User talk:Tom harrison/Archive09

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 30 June 2006 and 31 July 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/Archive10. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

What Really Happened afd2=

Just wanted to let you know that an anon IP changed your Delete to a Keep, so I changed it back. Diffs posted on the discussion.--Isotope23 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a disaster that Afd is.--MONGO 16:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instructive though, in a sick, sad way. Tom Harrison Talk 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean? SkeenaR 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site says, "help keep us on Wikipedia" and fans show up and "vote" keep. Tom Harrison Talk 03:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that. But do you really think the site is not notable enough to keep? I'm not a regular there, but I know it's an alternative staple. SkeenaR 03:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like it fails WP:WEB, and I think WP:WEB is already too inclusive. Because we are often on line, and get a lot of our information there, I think we introduce a bias that exaggerates the importance of on-line material. But I'm content to give my opinion and let the AfD take its course. The closing admin will have to disentangle the wikipedia community's consensus from the meaningless remarks by people who only showed up to vote. Ultimately, the WP:WEB guideline is whatever we choose to make it. Tom Harrison Talk 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I've never gone over WP:WEB, so I'll check it out. Off the top of my head I'll say that web based information is growing exponentially in influence, traffic, peoples ability to access it, and in some cases, reliability. For those reasons, I find it hard to exaggerate the importance of on-line material. SkeenaR 03:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ee my interesting findings, i showed them on the afd, and then explain to me why it fails WPWEB. --Striver 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see three criteria for web content: multiple non-trivial published works; a well known and independent award; content distributed by a site well known and independent. The mentions in the Toronto Star, even taken at face value, don't seen to me to satisfy the first. The awards mentioned are not well known. The third item seems not to apply. Finally, that AfD page is a zoo, and I won't be commenting there, or here, further. I've given my opinion and am content to let the closing admin decide. Tom Harrison Talk 18:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific properties =

hat bothered me was stuff like this: "For instance, it is easier to conceptualize an acceleration of 2 g's than an acceleration of 19.6 meters per second squared." "specific" doesn't mean "in some relative form", it normally means per unit of mass. See my note on the article's talk page. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Hah! the old trick of hiding discussion about the article on the article discussion page. Clever... Tom Harrison Talk 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishpunktom Arbcom case=

reetings Tom, I wanted to inform you that I've made commentary here relative to you blocking and subsequently unblocking User:Dbiv. I was thinking that you might want to comment yourself in view of the assumptions I've made there. Thanks. Netscott 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni da Verrazzano=

nd now I have to remove all the redirects I had done.... Thanks a lot. I seem that here administrators got too stick with useless rules instead of looking at the quality of articles first. --Attilios 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Revert =

believe you have just reverted the Criteria for Speedy Deletion article for the 3rd time. Isn't there a rule for that? Surely you should have taken it to the discussion on the topic instead of just wading in heavy handed and blatantly reverting it because you felt like it? Where are your manners or show of good faith???? Enigmatical 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here was already discussion going on about this on the talk page, but you chose to simply revert it (which was the 3rd revert made of it after mine and Tony's): Here Enigmatical 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nd besides violating the three-revert rule, you see my edit as demonstrating bad manners and lack of good faith? Tom Harrison Talk 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ow would you describe an act where an ongoing discussion was ignored and the revert done despite it? Does such an act show consideration for the discussion? From this side it appears as if you feel your views have more weight and do not need to be discussed in order to reach conscensus, but I am willing to use "good faith" (something people are shoving down my throat lately while blatantly ignoring it themselves) in that you accidentally ignored the talk page, didn't look at any previous revisions and just coincidentally happened to make the same revert that had already been done twice. I believe Occam's razor would be validly used here. Enigmatical 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o, there was no accident. I saw your edit, thought it was not an improvement, and changed it back. I don't think it warrants an extended dabate on the talk page. Write up a 3rr report if you want; as you say, mine was the third revert. You can have the last word if you want it. Tom Harrison Talk 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Unlike yourself, I firmly believe in trying to understand where the other side is coming from before I do things and so I would like to know why you feel it does not improve things? Clearly from history it has been shown that the definition of those two terms has been a soruce of confusion, and surely using wiktionaries own definition for them would go a long way in clarifying them for people. Did you bother to read the talk page at all? It does clearly outline why I think they are important, yet you have done nothing at all to clearly outline why you feel they are not. Enigmatical 03:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have no intention to enter into discussion, nor any intention of seeking conscesus. Why you feel that your views have more value of other people is beyond me. You have shown incrdibly bad faith, have been rude in the way you have conducted yourself and in my opinion have done nothing to improve wikipedia in this matter. Your claim that Precent should be used is obviously false as a result of this still being an issue that is debated and those many people who have complained about the fuzzy definitions being arbitrarily used to delete certain recent userboxes. Enigmatical 01:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you and I have anything we can usefully discuss. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: VProtect on Sailor moon media & release information =

ir, I don't know whether you were aware, but this article was recently added to the list of requests for protection, and was denied protection on the ground that there was not enough recent vandalism to justify protection. An article I have been reverting on for God knows how long is turned down for protection for the same reason, and the person who denied the request has not answered my appeal. Between myself and other RCP's and CVU/VCN members, we have reverted 20 vandal attacks on this page ( Tweenies ) since the 28th of June! Could you please, considering you have Vprotected the article I refer to, consider Vprotection on Tweenies to give us poor RCP's a break??? Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protected deleted pages =

ainly delete the pages that was protected for over two months now unless it was recreated too many times over a long period of time, or deleted by special circumstances like Brian Peppers. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to 7 World Trade Center=

noticed you marked this edit [1] as a minor edit. "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text."

as this a mistake on your part? I certainly wouldn't consider this a minor edit.

lease see Help:Minor edit for further details. Thanks. --Guinnog 13:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor added a statement that Larry Silverstein admited on camera that he ordered the building's demolition. I reverted it out of hand. I think that's minor, but I can accept that a reasonable man might disagree - about the edit being major or minor, that is. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Whenever an admin uses the rollback feature, the edit is always marked automatically as minor. I would have rolled back the edit myself.--MONGO 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. I thought it would be something automated like that. I'd say rollback ought only to be used for clear vandalism, what do you think? --Guinnog 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people do say that. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand that puts me in a minority. Tom Harrison Talk 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda =

[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda]] is a really comprehensive article and I agree with your comment there. I know Ron Cram and Commodore Sloat have put a lot of work into the article and I hope they work to split it up. It simply is too big, as we both observed, to simply jump and and start...this is true with the discussion pages as well, which I just archived some. Anyway, thanks for helping out.--MONGO 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a remarkable piece of work. I wouldn't want any of the content to be lost, but some sub-pages would probably help. I don't know how much time I'll be able to devote to it, but I think it has good prospects to develop into a solid article. Tom Harrison Talk 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am still there trying and anything you have to add is appreciated. I am not going to do much editing there unless it is by agreement from the two major contibutors.--MONGO 10:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New World Order (conspiracy)=

lease refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Tom Harrison Talk 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


ook Mr Harrison it would not be necessary for me to persist if it were not for your deleting of my contribution in the first place. I deleted a few lines from some absolute rubbish of the most prejudiced kind to replace it with a proper introduction to the subject without all the psychotic/religious overtones of the introduction that you seem to be protecting. It’s a blatant abuse of your power as an administrator I’m surprised they let you continue. It really does not say much for the organisation which purports to host an encyclopaedia built on the contributions of the public if you act is such a fascist way. I'm learning all of you people’s tricks fast as I have been getting the censorship treatment on more than one occasion. How do you justify this sort of thing? 

will say one thing; it has turned me from someone with an initially positive attitude in making some contributions to someone who is now very pissed off. This does not serve you well and means that you might as well be writing a little red communist book rather than free knowledge. Many others I have spoken to on forums have had similar experiences on this site and feel the same way as I do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.142.23 (talk • contribs).


User:Giovanni33=

hat is your evidence that this user is running rather a lot of socks?Geni 13:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC) I reported him for 3RR, not for puppeteering, though he has certainly used socks in the past. Most recently User:Professor33 was discussed on ANI. If you want to know about Giovanni33's socks, User:Musical Linguist is the one to ask. Tom Harrison Talk 13:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, she is not the one to ask for a neutral, unbiased, account--just the opposite. That is like going to Strom Thurmond to learn about Kennedy. Good advise there, Tom.Giovanni33 14:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your intervention on Conan the Barbarian article =

ello Tom, 

saw you posted in the Conan the Barbarian Talk Page and also noticed in your Wiki profile that you are part of the RC Patrol monitoring harmful editing. As I am not familiar with Wikipedia, I decided to request your help with an ongoing dispute that is destroying an article. There are currently two users, an anonymous IP user (201.243.153.168) / (200.109.64.163), and a seemingly White Supremacist (205.188.116.197) who are tearing apart the Conan the Barbarian article through editing and arguing. The anonymous IP user is constantly vandalizing the article in response to the White Supremacist injecting Aryan references. Their vandalism and in-jokes are seeping into the article despite the reverts.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conan_the_Barbarian&action=history

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conan_the_Barbarian&diff=62457552&oldid=62457459

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conan_the_Barbarian&diff=62546807&oldid=62462189

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conan_the_Barbarian&diff=62720702&oldid=62700715

- Flask 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From an incorrigible revert warrior =

i, Tom. I don't normally revert you but I was puzzled to see you rolling back AntiVandalBot, so I looked at the diff to see what error he had made (sometimes bots do weird things), and it seemed that a user had removed the whole case and replaced it with a "Get lost" message. I reverted you, and then restored his "Get lost". I don't know anything about the background, though, and I just assumed that you hit rollback too hastily, or that you were trying to roll back the blanking of the page, and something went wrong. If you did intend that edit, since you may know the background, please go ahead and re-inistate it. I won't interfere again!

.S. As I pressed "preview", I saw you had posted on my page, so our messages crossed. But the above was what I was going to say to you. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane Talk Page=

s you might already know (if you watch football/soccer), Italy won the World Cup against the French. Zidane was notable in the game since it was his last game and he went out with a red card after head butting an Italian player. Because this has caught so much attention, natually the talk page of his article is getting alot of attention from new users. Unfortunately the IPs seem unable to understand that talk pages are not forums. I think semi-protection might be necessary to at least stop the page from being filled up with these kinds of edits. The article itself has already been semi-protected due to a large amount of recent vandalism from new users and IPs.--Jersey Devil 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing of Refrigeration =

om, I agree with the almost all of your editing of the Refrigeration article with one exception. You probably anticipated my disagreement with removing most of the vapour-compression refrigeration section and referring readers to the main article Vapor-compression refrigeration. I understand your viewpoint that it simplifies the Refrigeration article. However, in my own case, when reading an article, I very much dislike being told to "go elsewhere to get more details". Those readers savvy enough to search for Vapor-compression refrigeration will find the main article and get to read the details. But those readers not that savvy and who search for the more common usage term Refrigeration will not get to readily see all the details unless they are willing to be detoured to elsewhere. In my opinion, some redundancy in Wikipedia is warranted in order to make it easier for less savvy readers to find information. But after all, you are an administrator so I must abide by your perceptions ... besides I may want you to help me someday. :) - mbeychok 01:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should use summary style. With duplication comes the danger of having the versions drift out of sync. Still, I do see your point, and we are not short of space. I tend to favor fewer, longer pages myself.

I guess I don't mind having the information in there, as long as a non-specialist can read and get the gist of how an refrigerator works without having to worry about what "isentropically" means and why it's important. Maybe we could start the section with an abbreviated version of my already-short version, and then follow with what was there before for a more detailed treatment. A longer-term possibility is reorganizing and merging some of the articles in this area. So, feel free to add the material back in with whatever rewrites you think improve it. I'll look in and tweak it, and we can talk about any disagreements. I do not feel at all proprietary about the page.

"...you are an administrator so I must abide by your perceptions." heh heh; if only that were so. Tom Harrison Talk 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I must admit that I kind of like the your shortened version of the non-thermodynamic section and I think I would prefer to pretty much leave it just as you edited it (other than renumbering Figure 2 as Figure 1 and moving that Figure upwards, which I have already done). Then I would follow your edited version by putting back in the section dealing with the thermodynamic cycle and the T_S diagram except that I will do my darndest to simplify/shorten it. In other words, the easiest part first followed by the more technical part. Thanks very much for your cooperation. - mbeychok 04:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I did partially revert your edits on the vapor-compression refrigeration section. I also re-wrote and re-arranged the material quite a bit. I did manage to shorten the section a bit; to put the physical component image ahead of the T-S diagram image; and to delete some of the thermodynamic terminology. However, I could not manage to retain your simplified version and still remain faithful to the integrity of the T-S diagram analysis. The only way I could do that would be to have a lot of duplicated wording which would end up lengthening the article rather than shortening it. - mbeychok 07:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; I thought later that refrigerator and air conditioner might be the place for the simplified description of the process. Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I think both refrigerator and air conditioner are good choices for your simplified description. As for the description currently in air conditioner:
  • I very much dislike using the term "heat pump". Technically, that is correct. But most non-technical people think of a heat pump as being used to heat a building during the winter, so why confuse them with that term?
  • The paragraph about the ideal gas law is completely out of context and serves no purpose in that article.
  • The system image (Heatpump.svg) is "pretty" but it really doesn't depict the system components as well as the image in vapor-compression refrigeration around which you built your description.
  • As a whole, the current description in air conditioner, in my opinion, isn't worth a hill of beans.
Regards, - mbeychok 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks =

lease observe wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Also, please refrain from wikilayering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

n addition, the comment made on Bubba73 is justified. Anybody who compares the Apollo moon missions with a trip to Disneyland is IN FACT, being illogical. Please refrain from vandalizing my talk page or else you will be reported.Noodle boy 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His excellency (talk · contribs) ArbComm case filed. =

ou may want to somment there.

[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#His_excellency_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29]]. Pecher Talk 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the case. I'll provide information to the arbcom if they need me to. My understanding is that these statements are just to urge them to accept or reject the case. I think they have all the information they need to decide that. Tom Harrison Talk 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are biased! =

ou are very biased when it comes to the subject of Islam. I have seen you edits/comments and activity. You are in no way a good and impartial administrator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anas hashmi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 July 2006. Well, you must be very biased if Anas hashmi comes back after a seven-month wiki-break to tell you that! I won't comment on your edits about Islam, as I haven't seen them, but I've never seen you to be anything but a good and impartial administrator. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; It is kind of hard to respond to such a general charge. Am I biased in favor of Islam, or against it? If Anas hashmi would like to talk about a specific edit, he can tell me his concerns. Or, let him change whatever I wrote that he finds biased. If I disagree we can talk about it on the article's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SirIsaacBrock looks to be back=

ello Tom, as you were the admin that gave the 1 week block to User:SirIsaacBrock which deteriorated into the indefinite blocking of that editor I thought you should be aware of this WP:ANI report that covers the very real likelyhood of User:Porky Pig being a sockpuppet of that user. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other people's talk =

t is usually inappropriate to edit someone else's talk page comment. Was the link unneeded? Probably. Did IZAK have a write to link this in a talk page comment? Certainly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Banter had been a protected deleted page. While clearing out the backlog in protected deleted pages, I de-linked all occurences of banter. Is that not the right thing to do? Tom Harrison Talk 12:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this rare case, no. Other people's talk page comments should almost always be left alone, unless either they are actual vandalism; the one other case that is generally been considered acceptable is if someone (for example) writes something like [[NPOV]], clearly meaning to write [[WP:NPOV]]. Also, minor edits with appropriate summary if (for example) someone typos in a URL, although even there some people think you should just write your own comment following. This can be a very sensitive area: it took me a few months on Wikipedia to realize how sensitive. - Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a fair point; I'll keep it in mind. Tom Harrison Talk 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join discussion at Cooling tower =

om, someone named Edreher has suggested changes on the Talk:Cooling tower page which I fear will degrade that article and lead to much confusion. I have made a counter-suggestion that his ideas would fit better into the Air conditioning article. Please join the discussion there and let us have your advice. Thanks in advance. - mbeychok 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SirIsaacBrock=

ello Tom, 

notice you still carry the Islamic Barnstar.  I find your badge of honour quite fascinating :)  SirIsaacBrock 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State-sponsored terrorism redirect to State terrorism=

reetings Tom, knowing that you cover such topics fairly keenly. Would you kindly take a look at an anon editor's rather disruptive efforts to redirect one to the other? Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC) I'd rather not edit war over this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance has been appreciated. Thanks Tom. (→Netscott) 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; I'm glad I could help. Tom Harrison Talk 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks =

or the help against an especially active vandal, Bridgeman/ Tojo. --Dan 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) You're welcome; I'm glad I could help. Tom Harrison Talk 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just blocked another Tojo sock. BTW, is it really necessary to protect a talk page from anons and newbies? They get much less exposure to public. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have it full-protected for an hour or so while I refactor. After that it may not be neccessary. Tom Harrison Talk 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I had the misfortune to come under User:General Tojo's special attention with a spat of sockpuppet attacks and wikistalking revertion of all my recent edits - so thanks for the revertions/roll-back. David Ruben Talk 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help, Tom Harrison Talk 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelema=

unny, you beat me to the rv by mere seconds. :-) (→Netscott) 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use your admin powers more responsibly =

ou rejected a 3 revert complaint and a request to unblock without any explanation. In my eyes, JzG clearly violated the 3 revert rule, even twice, and he blocked me for "pushing POV" while he removed well sourced information about allegations of Lance Armstrong's drug abuse. I had not violated 3RR, I had not invented any of the information I added but took them as well as the sources from other wikipedia articles, I tried to discuss the issue at the article talk page while JzG just made unsubstantiated and unspecific allegations at my talk page in spite of my repeated request to discuss it where appropriate, and I think that any editor who makes a complaint that is not obviously done in bad faith should get an explanation if the complaint is rejected. Just removing unblock requests and rejecting 3RR complaints leaves a bitter taste to other editors who feel as if at wikipedia some were more equal than others. Please think about this. Socafan 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I included an explanation. [2] I'll repeat it here:[reply]

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Reverting potentially libellous material - "The three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not."

As for your unblock request, given the discussion on your page at the time I thought, and continue to think, that "reviewed and denied" was an appropriate reply. Tom Harrison Talk 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reviewed and denied" is no explanation, and as a user requesting to get unblocked obviously does not trust the admin who blocked backing the latter without further explanation causes bad feelings. You should not do that. Copying well known statements by third parties from other wikipedia articles in no way is libellous, and pretending that it is to evade the 3 revert rule cannot be tolerated. Also note that the first three reverts were done without any explanation and the admin who was in a conflict of interest when blocking continues to evade discussion at the article talk page and even took advantage of my block to delete a POV tag in spite of an obviously ongoing dispute. Socafan 00:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to get blocked, don't violate 3RR. If you don't want your work reverted, don't add unsupported innuendo to the biographies of living people. You are welcome to comment here, but I don't see that we have much basis for further discussion. You can have the last word if you want it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom would you kindly review the history of this article and my efforts to remove information that amounts to "guilt by association" despite User:Socafan's insistence that it remain in the article. Please respond accordingly. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article talk page where this can be discussed appropriately. Socafan 02:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Socafan has essentially replaced every single bit of information (in addition to the part that I've been removing) that JzG was attempting to discuss on the talk page (prior to it's reinstatement on the article). Socafan doesn't seem to be getting the message. (→Netscott) 02:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do might be to revert back to this version and then protect the article and allow for some time for this matter to be discussed on the talk page. (→Netscott) 02:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information is sourced, there is no violation of whatever rule, and there is an article talk page to discuss it. Socafan 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, please be apprised that I've made an ANI report about this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOM Talk Page =

om, I saw you reverted the DOM talk page due to Johnski's usual rants. It's not too surprising he is lurking around. I'd look for him to start messing with the article with in the next week or so. He's pretty predictable in term of his behavior. Anyway, thanks for catching that. Davidpdx 08:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's disease protection =

lease reinstate semi-protection on the article. GT is having a field day today. *sigh* By the way, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#General Tojo (talk • contribs) is still accepting submissions if you're interested. Thanks,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya =

lease feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write your support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on links to pirate sites =

om, could I ask you for some advice? 

contribute to a page, Bhagavata purana, where a user has put up links to two sites (his own) that heavily bootleg copyrighted material. (Each site profusely displays copyrighted artwork and reproduces over 17,000 copyrighted translations of Sanskrit verse.)

n accordance with Wikipedia policy (in Wikipedia:Copyrights, Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works"), I deleted the links.

his led to a revert war. I invited the user to talk. After an extended discussion on the Talk page, what we wound up with was, in essence:

Okay, the stuff is copyrighted.

No, I don't have the copyright holder's permission.

But I have transcendent, "spiritual" reasons why the laws, in this case, don't apply. 

don't see any point in another round of reverts. Could you suggest how I could best proceed?

any thanks!

ordially, O Govinda 17:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which sites are they? Srimadbhagavatam.org and bhagavata.net? Tom Harrison Talk 17:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavata.net and Bhagavata.org. Srimadbhagavatam.org is okay; it's licensed by the copyright holder.
For Bhagavata.org, pressing the "Enter" button at the bottom of the pages brings you to a contents page with the legend
Black texts: the narrative by Anand Aadhar.
Brown text: the original translation of Swami Prabhupâda and other pupils.
The "Brown text" and the pictures are what's swiped. (You have to go a couple of levels deeper--to the "Chapter" level--to get to them.)
Bhagavata.net (the Dutch version) is structured nearly the same way. On the home page you click on the lotus next to "De Bhâgavata Purâna." Then, on the next page, the "Kom Binnen" button at the bottom brings you to the matching Dutch version of what's on Bhagavata.org.

[User:O Govinda|O Govinda]] 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

kay, I see the text you describe. How can you tell which is legitimately licensed and which is the copyright violation? http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/ looks like it's the same as http://bhagavata.org/. I'm sorry to have so many questions. Tom Harrison Talk 20:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

s this the copyrighted text? ISBN 0892132507 I can search this online at Amazon, so if you could give me a specific, extended passage that is derectly copied, that would be helpful. Tom Harrison Talk 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


he questions are all welcome.

irst, yes, you're right: Those two URL's -- http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/ and http://bhagavata.org/ -- point to the identical site. (I was confused. My apologies. The licensed site is http://srimadbhagavatam.COM/, to which the Wikipedia article also, happily, has a link.)

o the two offending sites are http://srimadbhagavatam.org/ and http://bhagavata.net/index.eng.html/.

es, you have the right ISBN number for the copyrighted text.
n Amazon it's here: ISBN 0892132507

he infringer hasn't quoted any one portion at length. Instead, here's what he has done. At the bottom of each page, he has a section called "Source texts." There he gives his own translation for each Sanskrit verse, followed by the copyrighted translation. And so, he argues, it's all "fair use" because he doesn't "quote at length." But, in all, he quotes the copyrighted translations for 17,000 verses (yes, literally 17,000), one after another.

o compare the text on his site to the text in the section online at Amazon:
On the page on Amazon, go to "Search inside this book." (Or, read ahead, I'll give you an easier way.) Go to "Excerpt." Go to Page 3. Go to his site at http://www.bhagavata.org/canto8/chapter1.html. Look at "Source texts" (about a quarter of the way down the page). Under "Text 1" see the smaller, roman, indented text. Notice that it matches the "Text 1" in the Amazon sample. Similarly, compare Text 2, Text 3, and so on. He's got them all on his site, verbatim.

  • The easier way:
  • At http://srimadbhagavatam.com/8/1/en --the licensed site -- you can see all those same texts in one place and compare them to the ones on the unlicensed site. They match word for word.

lso, starting at www.bhagavata.org/gita/contents.html, the infringing site copies the same way from Bhagavad-gita As It Is (700 verses) (ISBN: 0892131233). And there he copies not only the copyrighted translations but also the copyrighted "word-for-word" meanings.

s for pictures:

t that same Amazon link I mentioned before -- here -- you'll see a front cover.
he cover picture appears on his site at www.bhagavata.org/canto4/chapter15.html.

lick on the cover on the Amazon site, and you'll see another cover, from the the "Eighth Canto."
he picture appears on his site at www.bhagavata.org/canto8/chapter18.html.

hile viewing the "Eighth Canto" cover on the Amazon site, click "back cover" (on the left).
n his site that picture appears at www.bhagavata.org/canto8/chapter7.html.

t Amazon -- here -- there's another volume in the set.
n his site the cover picture appears at www.bhagavata.org/canto3/chapter25.html.

nd so on. Virtually all the artwork displayed on his site is copyrighted and used without permission. 

hope this helps. If you have more questions, please just let me know.

hanks again. -- O Govinda 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see, and you are right. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, we should not link to those sites. Tom Harrison Talk 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

om, thank you very much for your help. -- O Govinda 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Your thorough documentation made it easier. Tom Harrison Talk 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Armstrong=

i - I'm busily trying to defuse an edit war on this article. Could you perhaps not revert the article without discussion, as that makes it harder to defuse? Phil Sandifer 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC) I understand; My comment is on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of the POV tag in spite of an ongoing content dispute=

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&diff=64147430&oldid=64147290] This is incivil. Please do not do it again. Plus, reverting without any discussion to a "balanced version" that lacks much well sourced information in no way helps to resolve the conflict. Socafan 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC) My comment is on the talk page, right here. I don't see how removing {{protected}} from an article that is not protected has anything to do with civility one way or the other. Where is this POV tag you speak of? Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Question =

ello Tom,

ope you are well and doing fine. Tom, Do you know if one can insert copyrighted material in talk pages of articles? Thanks --Aminz 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Hi Aminz, I'm glad to see you editing. I don't think we can post copyrighted material anywhere, except short quotes with attribution. I'm no expert, but I think fair use only applies to articles, not to user or talk pages. I can't say I've never done it to illustrate a point in contention, but I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to. You might ask at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Tom Harrison Talk 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hanks, Tom. I found a couple of articles from Encyclopedia of Islam and inserted them here [3] and here [4]. I personally don't have enough time to go through them carefully and thought it might be useful if I can post them on the talk pages. I'll ask Wikipedia:Copyrights. Thanks again. --Aminz 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I see those - I'm afraid that's far too much to be construed as fair use. Ask on Copyrights, but I'm sure those will have to go. Tom Harrison Talk 23:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

es, they are far too much. --Aminz 23:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like advertsing to me =

om, take a look at Special:Contributions/84.45.141.156. It looks like advertising for an appliance repair shop to me. Do you agree? - mbeychok 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Yes; In cases like that, feel free to warn and revert. Tom Harrison Talk 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although if there are more than a half dozen, don't waste your time on it. I have some automated tools that make it less tedious for me. Tom Harrison Talk 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can't cite, can't say =

i Tom, I was glad to see your "can't cite, can't say" comment on an edit summary recently... this basic Wikipedia principle seems lost on many editors these days. I'm trying to keep unsourced claims off of several articles such as List of HIV-positive people, List of red-light districts, Chuck Cunningham Syndrome and The Frosties Kid, which has especially been beset by kids who don't understand what constitutes original research. Would appreciate it if you took a look. wikipediatrix 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the chance...=

am awfully sorry to worry you.  As part of the ongoing saga with the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (where you blocked Asmodeus for ongoing attacks on users), there has been a bit of a situation.  I gave Tim Smith a warning for 3RR, but he then retaliated by giving myself, ScienceApologist, and Jefffire similar warnings, even though by my count none of us had even approached this number of reverts.  A quick glance at the edit history of the article should make this clear.  Can I removed this warning, as it seems to really just be a spurious retaliation?  Thanks for your advice.  I'm really more concerned about what can be done about users simply dishing out specious "warnings" to make other users look bad, rather than "having a blot on the record" (since I don't really care anyway).  Byrgenwulf 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked? =

y I.P address was blocked because of personal attack?

lthough I'm a regular visitor I've never even posted anything here before...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ins0mniac (talk • contribs).

Your account does not seem to be blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of advertising links =

om, an anonymous user has added four advertising links within a matter of a few minutes of each other. See Special:Contributions/83.60.128.37. I would appreciate it if you removed them. - mbeychok 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the nonsense, is about Montana? =

hats understandable... I see you like to be the Admin guy of Joe Montana huh? So let me ask you something. You fought so hard for your rights to be an admin dork, so apparently this website means something to you.. the whole.. "idea" of it... when did an encyclopedia become a Gossip Rag? You allowing that BS that is nothing more than gossip, is the same as you allowing someone to add in a little comment about how in the mid 90's both Troy Aikman and Steve Young were rumored to be gay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moesogoth (talk • contribs).

Wayne Smith's linkspam names =

his is the current list of domain names owned by Wayne Smith AKA Projectorion/UniverseToday/UniverseDaily/ etc ad nauseam

yowiehunter.com spaceforums.net spaceforums.org badastronomer.net universedaily.org badastronomer.org spaceonion.com space4peace.com badastronomer.com jeeperscreepers3.net universetoday.net robertzubrin.com spaceforums.info spacedaily.info universetoday.info nuclearspace.org universedaily.com jonathanbreck.com wikipedian.info universedaily.info everythingspace.com stephenhawkingsuniverse.com jerrypournelle.net alienlife.info wikipediac.net wikipediam.net wikipedial.net wikipediac.info wikipediam.info wikipedial.info sciforums.info carlsagan.info amateurspaceflight.com atomicrockets.com projectorion.org projectorion.net projectorion.info


TW He is one of the vandals on the israel page:

ttp://projectorion.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=wiki

TW Part 2... That S.O.B appears to be using the handle that I typically use on the net: yales

o vandalize the pages. He often pretends to be me when he is pulling his moronic BS. Could you remove any references to "yales" and lock out the ID?

anks Mudge,

ale—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yale s (talk • contribs).

Just wondering =

i Tom, 

was just curious to know your personal opinion as to if there are historical baises towards Islam in West, and similarly towards Shias in the Muslim world. Please feel free to ignore my comment if you would like. Thanks --Aminz 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to dash off a quick reply, but I'm at nine paragraphs now. I'll try to email you tomorrow or the next day. Tom Harrison Talk 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Tom. I'll be waiting! With the Best Wishes, --Aminz 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

om, I just noticed you have changed your vote. I hope it wasn't because of my post here. If it was, I appologize --Aminz 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I saw what was then Misconceptions about the Shi'a and thought that would need to be deleted as well. I followed that link to Views on Shi'a Islam and saw how Misconceptions about Iran might be rewritten and expanded. I went back to change my vote and saw your vote saying something like what I had in mind. After I had changed my vote, I saw your message here. Tom Harrison Talk 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hanks so much for your email. I enjoyed it so much. I don't have a wide view of how different perspectives as you have, but I'll *try* to explain Shia-Sunni relations and Iran-US relations from the perspective of *some* persians (actually those who I've encountered with). I'll try to email tomorrow. Best wishes, --Aminz 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Dear Tom, I am 'really' sorry for being late. I went for a party in the afternoon and just came back. So sorry for my delay!!! I am already done with the email but prefer to revise it once more before sending it to you (tomorrow; and since I need to go somewhere in the morning I will definitely do it in the afternoon. I AM SO SORRY). Meanwhile, could you please remove the article Misconceptions about Iran that someone has apparently created after AfD decided it to be removed (though it is redirected to Iran in the media). I, myself, while supporting the existence of this article, found it disturbing that someone created the article without any agreement of the admin in charge of the AfD. Best wishes, --Aminz 09:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm looking forward to reading it. It looks like the articles are taken care of. Tom Harrison Talk 12:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy or protocol on red Wiki links? =

s an example, in the last sentence of the Ice harvesting section of the Refrigeration article, there is a link to a man named Frederick Tudor. It is red because Wikipedia currently has no article about that man.

uch red links appear fairly often in various article. Should they be left that way in the hope that someone will write the needed article? Or should the link be removed? I have often wondered if there are some guidelines on this subject. Are there any guidelines? - mbeychok 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia:Red link. In this case, I knew we had a page on the guy. It turns out that the correct spelling is Fredric Tudor. That's probably a common misspelling, so I made Frederick Tudor a redirect to the correct page, and fixed the spelling in Refrigeration. Tom Harrison Talk 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt and helpful reply. - mbeychok 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with User:Truthwanted =

i Tom, I see your replies to User:Truthwanted, but I do not see his comments to you. Where are they? br>Signed, ConfusedBlueTony, A.K.A. CobaltBlueTony 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC) I'm replying to email he has sent me. Tom Harrison Talk 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. He is emailing me as well, but I'll wager good money that what he says to you is very different than what he is saying to me. - CobaltBlueTony 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask him about that. Tom Harrison Talk 14:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions Under Swamp Cooler =

noted that you removed two links I proposed for Swamp Cooler leading to pages on Evaporative Coolers.  What was the concern?

hanks, martin73 Sorry, my mistake. I thought you had added the same link twice. I meant to remove one of them. I see they were two different links, and I removed both. I've restored them now, I hope. Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My revert to the user page of Zereshk =

om, thanks for your comment. I was a bit confused of how my 'reverting User:Zereshk's page after Zoe removed a personal attack' was wrong.

hat I did:

. I observed a user named Zoe removed something from Zereshk's user page

. I checked Zoe's user page and didn't find any sign of him being and Admin.

. I reverted it and left this message for Zoe "Please do not edit other people's user pages. Feel free to report it to other admins (except the one who is involved in it) if you would like."

. I was/am not still convinced why it was a personal attack (I have read the first lines of it though since I knew what has happened). I felt it more to be a complain rather than a "personal attack". Why is it personal attack BTW?

hat Zoe did:

. She said: "I have removed the personal attack from Zeresh's page, which Aminz immediately reverted, and had the temerity to lecture me about editing other people's User pages. I have blocked Aminz for 5 minutes for reverting to the personal attack, and have reverted and protected Zeresh's User page." and on my talk page "I have also protected the page to prevent you, or anyone else, from reverting to the attacks. Attack pages are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and specifically reverting to one is a serious offense. Next time it will be for more than 5 minutes."

y comment: For the sake of God, is it fair??? Who is closer to incivility? me or admin Zoe? Who is supposed to excercise civility more; me or admin Zoe? 

was only asking Zoe for an admin to review this case. She says I have had "the temerity to lecture" her. She blocked me, which really means "shut up". She further warns me of how offensive something I didn't intend to do, was; and warns me of longer blocks. I tried to be nice to her and even tried to joke with her, but she didn't reply me back.

om, please let me know which part of it was my fault? why this shouldn't be a reason for Zoe's block?

ust for the sake of God, is it possible for one to become truthfully accused of almost all sorts of crimes available in wikipedia only after a couple of days? I posted something on another admin's user page but had to literally "beg" to get my reply back (though he seemed nice after he replied me back eventually)... what have I done to deserve all these? I just need an indef-block on the top of my resume to make it complete. --Aminz 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Zereshk's remarks, I do think 'Why Wikipedia is becoming a failure' is over the top. Calling us "apparatchiks" and Wikipedia a "tool for informational terrorism" is inflammatory language, even if meant as hyperbole. Zoe is an experienced and respected administrator who has been with the project for a long time. I understand her decision to delete it, though "She had the temerity to lecture me" was probably not a useful remark.

On your part, I also understand you thought you were only protecting the integrity of Zereshk's page. After the five-minute block, you didn't restore the page again.

Zereshk, though I do not know him well, is clearly a valuable and experienced contributor himself. I do not know the root of the problem, or what lead him to post the unfortunate remarks on his page. I think this is one of those unfortunate, but increasingly common, situations were well-meaning people disagree and things spin out of control. I do not know what we can do about it but step back, try to understand each other, and recognize that we will all fail to do so from time to time. Tom Harrison Talk 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, Thanks for your reply. I just thought it is wrong that someone edits other one's user page unless the editor is an admin. I never wanted to engage in revert war if I knew an admin is involved there. Zoe "assumed" I want to do so. Tom, I see you point and don't intended to over-generalize my 'one' observation to make a decision about Zoe's character (All personal attacks BTW are logically wrong by nature since they contain elements of over-generalization). I am the one who is condemned and got blocked. My intend is to show that I was editing in good faith on that particular case. But if one reads Zoe's comment, for example on my talk page, given the respect that she has in the community, people will think, well surely Aminz has done something "REALLY BAD"!
Tom, Regarding the personal attack issue: Could you please let me know if all the personal attacks come from the section'Why Wikipedia is becoming a failure'? If so, only that section was supposed to be removed. That section is not a good one. I agree. But I have seen many others who have said such things here and there.
My persian-english dictionary doesn't have the word "apparatchiks" so, I don't know what it means (I'll google it). I have not myself agreed with Zereshk about his perspective (in my emails to him for example). I think he mixes ideas from the real world with what happens in wikipedia. But he thinks I am unexperienced to understand what he says, which maybe true. I dunno... --Aminz 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to worry about damage to your reputation. That is easy for me to say since it is not my reputation, but most people appreciate the potential for misunderstanding in a situation like this. <platitude>Do the right thing, and let your actions speak for themselves. That does not always work, but it works better than any alternatives I know of.</platitude>

I think we are better off without the whole section in pink. Probably the removal could have been more surgical, but that risks changing the page to say something that Zereshk did not intend. It would probably be worse for Zoe to have put words in his mouth than to just delete it. But, there is always room for discussion and negotiation. Maybe some of the issues that concern Zereshk could be brought up in a request for comment. I remember now were I have seen his name: he worked on the Template:Persian arts that I thought was so well done. Tom Harrison Talk 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I don't worry about my reputation as long as people don't view me with a negative bias. This can be however almost solved if I create a new username. As I said here [5], I think continuing this discussion doesn't worth it. I learnt the lesson I had to learn. Quoting from someone: "either WP's governmental system changes OR some other online encyclopedia springs up which is better run."--Aminz 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fter a bit of cooling down, looking back into what happened, I do admit that I lost my temper block of Zereshk. Even having a point can never justify my voluminous criticisms of InShaneee's administrative decision. I ignored the fact that one's admin actions does not necessarily depend on what a person has immediately done. I do admit that I lost my temper again after I got blocked myself and have done what I shouldn't have done; and by doing so, I have poisoned the well. So did I after Zereshk's block.--Aminz 08:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've poisoned the well, just stirred up the water a little. It will clear out in time. Tom Harrison Talk 12:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policies =

om, I have a suggestion: Admins should renew their adminship every six month.

hen wikipedia will become closer to a democracy. The acceptance rate in AfD's on the other hand may change. --Aminz 22:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a legitimate proposal to make. It may have been brought up before at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). If not, you could propose it there and see if there is any support. Of course, campaign finance reform also seemed like a good idea at one time. Tom Harrison Talk 22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hanks Tom! User InShaneee on my talk page said that this has been proposed before(together with a spamming warning which I didn't get it actually). As it is hard for me to work on this alone, I am trying to find a couple of people who are not busy and interested to work on policies. I'll contact my friends around wikipedia and ask about their opinion and their ideas. But first I need to work on the policies on spamming to make sure that I am not violating any policies. Am I? --Aminz 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I will have to look closely at the policy on internal spam. Now, when everyone is on edge, might not be the best time to try to change things. It would be better to think it through and procede without emotion. Now might be the time for everyone to take a break, or do some simple editing of non-controversial pages. Tom Harrison Talk 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice suggestion, Tom. I'll better be away from wikipedia for awhile. --Aminz 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tendentious editing" =

find it quite impolite to accuse others of wrongdoings without pointing out anything specific and without even joining a very active discussion. Wholesale reverts even of well sourced facts do nothing to help the project. Please think about it. Socafan 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just do it again without even answering. This is very bad taste. Socafan 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this encyclopedic material?=

'North American Union seems to be written in another dimension. Now someone is adding items in this fictional universe to a category, Category:North American Union. Something seems wrong with that idea. 64.74.153.230 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC) It looks like a New World Order conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks =

hanks for the advice, Tom. My remarks over on Mongo's page were an attempt to carry out suggestion number 4 under "what to do if you've been bitten", under WP:BITE. Lesson learned. Moving on.--Thomas Basboll 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Union page deletion =

What was your reasoning behind deleting the North American Union article?  NWO-Wolfpac 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i Tom

'm curious as to why the quite detailed and excellent page on the North American Union as deleted.

hanks,

nthony—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.112.16 (talk • contribs).

reetings,

s I am sure you have noticed, information is scarce and our freedoms are being undermined since 2000. As a Mexican citizen, let me remind you that WIKIPEDIA is in the web as an international project; it is not there solely for the interests of the Bush misUNDERadministration of the USA. The North American Union will affect my country, and I strongly think that CENSORSHIP goes against the constitution of your country as well as mine, as well as WIKIPEDIA´s principles.

ne thing is to administrate, and other is to CENSOR on groundless rethoric.

ou can respond to me at ignaciobeltran@yahoo.com

egards,

gnacio Beltrán.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.143.0.159 (talk • contribs).

I deleted it as a recreation of previously deleted material. Tom Harrison Talk 23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this article should be redirectedto United North America? W00p 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is puzzling why the article was deleted only now, nearly three months after the issue was even debated, after which the original article was significantly improved (and citations added). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_American_Union Plenty of articles exist on Wikipedia with far more tenuous justification than the NAU, which has been a major topic of discussion the last few months. Should the NAU be established in the near future, Wikipedia would end up looking silly for having deleted an article on the supposition that it had been "made up in school one day" (one editor's comment), when that is obviously not the case. Albanaco 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hy was the entry on the North American Union deleted by you, Tom? This censhorship does not seem warranted. What is the agenda behind this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.222.30.182 (talk • contribs).

he page was initially created on 6 March. It was deleted on 1 May, following consensus in the AfD discussion to do so. It was recreated on 27 May. I noticed it on 27 July, and deleted it as a recreation of deleted material. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ou're kidding me, right? Seems more likes censorship than a fair application of the rules.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.162.144 (talk • contribs).

Linkspammer/Vandal Wayne Smith on the rampage =

ayne Smith AKA Projectorion/UniverseToday/UniverseDaily/Flying Fox etc is on a tear:

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=202.137.162.250

ltho many of his sockpuppets have been indefinitely blocked, he is posting via a new IP

ttp://projectorion.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=wiki

ale


hanks for continuing to keep on this fellow. I presume he'll eventually find another hobby, or at least the appropriate medical treatment. But until then I'm glad we're keeping his troublemaking to a minimum. Thanks, William Pietri 00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) You're welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar Talk Page=

ello Tom. Could you please do me the favor of reminding users in Talk:Paul R. Pillar that talk pages are not political forums. It would be stronger coming from an established administrator. There have only been two new edits recently but as seen from before comments on that talk page the "debates" are sure to begin again flooding the page with partisan hackery irrelevant to the article. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC) It is important to stay focused, especially when the subject is political. I'll look in when I can. Tom Harrison Talk 03:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11-M and War on Terrorism template =

omehow I made left this remark with the wrong person because it was meant for you. Dr Debug (Talk) 04:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

see that there was a little revert argument back and forth on that template. Nevertheless Esaborio made a very good point: The event had been deleted from the template a long time ago.

[11-M]] is no longer part of the War on Terrorism since the responsibility is now "local cells of Islamic extremists inspired through the Internet". (Previous candidates were ETA, Al-Qaeda, GIA and Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group) and as a compromise they are now remotely linked and inspired by al-Qaeda. nother reason is that the template is really ugly, really big and the events are listed in "See also" as well. So I prefer the without option as well. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC) As long as it is supported by consensus, I have no strong preference. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warned... =

hanks. Lets see if it does anything. ---J.S (t|c) 20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of citation requests =

Tom, I find your actions at the Lance Armstrong article offensive and not helpful at all again. A quote that belongs in a quote section must be important and verifiable. Listing quotes that are not widely known without a source is bad style. If you disagree, there is a talk page. Leaving derogatory edit summaries just creates bad feelings. Furthermore, as long as there is no consensus to remove a POV tag it should not be removed, and the Rules on Vandalism clearly say that. Socafan 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? =

mean, don't folks have anything better to do? I looked over my edits on deleted pages and I see I was at best agitated, but for the life of me, I see zero evidence that I engaged in personal attacks! Oh well, surely the arguments are simply neverending and fruitless and since ED is gone it surely is my fault that it cannot pass our policies of WP:V.--MONGO 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I think it's all about the drama. Tom Harrison Talk 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]