User talk:Tom harrison/Archive 2007

Thanks for imposing the block on Harvardy. It's good to see the wheels turning, albeit slowly. --Gene_poole 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[[42]] just curious why 31 hours when they month they last got blocked didn't seem to help any?--Xiahou 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because 31 is a prime number. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

using that idea 31 months would work :-) --Xiahou 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it would depend on the vandal's life cycle, I guess. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, You gave the opinion that Arlandson is not a RS for Islam and reverted edits. Could you point specifically to what parts of Wiki policy you invoked to make that judgment? Please note that Arlandson has written not one, but many articles on Islam. Thanks, NN 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says I have to point specifically to some policy? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A rather aggressive reply to a question asking for information. If you do not wish to explain your edits that is your choice. Such replies to not help change minds and likely lead to edit wars. NN 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have now posted an RfC on Mongo's behaviour.9.--

Hi Tom, regardless of your position on the RfC, I had hoped you would certify the basis of the dispute. After all, you have tried to resolve the dispute in some detail. Do you intend to certify it?--

No, certainly not; the dispute you describe is not one I ever tried to resolve. If I were going to certify any RfC it would be one about the conspiracy theorists who want to use the project as a soapbox. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sad to hear that. One possible result of this RfC (if it lasts) seems to be to vindicate Mongo's behaviour. This would be a very strong signal to "conspiracy theorists who want to use the project as a soapbox" since it would indicate even to people like me (who have much more moderate aims) that we are not welcome here. As I see it, however, the conspiracy-POV-pushers are currently being dealt with as sternly as possible (what more could an RfC on that accomplish?) and the moderate sceptics are being pushed away. The result is a series of articles that are very, very difficult to improve and often less than good. My suggestion is to change the tone of the discussion and see if that might help. But the decision to certify is of course entirely yours.--

Thomas Basboll

12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting

It would probably be better to send it to AfD and see what the consensus is. If it's deleted there, any recreations can be speedied. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is worshiped the spelling from the quote? It seems odd to me - I'm not sure what dialect spells it that way (the google gives 4:1 for worshipped). WilyD 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see both are used; I guess in general I have no preference. Anyway, we have to match the quotation, which I had not noticed, so I changed it back. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, say, what's wrong with press for truth? Not notable? Disturbing? Lovelight 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[43] Cheers, :) --Aminz 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, it is not my purpose to write bad things about Chritians. I don't believe the very past matters much. What makes me sad is to see some contemporary people like Craig Winn who describe Muhammad as: "*Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet, qualifies as the most evil man to have ever lived.* Muhammad was the perfect Satanic prophet." Or Spencer who is willing to apply double standards to Islam and cover up as much as truth as he wants to prove his point.

I just would like to make the history and development of such ideas clear. Isn't it odd that the attitudes of some well-known missionaries toward Islam like

Thanks. I think there is much in what you say. When we consider empires and imperialism, we have to be careful not to forget about the Ottoman Empire, and the Mughal Empire. Like the British Empire, they did some bad things, and some good as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right Tom. Humans are all sinful and are motivated by the same desires whether in east or west. Muslims and Christians were in war and in such situation everybody makes fables for the other side. I doubt Muslims in Medieval times ever tried to understand and appreciate Christianity because they were the enemies in war. Thanks again very much for your edit to the section. --Aminz 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I wonder why have you removed my contributions to the Vedic Mathematics page. They were tutorials and slide shows and Videos meant to promote Vedic mathematics. I did not understand why did you say it is promotional links. It is meant to promote the subject not anything else.

Would request you to please reinclude the removed links. Or provide me an explanation for the same at [email protected]

Thanks Gaurav —The preceding

They look promotional to me, and the content is not that great. If they are good, someone else will probably put them back in, and then we can discuss it at

Talk:Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics. Tom Harrison ^Talk

13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Put them back if you want, and I will not remove them again unless someone else does first. Or, take it up on the article's talk page that I linked above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I have readded the link and also taken it up at the article talk page as you mentioned.If it is voted out I have no issues but we should consider the beauty of the tutorials and the history which has been explained.I hope you support it and not consider it promotional. Thanks

Sorry I had to change my user name but I did not meen to vandle any thing i just whanted to tell the world about free toast Thank You Adam Davies —The preceding

for this and this. Quick work! ElinorD (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All part of our fast and friendly service. :-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has blocked Lovelight, I wanted to let you know of an RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lovelight) I just opened, I was hoping you'd have some comments or additions to it. Thank you. --Golbez 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read through it later today. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

In your edit here[44], you removed citations to "whatreallyhappened.com" and "youtube.com". I'm not familiar with the issues surrounding the removal of those links. Can you help me understand the motivations for removing them? Otheus 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a sockpuppet or meatpuppet?24.218.139.157 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)User (Talk): 24.218.139.157

I would remove most of the content in that section, which is a significant portion of the article. If you wish to have the template removed then find reliable sources (there currently are no sources) or gut the article. KazakhPol 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rollback should not be used in content disputes. Don't do that again. It certainly should not be used for sterile edit warring in the manner you are using it. You have not bothered to address any of the points raised on the talk page almost two weeks ago. It's one thing for you simply to be rude, it's quite another for you to abuse admin tools. 72.198.121.115 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Restore the names again and I will block you for violating our policy on

biographies of living people. Complain about it to whoever you like. Tom Harrison ^Talk

00:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop mischaracterising the policy. It does not say "there must be sources in the article", it says that the statements must be sourced. Which they are. Your threat of a block is nothing but an attempt by you to win an content dispute. Stop making threats. No policy is being violated. 72.198.121.115 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, as per "policy according to Tom", why have you removed the names of people whose articles include the references you claim are missing, and why are you applying BLP to things other than people? You are abusing rollback to edit war, and you are making threats which are not supported by policy. If you want to claim that this is some sort of an admin action, stop edit warring. 72.198.121.115 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take this in the spirit of your requested "review" of admin actions.

• Your use of rollback would fit, as would your threats of a block. You used rollback not only to re-insert material as part of a content dispute, you also used it to reinsert an inaccurate template. Rollback is not meant for edit-warring. The fact that you didn't even bother to look at what you were reverting suggests that you were simply engaging in sterile edit-warring.
• Your attempt to use threats of blocking to gain the upper hand in your edit war is also improper use of your standing as an admin to bully another editor.
• Your misrepresentation of policy isn't an admin action, but is required to back up your improper threat.
• Attributing your edits to BLP is simply a matter of falsely representing your actions. Even according to your definition of BLP (which doesn't match the policy), you were not acting in accordance with BLP. BLP does not say "revert wholesale".

The material is supported by citations. The fact that something is supported by a citation from a reliable source is what matters, not the location of the citation. Your allegation that the placement of a citation somehow affects its validity is nonsense. Don't hide your content-warring under the guise of BLP, especially when your claims are so transparently untrue. And don't make threats of blocking in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That's a betrayal of the trust of the people who supported your RFA. 72.198.121.115 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on that apology for your threats, abuse of admin tools, and use of untrue edit summaries. 72.198.121.115 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using misleading edit summaries. The material is well sourced. You keep making outright false claims. 72.198.121.115 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I can see you are busy so don't feel you have to rush right to it, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion about the basis for including the "space beams" idea in the controlled demolition article. I've started a section on the talk page here to discuss it. My view, which I've also communicated to Arthur Rubin, is that if the idea is to stay there has to be more to say about it. I just haven't been able to find any solid sources to begin to elaborate the idea.--

I'm reviewing your block of 72.198.121.115, and I'm afraid I can't agree with you on several levels. 1) You're way too involved on the topic and should have sought another admin to review and make the block if necessary. 2) There has been no BLP violation by 72.198.121.115; as I pointed out to you at Template talk:Dominionism before you made the block, sources have been provided for the names you've been bent on removing. Those sources, Rolling Stone [45] Christian Science Monitor [46] and Harpers Harpers [47] (convenience link here: [48]), are widely accepted across the project as reliable sources, a point you conceded weeks ago: [49] 3) Repeatedly ignoring and trying to dismiss notable sources long deemed reliable across the entire project is not acceptable behavior from an admin, and by repeatedly doing so you've demonstrated sufficiently for me and other admins that you're personally far too wrapped up in this issue to be going around blocking anyone involved there. Considering these points, I think you're block of 72.198.121.115 was unjustified. Therefore I'm unblocking him and urge to apologize. FeloniousMonk 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Of the links you provide above, the Christian Science Monitor does not mention Monaghan, as I told you already on the talk page. Neither does Hedges' article mention Monaghan. Only the Rolling Stone article mentions Monaghan, and only in passing - certainly not to the point of supporting a characterization of 'Financier of Dominionism'. I don't understand why you would list sources in support of including Monaghan that do not mention him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your block was clearly out of line. You should know better than to block when you are in the middle of a content dispute. In addition, repeatedly making false claims (like the allegation that "no new sources were added") is really pretty ridiculous. Please stop your POV-pushing and tendentious editing, and don't block to win content disputes. OK? 72.198.121.115 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for catching my

You are welcome, and thank you taking the time to fix all those errors. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not block when you are engaged in edit wars. This is not a clear BLP issue, and since you are engaged in edit warring over the topic, your block is a clear violation of the blocking policy. Just because you say this is a BLP issue doesn't make it so. This is not your first offense on this issue. Make sure it's your last. Guettarda 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a blp issue, and I will continue to handle it just as I have. Take it up on the noticeboard, or wherever else you care to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are far too involved to judge. If you feel it's a valid BLP issue, an uninvolved admin is only minutes away. Blocking should not be used as a tool to win edit wars. That isn't too difficult for you to understand. Guettarda 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my reply above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But I appreciate your review, and am sorry for my abrupt reply. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted to ANI here as this doesn't need to escalate to a wheel war. --Tbeatty 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There will be no wheel war, because I will not undo any other admins's actions, and I imagine Guettarda feels the same way. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Any offical day has an official name and teh official name for this day is "Students day" and it is the anniversary of an event happened in 1964 and 1978. "Day of Death to America" is neither a "name" nor a "common name" and not the "official name", just a name that western media like to propagate. The common names are: "Anniversary of take over of Den of Spies" and "13th of Aban" as well as the official name, "Students day". I know that people will rally and say "death to america" but this not the name of the day! Please find a single Iranian calendar that uses this name! Sangak ^Talk 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And all those 5 sources are unreliable! The first source is a mistake by BBC (no mention of the source they used), the second one is unreliable as there are other mistakes in the article. The third one is a claim by an Iranian in exile and unreliable. The fourth one is again a letter by an Iranian in exile. The fifth one is not at all related to the event.

From one of these "sources": This date normally falls on November 4, but is alternatively featured on some calendars on February 6.. Isn`t it funny ???

And for your information, there are two different words in persian for university students and highschool students. Both are translated to "Student" in English. There are also two students day! In any case I am not going to edit that article any more. It`s just wasting of my time.

Sangak ^Talk 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have nominate Ishmael as a GA article. Any comments on that would be appreciated. Cheers, --Aminz 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'll read it tomorrow morning. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much Tom. Very good corrections. --Aminz 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Several days ago you added {{

Here is the full quote from the source: "In a fashion similar to European medieval folklore, black dogs, in particular, were viewed ominously in the Islamic tradition.[1] According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.[2] Although this report did reflect a part of pre-Islamic Arab mythology, it had a limited impact upon Islamic law. The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal."

Any mention of "The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal." is wiped out from the article. --Aminz 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It conflicts with many other sourced statements in wikipedia about sahih hadith. This bizarre statement should be taken with a grain of salt. If it can be verified by a more prominent voice then we could possibly include it in some way. Arrow740 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, this was not the only concern you had. You were doing mass reverts and taking out all quotations as you did here and here. You have also incorrectly said that quoting primary sources is OR. If you want to add just that line somehow, we can work on that - but dont take out all the quotations saying its OR.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and my revert there was not primarily to keep out the minority view Aminz is promoting, but to undue his mass deletions. I'll have to read the whole article he is quoting before my mind is made up about that. Arrow740 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed all direct quotes from primary sources because it is OR. And "keep out the minority view Aminz is promoting"- what minority view? on what topic? --Aminz 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, direct quotes from primary sources are not OR. I have asked you multiple number of times to give me the WP policy that supoprts your view.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, the source that Arrow is refuting is "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature". Another example Tom: They wrote in the article that:"Muhammad said that dogs and donkeys - if they pass in front of men in prayer - they will void or nullify that prayer."

The source says: "In some such traditions, it is claimed that the Prophet said that dogs, donkeys, women, and in some versions non-Muslims, if they pass in front of men in prayer, they will void or nullify that prayer.[8] Interestingly, early Muslim authorities, such as the Prophet’s wife Aisha, strongly protested this symbolic association between dogs and women because of its demeaning implications for women. As a result, most Muslim jurists ruled that this tradition is not authentic, and that the crossing of women in front of men does not negate their prayers." --Aminz 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The hadith you reverted also was the one in which Muhammed said we should dip a fly becuse one wing contains disease and the other contains a cure. We can deal with the dog hadith somehow and make that mention in the caption (e.g.) but do you agree with the other quotes? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If Aisha protested then it must have happened. Arrow740 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I am not against you putting in alternate interpretations of the hadiths. I am against you preventing direct quoting of primary sources. Its ok to quote. That is what my main complaint was. Please show an accurate picture to Tom here. I never said you could not provide sourced alternate interpretations, but you started out by deleting all the quotations saying its OR to quote primary sources (diffs given above). If you want to work on this, take it up on the article talk page and we can work something out, but by no way will anyone be allowed to prevent direct quoting of primary sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we should not quote primary sources directly unless a secondary source mentions that and even then we have to quote the verse in the light of the interpretation that the secondary source says. --Aminz 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, what you beleive doesnt matter. Policy matters. If there are interpretations to a text, that can be dealt with. We can deal with the dog stuff but the fly hadiths and others will stay. If there are any interpretations, we can add those to the article. So please dont take out the hadiths again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I do not have time right now to give this more attention. Aminz is quite correct about the use of primary sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, simply quoting primary sources is not against policy. Interpreting them is. Am I correct? This is what another user also said when I asked this question here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Quoting_religious_sources. If quoting primary sources is allowed and is actually the proper use of primary sources, as the user said. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "we should not quote primary sources directly unless a secondary source mentions that and even then we have to quote the verse in the light of the interpretation that the secondary source says." Otherwise people could say "Christians believe [insert outrageously misogynistic precept from the the Book of Leviticus]," and then cite the Bible. Or people could choose quotes from Martin Luther and the Renaissance Popes for no other purpose than making Christianity look stupid. Neither would make a good basis for an encyclopedia article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you all the times. Thanks for your input. --Aminz 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, there are many places in which a direct quote or interpretation is made about Islamic issues, one example is the article

Islam and animals article, he'll have to bring that up on a case by case basis on the article's page because OR is interpreting text, not quoting it. Also, I'm making no statement like the example you gave. I simply quoted Mohammed verbatim. This is not against policies as Aminz is claiming and as I also confirmed on the Talk page of RS, the link for which was given above. I didnt mean to disturb you as well here but Aminz started this debate. I like to go through the usual route, RfC etc. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs}

) 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's no bother or disturbance at all; drop by any time. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This appeared when I attempted to edit a page. In the UAE, most connections go through the sole ISP which dynamically assigns IP addresses. Therefore, when you block one, you are making it difficult for a large number of users. The one you want to target simply needs to wait a few seconds or minutes for his/her IP to change. Or disconnect and reconnect.

Hello,

I added the links to the several HP "voyager" calculator. Yes you're right, one link to MyCalcDB.free.fr is enough, but no it's not 6 time the same link : it's each time for 1 calculator type.

So please, think to the user which can easely follow the link to one of the 6 DIFFERENT calculators, and let them like I did.

Thanks

Philippe

Uh,

I see you surf into the Bomb Disposal page. Snozzer has added a photograph that is copyrighted. It's from the cover of a Peter Birchall book. He claims it is his own.

I am not going back to the Bomb Disposal page, could you look into this?

-Shawn [email protected] High Order1

Sorry Wrong Kinahan. I mean't George Henry Kinahan a noted Irish geologist. Please delete asapNotafly

I do believe it is you who undid my edits twice because you disliked my phrasing. The contributions I added to the page had nothing to do with the phrasing you did not like. I resent you threatining me with banisment because I attempted to restore my own edits which a user blindly removed (i.e. his edits made no sense and removed information pertinant to the topic). Please read over the whole history before sending me the threatening message. Secondly, the changes I had made had seemed to be the consensus(sp) of the talk page for the article, which one user had not read and changed the article against that found consencus(sp). Please take back your threatening words or atleast consider the circumstance before you make accusations. Thanks, DerwinUMD 23:29 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your open mindedness into other people's thought process. The 9-11 truth movment is not a bunch of people trying to convince everyone that the government perpitrated 9-11. Its a bunch of people trying to get the government to stop refusing to investigate anything other than the offical story presented on day 1. NIST refused to investigate the theories. The 9-11 Commision refused to investigate them. Perhaps they are wrong, but what is the harm in looking.

You tout yourself as a defender of wikipedia from "9-11 conspiracy theories," when what you are really doing is oppressing people who only want to ask "what?" not "what if?"

"9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime."

"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method,'" Eagar said. "They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Those two comments seem to contradict eachother. How can you criticize people for not having a theory at all, and then jump on them for testing any theory the come up with?

Indeed they contradict each other. What you are saying is exactly what the government is doing with their affirmative version. As David Griffin said: "of all the conspiracy theories, the official one is the most absurd". Because the fact that the version of the government is the only theory that really used this 'reverse scientific method'.

Perhaps many of the theories have been absurd, but let the truth sort that out, not you, oh mighty purveyor of truth.

DerwinUMD 00:26 December 11, 2006. (UTC)

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [51]

By removing the POV check out of

No problem, but it is a good illustration of why you should use the edit summary to just summarize your edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol,

SqueakBox

17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide a meaningful

I'm not exactly why you removed these tags without a (written) reason. Were they in the wrong context? Why no comment? Thanks, Monkeyblue 10:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was, "Although Christianity has always had a significant diversity of belief, mainstream Christianity considers certain core doctrines essential." I do not see a need for citation, or a weasel tag, or an extended colloquy about it. I saw your remarks on the talk page, and will continue to follow any discussion, since it is on my watchlist. If I have anything to add I will post it there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

15 minutes? Why? Was it a mistake? GDonato (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to cool him off. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this one's likely to cool-off, I was thinking a bit more- also

the blocks policy states that cool-down blocks tend to be more controversial the shorter they are, in the end it's up to you, though. GDonato (talk

) 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I expect he is incorrigible. I'll check his contributions and make it indefinite if he starts up again. Feel free to adjust the block as you think useful though. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[52]. Arrow740 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, are you sure that, even if true, "...is considered a terrorist" is appropriate for the lead, esp. as the 3rd sentence in, considering "

I used Lexis/Nexis, which is available free at many public libraries and colleges in the US. The reference says, "Labelled a terrorist in both Washington and London, he has nonetheless shown unerring political instincts." That supports the statement, not that he is a terrorist, but that he is considered a terrorist by the U.S. and U.K governments. Maybe the factoid would go better under Leadership of Hezbollah, but then "He is also a Shi'a cleric who is a protege of Ali Khamenei" might go better in Personal life. Anyway, these are routine editing decisions that can be resolved on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Underground cities of Turkey

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank You for your help and guidance on these obscure topics you are a God send! LoveMonkey 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Özkonak Underground City
• Underground city of Derinkuyu
• Churches of Göreme, Turkey
• Underground cities in Avanos

LoveMonkey 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you are very kind. I hope to be able to contribute more to these in the future. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey uh since my article on athiestic persecution of various religions under Athiestic regimes was deleted. I was hoping beyond hope to create a Taoists and Buddhist persecuted under Athiestic or Socialist regimes article. I was hoping to get your take on it. LoveMonkey 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really an area I know much about. Doing a quick search I found

Suppression of Falun Gong. I thought we might have something on China's policy toward religion in Tibet - that might be a welcome article. Tom Harrison ^Talk

13:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "catholic". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989. reference. What does it actually say? Prior to the excommunication of Eliz I (or whatever event you take), presumably there wasn't a Roman Catholic church, just a Catholic one. From this date at least officially the Church of England also claimed to be the Catholic Church. Is there a later date alluded to when the Catholic church was uniquely used to mean the Roman Catholic church? I am simply curious it is quite possibly all correct but the wording in the article kind of gives an impression it was a more recent thing. Of course in Papal bulls etc adding Roman was a recent thing (which was appreciated) but general use? --BozMo talk 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED says:

At the Reformation the term ‘Catholic’ was claimed as its exclusive right by the body remaining under the Roman obedience, in opposition to the ‘Protestant’ or ‘Reformed’ National Churches. These, however, also retained the term... As a consequence, in order to distinguish the unreformed Latin Church, its chosen epithet of ‘Catholic’ was further qualified by ‘Roman’; but see sense 7.

Sense 7:

7. As applied (since the Reformation) to the Church of Rome...

and under Roman Catholic:

A member or adherent of the Roman Church.

The first usage of 'Roman Catholic' is dated to 1605.

The entry is fairly long, and linked to others. I would have to leave it at 'since the reformation,' but it sounds like you are pretty familiar with the history. It would probably be worth your time to read through it if you can get access.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I get into Cambridge University Library from time to time. If I can think of a good way to ensure the article is clear on the timing of "Roman" I might try it (the above makes it pretty clear it was with the reformation not a recent claim to Catholicism) but its unobvious and I have another headache (basically trying to get some fairly neutral historical versions of the Christianity articles for this: http://schools-wikipedia.org/ ). A bit tedious but it gets a lot of use... --BozMo talk 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom harrison,

• User:Hetoum I already broke 3RR rule in Kaymaklı Monastery page.
  • 1-[53]
  • 2-[54]
  • 3-[55]
  • 4-[56]
• I dont know wikirules well.I went to
  Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR
  to report, but I saw there that warning required prior to reporting a user(Am I rightly understand?)
• This users tone also is a personal attack (called others as "vandal").
• Already I am posted a warning/message to this users Talk page for 3RR and civility.
• Waiting your comments.Thanks.Regards.Must.^{T C} 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A warning is correct at this point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK(forgot I reached 3 times), then talk on the page to reach consensus adding or removing material with aim of destroying this article. Hetoum I 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Makalp has at this point made a habit of removing AG reverence from this article more than 3 times, and other articles as well. Clearly shows him as a vandal.Hetoum I 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I logged out. Sorry I did not notice it was 3. 72.79.13.226 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop calling vandalism edits you do not like. I put up a perfectly reasonable compromise version that included most of what seems important to you, and you reverted over it back to your preferred version. This is a collaborative process, and you have to work with other people. If you don't want your writing to be edited by others, you should publish somewhere else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

I am not attempting to call edits I do not like vandalism. I assumed it would me more than clear that Makalps edits were vandalous in nature. I will try to say, please appreciate my point of view before reaching strong conclusion:

1. Did User Hetoum cite sources when he IMPROVED article? 2. Did User Makalp cite sources when he ADDED TO ARTICLE? 3. Did User Makalp look at article and check sources PROVIDED by User Hetoum before adding to the article before he REMOVED content and asked for CITATION? 4. Did User Makalp add VERIFIABLE information? 5. Did User Makalp add ACCURATE information? 6. Why did User Makalp remove what he did in the article? Did he JUSTIFY why he did it? 7. Is User Makalp editing this article in GOOD FAITH?

I would appreciate if you fairly look over these and my position. I thank you in advance. Regards. Hetoum I 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try to be as fair as I can, and I am sure we will all do the same. A couple of times now you have said I added poorly-written material, and that my editing was bad. This is insulting. I would rather you kept to yourself your opinion of my writing. In return, I will do the same, and not correct your errors in grammar, usage, and punctuation, and your abuse of capital letters. I will look in again tomorrow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom,

I did not even realize I was conducting a personal attack on you, I apologize and hope you can accept my apology. I do not have perfect english myself, and was frustrated that my contributions to this article were being take out. I will continue this on the talk page, item by item. I am sorry, at times I still feel like a newbie on some Wikipedia problems.

For images, I see no problem because they are scans of postcards, most over 80 years old. See Sumela page postcard.

Again, I apologize for making this personal attack. I hope we can start fresh and you will accept my apology.

Sincerely Hetoum I 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Clearly I was too quick to take offense where none was intended. I look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Hetoum I 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take look to:Talk:Kaymaklı Monastery for my comments.Regards.Must.^{T C} 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also User_talk:DGG#Hetoum_Help this one.Must.^{T C} 20:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom harrison,

• Please take a look, when you have time; here
• I dont to involve in Kaymaklı Monastery to much for a period of time, only watching maybe.

Thanks for your all contributions.Regards.Must.^{T C} 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom(I posted this in commons too),

I continue to get the feeling this user has attacked me based on the topics I am contributing to Wikipedia. He has personally attacked me by claiming I have no knowledge of Turkey without a basis. He has threatened me with reprisal and taunted me by engaging in hate speech referencing to the Armenian Genocide as "Genocide Allegations." He attacks me and my additions as well as uploads based on my race and topics I contribute to, being Armenian. This is racism, I demand apology. He claims to be a member of the Wikipedia welcoming committee, but I feel I am being "bitten" as someone who has accasional difficulty understanding wiki protocol. I have treated others who have come here as user Gevo with friendliness and if I ever felt I said anything amounting to a personal attack, I have apologized.

As for my uploads, I am sorry I made mistake of putting wrong tag for postcards, but I stood responsibly and corrected tag as a user in good faith. I did not know which tag at first to apply to antique postcards. I also noticed that the image I uploaded of Stepanos II was copyrighted and removed my own tag, agreeing to its deletion, the one from levantine website.

As for genocide medal, I am sorry I orignally said wrong site. I do 10 things on the computer at one time and I can mistype things. Here is the link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260108941888

Clearly author is Makhyan, from ebay. I am not a liar as this user unfairly has harassed me.

Finally, if he were working in good faith, he would fairly and unbiased inquire about questionable uploads by fellow WikiProject Turkey members as this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian_ARF_Van_resistance.jpg

He attacks me because of my race and topics I contribute to. Sincerely, and thank you.Hetoum I 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) P.S.

He says: I dont to involve in Kaymaklı Monastery to much for a period of time, only watching maybe.

IS it good faith to leave article without reaching consensus and listening or answering to all. Is this user showing good faith and so forth? Hetoum I 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Truly, these things are better ignored if at all possible. There is an elaborate

dispute resolution system, but it will take a lot of your time, and will probably give you little satisfaction. It is best if all of us focus on content and avoid both taking and giving offense. Misunderstandings are easy; many of us fail to write what we mean, or we misunderstand what others write; mistakes are made and people get mad. It takes an extra measure of forbearance to work here, but the result - the encyclopedia - is worth the effort. Tom Harrison ^Talk

01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^[citation needed];Dear Tom, which kind of citation needed and for which part of this sentence. I put some explanations in page talk. There is a monastery, this monastery located in a village(now a quarter), there is map showing the location of that quarter in references. And what is needed further.I may help to supply.Regards.Must.^{T C} 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"The origins of the Turkish name Kaymaklı Monastery comes from the village Kaymaklı" - This suggests the monastery was named after a Turkish village that was already there. If so, we need some kind of citation supporting that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your motivation.Now there is two possibility that monastery named after "Kaymaklı";

1. -"Kaymaklı" is something other than the name of village/quarter.
2. -"Kaymaklı";is the name of existing village/quarter(a registered place in the references).

We know that Monastery located in Kaymaklı. No proof needed.

There are hunreds of thousands Mosques or any other buildings in Turkey.Located in a quarter or village and named after place. Like as Ortaköy Mosque, Galata Tower etc. We can not find any citation about these buildings which they are named after that place, this is obvious and no need any proof/citation.

Regards.Must.^{T C} 15:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your last edit;"Today, a farm located on the site utilizes the remaining buildings." utilizes as feed stock house
  • Farm is not located in site, Site is located in a farms.(Farm bigger than site)
  • about stockhouse; there are source touristic sites include this info-Turkish.

fell free to add or not. regards.Must.^{T C} 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[57]Proabivouac 04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read around before you merrily delete. Or in the least make an effort to find out if the content you are out to erase is indeed unreliable. If you do have other obligations which doesnt allow you the time to do research then maybe your role in Wikipedia is not the one for you to continue with.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.208.24 (talk • contribs).

You don't need me to tell you that this comment about your deletion of a red link is out of order and inappropriate. I was wondering whether to block the IP for what they did to your user page but I cannot make up my mind whether its just all good humour and I should move on. --BozMo talk 19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. A block is probably unnecessary at this point. I did find sources for two of the names the anon added. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong button. Someone undeleted it before I could get back to it and fix it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate everyone watching out for me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think protection is necessary, the reverts by three editors were all back to the same version, becuase of an editor new to the article who seemingly didn't understand the thorough and wide consensus that has produced its stable state (which is the version you've protected). I know you protected the article whilst being helpful! Please consider unprotecting it in 12-24 hours so that if this new editor does have some sufficiently strong citations, we can work with him in adding published material about the Paiutes. Thanks and... cheers! Gwen Gale 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check back this evening. If I forget please remind me, or ask another admin to unprotect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[58]

Whoever this guy is, he needs to be blocked for violating 3RR about a dozen times. - Merzbow 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see a checkuser is pending. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious Tom- did you do a checkuser on MomoShomo, or was it just obvious to block as H.E. from the circumstantial evidence (choice of article to edit, disruptive style of H.E. ) ? --ProtectWomen 01:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not, but I figured since someone else had asked for one in this case it was better to wait for the results. People mistakenly think checkuser makes a 100% correct determination of socks. It is a useful tool, but ultimately people have to look at all the information and decide. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

After doing a bit of research, I can see you have special authority in this case. I looked up His excellency's block log and see that the very first block was made by you in June of last year and it was an "indefinite" block. It was overturned to a 67 hour block by Bishonen a day later. After several weak blocks, Jeffrey O. Gustafson reiterated your indefinite block. Then Woohookitty overturned to a weak block (per AN/I discussion according to block log comment). It looks like this Bishonen admin exhibited some very poor judgement in repeatedly defending this user. Then His excellency's 6 month block was reset several times before Rama's Arrow finally came full circle to your first block and made it indefinite.

The moral of the story is that everyone should have respected your judgment and block in the first place. I can only imagine the disruption and frustration this user caused in June through August of last year-- I've only been frustrated in the last month or so with him. Keep up the good work Mr harrison. --ProtectWomen 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Was just looking at the total number of edits, and that moke

Aye, but 'tiss not the quantity of the edit that counts, but more of it's quality that matters. ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah! and I think that does not include edits to articles now deleted. The foundation should send us coffee mugs or something. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then Striver might be then elevated into the top 10...it takes more edits to be a POV pusher afterall.--MONGO 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That was an wonderful feat of good research. I withdraw my nomination. But, please, add these information and references to the articles on Lou Schuler and National Magazine Awards, so the articles become more credible. I wish you were there when I kept tagging it for expert attention. Lend a hand in making a usable encyclopedia to people outside the community who doesn't read deletion discussions. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good advice, and I will take it. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I see that you deleted this article about a month ago. I'm not always the best at policy, so I was wondering what A7 was. Is that a reference to the reason for deletion? Was there a debate anywhere? Thanks a lot.--Eva ^bd 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In cryptic wikispeak, this is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles, section 7 - "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I can restore it if you want to work on it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha...cryptic wikispeak. I've only taken the elementary wikispeak course. If it can be restored, I'd very much like to work on it. I think it is one of the larger North American schools in Germany and its definitely one of the largest of a distinctly Christian nature. I worked there for several years in the 1970s and would like to get it a go. Thanks for your help.--Eva ^bd 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At least, I think it is you. I have asked for clarification. Just thought you might like to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FJeffrey_Vernon_Merkey2&diff=133362346&oldid=133356830 ChurchOfTheOtherGods 09:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

		The MONGO complaint board Barnstar
		As promised! Best complaints to the MONGO complaint board get awarded the Inflated Eagle Barnstar™! Flat Coke, eh? I'd sue them...it's almost as bad as having coffee that is so hot when you spill it on yourself, you get burned.--MONGO 18:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All right! I wanted that eagle as soon as I saw it. I almost sent the black helicopters to get me a fresh drink, but probably Bubba down at the Conoco station will give me a new one tomorrow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe...I buy all my gas from Citgo...whatever I can do to help Hugo out! I mean...this is aweful. [59] jus down the street.--MONGO 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey dude, the Dilbert link to Adam's Razor isn't working in the Great quotations section. Take a look may be? Aditya Kabir 04:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I found a new link where he talks about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I somehow did it while trying to return the

Okay, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom harrison, an examination of the contribution histories of User:Nyet and User:Kebron show both to be single-purpose accounts created to stalk and troll Mr. Merkey, the latter of which has been allowed to do so for some time. Accordingly, I've removed both their comments from the RfC.
Merkey has his shortcomings, but that doesn't excuse our allowing him to be wikistalked and trolled. What do you think?Proabivouac 07:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. I should also mention that User:Nyet's username refers to a recorded conversation between Merkey and members of GNAA.Proabivouac 07:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have warned both. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one, Tom: User:Poindexter Propellerhead, created 24 May, with two and only two interests: 1) hundreds of reverts against vandalism, and 2) !voting and commenting against Jeffrey Merkey.[60] Nothing else.

Make no mistake, this is a coordinated - and sophisticated - attack machine. Merkey's not getting away with anything, his problems are all out in the open, but these guys (as Merkey says, you can find them over here) are playing Wikipedia like a cheap flute.

The userboxes, mission statement and vast number of camouflage edits speak to the wikisavvy and determination behind this effort to game and exploit the community's assumption of good faith.Proabivouac 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, see

WP:AN#Anti-Merkey poster claims passed RfA, threatens bio, now User:Friendly Neighbour[61]

Obviously, neither you nor I nor MONGO nor Gwen Gale etc. are part of this conspiracy, but that such a conspiracy exists, and has been hosted here for a long time, appears to be a fact. None of these attack acounts are blocked, even after being exposed beyond any reasonable doubt. Is this Chinatown?Proabivouac 09:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell. Maybe an account is an SPA set up to troll Mr. Merkey, or maybe it was set up to make it look like that to generate sympathy. Is a posting on a message board a gloating revelation, or a lie to undermine the credibility of a critic? Is an account a puppet? Whose puppet? After all, Mr. Merkey concluded I was conspiring against him based on something he read on a site of doubtful reliability. I would not want to do the same thing to someone else. I have a finite amount of time to give the project. If a contributor is doing excellent work, being careful and honest about what references say, then I will use some of that time to dig into it. If a contributor edits from a pronounced slant, misquotes the source, is combative on the talk page, uses the project to promote some incomprehensible agenda, and then questions my integrity, I will use my time better by helping someone else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is perfectly understandable.Proabivouac 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please take a look at the changes I made to the David MacMichael page, as well as the 40 or so citations I added to the deletion talk page. There are several articles in reliable sources that are devoted to this guy, and he played a key role in the World Court in the 1980s. I won't bug you about it, but you may wish to reconsider your vote. Thanks! csloat 07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work. The article is much improved. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom,

Makalp keeps removing Armenian Genocide reference from page. Before adding it on last time, I went on talk page and justified myself. Makalp simply removed it, and did not justify why it was NOT POV as I commented on the talk page. Please see my latest comment there. This user has done similar disruptive editing on the following pages: Arabkir District, Musa Dagh, Kozan(Adana one) and just yesterday Pontic Greek Genocide to name a few, take a look at articles history. I think I have cited myself amply and this user still continually deletes things without talk consensus on this and numerous other pages. I have tried very hard and listened, and accepted verifiable and reliable resources presented by Makalp, and its only fair if he does not keep deleting it.Hetoum I 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom,

This user once again reverts back to his version without reaching consensus on the talk page. Leaves comment and reverts to his version. I did not revert so as to avoid a revert war, I am trying to remain diplomatic and patient.

On the talk page, he simply asks questions that were already answered, failed to look up sources cited (he asks where did u get 1915 abandonment date - AND clearly virtualani link says so.) He seems simply bent over removing Armenian genocide reference, no matter how well cited and explained. I think this is quite unfair to me. I listened to this user and remained respectful to him despite his rude provocative hate speech regarding denial of Armenian genocide. This is really unfair. Thanks for your time, sincerely, Hetoum I 19:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum, I found an article that suggests Armenian monks were there until after the First World War. It is on Google Books, but with only a limited preview, so I would want to have access to the journal before I cited it. I will see what I can get from the library, but it may take some time. The article is

British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. 1951. Anatolian studies. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I know of this reference, and I didn't have access to it via JSTOR, as I am not subscribed to the Art supplement. However, I saw it in Google books and nothing suggested that the monks stayed there until after WWI, nor would it suggest, as even the Bishop of Trebizond was deported and shot as I gave in the reference. Further here is another reference to the fire throwing that theory out the window:http://www.new-byzantium.org/trebizon.html Either way, an institution wouldn't say the "G" word in a publication working out of Turkey for obvious reasons.

I think my version was quite heavily cited and Makalp has yet to offer to contradict me.Hetoum I 02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It says in part,

The Armenian Monastery of Kaymakli. Plan, Fig. 22. This monastery is situated about two miles from Trebizond on the west slope of the valley of the ancient River Pyxites, up which runs the great trade route over the Zigana pass to Eastern Anatolia and Persia. There were Armenian monks here until after the First World War, but the church is now roofless, the open belfry has disappeared (though its ground-floor structure remains) and the chapel and range of monastic buildings are gradually disintegrating.

The history of the monastery may be locked away somewhere in the archives of the Armenian church but nothing seems to be known of it locally.

That said, I would want to see the whole article before I reached any conclusions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Found more sources and references that support my version and added em to the article. The Ankara source cannot be impartial on date, as using Genocide would mean trouble for Anyone in Turkey. Have you gotten the article? Could we add reference to genocide back in?

Hetoum I 21:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So far I have not been able to get the article, and I would want to see the whole thing before I added anything based on it. We could not reasonably exclude a peer-reviewed academic journal because of concerns that it might have been censored. As for the sources you recently added, I will look for The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, but I would only be able to look at Kévorkian if it were available in translation. I rely on you to cite what we can usefully add to the article. If it is controversial, we can look into it more deeply. Unless more extensive sources become available, we probably say enough about the genocide to inform the reader. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on a review I could read online, Byzantine Monuments sounds like it would be an excellent source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will wait for you to take a look yourself and add, since I want to avoid trouble there. Also, I am wondering if you might be able to protect the Church of Kish article and moderate it's talk page. I have been attacked by 3 Azerbaijani editors who have gotten together 3 friends and revert my version without talking and reaching consensus, failing to listen to me or reason. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Hetoum I 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,

WP:RFPP, or maybe open a request for comment about the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk

14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I wonder if, as a general practice, you usually remove links to images that you delete from the articles? I noticed that you deleted several images lacking fair use rationale, which left a number of broken links in

Hmmm... Yes, that would probably be a good idea, wouldn't it. Sorry, I will watch for that in the future. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing. Just make sure to clean up links, it really helps a lot, thanks. ^

[omg plz]

 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've made checking part of my routine. Thanks for mentioning it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd bring to your attention that you and I are under attack in this Prison Planet forum thread. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They say you can tell a lot about a man by his enemies. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it actually legal to call for someone to be killed?Proabivouac 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's illegal, but I don't think he was serious. Besides, if legal action is taken then that guy becomes a martyr for those 9/11 Truth dumbasses. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not take any of that too seriously. If they really believed that stuff about conspiracies and secret agents they would not chatter like that online. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom, hi. I noticed you reverted me at Wikipedia:No personal attacks without participating in the discussion regarding the edit I had made. Now the page is protected in the version from which you reverted, so maybe I could persuade you to provide some kind of reply to the arguments I've been making on the talk page against the "sites" wording. So far, no discussion has happened over the point that is, as far as I can tell, the only real issue with this edit war. I'd love to get some feedback from you. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have anything original to add. I'll speak up on the talk page if I do. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I ask because nobody has really explained why the benefits of that wording outweigh the specific and inevitable harm of directing traffic to the sites in question. Since you reverted, I thought you might have some... thoughts on that matter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you ask as a rhetorical device to strengthen your position. I have followed this argument for some time now, as have we all. If I see anything new, or have anything new to say, I will speak up. On the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You guess wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no anti-"attack site" policy, and the links are not to personal attacks. They are citations. There is no excuse for deleting those citations. Mangoe 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You put them there to be deleted, so you could complain about it. I deleted them, and you complained about it. Now what? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would explain your deletion of the material I added; at Talk:Holocaust denial#POV dispute: Millions of non-Jews killed. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, what the hell happened there? FloNight can just arbitrarily call for he closure of a BLP complaint? Since when is Deletion Review the place to settle BLP disputes, isn't that what the board I brought this to is for? Shall I take this up at

Multiple discussions all over the wiki are feeding the problem. It has been through deletion review, and is now up for deletion a second time. She does not need yet another internet forum going on about her, and we do not need multiple pages of discussion about her. I hope you will let it finish in the deletion discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it also be prudent to not block [62] users who feel that the information should be included in the article? Admins are acting like this is set in stone already, which is clearly not the case. Tarc 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I routinely block to prevent re-insertion of material that violates blp. Those blocks are subject to review. I would be inclined to support this one by Doc Glasgow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom, Thanks for removing semi-protection from the talk page, but when I said that vandalism isn't a problem I actually was thinking of the article. Would you be willing to remove it from the article too? Thanks. BRMo 00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not object, but you should probably ask

WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison ^Talk

00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. BRMo 00:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

After providing reliable resources for my article Double Dragon (Music Producer), why was it still deleted? If there's a question about note worthy information, the article that I wrote is of value to those individuals seeking more information on the climate of the Korean/Canadian music industry. Over the last 3 years Double Dragon is responsible for shifting the sound of popular Korean Hip-Hop music, and is one of a handful of producers out of Vancouver Canada to hit the international market. On a macro scale, the article helps paint the picture of the major players in the Korean, Canadian and Christian Hip-Hop scene, and it shows which artists are most current.

All of the artist mentioned also have articles in Wikipedia, it seems reasonable to me that the people responsible for creating the music for those artists should be profiled here as well. --Taekniq 17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it and let you know tomorrow afternoon. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for restoring my article. The page still has an "information" tag saying that the article doesn't have citations. Will that be removed? --Taekniq 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Superficially the citations look okay, but having the tag or not is an editorial decision. The article is not a subject I know anything about. You can read about citations and sources by following the links in the tag. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears you've deleted this sound clip due to the lack of fair use rationale. While I support the current drive to add such rationales to media, I wasn't notified (a notice should have been placed on Talk:Doolittle (album) at least). If the clip is restored, I'd be happy to provide a fair use rationale. It was an oversight on my part (note that all other media has an appropriate rationale). CloudNine 12:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored now, sorry for the inconvenience. Please provide the rationale as soon as you can. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I know you've said before that you'll comment at

I do not oppose mediation in principle, but cannot take active part right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 08:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Might want to weigh in here. Ibn Shah (talk · contribs) has been confirmed to be identical to MomoShomo (talk · contribs), who you blocked as an H.E. sock. He is, of course, disputing it. - Merzbow 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He keeps disrupting the CU page; I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_H.E._socks_to_block. - Merzbow 18:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

70.238.158.12 is an experienced editor who is revert-warring as an anon. Arrow740 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If this happens again, you should file a 3rr report. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was User:Kirbytime (based on a post to a child porn article) edit-warring using dynamic IPs. Arrow740 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So, it's started up again. Here's the history. Arrow740 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that we have a new method for protecting deleted pages, that should be more convenient than {{deletedpage}}; see WP:PT for details. >Radiant< 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an improvement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a

And the AfD does not seem to have been closed. If you have speedied/salted, isn't it appropriate that you close the AfD? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HHO_gas_(4th_nomination) LaughingVulcan 23:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that won't be necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for undoing your deletion, by the way. I should have discussed it with you first. But I came home from work, saw that the AfD was still open (or had been re-opened), along with your comment that you weren't going to undelete them, and took it upon myself. I didn't realize the DRV had already started.

Do you now agree that

It's not big deal, please don't worry about it. I will look in when I get a chance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what you think, especially now that they've been deleted again, despite a 19:15 majority for keeping them... — Omegatron 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A Request for comment has been opened about my behavior. Your input would be appreciated. — Omegatron 00:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolls, miscreants and losers...this is the price we pay for having an open editing forum. But we also have some really great editors, admins and photographers, as well as computer experts and people of rational thought. I suppose my love of writing my stubs still exceeds the idiocy I sometimes see here, but that too could change. Losing your contributions would be a very negative thing for this project. But if you find it to be more trouble than it is worth, I certainly understand.--MONGO 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; There are still lots of good people here. I remember when I first started editing, I didn't even know there were adminsistrators for six months or more. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's really disappointing about all the trolling, negative contributors, and harassment. It's difficult or impossible to make up for the great editors driven away. As is, the troll-management workload (and other backlogs) is a lot for the current number of admins and constructive users. I'm greatly concerned about folks that have left recently, and we can't afford to lose any more. I've largely been taking a break from 9/11 articles, though still intend to get more featured at some point. Since more people are helping on the 9/11 pages, I don't have to be there all the time. It helps to retreat to parts of Wikipedia that are quiet, like the glacier and national parks articles MONGO works on and other stuff I've been doing. But, if it's overly stressful to stick around, then Wikipedia might not be a good thing. --Aude (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

People are still doing some fine work here,

Building of the World Trade Center and Gun violence in the United States not least. Tom Harrison ^Talk

01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom, this is horrible to see. Was there a last straw involved?Proabivouac 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

H's departure was the latest example, but that is the fault of the people who harassed him. I do not want to blame capable and hard-working people who are trying their best to deal with what we have somehow let become a chronic and systemic problem. It has come to the point that I would actively discourage any friend from beginning to edit here. I hope things can change, but I am afraid that nothing will be done until a few months after the existence of the project is obviously threatened. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Horrible indeed. Tom, I'm really sorry to see the changes to your user page, just as I was coming to thank you for your recent support at my RfA. I hope that whatever the problem is can be sorted out. I've been very impressed with what I've seen of you, and I was looking forward to working with you. I'm glad to see that you're not actually leaving, and hope that whatever vandalism reverting, csd work, or other tasks you do here will still mean that you'll be around enough to see things getting better. You'll be a huge loss if you do go. Thanks for the kindness you've always shown me. ElinorD (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. I am rethinking how I can best contribute to the goals of the project, but I will still be here for now. It could just be that I am burnt out and need a break. I hope your good will and enthusiasm (and that of many others) can get things back on track. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's always the good editors who leave, and the bad ones who stay.  :-( AGF and civility are great ideas in theory, but aren't really working in practice. The dickishness is actually made worse by the through-the-teeth incivility and all the wikilawyering mania. "Thank you for your contributions to the project, buuuuuut... I've reverted all of them and reported you and I'm going to criticize you with a bunch of capitalizedgibberish, etc. etc. etc." I wonder if we should have third-party experts in human relations/mediation/morale come through and try to clean up our interaction policies.

Another thing we all need is to encourage encouragement. When someone makes an especially good edit or deals with a troll fairly, tell them on their user page so they feel appreciated. Each act of sincere praise cancels out at least a few criticisms. — Omegatron 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"encourage encouragement" - good point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems I see on wikipedia is attracting and retaining good editors. Surely some really good contributors try it out and soon disappear, but what we need to do is help newbies get their feet planted. Whenever I see a new editor adding info to articles on my watchlist, I do what I can to try and prod them to stick around. More often than not, what I get is a response similar to "why is this website so hard to edit"...I think newer editors are often turned off by the various software intricacies of this website, including, but not limited to wikilinking, templates and formatting refs properly. We have made the website user friendly to those that have been here a while and have adjusted to these changes gradually...newbie editors try to edit a well referenced article and find the inline cites to be cumbersome and difficult to work with. User:El C and I tried previously to figure out some way to make the inline cites less intrusive, but I am definitely not very good with templates...perhaps, if you feel the urge, this would be something to play around with in your sandbox, just as a possible suggestion. Another area that really needs help is the images, checking for copyright issues and or simply helping clean up those backlogs...this is tedious and sometimes boring work, but it is always well appeciated...though, the occasional troll will still come to your talkpage demanding his image be restored.--MONGO 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The technical end of things is kind of the counterpart to my complaint. The mechanics are easy for an experienced user who knows the ins and outs, opaque to a newbie. Wkikispeak too: AGF, NPA, NOR, BLP, and the dreaded NPOV. There is good work to be done welcoming new people.

For templates and references, Zotero works very well for me. If I'm on a book's page at Amazon, or the Library of Congress, I can just click an Icon and Zotero sucks up all the bibliographic information from the page. I can export that as a Wikipedia citation template and copy and paste it into the article. So adding them is not so bad, but they are hard to maintain. I can never tell where the article text ends and the footnote begins. Maybe we could blue-highlight the ref tags or all the ref text in the edit window. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that...zotero looks like a good idea. The thought regarding making inline cites blue may be hard to implement...seems all good ideas around here are though. You and I both agree that inline cites make it harder for everyone to edit, so for newbies, as they have expressed to me, it is even more confusing. Seriously, seems we have created a monster only the experienced can edit and that is probably going to lead to bigger problems down the road. What I had in mind was some way to simply create templates either 1,2,3,4 or a,b,c,.....etc, that link to the cites which are all posted at the end of an article...a lot like the way the old ref/note style used to work...the biggest problem is when we do sentence/paragrapgh movements, this numerical or alphabetical style gets messed up and is the reason ref/note was eliminated. But in the editing window, the ref/note was no bigger than that...taking up no more than a few keystrokes and easily seen amongst the rest of the text. When I first started Shoshone National Forest, I used that style...I'm sure you remember it...but look at the big difference between what we contend with now and what we had then....[63]...all we had to do was , as an example {{ref|shoshone}} in the article space. This was why we used harvard style referencing in Retreat of glaciers since 1850...though these are also very complicated for newbies, it eliminated the huge amount of space needed in the article iteself, as seen when someone is editing it. Doug Bell even created the "harv" style, which superscripted the footnote so it was less obtusive in the visible text, and in an article such as that one, with so many numbers, it was easier to read it without having a footnote confuse someone with a measurement. So lots of things are possible and it is something I might start working on myself even.--MONGO 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Tom's idea is feasible and wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement. User:Cacycle/wikEd looks like it already has some capabilities. It "can also be installed site-wide and can then also be used by not logged-in users." I haven't tried it myself, but a lot of users apparently have. Might be some other suggestions already submitted to http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/. Or new suggestions can be submitted there and feature requests do get implemented. Site-wide implementation of course would require broad consensus, but I think it's a feasible idea. --Aude (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WikEd does have syntax highlighting for different things, which I find helpful, but I usually leave it turned off. It slows down page loading quite a bit and has some weird formattings that I don't like. Putting superscripts in superscript in the editing window, for instance.

I've been informally asking outsider friends about their experiences with Wikipedia, and am thinking of doing some IM interviews with "regular people" I know and posting them in my userspace. (Everyone else should do this, too!) For instance, I proposed a change to our interface after a friend refused to add a note to a talk page. She saw an error while talking to me, and pointed it out to me. I told her I didn't know anything about the article and she should leave a comment on the talk page, but after some convincing she couldn't figure out how. See the suggestion on the pump. This is just one small thing that we could do.

She also said she would be much more comfortable entering something into an anonymous one-line field that wouldn't be part of a discussion, but would be logged somewhere else for editors to review. Like a "lesser edit button" that just says "Do you see an error or other problem? Let us know!" and they can enter a one-sentence summary which will then be checked by regular editors.

The referencing system as atrocious. I've been complaining about it since it was first installed. It's great that we actually have a referencing system, but it's ugly and messy and unintuitive in the extreme. Wikipedia used to be a wiki. Now we might as well call it "Computersciencepedia" with all the extra codes and hooks that have been added to the syntax. My mother could never edit this, but she's should be able to, ideally. Wikipedia is supposed to be part of Web 2.0, but why do all the other websites have such much better-designed interfaces?

I'm glad you like Zotero.  :-) I'm the one adding most of

the COinS tags to the citation templates and stuff to make them work together. Like if you click "Cite this article" you can do the opposite and import the Wikipedia article into Zotero and so on. — Omegatron

00:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on COinS. I was reading about that a few weeks ago in another context and saw what you guys had been doing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I do agree about trolls, vandals, POV pushers, and negative contributors making the editing environment difficult -- enough so that I wouldn't encourage people in real life to join and help out. Not at this time. In real life, I do know some of the scholars whose articles are cited in the gun violence article, and cited in other wiki articles. If not for the controversy and problems surrounding the articles, it might be possible for me to ask them (or their graduate students) to review wiki articles and help out. There is a shortage of reviewers at

I wonder of a lot of our troubles result from immediatism without stable versions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else has probably already said it, but I expect any simplified markup language will expand until it is as complex as what it was to have replaced. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that is a good point.--MONGO 04:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. — Omegatron 07:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Tom. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've renominated the template for deletion. Let's push this template thru to deletion, and get as many of your like minded friends to vote.[64]199.126.28.20 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when it comes to editing wikipedia, if you are not having fun then you are doing it wrong. WAS 4.250 04:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say, Tom's complaints do not indicate he is doing it wrong...trolls and losers are jeapoardizing the ability of good editors and admins to do it right, especially when some admins enable trolls and losers by demanding we assume good faith of them, even if they are obviously here for purposes other than writing and administrating an encyclopedia.--MONGO 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is take the subset of possible behaviours you are calling "doing it right" (meaning roughly "right for wikipedia") and only do the subset of that that is consistant with having fun. In other words, edit wikipedia by only doing that which is both right for wikipedia and right for yourself (as that is what is sustainable). WAS 4.250 07:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, you're proposing to edit only those parts of Wikipedia that are below the radar of trolls and cede to them everything else. I think this is what Tom has decided to do after all, since there are no effective ways of combatting trolls, at least some of them. Beit Or 14:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have come to think in many cases it is better to let an article devolve into an obviously-unreliable mess, than to spend hours fighting out a compromise that leaves it only less bad, but with my having seemingly endorsed the result by participating. If a bunch of loons write the page without interference, at least the page is obviously the work of loons, and I have not wasted more time. Of course if we had flagged revisions that logic would not apply. I think I understand the spirit in which WAS meant his remark, and I appreciate the advice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there is progress in development of a Flagged Revisions feature, as an extension (

It looks encouraging. Maybe we could put a dozen pages on this as a trial and see how it goes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! Now we can edit-war over which version is the "quality" one.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Raymond Arritt 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom harrison has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tom's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tom! Love, Phaedriel 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

I concur!--MONGO 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And so do I! ElinorD (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Naturally.Proabivouac 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes :) --Aminz 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all. I appreciate your good wishes, and Phaedriel's generosity. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

One reform (among several) that is desperately needed is to give any user in good standing the ability to block blatant abusive sockpuppets and vandals with less than a certain number of edits. This would not require RfA, but could be granted by any administrator, and withdrawn by any administrator in cases of abuse (just like blocks.) This would save us the incredibly inefficient procedure of non-administrators having to file reports in various places and await administrator attention when most of those administrators will know less about the situation "on the ground" than the reporting editors.Proabivouac 06:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful to give some admin tools by default to any editor in 'good standing'. We might tie it in with people marking

sighted versions. I think it has been discussed in the past, but I haven't found where. There is kind of a myth about 'uninvolved admins' taking the days necessary to inform themselves of the background, and then act. This isn't practical and rarely happens, even in arbitration I suspect. Tom Harrison ^Talk

12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice additions!

I just noticed your additions to the Kaymakli article! Thank you so much Tom!, makes me feel worse for being so aggressive earlier.

		Armenian Barnstar of National Merit
		I, Hetoum hereby award you the Armenian Barnstar of National Merit for your patience and contribution to the Amenaprkich Monastery article. Hetoum I 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

Hetoum, thank you very much! Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

) It did sound like a good book, and I was recommended by an Armenian professor to it. I will try to get the book myself in the near future. D.O. publications can be expensive, but certainly worth every penny. Their works are done by quite competent scholars. I was recently reading some articles from the D.O. journal on the Armenian marchlands and it was quite impressive.Hetoum I 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did the article get changed to Islam and Anti-Christian sentiment? LoveMonkey 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you and Sefringle are discussing it on the talk page. It's not a topic I have followed very closely, but I will watch it for a while. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

I would be very thankful if you could help with Aisha article. Here is the dispute:

The quote we have:

As far as Ayesha's age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet is concerned, it is a matter of ongoing controversy among Muslims. Conservatives (and Western Orientalists) put her age as low as nine years, based on Ahadith that claim that she was playing with dolls when she got married. This could well be true since the concept of childhood is a relatively recent one, and the age of consent for women in most cultures in those days was quite low. (Even in the United States, the age of consent for women was between seven and ten as late as 1889 and was raised to eighteen only as the result of feminist campaigns.) As such, there was nothing aberrant in the practice of marrying young girls fourteen centuries ago (though it is today, given that we now recognize children as children). On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics" (Walther 1981, 75). However, most of what we know about Ayesha, including the details of her marriage, are reconstructions that remain susceptible to interpretive controversy and manipulation in view of the very different meaning of her life for Sunni and Shii Muslims (After the Prophet's death, Ayesha led an unsuccessful revolt against Ali, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, the fourth caliph of Islam whom the Shii follow as Imam.) Not only are Muslims thus particularly invested in specific reconstructions of her life, but the most definite work on it was begun a century and a half after her death. The work drew for its details on "oral reports transmitted over three to four generations"(Spellberg 1994, 2); thus, "even the earliest Arabic written sources on Aisha's life already capture that life as a legacy, an interpretation." As D. A. Spellberg puts it (191), in studying Ayesha, one therefore is studying "male intellectual history, not a woman's history, but reflections about the place of a woman, and by extension, all women, in exclusively male assertions about Muslim society." To what extent estimates of Ayesha's age or the details of her marriage also embody displaced male desires must then permanently remain open to question."

Source: "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an (University of Texas Press, 2002). page 126" Author of the book: Asma Barlas.

Dispute: User:Arrow740 and User:Proabivouac oppose adding the above information from the book. They want to write: "Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad." I want to write: Most Muslims (and Western scholars of Islam) hold that Aisha have been six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad...... A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19."

Some arguments for why the book is a reliable source:

1. The book was published by University of Texas press which practices the peer-reviewing process.

2. Reviews of the book (or other academic sources that cite this book, which means we too can cite it):

• John Esposito reviewed the book saying: "This is an original and, at times, groundbreaking piece of scholarship."
• Kirsten V. Walles, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin reviewed the book saying: "The book Believing is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society.However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history..."
• David Robinson in Muslim Societies in African History (Cambridge University Press) says: "For the role of women, start with Asma Barlas' Believing Women in Islam:..."
• Winkelmann, Carol Lea, Christine Shearer-Cremean (Survivor Rhetoric, University of Toronto Press) cite this work (p.236).
• Josef W. Meri (in Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Routledge press) p.280 refers to this book.
• And ...

3. Please see Asma Barlas article. She has for example edited a chapter in "Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an " among others. Barlas was named to the prestigious Spinoza Chair at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands due to "her prominent contributions to discussions about women and Islam".

Thanks --Aminz 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Watt says she was nine when they had sex. This femininist author is a tertiary source for this hadith analysis, though she might be good for other things. The real issue here is that Aminz is claiming that the sources say that Aisha had reached puberty (Pro removed it here), when they don't. This is an egregious misprepresentation of sources and deserves some censure. Arrow740 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The above source says the Western Orientalist (the category to which Watt and others belong) believe in Aisha marrying at nine. Barlas only reports that there is a controversy. Being a feminist might affect her judgments from the facts but not in reporting them. Even if Barlas is a feminist, she has been commended for "her prominent contributions to discussions about women and Islam"- hardly can anyone have prominent contributions to the issue of Islam and women but makes obvious mistakes about one of the most important women in Islam, i.e. Aisha

Of course Aisha stayed with her father until she reached puberty. Proab is only throwing accusation against me. Spellberg states that "all these references to the Aisha's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status, and, implicitly her virginity." Watt also says: "We must remember, of course, that girls matured much earlier in seventh-century Arabia." Others also say this. --Aminz 08:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You just hoisted yourself by your own petard. I think this deserves a block. Arrow740 08:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Block for you maybe but not for me. --Aminz 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, maybe a block for you. Arrow740 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, so Spellberg states that "all these references to the Aisha's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status," and you take home from this, "Aisha hit puberty?" As opposed to, you got this bloody unlikely notion from the fever swamps of internet dawah, and are falsely attributing it to what here pass for (a political scientist specializing in race/gender/you know the drill) reliable sources?Proabivouac 08:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There has never ever been the custom in any society to consummate marriages before adulthood. Colin Turner (Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press) says: "However, such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood, which Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach at an earlier age that Westerners today."

--Aminz 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes the fact that Muhammad didn't wait all the more disgusting. The point remains that you blatantly misrepresented sources. Arrow740 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Asma Barlas's area of speciality includes "Islam and Qur'anic Hermeneutics, and Women and Gender". She has written about Islam in famous presses [65]. --Aminz 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

She is not an acceptable tertiary source for this material. Arrow740 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Barlas(2002) appears as note 3, and should be removed or listed in the references by title.

• Barlas' can be presented as a minority opinion unless it is only her view and no other authorities have accepted it. If it is just her, it would be undue weight to give it that prominence. I have no idea which is the case. It looks like a complex subject with a lot of history, and I don't have the time or expertise to inform myself of all I would need to know to have an opinion.

• It's not appropriate for us as editors to characterize Muhammad's behavior as disgusting. That will just antagonize people and make editing more difficult. Reliable sources have said whatever they said about Aisha's age at marriage. Our encyclopedia article should not use this as a way to indict Islam today, or to promote Muhammad as a moral example, or to somehow support one side in a political/religious dispute.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I would like to make a clarification: The dispute is not over Barlas's personal "view"s but rather over the truthness of the primary "report" she is transmitting. She is basically saying that there are a minority of Muslims who "based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina)..Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics"".

Please note that the question is not over interpretation of anything, but rather over truthness of the very report. --Aminz 01:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Im guessing that you didnt look at the talk page since we already reached a consensus...everyone agrees with me...and think the other editor is wrong. Of course since he has also edited the page 3 times in 1 day....you sent him a email to also....right? We are in open Med...of course that didnt stop the wrong editor from going ahead and changing the page to his POV once again. How about doing something about that? GATXER 01:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If everyone agrees with you, then one of those people will restore the version you prefer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The other editor requested a mediator.....who now has agreed with us...however the other editor still wont stop making he POV edits. Hes in like 5 pages with a mediator all Bush pages all with him and his POV. Also Im not the only one delteing his POV edits. We can do nothing else since he wont listen to reason. GATXER 23:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is very nice for you to make friends. However, you should start by not misrepresenting the facts.

1. Tom warned you because you violated
   WP:3RR
2. The fact I ask for mediation alot may indicate I am trying to avoid exactly the sillyness we are now having. For details of what I want to prevent see my page on Merecat and Zerofault.
3. Further, you might want to start talking instead of blindly reverting. The fact you have not even noticed you deleted sources, I carefully inserted to address your claims of the comments being incorrect, proves you have no idea of what you are doing. Please try and find middle ground as this editor has already suggested to you.

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You get a lot of Mediators because you force you POV on everyone. It isnt working with me. I will take the mediator advice and keep moving the Criticism to the Criticism section. Consensus on this has been reached and NO ONE agrees with you. GATXER 10:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Coming from an editor that
  only contributes by reverting others it sounds a bit hollow. Since this is somebody else's page I won't respond to this edit warrioir again here.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}
  10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Its should be pointed out that I have contributed to another page and meet up with a editor not unlike Nescio who while they admitted my edit was 100% true they didn't want it....I then backed down and left Winki. That is something I wont do again. This is just another thing Nescio has said about me that was a lie GATXER 02:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Can you give me a diff? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I liked what you wrote regarding BP, however it does not seem to connect. The section is about Operation Ajax obviously, and while BP is mentioned, the subject is not BP. I am not sure if the company is of interest to you, perhaps you can write something more closely related to the time period of the subject regarding BP or the company it was formerly known as that would serve as an intro, or outro. However the information you added takes place some 20 years later and seems disjointed. Thank you. --

Thanks. BP is of course the successor of the Anglo-Persian oil company, and the nationalization of their assets (or fear of it), revolution, and (re-)nationalization seem to many to be all of a piece. Also, it leads nicely into the next para on Iraq, or would if I had moved the 'Asia Times' bit. Anyway, we'll see where it goes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe it leads into the section on Iraq, perhaps you can just reorganize whats there to achieve that. I am not sure how it fits really, but I am mainly into South America / Caribbean issues. --

SixOfDiamonds

19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What does he do when a child asks for a Bigfoot for Christmas? A pony, maybe, but Santa would really be in a bind in this case. Marskell 13:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sonny, we're very sorry, but Bigfoot got loose and ate the Reindeer. Santa got away, but he has decided to retire. We will all have to step up and take Santa's place, and buy presents for each other. Can I count on you, son?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."

It doesn't apply to my reverts... they were not done within 24 hrs... and it goes BOTH ways Abureem 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it back, I did not notice that it applied even when the material being reverted is different... I'll watch that more closely next time Abureem 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I need to understand your removal reasons Abureem 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

After your gracious reply above I restored it for now and left a link on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work at

Thanks. Please don't hesitate to make your case. Almost anyone can say almost anything as long as they are polite and sincere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arrit, Wikipedia's readers would greatly benefit if the voices of citizen-experts were argued more forcefully, and more often.Proabivouac 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you indeed Tom for drawing my attention to the "the angel Gabriel". Many thanks and kindest regards. Baher 13:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. I am glad I grew up speaking this crazy language, otherwise I would never be able to learn it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this sort of thing allowed? Here is the log for that article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that people can maintain stuff in userspace that they may be working on. Of course the rules about recreation of deleted content apply, as does 'Wikipedia is not a hosting service.' You could take it to

MfD if you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk

14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It's nominated for MfD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be hanging around the computer all day on Tuesday (starting Monday evening) to deal with vandalism and other problems. - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2007 --Aude (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations(or condolences). It's a good article, and I'll watch it closely. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in an article about a fatal tanker truck accident near Bloomington, Illinois. It has closed a bridge and limited another to one lane on Interstate 74. Good thing fuel fuel fires can't damage steel or the bridge would have collapsed. Actually, the bridge is closed and it's steel beams look pretty warped in the gallery of images. Maybe those beams were warped by a controlled demolition or something. Article: Two-way traffic on burned I-74 bridge 4-6 weeks away. --Dual Freq 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Maybe special military-grade extra-hot gasoline, with sulfur added? Or maybe it was a truck load of thermite... Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that reminds me of this news item I saw the other day. The tanker crash caused a freeway overpass to collapse, and the ensuing traffic chaos was not a pretty sight. Nobody has (so far) brought thermite into it, but you never know... --John 00:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; looks like

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center is due for an update. Tom Harrison ^Talk

00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a recent edit you made regarding a pejorative link [66] to the Cultural Revolution and the starvation of a large group of people. On two points, the first being that I think they were more reffering to the Naxalites and the maoist groups that inspired them, not of the starvation in particular, which seems to be highlited. The second would be that were are assuming a link that was not specified, and the maoist movement / cultural revolution is pretty broad of an area to jump to any conclusions on. Perhaps for the better we should not make an assumption on the intent at all. If you feel you have to, you may want to consider the sentence was on violent acts and you have connected them more to starvation then that of similar violence by maoist groups. While I am sure many of those acts lead to starvation, the jump seem to insinuate the extreme. The butterfly flapping its wings to start a tornado kinda of statement. --

Huh, I had never even heard of the

Naxalites; thanks. You may be right, but they clearly chose to use 'Maoist' instead of the more-neutral 'Mao Zedong Thought'. I think in the west that pejorative sense is primarily understood, and intended, as a reference to the excesses of the great leap forward. Still, other interpretations are possible, as you note. Tom Harrison ^Talk

18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I am currently attempting to cleanup the Institut Le Rosey article. I have noticed your past interest in the article and would like your, and others', opinions. On the article's discussion page I have listed several alumni that are not currently listed in the Le Rosey article. There are many reputable sources on the internet that can confirm their attendance, however, because of previous vandalism on the page, it seems important that there be a consensus when adding names to the alumni list. There are other issues that plague the article, such as: no school history, no information on facilities/buildings, and very little information on the curriculum/education. Please visit the article discussion page and share your opinions. Many thanks. -- AJ24 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You removed a source on the state terrorism article cited to Gareau, and left the summary "per talk." Can you point me to the discussion regarding this. I am not sure if you mixed up who was being discussed, or if I missed where it was being discussed. Thank you. --

It's under section 2, "Gareau's thesis." Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its in the "front matter" as Amazon describes it. The Introduction to be precise, Amazon doe snot include the introduction in the version you read online. The quote is:

"WASHINGTON PUBLISHES AN ANNUAL LIST OF GOVERNMENTS THAT IT ALLEGES aid terrorists. Typically, this list contains a majority of governments of Arab states plus Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. This highlights the importance of how terrorism is defined. If state terrorism were included in the definition, Washington would have to include itself in the list"

.

I will revert this tomorrow if there are no objections by then. This is why I stated the "search in" feature on Amazon should not be considered a measuring tool of sources. Just so you do not think I am lying you can search for, "If state terrorism were" You can read the quoted passage here --

SixOfDiamonds

22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, but my point is that isn't what Chomsky is saying. I don't mind mentioning Gareau ("Gareau maintains that..."), but we have to distinguish his position from Chomsky's. Anyway, this probably belongs on the talk page so others can address it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. When you do changes like this, would you mind not removing the "| Cover =" line entirely, instead just removing the image from the line. Per

I will do that from now on. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for any inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --PEJL 00:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on Tom. How is this edit "per talk" as you claimed in your edit summary? On the talk page I asked to put in language about e-mails,

Furthermore, in reverting to Morton's version "per talk" you have now changed "unacceptable" to "frowned-upon by many editors" (an extremely significant change) which had literally never been discussed. Please explain your rationale behind this edit, and why you thought it impossible to wait for another (uninvolved) editor or editors to offer their opinion before replacing material that was added after some discussion with material that was not discussed at all. Even though we disagree often, I respect you as an editor and admin, but this seemed like an ill advised decision to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I did not simply "revert to Morton's version" - [67]
• By "per talk", I mean "per my comment on the talk page," where I question the wisdom of adding "or emails." If others think your addition is a good idea, no doubt they will add it themselves. You seem to take this as some kind of personal affront - I don't mean that at all. You write well, and have made good contributions to the project. I just think it is a bad idea to expand the guideline in a futile attempt to restrict email (and logically telephone and personal contact too.) The best way to address concern about canvassing is to recall "it's not a vote", and understand why it is not.
• I should not change the guideline because I am in a content dispute with you, but your change to the guideline should stand unless removed by a neutral third party? That seems odd. (By the way, I'm not sure you and I are in a content dispute, but the only article I remember we both edit, American terrorism, has its own talk page.)
• Wikipedia:Canvassing has its own talk page too. Make a logical case there and people will support your change.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really do not take it as a personal affront, but simply view it as an ill advised edit as I said. Agreed that you did not simply rv to Morton's version as you made additional edits (I should have been more precise), but it remains true--and this was my main point--that you changed "unacceptable" to "frowned-upon by many editors" without any discussion whatsoever. You made no comment on the talk page about changing the wording in that fashion (i.e. it was not "per talk"), and I still don't see the rationale behind this change, which was significant. "Unacceptable" and "frowned upon by many" are obviously quite different--the former wording has apparently existed since late 2006, and had nothing to do with my recent edit.

The difference, as I see it, between my change and yours is that I was careful to ask beforehand on the talk page if it would make sense to add in something about e-mail, and received a resounding yes (including that I should report such behavior on AN/I) from an editor who actually works on that page and participates in discussions on it. Had there been any reluctance whatsoever expressed (I waited for a week) there is no way I would have added it, but there was not. My edit obviously angered Morton (hence his bizarre edit summary accusing me of having a "vendetta," and then of "hating his innards"). Then several editors who have never edited there before nor even discussed the guideline on the talk page (but who, it's undeniable, very often agree with Morton and presumably watch his conspiracy theory noticeboard where--inexplicably, since it has nothing to do with CT articles--

bush league. You probably disagree, and I stress I use this term only with respect to the behavior and not the editors themselves, but that's how I see it. It's for that reason that I wanted someone who actually worked on the page to weigh in and still do. If other editors who work on the page agree with your position then so be it, we'll keep the e-mail stuff out. Believe it or not it's actually not a big deal to me, and if no one is interested in commenting on it I'll leave it your way. Finally (and apologies for the lengthy comment) thanks for your compliments about my contributions--I do appreciate that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs

02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get angry, I just go for the win.

 MortonDevonshire  Yo 

· 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right man, Wikipedia is all about "winning." But I was actually writing quite specifically to Tom.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone ever told you about

I have asked a question here [68], I would be thankful to hear your advices as to how one should proceed in such a situation. Thanks --Aminz 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure where to turn. User Wafulz as fully protected a page without any talk on the talk page. User Wafulz also at the same time removed a Dispute tag which had been up that user Nescio had removed again with no talk. Im sure user Nescio used some board to get user Wafulz to do it. User Nescio has been in many different Mediations all on Bush pages. He uses differnt boards to bully people into letting him do what he wants. He seems to want to put his POV on these pages. I tried to have good faith but after looking at his record its clear what he is doing. I dont understand why Admin are letteing him do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq GATXER 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrators have a limited set of tools. We can lock pages and block editors, and we only do that to prevent disruption. Admins do not adjudicate content disputes . It's up to the editors on the page to work out a consensus among themselves. There is

dispute resolution, but it takes a lot of time rarely does any good. The best choice is probably to go do something else for a while. After a few months consensus may change. Tom Harrison ^Talk

13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected so that a POV tag couldnt be put up....A tag put up by others that needs to be there. Editor N has put his POV on many Bush pages and ended up in meditation but thinks Im Passionate? Its hard to respect a Admin who protects a page fully yet gives No reasons why on the talk page. I have No doubt Editor N had it protected..... to think otherwise looking at his record would be crazy. I admit I have loss allot of respect for Wiki seeing how Editor N uses the sysytem to bully his POV on to pages with the help of Adim who dont seem to care....and no I dont mean Tom. GATXER 02:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, and double sigh. Have asked the etiquette-mediator to step in again.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please drop by the discussion page and share your thoughts as well as help resolve a edit conflict currently going on thanks RMANCIL 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about the subject. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that somebody was going to punish me when I saw the popup saying I've got new messages. Just a vandal vandalized my talk page and you removed it. Thank you very much sir.--

While I appreciate your opinion about Petri's block, you should reflect that the notion of "two camps" has no basis in reality. In respect to mainspace, there is Petri Krohn and everyone else. Sure, I offered my opinion in Estonia-related discussions on two or three occasions, mainly to prevent him from feeling isolated. The only way that one *won't* be alone is by being a nationalist oneself. That's the irony. Petri really feels that there is nothing you can do to counter a large and well-organized group of one-purpose accounts whose owners know each other in real life and have some very definite ideas what they want from Wikipedia. You may fight one troll, two, or three, but not a dozen of them. Unfortunately, there's some truth in that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is truth in that, and there is truth in some of your other observations, but at this point I do not see what else is to be done. Blocking everyone in sight is a blunt tool, and makes injustice inevitable, but at least it stops the disruption. The next step, or perhaps a better step, would be a long lock-down of all articles about the Baltic, the Balkans, the Byzantine Empire, Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Cyprus, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is "Petri against the world" as Ghirla suggests, perhaps it is Petri who is being the disruption. Wikipedia is about common sense, right? Surely a group of editors who happen to live in Estonia would have a better idea of Estonian history, don't you think? Rather than lock down an entire range of articles about the Baltics, would it not make better sense to just to ban Petri from editing articles related to the Baltics?

Martintg

03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

“ whose owners know each other in real life and have some very definite ideas what they want from Wikipedia.” typical Ghirlandajo - first throw out all kinds of senseless accusations (read: slander), and then it's the one accuse who has to prove that he or she is not gulity. Ha-ha.E.J. 09:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom. The page protection on

I don't have any interest in the subject matter. Consider asking for a third opinion. If the edit-warring resumes I will block people as needed to prevent disruption. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you revert (or at least look at) all of thie IP's edits? If not, I'd be willing to take the time later today. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I got them all. He was just adding a link to investigate911.se, which another ip was doing a few days ago. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please ask MONGO to not vandalize my page anymore[70]. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better to cool down disagreements by ignoring them than inflaming them with words like 'vandalize'. If you want him to avoid you, start by avoiding him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit is clearly vandalism. As an admin are you not suppose to warn people for actions such as that? --SevenOfDiamonds 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just stop with the 'You're a troll/You're a vandal' stuff. Use

dispute resolution if you feel it necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk

22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not call MONGO a troll, nor a vandal. I stated the act he commited was vandalism. He has actually called me both, as well as a SPA and a sockpuppet. I am kind of surprised as an admin you would not issue a warning to someone for something that was clearly vandalism. I hope this is not because we often stand on opposite sides on the state terrorism page. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop, please. You're just escalating the situation. An administrator is never obliged to issue a warning. I can warn VandalX on Monday, block VandalY on Tuesday, and ignore VandalZ on Wednesday. Admins are trusted to use their discretion, and judge whether or not a particular action is likely to be helpful or not. Probably one reason Tom is an admin is that the community felt that he was likely to have good judgment. Following MONGO around, and showing up at noticeboards where he posts or where someone else posts about him is not showing good judgment. Ditto for reporting him at

WP:AIV, which is meant for stopping continuing vandalism. Please walk away. MONGO almost certainly watchlists Tom's page, so be assured that he's aware of your concerns. Admins are not meant to be the manners police, issuing a warning because someone has been naughty. ElinorD (talk)

22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow hostile. Not sure where I said they were the "manner police" Just surprised an admin used their discretion and found that edit to not merit a warning. Doesn't matter apparently another did. I am sure the picture is understood now and the action will not be repeated. Which is the goal of course. I by the way think Tom is a great admin, and have been very thankful of his edits to a particular article, who said anything less? Anyway good day. Hopefully next time we chat you will not be over defensive, nor so agressive. Its just the internet. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You added a {{

Would you consider returning to Talk:Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list to discuss this more fully?

Thanks! Geo Swan 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that you left me a heads-up at the time you placed the tag.

I left a reply on Talk:Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list.

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I added to that disccussion the reply i was in the middle of when you archived it away. I got an Edit Conflict, WITH YOU, so I went in and added it. You'll notice that i redacted a number of the insults, but really, protecting MONGO like this instead of blocking him for incivility is ridiculous. At least I know who his defenders are now. ThuranX 23:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your patronizing commentary. Do not return to my talk page. You are highly unwelcome. ThuranX 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[71]. There's your proof that MONGO can't help but compulsively try to ramp people up for more trolling incidents. Compare timestamps to this,[72], where I redacted some of my statement, and explained myself more fully. That's who you're defending. I'm not going to reply, I'm just going to remove it. FOUR hours after I removed the insults, he brings it to my talk page. You handle this. Absurd. ThuranX 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, after you call others names, ban two editors from your talk page with snarky reversion summaries, you are coming here to complain that someone pointed out your insults after an interminable 4 hours after you made them? Seriously? --Tbeatty 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I can't see any benefit in continuing this. The more people your complain to about MONGO, the more people will see the diff that MONGO was complaining about, which doesn't look very good.Proabivouac 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I read this fascinating article in New Scientist and thought it might interest you. --John 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a good read. I'll see if I can get the full text - it might be a good reference for Conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, since you were an admin involved in all the drama regarding "DWEECs" and Christianity-related articles around Easter of 2006, I thought you'd be interested in the latest reincarnation:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#doubleblue.info attack site resurfaces with a new domain name
  • (Permanent link)
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#languedoc-france.info
  • (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. That's one for the spam blacklist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because of my limited wiki navigation skills, I discovered that you were an important decision-maker in March regarding the word choice of "conspiracy theories". However, I searched the archives in vain for a discussion of whether the 9/11 Commission Report would also fall under a NPOV definition of "conspiracy theory". Do you recollect whether such an objection was asked and answered during your review? Pablo says there was, but I cannot find it. Kanodin 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

yes it was. It was discussed under the "Al Qaeda conspired, therefore accusations that Al Qaeda was responsible is a conspiracy theory." This was dismissed by concensus, not the least of the reasoning being that it was ridiculous. --Tbeatty 08:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure that it was discussed. If it has been awhile since it was discussed, I don't object to the discussion being revisited. However, I'm certain that replacing conspiracy theories with alternate theories or any other such language will be resoundingly rejected again. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, taking this discussion back to the original talk section. Kanodin 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. He's back, of course: [73]. Arrow740 00:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. ElinorD (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps we need a noticeboard just for these DavidYork71 type-sockpuppeteers, as ANI reports refer us to WP:AIV, but a few WP:AIV reports have been removed as out-of-process (socks not vandalism.)Proabivouac 00:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Again: [74]. Arrow740 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again, on talk pages this time. See [75], which preceeded [76]. I thought it was BS who has usually used IP's to circumvent his block, but the talk page post had the bitterness of HE's posts. It would be best if someone were to block these socks and protect the talk page of Muhammad so this banned editor cannot attempt to influence the project. Arrow740 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, do you intend to explain your administrative action concerning Iantresman, as I asked you to do? --Art Carlson 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I do not plan to spend any more time on it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint against you. --Art Carlson 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the 'barn star' explanation. No offense, but are you watching me, or Giovanni33, or both of us? Chaser just explained how lots of people watch each other with watchlists. I had no idea. I thought that was just used for articles! 'Watchlists'. I don't know why, but the concept reminds me of the Pentagon's Domestic Surveillance Program. :-) Bmedley Sutler 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, no offense taken. I saw it on Mongo's talk page. I watchlisted your page after I left you the note, which I usually do so as not to miss a reply. I watch pages I'm interested in, or that are often vandalized. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice: [77].

Thanks, it's good of you to say so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's far superior to what I put there, it attributes the statement very very clearly to avoid further problems with that sentence(hopefully!). It's a subtle attribution that I didn't think of before, so I learned something new from it...aways a valuable thing! Thank you for that.

Dreadstar †

17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed last year you deleted North American Union, since then it has become a redirect to another article which appears to be the new home of the conspiracy theory. An anon has recently removed the redirect, but I restored it. I was wondering if it should be deleted again since the NAU references / claims in the Independent Task Force on North America don't appear that strong. --Dual Freq 11:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be some legitimate content in Independent Task Force on North America. I think for now we should try to remove the conspiracist stuff. If it devolves into what it was before, it may have to be speedied as a re-creation of deleted material - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Union. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I pulled some of the obvious stuff, but there may be more. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was recreated two hours after you deleted it. --Dual Freq 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that adding the WaPo cite in no way supports Cberlet's claim, as the WaPo makes no assertion that LaRouche or his staff caused anyone to commit suicide. The WaPo is not run by amateurs, they know better than to publish something like that. Please don't mislead the reader by implying that the WaPo is somehow backing up this claim. --Marvin Diode 22:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist as a result of your request [78] on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Looks like an interesting exercise to try and keep this npov. Edison 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference to it being a terrorist attack as it is called the biggest pre 9/11 act of terrorism in the next sentence. I think this flows better and avoids a resource hungry piped link.User:Barliner ^chat 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yours is better. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just watched the Colbert Report. They just documented that Fox News is still arguing that The Clintons killed their aide Vince Foster! Too funny! Thats 'journalism'? I thought it was a 'conspiracy theory'! What else could you expect from 'PR division' of the BUSHGOV who argues that Saddam was Osama's 'kissing cousin' and had 5000 litres of Anthrax or what ever they're outrageous lies are. Link The prosecutor Ken Starr who hated the Clintons the most cleared them twice about this phony 'conspiracy theory'. Hillarys polls are strong though, so the BUSHGOV 'shadow' PR divison at Fox must spring in to action. On Wikipedia too! Aren't you even the slightest tiniest bit embarassed? I went to the store to buy some foil like the Spooks here suggested. They were all out. The American right wing and Spooks on Wikipedia need it all. :-) Bmedley Sutler 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• So you get your news from the Comedy Central. That explains a lot. - Crockspot 12:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

All I can do is get the word out. I told you about the Aluminum/Tin thing. If you want to ignore my advice that's on you, and I'll say no more about it. One last thing though: helmet and hat are deliberate misnomers that lead people into making something ineffective. You can't just slap together a beanie and expect it to do anything. The tin foil has to go from the eyebrows, over the top of the head, and down the back to cover that area below the shoulder blades that always itches. (Ever wonder about the source of that itch?) The tin foil strip should be not less than four inches wide. A double layer is more robust, but not essential. Secure it in place with clear plastic packing tape, especially at the back of the neck where a certain amount of slack is inevitable. Using duct tape is counter-productive, for obvious reasons. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the way I wear mine. Even though I am supposedley on the "inside" I know how indiscrimate The Government is being right now. Heck, you don't even need a warrant anymore to target someone. I can't even check to see who's on the list anymore because the Patriot Act got rid of it. --Tbeatty 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Its enough to make me glad I live in the free world, even if the weather is awful this summer.... Seabhcan

I wonder if bad weather and good beer are connected somehow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One demands the other, I find. --John 14:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! ... Seabhcan 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why??!? Have you been following what

Nothing he did excuses you. I stand by my warning. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest it excuses me. I was trying to say what about giving him a warning as well? Surely you can not condone what he says, or do you? Fighting for Justice 00:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Go complain to someone else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. I'll take that as you do. Thank You. Fighting for Justice 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit has been in place for MONTHS. Along comes Haemo. He removed from the motives section the testimony were the vice-Chairman point blank asks what the motive was (the only time it was asked in the 9/11 hearings) and an FBI Special Agent gives him the answer. And you don't think there is something wrong with that? He also removed the statement from the Former in Laden Unit Chief calling Clinton and Bush liars. Haemo's edit is from yesterday, the edit I am returing to was there for MONTHS. why did you take Haemo's side? bed fair Tom, you are simply not being objective and fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tel555 (talk • contribs).

Discuss it at

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk

01:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you - I just ran across Squeakbox a couple of days ago. In regards to this decision, did you happen to see the problems with other articles, and with previous 3RR block? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I protected the page about an hour before the 3rr report was filed. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If someone is edit warring on another page, please report that on the noticeboard. If this is a longer-term problem,

dispute resolution would be the appropriate mechanism. Tom Harrison ^Talk

02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't have any dispute with this particular editor, and I don't have enough knowledge of or experience with him to draft an RfC. I just thought policy was that repeated 3RR violations led to progressively longer blocks, per

this, that's all. Videmus Omnia ^Talk

03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of material was added to the article and I just finished editing it. May I ask you to take a look and make sure everything checks out? Davies, Andrew 11:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This was the first time I worked for a couple of hours on Wikipedia as a registered editor. I was confused by the sheer number of citation templates required and copied/pasted the wrong title. Thank you for correcting those mistakes, among others. Davies, Andrew 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it looks like good work. I want to get a couple of references and then I'll go over it in more detail over the next week. Welcome to the project, Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Let me know if any help is required in getting specific quotations from the sources I've cited. After all, I've recently finished working with them and can find and produce them with ease. Regards, Davies, Andrew 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For publishing the Definition of Conspiracy Theory on your User page and suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for it. --Tbeatty 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, where can I ask for assistance with my grammar on an article I started? Link Thank you. I guess we can't joke around any more. :-( Bmedley Sutler 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Our article, English grammar, looks pretty thorough, and has some links at the end. The Elements of Style is a classic. Often a good dictionary will have a guide in the front or back. The way to improve, I think, is to read good writing in books or some magazines, write things yourself here, and watch what people correct. I don't see any big errors in Deetjen's Big Sur Inn. I'd be interested to hear what suggestions others might have. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a hack at it; see what you (both) think. --John 20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. I added some more info too. I will work more on Big Sur articles, since I think there won't be disagreements there and its my favorite place in America. (Yosemite is great too) Bmedley Sutler 20:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you administrator Harrison. You are very helpful and funny too. Bmedley Sutler 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with the grammar. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice article Bmedley. I lived in Santa Cruz for 25 years and spent a lot of time in Big Sur. About the only thing I didn't get to check out is the hot tubs at

I'm not intimately familiar with the admin tools, but is there a protection level that allows established users to edit a page (such as +50 edits, thereby allowing the valid community to talk to him) but keeps those who have created a name simply to vandalize? (The article specifically directs people to make an account to keep from being blocked.) I personally have not read his page, nor did I really read the article (or care what it is about) but I have been dealing with the attacks on him for a couple of hours, and it seems it will only get worse over the weekend. If you can let me know what (if anything) you can do, (for future reference) I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection isn't that flexible. The next level available is to allow editing by only administrators, which we can do if it becomes necessary. For now I have s-protected his talk page. Thanks for reverting the ongoing vandalism. That, and blocking the users who have come here to do that, is probably the way to go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, alright thank you for letting me know. Could his pages should be put on the (IRC) watched list for the weekend (or so)? It would make it easier for us evil vandal fighter people, lol. I appreciate your help with the blocks! Thank you very much! ^Ariel♥Gold 15:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I use Lupin's, and don't really know how the IRC things work. You might ask on one of the channels. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, okie dokie! Thank you again for your help today! ^Ariel♥Gold 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, can you discuss your removals on the Admin page Thanks. ... Seabhcan 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please Tom, you are removing republished articles, which is efectively removing sources. Not sure if you are using a script, but it is very sloppy. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you undone my change, can I ask, why? I believe, I explained myself well on the talk page.--Igor "the Otter" 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also appreciate an explanation as to why my edit was not acceptable. "Stop it. This is not a platform for you to promote your conspiracy theories." Ditto.--LoNDoN 06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom, good to hear from you, despite the occasion. Ann is alive and well. She has been sick lately, though not badly, and has taken a summer job. Also, she has to finish writing some papers by the beginning of September. As you probably know, real life serious harassment resulting from Wikipedia caused her to lose some of the pleasure she had here, and also caused her to get behind in some study, which she now has to catch up on. She even mentioned a few months ago that she might request desysopping in the autumn, when she starts work on her thesis. I don't expect her to return to regular editing for the foreseeable future, but I don't think she's gone for good either. She probably will log on one of these days, and she's certainly still regularly at the computer. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope she gets well soon, and catches up with her work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that stinks...I was just wondering the other day about her.--MONGO 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You protected Haroon Rashid Aswat.

I left a note on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat. If this was not an oversight, and you were planning on leaving an explanation, that is where I will look for it.

My apologies for not recognizing your wiki-id when I left the first note on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have since commented on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify for me:

1. Your reply on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat -- did I understand you correctly -- did you actually consider blocking me from all editing? Without any warning?
2. Are you warning me that you will block me from all editing if I edit this article any further, and you feel that my edits use sources open to challenge?
3. You don't think the normal dialogue wikipedians are supposed to engage in would be sufficient to resolve any questions you have about my edits, and the sources I used?

IMO, whatever concern you had about my edits, and the sources I used I really think you should have recognized that I was making a good faith attempt to supply better sources for this article. IMO, as an administrator, you have a responsibility to be clearer when giving warnings. Those on the receiving end deserve to know clearly what they have done that is going to bring down a block.

Maybe it wasn't your intention to leave a warning? If so I urge you to be more careful.

Not knowing what might trigger a block I left a comment, on your most recent excisions, on Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat. But I will look for your reply on the apparent block threats here. Geo Swan 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It would not be my first choice, but if it is necessary to prevent you from adding poorly-sourced controversial material about a living person, I will certainly block you. If you think that is at all remarkable, you should become more familiar with our policy on

There are noticeboards at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why you removed the pages for Sean_Belnick and BizChair.com on 14:08, 29 May 2007 ? Sean has been featured on CNN and other media outlets because of his unique story. Most recently, he was featured on Inc.com at #2 of 30 on the 30 Under 30: America's Coolest Young Entrepreneurs

The company Sean started at age 14, BizChair.com, was named #272 of the Top 500 Internet Retailers, including being named in the top 10 Office Supply Internet retailers. Young entrepreneur has a busy summer ahead expanding BizChair.com

Thank you- Calmbluerage 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted both under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I copied the wrong template for the AfD notice. Argyriou (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom! You undid my addition to Steven Jones page stating that David Griffin's book was peer reviewed.

The book in question is David Griffin's "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out". When asked by Steven Jones whether the essays collected in the book, including his, were peer reviewed, this was David Griffin's response (email addresses have been removed to protect privacy):

On 8/1/07, David Griffin wrote: Steven,

Yes, all the essays were peer-reviewed. Most of the contributors were, in fact, asked to revise their essays on the basis of the reviews. And not all submissions were accepted.

Cordially,

David

On 7/31/07 9:44 PM, "Steven Jones" wrote:

Hello, David and Peter --

About the book holding my article, i.e., 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out -- were all the essays in this particular book peer-reviewed? If so, does the book say so somewhere?

This seems to be important -- someone is asking me, and we find the peer-review issue arising again.

Thanks, Steven J

Since the authors of the book describe a peer review process and indicate that on the basis of this process most of the manuscripts had to be revised (typical for any peer reviewed publication) or ommitted, what is your basis for claiming that the author's are lying?

You may peronsally disagree with the contents of these essays, but please do not remove my accurate inclusion describing this book as peer-reviewed unless you can provide me convincing evidence that David Griffin included Steven Jones' essay (and the other essays in the book) without asking anyone to review them. Please call or contact me if you would like to discuss this further.

Thank you!

Respectfully,

Mark Patterson—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkCentury (talk • contribs)

Conspiracy theories usually propagate inside a walled garden of people who agree with each other, cite each other, and promote each other's work. That process is not peer review. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but the same can be said about so many other prominent scientific areas, (like String Theory, like Topological quantum field theory - i am not equaling those with cts). The question is if the group is critical enough to self-check, self-rebut. I think that CT'iers have proved that with rebutting Judy Wood's work in several papers, with rebutting various anti-Semitic theories, no-plane theories and others. Griffin's past as a prominent theologian with many publications stands behind this book and peer-review of Jones's paper. Anyway, Jones is going to write a paper with his recent findings about iron micro-spheres and spectroscopic analysis of 9/11 dust and send it for a peer review to serious scientific journals. I wonder about the outcome. SalvNaut 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

It is me again :) I hope everything is going well with you. As usual I have a request :P (Sorry that I am always trouble). If you have time, I would be thankful if you could take a look at Arrow's representation of Peters and Robinson, and Lewis here and here and here. It is getting painful. User:Proabivouac in support of User:Arrow740 has accused me of being the one who is cherry picking. It is clear to me that Arrow has misrepresented the sources. I never ever used Peters and Robinson to update the article; My specific claim is that Arrow has misrepresented the sources but Proabivouac accuses me of being the one here who is cherry picking.

Also, Arrow and Karl Meier have started removing the views of Arafat and Barakat on Banu Qurayza. There is a section summerizing the arguments here. If you could comment on that as well, I would be thankful. --Aminz 10:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I failed to make any head or tail of what you meant by "shh" added to my talk on

This post:[79]? The one where I removed the bold and upper-case from the article titles, with an edit summary of "Shh"? I bet if you think about it you will be able to figure out what I meant by "Shh". Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was too bold. Now I will be regular, instead of shutting up completely.-Vinay Jha

:-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI Geo Swan 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you do something administrative about this? Arrow740 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much responding so quickly. Arrow740 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; glad I could help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you protected the above title, so I thought you'd be interested to know that it appears someone is trying to get around the protection with the article

• North american union
• North American Union
• Wikipedia:Protected titles/July 2007
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Union
• User:Wisepiglet/North American Union
• Wikipedia:WikiProject North American Union
• Category:North American Union

Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ihave spoken with the creator on

BillCJ

17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

THe creator has move the page to his userspace, as I suggested. I note above you've removed userspace pages on the topic before, so just wanted to let you know what was going on. Another editor has talked with him, and he's agreed to try to go through Deletion Review once he's completed what he is doing with it. THe page still seems like a retread of Corsi's book (which I haven't read and don't have, just commenting on the style of the page) at this point. THanks again for watching over all this. -

BillCJ

01:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to give it much time yet, but I'll watchlist it and do more later in the week. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tom, as you may have seen, I blocked Bason0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before I saw that you had processed that report as a warning. I'd be glad to discuss this with you if you don't think he/she should have been blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I should have checked his blocklog first. I don't object to the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your wholesale removal of 'suspect' domains is irresponsible in execution. While I think a lot of your removals are probably warranted, flagging them would be, in my opinion, a better approach. No, I don't expect you to heed this.Yeago 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What is happening with these deletions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there is a discussion on the talk page. I'd rather see it integrated into the rest of the article/sub-articles. I don't really like 'criticism of...' sections, either for style, or content, or their effect on balance in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Criticism sections are discouraged. ElinorD (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Red herring. Why not take out the criticism section and keep the controversies section? How are existing controversies the same as criticisms?Giovanni33 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not like stand-alone criticism sections. But the material there needs to be incorporated into the article, rather than deleted, Tom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What I think is important in the Yellowstone fires of 1988 article is that while I definitely don't want it to be an apology piece for the National Park Service, it needs to be made clear that existing fire management policies were generally working, but the events of 1988 were extreme and the forest was basically overdue to a large fire, and that is what that ecosystem has adapted to...a large fire about 3 times every millenium. Anything you can suggest on the talkpage or article there which might help make this issue better understood is appreciate...as are whatever changes you might see fit to make to my oftentimes poor sentence structures!--MONGO 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for some print references at the library. Until then I'll stick to small changes. It's not something I know much about, but it's interesting how the ecosystem adapts - probably futile for people to to try to maintain it as a static system. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, there is a user who has been adding what I consider to be consiracy theory material to the

Thanks, I'll watch it for a while. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI.

• I am not trying to provoke you.
• I am informing you of my recent edit, and my comment on the talk page, in the interest of transparency.
• Your statement that you will block me, without warning, is still hanging over my head.
• I really think the responsible thing for you to do is to either explain yourself more fully, or withdraw the block threat.

Geo Swan 02:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

it is against WP policy to remove NPOV tags unless consensus has been reached, you seem to be taking sides in the debate and as an involved party your deletion of the tag puts you in an awkward place I suggest if you are passionate about chritianity you may consider not editing the article and move on to other things, I will stop editing and observe what is happening around this issue and shall bring the attention of others on it if admins seem to be acting contrary to the spirit and letter of WP policy/guidelines. respectfully Esmehwp 04:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"it is against WP policy to remove NPOV tags unless consensus has been reached"

Can you point me to the applicable policy?Proabivouac 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your removal was appropriate, Tom harrison. There needs to be a reasoned justification for INSERTING the tag...otherwise an article like Christianity would be constantly tagged. Good job with your vigilance of the article, particularly in the past few days. --Anietor 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought is was a racist slur until I read your reason for reverting it. I would have reported it as vandalism if I had discovered it first. Thanks for clarifying it as part of your edit. Albion moonlight 07:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can you refresh my memory? Is this related to antisemitism? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was. You made the revert on August 10th . I just now looked at the history of that page and can no longer see your explanation. That seems weird but I am a Wiki neophyte. Albion moonlight 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. All's well that ends well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that ThAtSo is the banned user Lancombz. They both use the same types of personal attacks and have a similar writting style. They also edit the same groups of articles. Why do you think he is Alienus? Endlessmike 888 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't contradictory hypotheses.Proabivouac 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. They could all be the same guy. I read up on your Christianity article dispute. I think you should know that when Lancombz was banned, he was suspected of being Esmehwp‎ as well. There was never any evidence, though. You can read about it on the Lancombz sock puppet page I linked to before. Now Esmehwp‎ is deleting warnings off his user talk page which is exactly what Lancombz et al did when he/they were found out. So a Lancombz/Esmehwp‎/ThAtSo connection is a good possibility. Endlessmike 888 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted, Endlessmike 888. I'm not entirely certain about Esmehwp, but the others are plainly one and the same individual.Proabivouac 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you block me without talking to me at least once before you do it? Panonian just accused me (falsely) with anti-Semitism (Magyarization talk page) and you won't block him? Tankred was also reverting at this page and you don't say a word to him? Squash Racket 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Now Tankred threatens to have me blocked AGAIN becuse I edited a false number in an unsigned comment that later turned out to be his. I believed the unsigned comment with the wrong number was vandalism in itself. Now what would you do? Squash Racket 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Violate the

3RR noticeboard. Tom Harrison ^Talk

22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about this reversion? I don't think it's clear to anyone what's in the video. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 77 is the one that hit the Pentagon. I must be missing your point. Are there reliable sources that say it is unclear, or that it is not flight 77? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The video is unclear. In fact, it's so fuzzy, that if it wasn't from an official source, I'd suspect

photoshopping. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But how do the sources describe it? Does the Times say, "This is a picture of flight 77 about to hit the Pentagon," or "This is a fuzzy still from a video said to be..."? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cheszmastre‎.Proabivouac 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you caught how he set up User:Matt57 with a bunch of other socks. That's the second time he's manipulated the system to get someone else blocked.Proabivouac 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A

That ip never edited the article, but it is a tor proxy so anyone could have used it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, at least it doesn't rule out anyone. That's actually helpful. - Crockspot 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you revert Zen's last alledged edit? I'm at 3RR, and I'm should have already been on WikiBreak. I'm supposed to be packing for a convention my wife and I are attending starting tonight. "alledged refutation" is wrong, it is a refutation. Whether the refutation is complete is argueable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, someone will take care of it if it doesn't have consensus support. Have a good trip. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind words are ever appreciated :) May this rose remain memento of my gratitude:)

--Alexia Death the Grey 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How nice! You're most welcome. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The anti-Russian edit warrior Biophys is persistently whitewashing the article of anti-communist conspiracy theorist Jeffrey Nyquist, a non-entity follower of Anatoliy Golitsyn who thinks Pat Robertson is "pro-communist". After a warring session yesterday, the article is now locked on the wrong version - correct version here. I'd prefer to stay anonymous on this one for obvious reasons. Thanks 217.134.80.15 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I know enough about this to prefer one version to the other, though I do have doubts about the reliability of spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk as a source. I don't mind that you asked me to look at it, but I do want to make clear that I am not the administrator in charge of conspiracy theories, and I do not want to be. You might ask for input at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted one of my edits. I added a place for discussion of it on the talk page entitles "Edit reverted without cause." I encourage you to add your opinion there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debeo Morium (talk • contribs) 18:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Tom the same source used for the quote also indicated (on the same page) that it was a "liquid eutectic mixture", so the citation is already there. Please remove your citation needed on the word molten.

Also it seems as though you may have violated the 3 edit rule you warned me about with the reversion of the citation needed comment (third reversion today on this article). I certainly dont mind as you seem to have good intentions. But im a bit upset that you warned me about this when i did 2 reversions and now your on your third right after warning me Debeo Morium 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I added a new cite request to a new addition about molten iron. Again, you should carefully read and understand the policy, but if you think I have violated it you can report it at

WP:AN3. Tom Harrison ^Talk

21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not trying to attack you, and have no desire to report you because, as i said, it seems to be done with the best of intentions. You added a citation needed to the end of the sentence, and when reverted you added it back two words earlier (refering only to the molten part). However like i said, you should revert it yourself because the citation was already given. Debeo Morium 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not revert. I added a new citation request to a new assertion - that molten iron was found. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The source i cited for the FEMA quote also said a few sentences after that quote "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron..." and goes on to verify the other things stated in the quote and surronding text (Teh sulfur etc).. so yea, FEMA was the proper source for indicating the iron was molten. Debeo Morium 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)