could fall into this activity. However I also took the additional step to review what other activities that this ISP has been involved with and found that recent activities seem to erase or revert postings dealing in some or fashion with "user: rananim" (et. al. - this user seems to have a very complex naming convention).

The following links show a documented trail of behavior for December 20, 2005:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7

Twelve edits in seventeen minutes seems awfully exact for someone other than the immediate party.

Name changes aside (and its pretty involved to follow) but my conclusion is that whoever is involved with this activity no longer wants to have their words, ideas or involvement documented. OnceBitten 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should be surprised by the user's actions, but I'm not. The good news is that the user can erase all he/she/it wants, but the audit trail is still there in history, no matter how hard he tries to erase it. The better news is that in the event that someone decides to start an RfC on the user, he/she/it is simply loading more evidence against themselves. OnceBitten 00:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're over 4,000 edits

Maybe after the 1st, if you want, or even now, making you an admin would be a benefit to wikipedia. Let me know.--MONGO 03:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.--MONGO 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support. patsw 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to support you too - You will make a good admin. --BorgQueen 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See your email.--MONGO 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

Dear Tom, Please look at this subject and notice that Gene_Poole is trying to change the mention of DOM there. It stood as it was for a long time even constantly edited by him, and now while the arbcom case is going on he wants to put his POV in there. I've asked him to cite and quote where he finds credible sources to support his change, but if you ask perhaps he will repspect you, or do what you did on the DOM article and ask him to lay off until the case is completed. Thank you. Sincerely, Johnski 00:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good effort! Johnski 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, on the DOM article you were more agressive and reverted, why not on this one? Sincerely, Johnski 01:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turks and their minorities

Hey man, just in case you didn't see this. The article is probably going to become a POV fork... Just giving you a heads up in case you hadn't seen it. :) PS. If you're interested in folklore, I'd love your input on Leprechaun which is going through a peer review (blatant advertisment). Thanks - FrancisTyers 00:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry christmas too! :) - FrancisTyers 01:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

I'm glad I could help. See you around!--ViolinGirl^♪ 23:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split 9/11 conspiracy theories

User:Blackcats has proposed splitting the 9/11 conspiracy theories article into Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. If you're interested, please comment here. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Wikipedia needs you!

Once you accept and answer the questions, I'll upload it onto the nomination page. If you don't like the wording of my nomination statement, let me know and I'll fix it as you like.--MONGO 02:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also...I'll cast my support vote once you complete the Q's, etc.--MONGO 03:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...I'll upload it now...best of luck!!!!--MONGO 03:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Test time...User:MONGO/Test for Dementia--MONGO 11:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about that [10]...I thought it was a broken link...I guess I better check the spelling next time!--MONGO 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]