User talk:Tom harrison/Archive03

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 January 2006 and 31 January 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/Archive04. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

---

AFD Helper

Although -- as Radiant has pointed out in your RFA -- you should get familiar with other aspects of Wikipedia moderation, I think you will find the afd helper tool useful in voting on AFDs. Enjoy, good luck in your RFA, and have a happy new year. jnothman ^talk 07:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

going to heaven

Actually if anything I'd have done it the other way round... I think our article on paradise is rather better; it's not a massively different concept in islam and given the small nature of the differences the "paradise" article explains it much better. I'd only point at jannah if it was specifically Islamic aspects of it that were under consideration. Also, using Arabic words, and different articles based on those words, for concepts that only differ slightly between Islam and Christianity in my view is likely to give an impression that they are two different concepts when that is not the case.

I've made similar remarks on Talk:Islamist terrorism, in case you wish to reply. Palmiro | Talk 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction, i should have referred to heaven all along, not paradise. I was misremembering what the different articles looked like. Palmiro | Talk 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

CONGRATS!

I see you'll be an admin before you know it...I am most pleased...and wanted to be the first to offer my congratulations! In case you haven't already...time to read through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. Good luck to you!--MONGO 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 08:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion! Enjoy your mop and bucket! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and you're very welcome! Happy New Year, and happy editing! --King of All the Franks 13:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good luck and thanks for helping keep conspiracies out of Wikipedia. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As with the others, congrats, and good luck! =) —Locke Cole • t • c 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats Tom! You'll make a good admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Many congratulations! (Still poking about for those skeletons... :)) Banes 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Congratulations glad you made it.--Dakota ~ ε 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Janos

Sure thing, I'll get right on that. He's also talked with me through email, and I'd have to agree with you. I'm going to make sure to leave him a note that if he reverts that tag again he's going to get reblocked. Mo0[talk] 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

71.102.13.252 blocked.

I've blocked 71.102.13.252 for his behavior on Sixteenth Amendment and on your talk page. BD2412 T 04:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII Question

I think that all of the editors of the Pope Pius XII article, both those who hold him in high regard and those who think that he made moral errors, would be in favor of including any statement that any historian states that Pacelli agreed to the dissolution of the Centre Party in exchange for the Reichskonkordat. If you understand what User:EffK is requesting, please provide me with a summary, since it appears that you write standard English that I can understand. Robert McClenon 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, I agree with Robert. I wouldn't object to including such a statement, if properly worded (NPOV), but the problem is that that is merely one point in the complex issue of concordat negotiations. We would have to include the whole concordat with all its regulations and that would make the article explode. Currently, Reichskonkordat links to a separate article, and IMHO that's a feasible solution. Another problem is that EffK will not be satisfied by including this, as his real thesis goes much further than this, which is also the reason for our "heated" relationship. Str1977 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My thesis is that I am whitewashed despite source. I refer you, though, to that which was there whitewashed and which therefore is what has already been said by me. I would not say that it is irrelevant nor beyond this apparent agreement here stated. However , it was removed by the agreeing parties, over time. Or if not by McClenon here, cxertainly several articles elsewhere .The answer to the latter is that there was no link to reichskonkordat at all, before I insisted, and I find the off-topic a means to vitiate reality, as I demonstrate at Adolf Hitler. And Im sorry, I write that which needs to be said, as Str1977 confirms, it is complex. That is why the template is important, and I again request that you promote its acceptance precisely at the Pius Article. Did you read Bengalski ?EffK 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping

Thank you for showing me that Wikipedia actually does have people surveying even the least looked-at pages. I already read the Welcome page, and that particular experiment couldn't be done in the sandbox, but thanks for telling me.

Userpage vandals

Thanks for rescuing my user page! - Jjjsixsix 01:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out this nonsense!

I kinda thought this was funny (in a sick way)...you'll run into one of these soon, if you haven't already...[1]--MONGO 03:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that idiotic doll image and almost fell out of my chair...we haven't actually blocked him yet...he's not done...should make for an interesting banning at some point, but maybe he'll reform...--MONGO 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

I congratulate you on your elevation to adminship, and wish you all the best in your new role. --Bhadani 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi Tom, congratulations to your successful RFA. Good luck and all the best to you. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Got your message, and let me second the congrats, good luck :) Arm 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

208.22.91.4

...is vandalising Dickens again. JackyR 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (gearing)

Thanks for your speedy reversion of vandalism on 'Bicycle gearing' Murray Langton 23:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question about nowcommons

Hi Tom,

Yes, once you've checked that everything is in order, just speedy. Thanks for helping out to clear the backlog! :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

freenet

hi there,

I must protest against the blocking of my account; this merely leaves the playground open for those who don't wish the article refer to any criticism (and thus making it less NPOV). I fail, btw, to see how I would be blocked, certainly as first, since the original revert (which was the edit made of a wikiadmin) was not reverted by me; I merely restored the work of another.

As the 3rule says:

"Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version.The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word."

As you can see in the history, I have merely reverted to a previous version; I did not undo any work, since it was exactly that edit that was removed.

And besides, even if this didn't apply: since the original page was WITH the edit of the wiki-admin, and that got deleted by someone else, and THEN I reverted it back...how can I be the first one to break the rule anyway?

For this reasons, I ask to reinstate my account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.104.153 (talk • contribs)

206.207.175.162

Well done for banning this vandal.

Guinnog 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"If that makes me a vandal, keep calling me a vandal, you ninkenpoop."

This exchange was the result of confusion and misunderstanding. The user wasn't calling me a nincompoop; he mistakenly thought Guinnog's remark above to be directed at him. It was not. I am not offended, and I don't think anyone else should be either. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the revert3-page, and as I understand it, you actually have to make 4 reverts in 24h (?). In that case, logic and consistency dictates that Rhobite is not eligable to be blocked on those grounds, I concur. I'm still a bit confused on the "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word." Since I merely reverted to the page (albeit 4 times) which contained the edit that a wiki-admin made, I didn't actually added or deleted anything: the addition was already made by that wiki-admin, and nothing was added by those who reverted before me, so I didn't delete anything neither.

So, what exactly is the applied reasoning then, by and for which I'm blocked, since in the explanation of the 3-revert-rule, it is explicitly mentionned it doesn't mean that reverting to a former version should be considered reverting.

Also, I'm curious about your viewpoint of the actual discussion. Personally, I found it rather frustrating, seen the rather arbitrary manner in which rules seem to be applied one-sided and inconsistently, and agreed compromises unilaterally broken. But regardless, even one would refute the importance of the criticism, I do think I have proven enough to make the case that there *IS* crticism on the freenet project. In fact, this actual factual: the moment you have people criticising, then the fact that their is criticism seems undeniable. This is regardless of whether one agrees with the criticism or not. This seems a rather logical conclusion, but one that is heavily disputed by others, it would seem. What is your take on this?AntiPanemEtCircensis 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, all too easy, isn't it? Call someone who tries to make an article more NPOV and balanced by also pointing out some criticism a vandal. Or better still; a troll, like the founder (Ian), who's ego doesn't go well with any criticism. I wonder who the true vandals of wikipedia are; those that at least acknowledge there *is* criticism, who tries to include opposing viewpoints according to the NPOV-guidelines, who abide with the compromise and agreement made with the edit of a wiki-admin...or those who want to deny any criticism exist, don't care to make the article more NPOV, and throw away agreements when it doesn't fit them any longer.

It really disgusts me sometimes that people like you virtually rape the noble idea behind the wikipedia as being (or at least trying to be) a repository of NPOV knowlegde. You are the kind of person, I guess, who would have no trouble reverting and deleting any mentionning of criticism against nuclear powerplants, if you were against it. I on the other hand, would acknowledge that criticism, whether I agree with it or not. If that makes me a vandal, keep calling me a vandal, you ninkenpoop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.104.153 (talk • contribs)

I never called you a vandal, and I would never call anyone a "ninkenpoop." I blocked you for violating the three-revert rule on Freenet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ermmm...I was responding to the guy with the nick Guinnog, if you may have missed that, not you. I do no not resort to namecalling to people who are being reasonably polite, but I have no problem with serving someone his own food. Frankly, he got of easy with ninkenpoop; it's a lot less polite to be called a vandal. I basically treat people like they treat me, so no-1 should complain about the treatement they get from me. :-)

But now something else; since you seem keen on applying the rules, and no doubt, in the spirit of equal and fair treatement, want to apply those rules consistently, I have to ask to block Rhobite too. As you yourself have already indicated on the discussionpage, he clearly made 3 reverts by which he deleted the edit of haakon (starting before me, thus) within 24 hours. Since rules apply to everyone, it would not be more then logical that you should block him too. Mind you, it's not out of spite or something, I ask this, but I've seen enough hypocrisy in these edits and the appliance of rules (at least by others) as it is, and fairness isn't well served by it.

also, to make this discussion go a bit more easy, I've decide to register, so ppl don't have to resort to the IP always (which can be used by different people anyway). AntiPanemEtCircensis 21:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Chronicles of Friendship

You are destroying America's youth's chance at becoming more literate. You are a heartless monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurestories (talk • contribs)

User 64.213.217.120

I see that you recently blocked 64.213.217.120. This user seems to be resetting their IP address to vandalize several different articles at a time. I believe this user is also 68.216.148.66, which should probably be blocked too. If he continues (easily noticed by his appeal for "wikipedia defcon 1 or bust") it may be necesary for an IP range to be blocked. The only problem is that the first number of the IP range seems to change too, which may make things difficult if all they are doing is resetting their IP. Cowman^Talk 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism

Thanks for the heads up, im still learning my wikiquette..Ill aplogize for the summary on the talk page. I'm planning on doing a complete NPOV overhaul. Wanna know where I learned objectivity from? Ayn Rand. I hate her works, because they are wrong, but they are the most robotically objective and scientific philosophy papers I've ever read :) Thx again, --Urthogie 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yuber is a known Islamist POV Warrior under arbitration committee sanction for his activities, but he CONTINUES to edit war on Islam articles and no admin seems willing to actually enforce the arb sanctions. It's bullshit but that's what we get. When I see him edit warring, I'll revert him and it's that simple. Extc

Although I might be wrong, I'm yet to see him post any especially POV'd edits. Perhaps if you reconciled with him it would lead to better contributions overall?--Urthogie

All he does is go around reverting anything he considers "offensive to Islam." He never comes to talk pages or anything. He's a sad POV-warrior joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extc (talk • contribs)

He's made contributions to the article, and I think if you were nicer to him he might be more willing to discuss. Just my 2 cents.--Urthogie 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Do not accuse me of making personal attacks. Extc

Just above you wrote, "He's a sad POV-warrior joke." If you don't want to be accused of making personal attacks, don't make them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's difficult logic to refute.--Urthogie 18:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism (again)

I reverted your uses of say in favor of claim. The reason why I did that is because words like "claim" are more accurate. When it comes to politics and controversial issues, it's important that we don't casualize it with words like say-- there is a real conflict going on, not just people "saying" things. Please reply to this before any reverts on that. Thanks very much, and much respect for you to helping make the section more NPOV throughout your edits.--Urthogie 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My reply is on the talk page Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Tom, what I meant is that it is one thing to "know" about European history, it is another to have had nearly your entire family wiped out by the Holocaust. I really find the page objectionable, and see a huge double standard that you would split hairs with me over the difference between "detrator" and "critic," or "supporter" or "defender," when the page as it is is anything but neutral. As I stated previously, the information about Pius and the Holocaust is completely biased. Do you want the Wikipedia to be a propaganda mouthpiece or should it reflect both sides of a fierce debate?

OK, let's start at the beginning: the first sentence of the Holocaust section of the article:

Prior to 1963, the efforts of Pius XII on behalf of all victims of war-time fascist aggression were well known and unquestioned.

Where is the proof for this? Where are the citations from historians? The fact is, I have spoken with many Holocaust survivors and I have yet to find one who had good things to say about Pope Pius XII. If I find a direct quote from a published source from a survivor, can I add that to the article to refute this false opening statement? Or will it immediately be taken down by whomever took down the other changes I attempted three times to make?

Weber1

Hi Tom, Sorry to be an anon but that's what I am for the time being. Along with you, I also support taking down the neutrality warning from Pius XII article. It seems pretty balanced. I think to be "balanced" some people want the biography to be a laundry list of conspiracy theories, inuendo, speculation and second guessing which really doesn't belong in the article. The Odessa references, links and the link provide more than sufficient balance.

I understand about original research

Below is what I just posted to the discussion section for the Benjy Bronk entry. You appear to be an authoritative person with Wikipedia. Do you have an email address that I could send the scans from the yearbooks verifying Benjy Bronk?

---

I understand about original research. Benjy Bronk appears in the 1982-1983 D.W. Daniel High School yearbook as in the 10th grade. Daniel High School at that time consisted of 10th-12th grade, around 600 students. I expect that there exists probably 500 copies of that yearbook in existence since most students purchased one, including me. It's a published book and therefore substatial and not in the category of original research. It's a definite source that provides verification to Benjy's age, hometown and high school. I can scan the pages out of the yearbook, but given the nature of Wikipedia, I don't know who the authoritative person is to email them to.

I also have the yearbooks for R.C. Edwards Jr. High that show Benjy in 7th grade and for Morrison Elementary School that show Benjy in 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades. These are again published books that were purchased by students at those schools at that time. I can provide scans of the pages of which Benjy is pictured, but who is the authoritative person to send them to.

My interest in this Wikipedia entry is that it denotes correct information for Benjy Bronk. I have verifiable information that proves he was born in 1967 (or late 1966), was in the graduating high school class of 1985, and grew up in Clemson, South Carolina. As long as those facts remain in the Benjy Bronk Wikipedia entry, I'm happy. 148.126.100.82 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjy_Bronk"

148.126.100.82 15:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82

Reply on article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I took pictures of Benjy Bronk from the yearbooks that show him in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 10th grade. I put links to them in the discussion section of the Benjy Bronk Wikipedia entry. These pictures provide verifiable proof that (1) he grew up in Clemson, SC and (2) He was in the class of 1985 through school which puts him born in 1967 or possibly late 1966.

I don't know how to add the photos to the Wikipedia entry for Benjy Bronk and will leave it for someone more experienced. I simply want the basic facts of his hometown and age to be correct in the Wikipedia entry. The people trashing his entry were changing his hometown and year of birth. Oh, I didn't scan the page, but the 1983 yearbook does list him in the index in the back as Benjamin Ron Bronk. Can you please see to it that this information isn't trashed by others? Last night someone even trashed what I wrote in the discussion, so be sure you're reading a version of the discussion that I wrote. Thanks. 63.229.124.189 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)63.229.124.189

Thank you for making those edits. But given the nature of Howard Stern fans, I expect that it will be a Wikipedia entry that will be frequently trashed. At least there's a record now in this history of its entry of some basic facts. Hopefully no one will change my discussion information about the pictures and the links. I'm not even a Howard Stern fan, just someone who knew Benjy Bronk during his younger years and want a few facts made correct. 63.229.124.189 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)63.229.124.189

Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [2] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit?

Why did you remove my edit to the Water Purification page. The section on ozone use in water purifciation is a bit vague. Also, the sentence "The ozone then must be removed from the water." is untrue. Ozone is unstable and turns back to regular O2 in about 20 minutes.

Sorry, my mistake. More on your talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:63.199.41.3

Hi Tom, I decided to grant this anon their request for an early unblock, seeing as this is a shared IP, it was the first time it was blocked, and he has already served most of the 48 hours of the block you imposed. I hope that's ok with you! Owen× ☎ 23:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion from a New Wikipedian

Dear Tom, as a "newbie" to Wikipedia, it would be nice of you to be of assistance, rather to assume that newbies have nefarious intentions. Such as your assumption on the Nostradamus reference to Jews as pigs, using the Spanish slang, posted on PL's Talk Page, without referring to me as well for my thoughts. You just went ahead and said what you thought he meant, rather than checking out the whole Nostradamus Talk Page, and seeing what the beef was with this Spanish word for Jews as swine. You assumed much there, but did not continue by asking me what I meant. I felt that this reference was racist, and its placement in the second paragraph of the introduction to Nostradamus - highly inappropriate and POV. If you thought otherwise, as a newcomer to Wikipedia, I would have wanted to know why. It would've helped me. But you didn't. At least I could not find your question to me on this matter. I have not heard from you; yet, you surely had time to post on my RFC. I feel as if you might not think that newcomers may actually take seriously Jimbo Wales motto to "be bold" and not to "bite newcomers" with cliques, and such. As an editor, and administrator, I am just adding my own view here that you could've been more helpful to a newcomer like me -since I've only been here a month.Theo 15:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Moved from my user page, Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am content that anyone who cares to can read about it (including the edit history) and draw his own conclusions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom, as a new Wikipedian, I suggest that perhaps conclusions were drawn against me. Moreover, you inserted your comments as a pretext for what was not possibly meant? I ask you: what would a reference to Jews, called 'pigs" in Spanish slang, have to do with the subject of Nostradamus? Moreover, as a copy editor, and I've worked with many over the years as a journalist, how would this be relevant in the introduction to the primary subject in the second lead paragraph?Theo 17:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

From the intro of the article, it looks relevant to me, as illustrating attitudes common at that time. Whether or not it belongs in the article, I find it very hard to understand your comment to PL:

"I think you ought to stop referring to Jews as Swine"

You know very well that PL never referred to Jews as swine. How can this be anything other than an attempt to tar him by suggesting he was applying the epithet rather than recording it? And why? To gain temporary advantage in an edit war?

You write, "Moreover, you inserted your comments as a pretext for what was not possibly meant?" I'm sorry, I don't understand. What comment is a pretext, and for what? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, no, I do not know very well that PL did not, though, I did ask him. Also, you are incorrect in stating that it was an attenmpt to "tar him" by suggesting this, or to gain "temporary advantage in an edit war." I was doing no such thing. This is an outright assumption that is clearly wrong. Moreover, you state this as a fact, but did not ask me. You assume way too much here, and I suggest that as a administrator, you give newcomers a little leeway by at least taking the time to ask first, rather than asserting it as fact. You are wrong about this. Try asking first before jumping in head first, that would be best. Thanks.Theo 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Moreover, you state this as a fact, but did not ask me." Yes, I do state it as fact. I maintain that a reasonable man could reach no other conclusion. "I suggest that as a administrator, you give newcomers a little leeway by at least taking the time to ask first..." I've heard you suggest this many times before. At this point, I reject your suggestion. I've given you all the patience and presumption of good faith that I think warranted. I am not making assumptions so much as drawing conclusions from your past behavior. I think it likely that this behavior will continue. Anyone who cares can read previous versions of your talk page and judge for himself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Then, I would suggest that you refrain from making comments since by what you've just stated, you would presume - and remember Tom, you did not FIRST assume good faith. Moreover, despite your judgement to the contrary, you've not given me anything - much less your patience. If anything, I never had that to begin with. I have been on Wikipedia for a month, and suggest you stop drawing conclusions about me based on what obviously is your ignorance of my past behavior. And one more thing: you are not the only strong writer/editor who can base conclusions on past behavior. Suggest that as an administrator you put a hold on your bias, and take Jimbo Wales to heart. It might do wonders for you in the future with other newcomers to Wikipedia. Remember, it is a two-way street Tom, and I think you failed me from the beginning. Try taking a step back, and then ask me first rather than presuming. You think you know me? You do not. And, no, Tom, when it came to your giving me your "patience" - you did not at all right from the start. So, you see, I don't believe you.Theo 19:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

Hello Tom, I am still open to debate and discussion on the issue if you are interested, but since Radiant and Cberlet were trying to claim version 2.0 of the proposal was some how "rejected" I have opened voting. See here and Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 20:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom, I'm just wanting to ask you a dumb question. Do you know if the featured picture archive is the only picture archive or if there is a way to do a Wikipedia image search? Any info would be much appreciated. SkeenaR 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! SkeenaR 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess!

Hmm.. Fun ;) Hey you happen to follow the serries? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

replied

I replied on Talk:Islamist terrorism--Urthogie 16:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Banning the use of the Scotchirish.net web site as a source

Hi Tom,

I have been viewing the content of the website scotchirish.net and I have come to the conclusion that it breeds with ignorance and anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment throughout. There are a few users who deem this sort of web site as a legimate source for the Scottish people page or Scotch-Irish page. I fail to see how this source should be included in such a reputable place of knowledge and content. I am asking for a ban on this web site for any pages in wikipedia. As an administrator, I believe you can see my reasoning once you read some of the information/quotes from the web site that target and insult those of Irish Catholic origin. I am not trying to make this into a partisan or sectarian cause, but I just don't believe it is acceptable for wikipedia to allow such a web site like scotchirish.net to be used as a source/reference. I would appreciate a response to this request.

Some examples of anti-Irish and/or Catholic from web site are:

Who are the Scotch-Irish?

A great majority of people who emigrated to America were Protestants from Ulster, many years before the potato famine. Most of these, in turn, were descendants of settlers brought in from Scotland. "Scotch-Irish" refers to those emigrants or to their descendants. "Whatever blood may be in the veins of the genuine Scotch-Ulsterman, one thing is certain, and that is that there is not mingled with it one drop of the blood of the old Irish or Kelt." John Walker Dinsmore

http://www.scotchirish.net/main.php4

Coupled with the last 30 years of anti Protestant propaganda from Irish Nationalists and the constant pressure from the British to make the Ulster man more British than the British themselves and you can begin to see why the idea of the Scotch Irish as a people almost faded away.

http://www.scotchirish.net/What%20about%20the%20name.php4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.71.252 (talk • contribs)

scotchirish.net

Right then, who can I speak to in regards to this matter? I will not be discussing this on the talk page because it is completely useless to do so. I feel that points made on there are just discarded and whatever comments are made by other users for the most part are not professional or lack consideration. If you had taken the minute to look at the website you would see that my concerns are quite justified. I find it hard to believe that wikipedia.org can support such racist propagranda from a website such as scotchirish.net. I have spent many hours researching and making additions to pages on wikipedia but at times like this I wonder why bother at all. I would like to be referred to a person in upper management with respect to my query. If you could so kindly provide me with that info, it would be greatly appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.71.252 (talk • contribs)

Tom, one other quick question if you don't mind. What's up with broken user pages? Adam Adler as an example. SkeenaR 21:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't know if Adam Adler is having trouble with his userpage. I was just curious about the reason for the links being like that because I've seen a few lately. I did see this one today though. [3] SkeenaR 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

comment moved

to Talk:Benjy Bronk Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary of dispute with ZM

Hi, it was probably inappropriate of me to post so extensively on ZM's talk page. Could you please, for my sake, give me some insight regarding your confict with ZM. Thanks. --BostonMA 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjy Bronk

Tom, if you're still continuing to follow the vandalism of the Benjy Bronk page, I've provided verifiable and independent proof as to Benjy Bronk's age, hometown, high school and graduation year. Still the vandals are editing the entry to remove or change this information. I have never edited a Wikipedia entry until providing information for this one. Wikipedia has lost credibility with me as people can indescriminately edit an entry with no basis of fact. Heck, the Daniel High School webpage lists Benjy Bronk as a 1985 graduate, yet for some that's not enough proof. It's a waste of my time to even care whether an entry on Wikipedia is correct if crap like this can go on. 148.126.100.82 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82

Thanks for the message back. I'm glad there's someone like you who can provide a bit of sanity to the process. At least there's a trail in both the history and discussion of the facts, that eventually the truth will win. I have never listened to the Howard Stern Show. I think Benjy Bronk is an embarrassment for anyone who's ever known him. But when I saw on the news that Howard Stern was about to start on Satellite, I was curious what's being said on the internet about Benjy. I did a search and came up with the Wikipedia entry. I saw errors and attempted to correct. I've spent way too much time on it than what it's worth. But, I'd rather things be correct than let the entry become an outlet for people to pretend to be comedians. I feel vindicated that the main facts I've stated about Benjy have been verified by other sources. I would think people would say, "Hey, he's right and really did know Benjy growing up. Let's listen to what he has to say because he can tell us a lot more." All I would need to do is send an email to my brother, who was best friends with Benjy for many years, and he could probably supply 100x more info about Benjy than what I can remember. Yea, that's not verifiable proof and counts as independent research and isn't allowed. But I'd think that any Howard Stern fan would be interested in hearing it. If I knew how to call or email Benjy, he'd know exactly who I am. In case you haven't figured it out, I've written on Wikipedia from 2 different IP's, home and work. Stephen. 148.126.100.82 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82

I see that the Benjy Bronk page has been vandalized again, this time with stuff about 12 year old black girls and the KKK. I'm wasting my time to continuously revert it back to the correct version so I won't any more. If vandals want to destroy a Benjy Bronk page, then I'd expect that there would be 1000x the vandals to destroy a George W. Bush (or any politician) page. I don't see how Wikipedia keeps the crap out. 148.126.100.82 18:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82

really need you here

I know you have strong opinions about the offensiveness of the title. But I need you to do the right thing here-- you're the only one who could quickly end this. Please tell them to stop making irrationalist arguments. Please, tom, help wikipedia here-- I know you're capable of thinking past your opinion about the offensiveness(which isn't grounds for naming) Thanks for considering it...you could really do a good thing by standing up for the objective truth of the matter, as it will prevent people from getting into silly factions.--Urthogie 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a really sad statement about wikipedia if its true. It makes me very unhappy. I was just thinking that your voice on the talk page could get them to stop a bit. Could you do it for an idealistic optimist who still believes in the process of wikipedia? I've put so much work into this minor point, just so wikipedia isn't compromised. Your voice on it would mean a LOT to me.--Urthogie 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bethefawn

See the bottom post at WP:ANI. Even weirder is perhaps that we now have a very informative university e-mail address for this user. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Extc

Bah! :( Well, I warned him about it. He should be closely monitored and mentored a little, in my opinion. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

mmm, ok. Just treat him like any other user. I was just assuming good faith with him. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 19:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks

For the heads up. Consider the source. :)BYT 19:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying to make another person look bad?

I thought so too at first; I couldn't believe those were his own particulars that he had posted on the userpage. But I changed my mind when I got an e-mail from the mentioned person's university address. It's not impossible to send from another's address, I suppose, but I have trouble believing in such an elaborate hoax. I think the user just got hold of some bad crack. Btw, how come you blocked the IP so briefly? Would a block affect a lot of other people at the same educational institution? That would be the case at my uni, I know. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Question

What do you use to detect vandalism? Thanks.  :) --Mystaker1 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lupin's? Thank you. --Mystaker1 03:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tom

Thank you so much for reverting the "Borg attack" on my userpage the other night. Muchly appreciated. :) Sarah Ewart 10:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison - stop vandalising WTC collapse article

I have repeatedly removed 2 paragraphs in the WTC collapse article. I will continue, and rightfully so. These paragraphs contain blatantly false statements, i.e.

"Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, essentially, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way."

In fact, NO steel in ANY building EVER degraded in the same way in over 100 years of steel-framed skyscrapers and the towering infernos that have repeatedly occured. The questionable paragraphs have NO support, no documentation, and are utterly outside the Wikipedia guidelines. You have not offered one shred of evidence contradicting what I say. All you have done is attempt to bully me with threats.

71.129.72.28 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply on the user's talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks

I just want to thank you for being a voice of neutrality in that heated argument. I think it's good that we all maintained civility, and your voice always got things back to focus. I was wondering if you could do one final favor. You've read through the entire debate and as you can see, noones posting to it anymore. The main party opposing the move has withdrawn. Could you, as an administrator who has read the entire discussion and understands the policy at hand, perform the move? Thank you very much!--Urthogie 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

User 24.21.43.37, who you warned for vandalism a few days ago, added many random digits in the Pi article. --Macrakis 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ludwig II

Sorry! I didn't see your note until I had already reverted. -Maaya 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I got carried away myself. More on your talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No prob, it's a bit tangled over there, so I can see how it could have happened! Maaya 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WTC 7

I'm sorry Tom. I sent you the wrong link. It's this one. SkeenaR 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the crimp. Any thoughts? SkeenaR 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You have me curious now. Have you seen buildings collapse inwards like that when they weren't the result of a controlled demolition? If you have I really would be interested in knowing about that or seeing some pictures. SkeenaR 20:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at that stuff. SkeenaR 21:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a couple of pictures from PrisonPlanet. I know that Alex Jones doesn't mind people using his material but I'm not sure if did the copyright thing right on the upload. I'm not sure if I should fix anything or not. They are in the WTC 7 section at conspiracies. SkeenaR 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would send you one more in case you were interested. It's in-depth. [4] SkeenaR 03:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have never once made an edit to the section on Isreal. SkeenaR 04:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I would mention that because in the edit summary when you made a revert in the section on Israel it says "to last version by SkeenaR". I never made an edit in that section, that's all. SkeenaR 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that he has funny vandalism:) SkeenaR 04:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, it WAS funny. SkeenaR 04:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about how much traffic that page gets. Any way to find out? I don't think TrafficRanking.com will work for individual Wikipedia pages. SkeenaR 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. By the way I really appreciate your help and info and stuff, so thank you. SkeenaR 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatreallyhappened.com
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prisonplanet.com

--Striver 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Islamic terrorism

Hi Tom. I was wondering if you were going to vote yourself? I sense that you're concerned about a knock-on affect whereby related Christian (and Jewish, inevitably) themed pages are affected by the outcome. I would only say that "call them as you see them" is good advice in these cases: if you think it should be X, vote for X. Anyhow, just curious as I've found your comments thoughtful. Marskell 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know whether this is acceptable [5]. What do you think? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think something like that belongs on the admin noticeboard. This is turning crazy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I understand but should be removed too IMO. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

V7ndotcom Elursrebmem Deletion

Hi, I noticed you voted to on the abovementioned article. Initialy I wanted to keep it, but when I compared it to Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck it seems obvious that all theese articles are repating the same info:

• It's a search contest
• It has begin/end dates
• It has a prize
• It uses a unique phrase that is not used before

I'd like to urge you to change your vote to Redirect to SEO Contest where I have created already made a copy of the article. This way they dont have "their own article" but they are mentioned in the encyclopedia. Seems like a compromise to me. Right now w/ all the Delete, Keep, And Redirect votes it will be hard to reach a compromise.This user has left wikipedia 22:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fplay

Fplay is blocked for running a bot without approval and refusing to indicate that he will not continue to do so. Emact is blocked because he was Fplay, pretending not to be, and making personal attacks on me (I didn't do the blocking on Emact) while still refusing to indicate that he will not run the bot. If he wants to come back with another ID, I have no problem with it, so long as he doesn't run his bot again and doesn't pretend to be somebody else. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. 193.60.223.139 15:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you claim a monopoly on knowledge? J.J. Robinson and Joel Unger's work is widely respected, especially in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangerinechomsky (talk • contribs)

Vandal IP

Thanks for reverting my userpage! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

DOM

Dear Tom, Now that I've gone to their side of the fraud thing, myself adding that the State Dept called DOM a fraud, Davidpdx still reverts me. You don't see others reverting or calling into question the new edition. You think he would love this new citation from CBS, quotation of the State Dept. What do you see unreasonable or wrong with the new edition? Sincerely, Johnski 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

DOM Semiprotection

Tom, I saw your message on the DOM talk page. Thanks for offering to help. I think implementing this would be a good idea. Thanks... Davidpdx 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism

The Palestinian and Iranian elections are tangential. Noone has provided any evidence to show that they are related to the subject of this article. Hamas did not run on a terrorism platform and tried very much to downplay the issue, so to suggest that by voting for Hamas the Palestinians were voting for terrorism is entirely misleading. --Lee Hunter 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tom. I do not wish to clarify what I meant by that comment as I have disengaged myself from the discussion since it (as usual) has descended into a flame-war filled with accusations of being in support of killing innocent civilians. Thank you for trying to see what I was saying, though. Yuber^(talk) 03:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

edits on wikipedia page

165.123.151.7 03:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) I just feel that information about people who may or may not be related to the group should not be displayed on the page. It is more or less an issue of privacy. I am not the person mentioned in the article, but I do have some knowledge about the subject. If information is to be on wikipedia, it should be correct, and verifiable. This is not such an instance.

3RR

I've replied to your question.--Mike18xx 01:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism

The guy's a complete crank. You have to be blunt or he doesn't get the point. --Lee Hunter 02:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you very much for your message and quick action Tom. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the award. I appreciate it. Davidpdx 05:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII again

I thought it was about to be possible to improve the Pope Pius XII article, but then EffK comes back. Do you consider yourself uninvolved in the content dispute, or at least sufficiently uninvolved to be in a position to block him for disruption (when the ArbCom is a vote short of a one-year ban)? Thank you. Robert McClenon 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting of vandalism

Hi, Tom. I've noticed that you've reverted vandalism at Institut Le Rosey a couple of times. It's on my watchlist. I taught there a few years ago — just at summer school for children learning English or French as a foreign language. It was a fantastic experience. I notice you gave a very gentle warning to the last vandal. I confess I'd have started with {{subst:test2}}, in this case, as, indeed, seems to be indicated here, but maybe you have a nicer nature than I have!

I often look at anonymous edits to that page with suspicion, and revert them when they're clearly vandalism. But sometimes I just don't know. Names are often added to the list of those who attened Le Rosey, and I often don't believe they're genuine, but am not sure enough to revert them. I sometimes have the same problem at Salem Witchcraft Trials. Names are added to the list of victims or list of accusers, and I'm suspicious, but not sure. If you have any kind of knowledge of that case, you might consider adding that page to your watchlist. I think it's vandalized more often than Rosey.

By the way, you might also consider keeping an eye on Christianity, Early Christianity, Criticism of Christianity, and Transubstantiation. There's been a bit of edit warring on all those pages recently, with a couple of new users reverting repeatedly despite numerous warnings. They were both blocked recently, so are being more careful now, but the reverts are still happening. Cheers, AnnH ^(talk) 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind...

Keeping an eye on User:Pecher on Islamic extremist terrorism. I went to 3RR with him today (which of course doesn't look good on me either) but I was particularly frustrated by his refusal to use talk and simply edit with revert. It also seemed an obvious POV push--throwing support above oppose and insisting on a source for the perfectly pedestrian comment that "other Muslims" contest a religious justification for terrorism. Nothing uncivil in a brief look at his contrib's but a lot of reverts. Marskell 15:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)