User talk:Tom harrison: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
{{tl|NPOV}}-tagging
Tag: MassMessage delivery
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{| class="Talk-Notice"
{{busy|[[User:Tom harrison|Tom]]}}
|-

|<center>[[File:Admin mop.PNG|25px]]</center>
|<center><font color="green">'''Admins: <u>If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it.</u> I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks.'''</font></center>
|}
== For new users ==
== For new users ==


If you are new here, welcome. The page [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers]] has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.
If you are new here, welcome. The page [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers]] has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.


==Archives==
== Archives ==

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].
Line 20: Line 24:
[[User talk:Tom harrison/Archive10|10]]
[[User talk:Tom harrison/Archive10|10]]
[[User talk:Tom harrison/Archive11|11]]
[[User talk:Tom harrison/Archive11|11]]
[[User talk:Tom harrison/Archive11|12]]
[[User talk:Tom harrison/Archive11|13]]


Other old material is available in the page history.
==Dear Tom==
You suck just like century united.

==Deleting ''Abigail Bryant''==

Mr. Harrison, I was wondering why you deleted [[Abigail Bryant]]? on the log it says that the page was deleted as an A7, as spam, but it was not. I was searching for a viable link to availible resources because the News-Press (local newspaper) deletes published articles 7 days after the any article in the paper was published. Thank you, [[User:Munkee madness|Munkee madness]] 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:I deleted it for having [[wp:csd#a7|no assertion of importance or significance]]. I agree that it was not spam, and I'm sorry if I seemed to say it was. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thank You, Mr. Harrison. [[User:Munkee madness|Munkee madness]] 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

==Blocking IP 213.42.2.22==

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.

== About HP 10 series link removed ==


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

== copyrighted photograph ==

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 srh@esper.com [[User:High Order1|High Order1]]

== John Robert Kinahan ==

Sorry Wrong Kinahan. I mean't George Henry Kinahan a noted Irish geologist. Please delete asap[[User:Notafly|Notafly]]

==comment for DerwinUMD==
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,
[[User DerwinUMD|DerwinUMD]] 23:29 10 December 2006 (UTC)


==9-11 Truth==
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.

[[User DerwinUMD|DerwinUMD]] 00:26 December 11, 2006. (UTC)

==Poll on every little issue==
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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/Mediation&action=edit&section=45]

== Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWatts&diff=110975242&oldid=110820568 this admin's request], I have initiated [[WP:RFAR]] action against you ==

Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWatts&diff=110975242&oldid=110820568 this admin's request], I have initiated [[WP:RFAR]] action against you. ''Observe:''

[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts]]

--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 07:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

==Your edit war warning==

I would like you to take note of the fact that I have discussed my rationale for every edit on the talk page, whereas your previous revert came with no discussion. It also appears that you have not carefully followed the discussion, because when you did participate, you wrongly concluded that there was some dispute over whether Lyn Marcus was the same person as Lyndon LaRouche.

That being said, I don't intent to break the 3rr rule -- even though BLP edits are exempt. I presume that you are an admin. How about enforcing some of the other policies, such as [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:COI#Citing_oneself]] and [[WP:FRINGE]]? Input of that sort is badly needed. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::I also note that you deleted various citation requests that I had added to article. Was this intentional on your part? Are you going to object if I restore them? --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:I will be glad if you do not edit war. A revert is undoing another editor's work. See the policy for details. Three reverts is not a daily entitlement. If I have anything to say about LaRouche's political views, I'll say it on the article talk page. It does begin to look like you are using the LarRouche page to prosecute some kind of thing against Berlet or Political Research Associates. Please don't do that. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have found [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison's]] edits often controverisal and hidden behind his admin. privelages. [[User:DerwinUMD|DerwinUMD]] 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

:Tom, according to BLP, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply." If you are an admin, it is your responsibility to enforce this fairly and impartially, regardless of whether SlimVirgin or Cberlet are your buddies. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

::The material you keep removing is well sourced, as has been said at length on the talk page. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
==Unprotecting needed==
Tom, would you kindly unprotect [[Muhammad/images]]? The sprotection has been in effect for a very long time and articles aren't supposed to be permanently protected. Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:The semiprotection expires automatically on 16 March.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Muhammad/images] [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Well I'm not sure why it was protected for so long but that amount of time appears a bit inordinate. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:I don't oppose unprotection, but you should probably ask [[User:Majorly]], who is the one in the protection log. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Re: My "cabal" comment... the fact that the image is sprotected is part of the reason I mentioned that word. If you found that comment uncivil or otherwise insulting please accept my apologies. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you, don't worry about it. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::What's the point of un-semiprotecting? All that is likely to happen is that sockpuppets and anonpuppets will proceed to edit-war, causing stress until it is semi-protected once again.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::It has to be unprotected eventually, but if people disagree about removing sprotection now, it should be requested at [[WP:RFPP]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

==Usernames with "truth"==

Re [[User:For Truth's Sake!]], I propose that all usernames with "truth" in them be blocked on sight. No, it would never fly, but heuristically this may be without equal as a predictor of tendentious editing.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:It would be nice if we could somehow divert those usernames to a sandbox. They would think they were editing Wikipedia, but only they would see the changes. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

== Help! ==

I'm just an ogre...can you help me help another and get the two templates in an article to stack up on top of one another? On the [[Neoplatonism and Gnosticism]] article, we're tryng to get the "Platonism" infobox to stack above the "Gnosticism" infobox, akin to what can be seen on the September 11, 2001 attacks article. I know you can do it...I have faith in you! Thanks in advance.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'll take a look. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::I've tried several different combinations and for some stupid reaosn, all my efforts have failed in the preview mode..I can't seem to find a guide as to how to anywhere either...oh well.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't know if there is a guide to formating - maybe there is something on meta. I think it has to do with the internals of how the templates are set to display. To over-ride this, I put one in a div. I'm no template expert, but it seems like templates in general should not have any more formating than they need for internal use. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::And now the white space is a problem... [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Check it now...this is as close as I can get it.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::That looks good. I'll look around and see if I can find anything else. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Looks like Aude saved the day...again...I think she must have gone to college or something.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

==Gilad Atzmon==
Re: Gilad Atzmon: ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I have posted about Gilad Atzmon is true and easily documented: he IS [removed per blp] and many more things I could have added. It is neccessary to know such things in order for a reader to obtain a truly non-POV balanced assesment of a man who whatever his musical talents is clearly a [removed per blp]. This information is simply factual; and attempts to remove this constitute censorship. Felix-felix has consistently sought to remove virtually any material about Atzmon that could prove in the least bit unflattering. It is HIS clearly POV edits that should be targeted for blocking.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Antifascist"

:Controversial material about [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living people]] must be [[Wikipedia:Attribution|attributed]] to a reliable source. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

==Unexamined cultural bias: bad thing?==

That was truly a brilliant question.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well thank you, that's nice to hear. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Just wanted to say thank you for the quick block on the user vandalizing the [[Peter Pace]] page. Cheers--[[User:Looper5920|Looper5920]] 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:You're welcome; I'm glad I could help. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

== re: pronunciation ==

Agreed. I can be a little pointlessly obsessive about using the IPA sometimes, even in non-linguistics articles. I'll try to include or at least preserve more layperson friendly guides in future edits. --[[User:Krsont|Krsont]] 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, I think that will give us the best of both. And after all, if we weren't a bit obssesive we wouldn't be volunteer encyclopedia writers, would we? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

== edit warring ==

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tsunami_Butler&diff=113929136&oldid=112825121 this message which you left on my talk page,] you asked me to "Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly," warning me also that "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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page." In the spirit of fairness, I am asking you to review the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_cult&curid=4054106&action=history edit history of "Political Cult"] to see whether you ought to make a similar warning to [[User:Dking]]. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

:If you think he is edit warring, report him on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::You told me that "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." I am asking you to be even-handed here; Dking is attempting to dominate the aforementioned article in violation of [[WP:OWN]], and I would like to think that you intervened in my case because of a general concern for the project, and not because of some particular POV you may share with Dking, Cberlet or SlimVirgin. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

==Need advice==
I am trying to figure out what the proper steps are for dealing with a dispute involving [[User:Intangible2.0]]. There have been discussions, polls, RFC's, requests for mediation (failed when a thord party declined), etc. I believe this is the same user as [[User:Intangible]], who you blocked briefly for disruptive editing. [[User:Intangible]] was put on probation. I think problematic editing is happening again, but have no idea if probation rolls over to new accounts. The pages involved are [[Nazism]], [[National Socialism]], [[National socialism]], [[National Socialism (disambiguation)]], [[Fascism]], and several others. See, for example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Socialism_%28disambiguation%29&action=history here], and the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#Requested_move here], where [[User:Intangible2.0]] posts a poll, and then spends the rest of the talk page refusing to accept the majority view. Any advice gratefully accepted.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
# I was not the one who started the debate on how to (re-)name the [[Nazism]] article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=110818131&oldid=107390481]
# I initiated a poll after reading upon on the naming policy:[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_abbreviations|Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation ''and'' is widely known and used in that form.]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=113791885&oldid=113621759] I still hold that Wikipedia policy should be followed. Most of the votes in the poll were in support of a guideline instead ([[WP:COMMONNAME]]), instead of supporting the more important Wikipedia policy itself.
# There is another issue with if [[National socialism]] and [[National Socialism]] should redirect to [[National Socialism (disambiguation)]], or not. This is dealt with in [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]]. Which is a different Wikipedia policy/guideline altogether (see [[Talk:National socialism]] and [[Talk:National Socialism]]), and is '''a different''' debate. Here [[User:Cberlet]] initiated a poll [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=115390263&oldid=115389233], while solliciting for votes.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cberlet&diff=115601312&oldid=115550717].
# See [[Wikipedia:Straw polls]]. [[User:Intangible2.0|Intangible2.0]] 16:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

:The remedy goes with the editor, not with the account. If Intangible disrupts articles related to National Socialism, he can be banned from them. As of now the consensus is that National Socialism and National socialism should redirect to the disambiguation page. Changing that twice against this consensus was disruptive. Under terms of the arbcom remedy, Intangible 2.0 is banned for one week from [[National socialism]], [[National Socialism]], and [[National Socialism (disambiguation)]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::Not to be snippy, but ''what'' consensus? What Wikipedia policy has been followed? It certainly wasn;t [[WP:DAB]], because nobody except me even mentioned the proper policy. [[User:Intangible2.0|Intangible2.0]] 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of editors who edits those articles and, coming back from weekend, I was unpleasantly surprised to find Intangible banned. You banned him on a basis that he acted against consensus. However, there is no consensus on whether [[National Socialism]] should be redirected to [[Nazism]] or to the disambiguation page. On a closer inspection of [[Talk:Nazism]] you will find that 8 users support redirect to Nazism: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=115677187&oldid=115672526 Lygophile], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=114581411&oldid=114579574 Slrubenstein],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=115601452&oldid=115600830 Jmabel],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=112624152&oldid=112614900 Mitsos],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=112322994&oldid=112314780 Flammingo],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=112536103&oldid=112350901 Xyzzy n ], Intangible and me; one users is perfectly ok with it:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=112659190&oldid=112657571 Nikodemos],
and one user supports redirecting Nazism to National Socialism: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&diff=115600569&oldid=115589103 Argyriou]. There are 9 users who support redirect to disambiguation page. So there are 19 users who stated their opinion on this, and only 9 support redirect to disambiguation page. That is not even a majority, and you are talking about consensus. Please reconsider his ban. Thanks. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:I don't see that being the case on the talk page; I see a clear consensus to redirect to the disambiguation page. If I'm wrong and there is strong support for redirecting to ''nazism'' instead, someone else will redirect it there. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::I provided you with diffs. Point is that users who support original redirect to Nazism, including Intangible and me, choose not to vote in Cberlet's straw poll. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:::If they want it redirected, they will redirect it. I will not lift the ban, but feel free to ask someone else, or ask for review somewhere. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:216.47.187.226]] ==

I started to block this IP, an left a notice at the Talk page, only to find that you'd just blocked it &mdash; and were probably wondering what on Earth my notice was there for. Two minds with but a single thought. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Talk</font>]]) 13:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:Heh; I guess I block first and notify later... [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

==[[User:BhaiSaab]] + [[User:His excellency]]==
Hello Tom, are you aware that although others are claiming they are one and the same, the checkuser evidence was never conclusive about these two accounts? Having seen the unfolding of this story I can tell you that there were serious differences in editing styles and character between these two users. [[User:BhaiSaab]] was given a definitive ban relative to his conflict with [[User:Hkelkar]] which was a separate issue from HE. I don't see it as fair at all that these two are being lumped together given the significant differences the two accounts exhibited with respect to each other. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:Having some experience myself with Amibidhrohi/His excellency and his other socks, I understand that BhaiSaab is a different person. I have not dealt much with BhaiSaab. My recommendation to indefinitely ban His excellency is independent of anyone's opinion about BhaiSaab. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
::I understand that. Would you kindly state that on [[WP:CN]] [[User:Rama's Arrow]] seems to think everyone's supporting [[User:BhaiSaab]]'s indefinite block, which is obviously not the case. Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:I have no opinion on BhaiSaab's case. Rama's Arrow seems to understand they are two different people, and I think it is pretty clear that my remarks apply to His excellency. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
::In requesting me to assist in having the tags on his sockpuppets deleted and traces of his connection to this latest HE nonsense TU made an agreement with me to not further sockpuppet and instead seek the assistance of admins. I [[User_talk:Ryulong#Cheers|fulfilled]] my side of the agreement. It is nonsense that he's sockpuppeting and thereby avoiding the scrutiny of his biases by other editors as he's been commenting via sockpuppets on HE/BS's community banning case. The [[meta:Right to vanish|right to vanish]] was not meant to be abused in such a way. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Community consensus is clear on HE but it is frustrating that BhaiSaab is being thrown into the mix when he's had nothing to do with HE disruption and while everyone is supporting HE's banning they appear to be supporting BS's banning due to how the [[WP:CN]] talk was presented. BhaiSaab was disruptive mostly related to his conflict with [[User:Hkelkar]] unlike HE who was generally disruptive. This is a significant part of the reason that I think BhaiSaab could return to the contributor he was prior to his involvement with Hkelkar. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not unreasonable to use a sock to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. Something could also be said about restoring attacks by a banned user, or acting as a proxy for a banned user. But if a reasonable agreement has been reached, I'll drop it. Certainly His excellency's was a contentious and even bitter arbitration that included attacks on me as well (though less serious than those on others). As I said, I know little about BhaiSaab, so I'll defer to others' opinions on banning him. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::::It is unreasonable when you're using the sock towards furthering the possibility to someone being community banned. It is wrong to hide one's bias in such a case through such usage of a sockpuppet. Besides where was TU ever threatened? TU was removing commentary as a sockpuppet claiming a "personal attack". Given that two other separate individuals who've not been involved with this case other than right now restored the same commentary as well it seems rather clear that the commentary wasn't a personal attack. I respected your removal of that commentary due to the fact that you weren't puppeting. I share [[User:Yamla]]'s view that the accused should have the possibility to participate in his community bannishment proceedings. If BhaiSaab's unjustified indefinite block (here he's paying for HE's disruption) were lifted I would drop this whole thing. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::You know even TU using one of his sockpuppets [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABhaiSaab&diff=109791055&oldid=101779883 expressed support] for BhaiSaab. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I'll try to read up on BhaiSaab's case. It might be tomorrow morning before I know enough to say anything about it. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 15:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::That would be appreciated Tom. Also if you could take a look at [[User_talk:Rama%27s_Arrow#conflict_of_interest|this talk]] on [[User:Rama's Arrow]]'s talk page and possibly contribute that'd be helpful as well. Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Tom, [[User:BhaiSaab]] is [[User_talk:BhaiSaab#Temporary_Unblock|requesting a temporary unblock]] so that he can comment on his community banning case. Would you kindly allow him the dignity to do so? Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

== A Force upon the Plain ==

Glad you liked it. I hope to find time and mood to read it through. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]</sup> 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

Hi there,
I believe that you blocked [[user:65.30.216.195]] for seven days; would be grateful if you could mention this on the user page. Thanks. [[User:Fourohfour|Fourohfour]] 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:Done, thanks. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::Cheers! [[User:Fourohfour|Fourohfour]] 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

==NPOV dispute==

If you believe there is no credible claim of NPOV dispute at [[Political views of Lyndon LaRouche]], why don't you explain your reasoning on the talk page, rather than just feeding the revert war frenzy? --[[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

==[[Muhammad/images]]==
Tom, I've just archived my talk page. My response to you is [[User_talk:Netscott/Archive-07#Transclusion_on_Muhammad|here]]. Cheers. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, I basically agree. Maybe we can end the transclusion within the week if all goes well. There does seem to be a rough consensus for the current presentation. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::How about Friday then? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::That sounds fine to me. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== re: is this correct? ==

yes, that looks right for American English pronunciation. --[[User:Krsont|Krsont]] 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

==Good to see you==
on [[Islam and slavery|this article]] Tom... as it needs serious help right now. Cheers. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks. It's an important article that must neither villify or whitewash anything. I hope that we can all work together to make it everything it can be. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
::I reverted someone who was insisting that to be born slave you must have two slave parents, because it's wrong. Unsupported by fact. My reasons are on talk. You can only be born free from a slave parent if your father is the master/owner of your mother (in Islamic slavery). Reference is from the work of Levy.[[User:DavidYork71|DavidYork71]] 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Completely agree with you Tom in terms of whitewashing and villification. Another problem is that there seems to be some confusion on the part of certain editors who want to blanket ascribe Islam to the [[Arab slave trade]]. I understand the confusion given Islam's historical origins in Arab lands but still the distinction is an important one. Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
::I was just looking at [[Arab slave trade]], and wondering how the two pages should be arranged. I imagine some overlap is necessary, but we may want to think about how to divide up the content: Theory/parctice, East/west, general/specific, Ottoman empire/Arabic-speaking peoples, or something else? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed to your address the EoI and EoQ articles on Slavery. Cheers, --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll read them as soon as I can. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

== What are you doing? ==

What on earth are you doing? -[[User:Lapinmies|<font color="green" face="system">Lapinmies</font>]] 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:Helping to write an encyclopedia supported by reliable sources. You? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
::Trying to use common sense and avoid wikilawyering. -[[User:Lapinmies|<font color="green" face="system">Lapinmies</font>]] 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well then I guess we are both virtuous people. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, this bothers me. The picture shows nothing but I can't fix it, why not? -[[User:Lapinmies|<font color="green" face="system">Lapinmies</font>]] 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:I think the caption is accurate. It is from the security camera footage showing American Airlines Flight 77 just before impact. Maybe something like 'showing the pentagon just before flight 77's hit it' would also work. Inaccurately implying that anything other than flight 77 hit the pentagon would not be suitable. There are extensive archives of [[Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:I am not claiming that it was not AA77, just that the picture is not clear enough for a caption like that. -[[User:Lapinmies|<font color="green" face="system">Lapinmies</font>]] 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

==About freezing an article==
I suppose William Connelly asked you to freeze [[Scientific data archiving]]. It is a nice trick to get the article frozen just after he reverted the new version that clarified a misunderstanding. It would have been nice if other editors would have had a chance to read it so they could discuss it. Can I learn this trick for future use? [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:The Wrong Version.svg|thumb|left|300px|A helpful label for affixing to any articles you find locked at the [[m:The Wrong Version|Wrong Version]].]]
<br style="clear:both">

:You have quite a sense of humor there Tom. Unfortunately, you didn't answer the question. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

==[[Muhammad]] images==
Tom, perhaps you could draft up some sort of warning language in hidden comment style to go near the diputed images explaining to people to discuss image changes on the talk page prior to making them? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:Sure, couldn't hurt. I'll put something in. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:Feel free to adjust the language. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

== Tom Harrison is a censoring, gatekeeping agent of disinformation who suppresses the truths about 9/11 ==

Even when limited-hangout gatekeeping liar Steven E. Jones has been caught lying with his own mouth, in an overt, blatantly false act of gatekeeping (falsely ruling out the possibility -- contrary to the evidence -- of a nuclear even having occurred at "Ground Zero" at the WTC in NYC), Censoring Agent Tom Harrison persists in protecting the good name and reputation of his fellow dishonest disinformation agent.

So just how much is the covert/shadow government paying you, Agent Harrison, to suppress all of the information which makes it clear just how impossible it is to honestly blame/fear/loathe Muslims for 9/11?

George Orwell told us that lies of omission are the worst.

Tom Harrison is the worst kind of liar. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/4.228.87.143|4.228.87.143]] ([[User talk:4.228.87.143|talk]]) 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
== Tom Harrison's Crimes Against Truth ==

Even when limited-hangout gatekeeping liar Steven E. Jones has been caught lying with his own mouth, in an overt, blatantly false act of gatekeeping (falsely ruling out the possibility -- contrary to the evidence[http://911u.org/Physics/] -- of a nuclear(-like) event having occurred at "Ground Zero" at the WTC in NYC), Censoring Disinformation Agent Tom Harrison persists in protecting the good name and reputation of his fellow dishonest disinformation agent.

So just how much is the covert/shadow government paying you, Agent Harrison, to suppress all of the information which makes it clear just how impossible it is to honestly blame/fear/loathe Muslims for 9/11?

George Orwell told us that lies of omission are the worst.

Tom Harrison has thus repeatedly proven himself to be the worst kind of liar. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:4.228.87.143|4.228.87.143]] ([[User talk:4.228.87.143|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/4.228.87.143|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Or the best kind of Gate-Keeper. Gold stars in my book. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">[[User:Morton_devonshire|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:blue"> &nbsp;MortonDevonshire&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Morton_devonshire|<span style="background-color:#F06A0F; color:white">&nbsp;Yo&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 01:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

==How much==
does it pay? I might have to join up there... heh. :-) {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:We only get paid in Hegelian Fakeybucks, and there is no health plan. I think the Illuminati get a better deal. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

== Mongo ==

Hi Tom, after thinking about it for a while, I've decided to make one last attempt at finding a way to keep working on Wikipedia. Thanks for trying the mediation route, but I think an RfC is now the best way foward. (Unless you have a better idea, of course.) Here's a draft of a statement of the dispute [[user:Thomas Basboll/Sandbox]]. I'm not going to post it until after Easter because I'll be away from the Internet next week. In the meantime, your comments are of course very welcome. I'm not especially optimistic about this approach, actually, but I don't want to leave for good without trying it. I still consider myself unwelcome on Mongo's talk page, so I would appreciate it if you let him know for me. He is also welcome to comment on the draft before I post it if he wants. Happy editing,--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 15:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:The Rfc is ridiculous and I won't be contributing to it at all...as far as I am concerned, it is borderline harassment.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
::I'll try to make the final version less ridiculous. I imagine that one (very unlikely) outcome of the RfC is precisely that ''my'' actions (including the act of filing the RfC) will be deemed inappropriate, perhaps even a form of harassment (though that would really surprise me). The point of the RfC is to get the community's view of this dispute before I make a decision to return to editing Wikipedia articles or stay away for good. Given those two possible outcomes, and the possible effect it might have on the tone on the 9/11 articles in general, I would think many people could have an interest in contributing to it. Best,--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::The Rfc is a hostile action...but since you yourself linked in that Rfc to a discussion on my talkpage in which you told me I was a man of a particular kind of science, I expect no less. If I have anything more to say on the matter, I will do so on the Rfc talkpage, but it's highly unlikely I'll bother. The only person keeping you from editing is you...there are over 1.6 million articles to work on.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

== Full protection on: [[Taco Bell]] ==

Please explain why have you unprotected the article: [[Taco Bell]]? — <font style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px">'''[[User:Z.E.R.O.|ze]][[User talk:Z.E.R.O.|ro]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Z.E.R.O.|»]]</font> 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:I protected it, then thought better of it and undid myself. If you think it should be protected, ask at [[WP:RFPP|requests for page protection]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

== Heads-Up ==

The IP I am currently visiting from: 66.193.126.2 Is a School IP, and is scheduled to be unblocked on April 6, 2007. I figured I should register to mention this, As it may or may not help.

Thanks, From a member of the school. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:WarningSchool|WarningSchool]] ([[User talk:WarningSchool|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WarningSchool|contribs]]) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== [[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|The Wiki Factor]] ==

Thanks for editing. The "case" is something of a rhetorical joke, given that many people that fall into this category treat their reviews as legal appeals. However, you did edit the page, so no fine is payable. ;-) [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new whine]</small> 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:Then my edit must have been like the flowers that bloom in the spring. ;-) [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

== 7 World Trade Center ==

Great edit. I am trying to stimulate some improvement of the article and it seems I have incurred MONGO's annoyance as a result. Edits like yours, which add well-referenced data to the article are what we really need; we should be able to aspire to make this a FA-class article. Keep it up. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well, thanks, you are very kind, but aren't you complaining that Mongo is not extending to others the presumption of good faith you are denying him? If you are going to leave me a 'compliment' and then take advantage of it to attack someone, I'd rather forgo the compliment. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::Nah, point taken, but I did not attack anyone. I assume good faith in all editors and MONGO has been annoyed that I removed what I thought was a mistaken vandalism template he applied to a new user who was (I think) trying to improve the article. Such templates are only to be used where there has been unambiguous intentional damage to the article. None of us likes to have our errors pointed out, but to characterise this as an attack would be a serious misunderstanding. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I think it's inappropriate that you would threaten administrative action against MONGO in an article that you substantively edit. It's well-known that you sympathize with the 9/11 conspiracy theory point of view. If you think he's doing something wrong, perhaps you should invite a non-CT-Admin to review the action. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">[[User:Morton_devonshire|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:blue"> &nbsp;MortonDevonshire&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Morton_devonshire|<span style="background-color:#F06A0F; color:white">&nbsp;Yo&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 17:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Guinnog, are you suffering from a misundertstanding of [[WP:BLP]]? Surely you must be. Wikipedia could be sued if [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=119270816 edits such as this] are allowed to stand! You must be kidding! You should be exercising your admin powers appropriately by notifying offending parties such as him that those kinds of edits if continued can and will result in blocks. Instead, you removed my warning and welcomed him...I'm flabbergasted! If that is what can be construed as article "improvement" in your eyes, then I don't know what to say.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::::MONGO, no, I believe I understand BLP as well as you do. My point was the newby user may not have done, and will not have been helped by the inaccurate warning you placed. As I said, the more accurate one placed by Tbeatty will have been more productive. I will not respond to Morton's ludicrous post, except to point out that I at no point threatened any admin action.--[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Here's your threat: "I won't edit war with you, but I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGO&diff=119275454&oldid=119275105 diff of 15:12 31 March 2007] </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">[[User:Morton_devonshire|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:blue"> &nbsp;MortonDevonshire&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Morton_devonshire|<span style="background-color:#F06A0F; color:white">&nbsp;Yo&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 18:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::My warning wasn't "inaccurate"...your welcoming a vandal and removing my warning is as big a case of vandalism as has occurred in this situation. His edit was indeed nonsense...that was a standard <nowiki>{{subst:test2}}</nowiki> warning I placed regarding his overt vandalism and as the template states "nonsense". You could have very well have place the "productive" BLP info template as well.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

== Possible vandalism at [[Islam and slavery]] ==

Hi Tom, [[User:Al-Zaidi]] persistently removes a sentence from that article that is a sourced, almost verbatim, entirely appropriate piece of information. This is his latest revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=119382105&oldid=119380051]. I warned him about this vandalism: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAl-Yamani_Al-Zaidi&diff=119380338&oldid=116730187]. I have provided the exact referrence on the talk page, Aminz and Itaqallah have not objected to his, and Al-Zaidi persists in removing it despite my protests. I'm coming to you because of your involvement in that article. Could you do something about it? Thanks, [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

: I am currently busy at the moment and can not get heavily involved in the article. Anyways, here is the full quote summerized by Arrow as " In Shia jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations".

:Imami Shiiites, for which one may refer to the classic work of al- Hilli, ''is indicative of attitudes sometimes considerably removed from the great Sunni principles.'' Among the solutions it offers we shall confine ourselves to the following, as being particularly revealing of some interesting legal or social viewpoints.

:The child born in wedlock does not follow the status of his mother, bond or free, but failing any stipulation to the contrary, is born free if either of his parents is free. If both are slaves but not of the same master, he belongs jointly to the masters of both parents. ''The master of a female slave may grant a third party the “ use ” of her, for purposes of work or sexual relations''...

:First of all, these are examples where Shiasm has "considerably removed from the great Sunni principles" as the author says; hence it is best to add this sentence in contrast with another sentence giving the opinions of Sunni scholars, or state that this is where Shia laws are considerablly different from those of Sunnis. The original quote says: "The master of a female slave may grant a third party the “ use ” of her, for purposes of work or sexual relations."; the word "work" is absent in Arrow's summary. It could be added as well. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::It's in the concubinage section, and should be read in the context of the article. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It will need to be worked out on the article talk page. Tentatively it looks to me like something we could include in the section on marriage and concubinage, but I'm not sure I feel strongly about it. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
==[[User talk:Gwen Gale]]==
Tom, small request of you. [[User:Ryulong]] seems to have inadvertently semi-protected [[User:Gwen Gale]]'s talk page. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGwen_Gale&diff=119464267&oldid=119459554 protected] it for 3 hours but that was at 10:57 and it's now 14:51... can you look into this? Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:It looks like the protection has expired. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

== Your recent speedy deletion ==
*You recently speedily deleted [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody]], saying at [[WP:ANI]]: ''"I have speedy-deleted [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody]] as an attack page."'' I would appreciate it if you would do the same for another attack page, [[User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova)]]. Thank you for your time. Yours, [[User:Smee|Smee]] 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
:I don't see complete similarity - it looks to me like preparations for an RfC, but I could be missing something. You might nominate it for deletion with a <nowiki>{{Template:Db-attack}}</nowiki>, or take it to [[WP:MFD|misc. for deletion]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
:Hi Tom. Thanks for your help with the phony Editor Review. Yes, you are right, that is the beginnings of an RfC or ArbCom on [[User:Smee]] (formerly Smeelgova). Certainly my user space is the appropriate place for me to work on it. It goes without saying that those are charges against Smee that I intend to pursue. Another editor has already added his experience. After Smee's promise to reform and as a sign of good faith (please see my User Talk) I have put it on hold. If I see a turnaround then I will save it off-wiki and delete the page. I must say, however that, so far, reviews are mixed on Smee. A couple positives but a few negatives too including misrepresentation on my talk page and her unwillingness to accept that I will not delete the page until I see some change. She very much wants the cart before the horse. But I remain hopeful. Thanks for your time. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

=== [[WP:AGF]]? ===

[[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]]:
* Why do you see my attempt to get feedback on my behavior as an attack on [[User:Justanother|Justanother]]?
* I was asking for a review of how '''''I've''''' dealt with [[User:Justanother|Justanother]], how can you see that as a back door RfC on him?
* Why did you delete it without contacting me?
* Did you even read it?
Please restore my [[WP:ER]], asking experienced uninvolved editors for feedback on me isn't a personal attack because the comments are supposed to be about me. I've also made this argument on the [[WP:AN/I]], but am required to ask you directly before initiating a [[WP:DRV]] [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:Take it up on [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] if you want. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{2|Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody}}}|deletion review]] of [[:Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== WP:N ==

Tom, I appreciate your spirit of compromise. Please work with me on this, because you and I might be able to bring months of controversy to an end. I played with your wording a bit, but hopefully kept the spirit. I'm not wed to my last work, and maybe we can keep working toward a better product. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, I think we may be converging toward something. I'll probably let it sit for a while and see what others think. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I think that you really put together an excellent composite of the best of many ideas. I sure hope that it can be preserved. Thanks. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, you're generous to say so. We'll see where the consensus is. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:Arrow740]] ==
Hi Tom,

[[User:Arrow740]] is persistently removing modern interpretation bit from the intro; it is really getting annoying (please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=120687324&oldid=120656329]).
He inserts dubious tags to material sourced from EoQ. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=120688717&oldid=120688263].
In the same diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=120688717&oldid=120688263], he violates the [[WP:POV]] policy by writing that [[Wahhabi]]s are the true followers of the example of Muhammad (i.e. other Muslim sects are wrong).

He removes the "exceptional condition" here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=120692910&oldid=120691498] while EoI says: "It is pleasing to see that in the eyes of Muslim jurists slavery is an exceptional condition: “ The basic principle is liberty ”".

Tom, Arrow has self-identified himself as a critic of Islam: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=88598329&oldid=88509236].

There are many diffs of his personal attacks: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=93664605&oldid=93664423], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Opiner&diff=82294986&oldid=82294028], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Opiner&diff=87321144&oldid=87319479],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itaqallah&diff=116369496&oldid=116365981],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aminz&diff=88973427&oldid=88934952], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Opiner&diff=prev&oldid=87319479]
Please see this diff from [[User:Netscott]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArrow740&diff=116953542&oldid=116952884] and this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arrow740&diff=120441861&oldid=120191395]
--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=112529683&oldid=112529492] (edit summary). --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, when I see [[User:Arrow740]] making edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Islam&diff=104030359&oldid=103992484 this] linking to a site called "Prophet of Doom" I wonder if the term "critic" is sufficient. Granted, I've got nothing against folks that are critics but I certainly have much against hateful folks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't have any problem with Arrow being a critic by itself. What bothers me is that he removes sourced materials that he doesn't agree with. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:: Another example of that when David York first visited the [[Slavery and Islam]] article and removed a lot of sourced material/making sweeping changes to the article. I requested the edits to sweeping edits to be discussed on the talk page. User:Arrow started supporting him calling me disruptive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=112529683&oldid=112529492].Such comments are provoking. He has made several personal attacks against me. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


:: Another recent example of Arrow's incivility was on Muhammad's talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMuhammad&diff=115508910&oldid=115507578].
:: I was very offended by this harsh diff.
:: Please see this quote by F.E.Peters [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netscott/Archive-07&diff=115743410&oldid=115741006] and the quote by Stillman at the top of this section [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Muhammad_and_the_Jewish_tribes_of_Medina]. My summary was the following:"After his migration to Medina, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed (According to Stillman, "This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion.").Many Medinans converted to the faith of the Meccan immigrants, but the Jewish tribes did not. Much to Muhammad's disappointment, they ridiculed and rejected his claim to be a prophet."
:: Tom, Arrow's incivility, removal of sourced matterial is really annoying (after ignoring comments like "Muslim societies are backward because of Islam." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reforms_under_Islam_%28610-661%29&diff=88125505&oldid=88123735] )--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I thought the personal attacks had mostly stopped since his block in November. If they are continuing, that is a problem. Persistent incivility and personal attacks, supported by diffs, should be presented to him. Unless they stop, they will be the basis for a request for comment. Nobody should say, "Muslim societies are backward because of Islam." That's just needlessly provacative.

It's possible a case could be made for tendentious editing across several articles related to Islam, which seems to be a constant problem. I'm not quite sure how to deal with this. I suppose mediation, or a request for comment. Frankly, I have seen a lot of this from both 'sides', and each feeds the other. People begin to think they must 'push back' against the pov-pushing. Pretty soon we have two warring camps, and articles that read like they were written by two warring camps. But there are not enough moderates to go around.

The reader searching for information on Islam and slavery will reasonably wonder if Islam forbids slavery, or allows it, or allows it in theory but forbids it in practice. In [[Islam and slavery]], I think we need to acknowledge both that:
*Islam today does not prohibit slavery (unless it does, then we need citations), and
*Slavery is illegal in every Muslim country (though tolerated in one or two places)
[[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:Some of Aminz's diffs seem to be random diffs of Netscott. That's quite entertaining. For the Wahabi thing, Aminz distorted the meaning of the EoI article, and I merely replaced his wording with the correct meaning; Wahabis are portrayed as the uncompromising restorers of the Sunnah, there's nothing about belief (though Aminz's grammar left it unclear who he was attributing the belief to). About the Muhammad and the Jews, Aminz put in that Muhammad started to have a negative opinion of the Jew and Christians because they disagreed with one another. He completely left out the first half of the quote, that the Jews mocked and rejected Muhammad because of his incorrect retelling of OT events. That is clearly important, and only giving half a quote in that instance was actually quite inappropriate. My edits at Islam and slavery have been justified, and if a third party has an objection I'd by happy to discuss them. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

: Tom, Content dispute is not the real issue; I have had content issues with other editors. Arrow is aggresive. Please take a look at these post November edits. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMuhammad&diff=115508910&oldid=115507578], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=112529683&oldid=112529492], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itaqallah&diff=116369496&oldid=116365981].
: And this diff certainly was made after his block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=88598329&oldid=88509236].

: Also, Tom, please note what Arrow provides as a justification for this accusation: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMuhammad&diff=115508910&oldid=115507578]: "''Aminz put in that Muhammad started to have a negative opinion of the Jew and Christians because they disagreed with one another. He completely left out the first half of the quote, that the Jews mocked and rejected Muhammad because of his incorrect retelling of OT events.''"
: "''Muhammad started to have a negative opinion of the Jew and Christians because they disagreed with one another''": It is true. It was sourced to Encyclopedia of Religion and Stillman who says:"This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion."
: "''He completely left out the first half of the quote, that the Jews mocked and rejected Muhammad because of his incorrect retelling of OT events.''": He is completely wrong. The article said: "On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet,and ''also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures.''"
: --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:: Tom, what is your analysis of Aminz's presentation here? [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 05:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
::: And, Tom, what do you think of this tagging [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=next&oldid=120809410] --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should either seek mediation or start a request for comment. Try not to let it become personal. Arrow740, you have had problems with incivility before. Try to avoid anything that may be read as harsher than you intend. Personal comments are better avoided. It can turn into incivility and personal attack, and can be very disruptive, especially on pages that are already difficult. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:Tom, I dont like the fact that any user can disturb any admin over disputes like these and many, when they really should go through the Mediation and RfC procedures, or whatver the procedures are. I had proposed an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Save_administrator_time_-_make_complaining_users_go_through_procedures idea] here but people didnt like it. I think admins are disturbed a lot over small Islam related issues when they could be spending time on more useful things in Wikipedia. Taking time of admins of resolving small disputes prevents them from doing other more worthwhile tasks. Users should be made to resolve their disputes themselves and not target specific admins for help. I mean, doesnt this constant bickering bother you and so many other admins? This is not the right way to solve disputes infact. The fact that admins are easily accessible, doesnt mean people should 'cry mommy' and contact them anytime they feel a prick. Whats your opinion? --[[User:Matt57|Matt57]] 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::I think the best way to resolve disputes is to prevent them from getting to the point of needing formal resolution. As long as there is constructive discussion (as there has been in this case), I'm okay with people using my page, and I'll speak up when I have something useful to add. Admins learn very quickly to say no, or to direct users to a better forum. I think that's one of the things I'm supposed to do to help out. That said, we do have to be careful not to encourage people to forum-shop, but I think that is on us admins to prevent. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== A quick question ==

Hi, I'm [[User:Midasminus|Midasminus]], and I'm making a project. I'd really thank you if you answer this quick question.

For you, what is truely Mythology (or folklore)?

Thank you for the attention, happy Easter.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Midasminus|Midasminus]] ([[User talk:Midasminus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Midasminus|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

You have probably looked at [[Mythology]] and [[Folklore]] already, and maybe [[Urban legend]], so I'll just say that to me, mythology is older and more respectable than folklore. There also is maybe a continuum of truth: People tell urban legends as if they were true, folklore as if it might be true. With myths and legends, it doens't matter to people if they are literally true or not; they are thought to express some deeper truth. I hope this helps, and happy Easter to you too. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that helped a lot!--[[User:Midasminus|Midasminus]] 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== DoM==

Tom, sorry to be a pain in your side, but I have a couple issues that have come up in regards to the DoM article. First of all, Johnski's back via his sock/meatpuppet [[User:Harvardy]]. Second, this page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CyberAnth%5CDoM-Draft] which was started by [[User:CyberAnth]], but essentially has remained untouched since December, is being used to make editing decisions outside of the DoM talk page. I only found this by pure accident when I was doing a search of article on Yahoo about DoM. I'd like it if this could be deleted as it's not being used in good faith in terms of letting others have a say in what is happening with the article.


== Noel Rose (a page you deleted in 2006) ==
Thanks for your help. [[User:Davidpdx|Davidpdx]] 13:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tom, I work in the field of autoimmune disease and went looking for a page on Noel Rose, but noticed a 2006 version had been deleted by you. I expect it was a guideline problem (e.g., a verbatim copy of existing content), but let me know if there was some other reason. I am going to start creating the new page, but if you have issues please let me know. Thank you.
== Happy Easter ==


[[User:Aaronabend|Aaron Abend]] ([[User talk:Aaronabend|talk]]) 13:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tom,


== Invited! ==
HAPPY EASTER!!!!!!!!


Hi Tom! Next on my list to bring to Featured Article level is the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I have commenced doing some adjustments and some may become major as it proceeds. I feel it lacks the engineering discussion needed to provide a full understanding of how and why the buildings collapsed and for that I need persons better versed than I to at least steer it along the correct path...so anything you have to suggest there or here is welcome.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 14:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Cheers,
:Thanks, sounds good. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::I think some organizational issues persist and was thinking a brief summary of the attacks, followed by a detailed description of the collapses (the article lacks many finer details) then on to the mechanics of what happened. I am not sure a lengthy discussion about lost artwork, etc, belongs as I think this needs to mainly discuss the engineering aspects. We may have to address conspiracy theories was well near the end if for no other reason than to put them in their bed.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 21:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
:::Agreed; some pruning is due. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
::::Sorry been absent a bit still thinking about what the article should emphasize..will be working on it more next week.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::No problem, same here... [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
:Thank you Aminz; Happy Easter to you too. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Tom harrison. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2018|2018 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
== Removal of sourced material by Arrow Again ==
Hi Tom,


The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
please take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_slavery&diff=121365512&oldid=121350713] where Arrow clears up the intro again. The quotes are all here in this section [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_and_slavery#Modern_interpretation_of_slavery]. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/710|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
==Lack of Objective Point of View in Slavery Article==
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/11&oldid=866998401 -->


== Unblock? ==
Why did you insist on the use of pejorative language in the history of slavery article? It seems a good article that is spoiled by the use of pejorative language in the opening paragraph.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


As it's such a long time since the block and a Checkuser has said there's been no evidence of recent block evasion, would you be happy with an unblock at [[User talk:Mstrojny]] now? [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 15:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
==Wahabis and slavery==
Tom, as I indicated on the talk page, the EoI says that the Wahabi's <i>are</i> the uncompromising restorers of the example of the prophet. Also, a modern interpretation of the Qur'an is clearly more appropriate in the modern interpreters section than in the section which relates the raw Qur'anic material. Regarding the sentence in the intro, shouldn't every sentence in the intro be backed up in the body? [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:I am pretty sure we do not include as undisputed fact everything the EoI says. Since a minority of Muslims are Wahabis, I think we can take it for granted that non-Wahabis think the Wahabis are mistaken. I imagine there are sources that would support that. Of course, the page is about Islam and slavery, not about the Wahabis.
:The guideline for the lead is good and useful, but should not be followed mechanically to the detriment of good writing. Matters of style are subject to reasonable disagreement, but I think the shift in Muslim thought works well in the lead. It's an important point in its own right, helps to establish choronlogical context, and invites the reader to consider the contempoary relevence of an otherwise dull matter of history. Issues about the page are probably better discussed on the talk page, where everyone can easily join the discussion.
:[[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


== Two more diffs of Arrow ==
== ArbCom 2019 special circular ==
Hi Tom,


<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;">
Just wanted to provide two more evidences of recent incivility of Arrow: Referring to Itaqallah as Allah: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad%27s_attitude_toward_animals&diff=prev&oldid=116358837], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itaqallah&diff=next&oldid=116365981] --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
{|
:How is calling someone God incivil? I'm at a loss. This is getting very tiresome, Aminz. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em 1em 0 0.25em;"| [[File:Warning sign font awesome.svg|40px|center|link=|alt=Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle]]
::Arrow740, there is no need to debate whether was or wasn't uncivil; merely take note that it might reasonably be perceived as such and take the time to spell out his full username, or ask if there isn't some other abbreviation which would meet with his approval. There is enough for us to discuss without having to worry about such miscellanea.
|<span style="font-size: 125%;">'''Administrators [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Security|must]] secure their accounts'''</span>
::Aminz, as it appears that Arrow740 has ceased the use of this poorly-chosen abbreviation for almost three weeks now, I think you will agree that it is not useful to continue this dispute. If there is content to discuss, please discuss it on the relevant article talk page(s).
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
::Remember, both of you that, our goal should be to get along despite our disagreements.
* Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
::Aminz, missteps are to be strongly ''disliked,'' addressed and ideally resolved, not treasured and hoarded for ammunition in future disputes.
* [[Special:ChangePassword|Change your password now]] if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, [https://haveibeenpwned.com/Passwords exposed], or weak
::Arrow740 it would help if you would ''acknowledge'' the problem here and make it clear that you intend to refrain from the disputed behavior.
* [[Wikipedia:User_account_security#Two-factor authentication (2FA)|Enable two-factor authentication now]] for improved security
::80% of the disputes in this space have their origins (at least nominally) in edits which have no direct bearing on the goals of the project; this is one such example.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 07:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|}
::: Proabivouac, 1. it was certainly uncivil. It is rather discouraging to see that Arrow denies that. 2. You said: "as it appears that Arrow740 has ceased the use of this poorly-chosen abbreviation for almost three weeks now" Infact Arrow doesn't make incivil comments all the time (two every three weeks is a high rate). Do you have more diffs to prove that Arrow ''used to call'' Itaqallah by this abbreviation(note that he made it clear by "How is calling someone God incivil?" that by Allah he meant God not an abbreviation which was in any case uncivil).And yes, it is useful to do that because I am being fed up by Arrow and I would like to talk with Tom about that. At least I personally feel better after sharing some of what myself and Itaqallah, the two remaining somewhat active wikipedians have to go through everyday. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
<span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular">{{clickable button|1=View additional information}}</span>
::::Aminz, I agree that the abbreviation might easily be construed as uncivil: Islamic doctrine holds the equation of God with human to constitute [[blasphemy]], additionally it would be thoughtless and inappropriate to call a Buddhist editor "Buddha" or a Christian editor "Jesus." This is why I am inviting Arrow740 to recognize the problem.
</div><div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none">
::::At the same time, it is quite clear that a culture has developed in this space which treats such missteps as opportunities to be exploited. Individuals cannot necessarily be blamed for proceeding in this spirit, for they have merely discerned and followed the rules as they became clear to them. It is to Itaqallah's credit that he does not approach things in this manner, and is always eager for discussions to return to the topics at hand - the content of our encyclopedia. Sadly, this is a rare thing on Wikipedia.
<div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">
::::I do not dispute that you are correct on the very narrow matter at hand, but still think it better to concentrate on the real matters in dispute, which I'm certain you would agree are not this. If you find diffs uncivil and problematic, ''I urge you to remove them,'' and invite the poster to refrain from similar diffs in the future. While I'm not particularly active nowadays, I will support you (or anyone else) in the removal of personal attacks, trolling or incivility wherever you identify it. Where editors continue to engage in such unproductive behavior, they may be blocked as a preventative measure.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I wouldn't care if someone did that. The real issue here is that itaqallah (whose username is, I believe, a command to be mentally devoted to Allah, and hence a somewhat inflammatory username), who has been very quick to post warnings and complaints on my talk page ever since I started here, simply ignored this one. That says something. If he was offended then I apologize, and I won't refer to him that way again. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::: Proabivouac, if you could watch closely the articles Arrow is involved in, you can see the progress rate. A simple comparison of this with the cases where say Merzbow is involved can be quite informative. One example: It has been a long time that Arrow is trying to remove any mention of the new Quranic interpretations against slavery from intro. No wonder, he is only here to criticize Islam[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=88598329&oldid=88509236] rather than to write about Islam. [[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Your first sentence here shows what's behind all of this. Also, I find it interesting that you object to a perceived bias on the part of an editor. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


{| style="border-left: 3px solid black; padding-left: 1em;"
=== More of Arrow ===
|{{null}}
Hi Tom,
; Why have I received this message?
: All administrators are receiving it.


; What prompted you to send this message?
Please take a look at Arrow's original research here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Islam&diff=121598432&oldid=121408573].
: Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were [[WP:LEVEL1|desysopped on an emergency basis]]. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh [[WP:RFA|Request for Adminship (RfA)]] after losing control of their account.


; What do I need to do?
This is the first addition of his:
: Only to follow the instructions in this message.
:# Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
:# Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
:# Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.


; How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
[[Image:Yemenese niqabi.jpg|250px|thumb|left|A Yemenese woman enveloped in Niqab dress. In general circumstances, Islam dignifies females with half the inheritance share available to males who have the same degree of relation to the deceased. The formulation is unaffected by any additional childrearing responsibilities that the female may have.]]
: You can find out more about 2FA at [[m:2FA]].
|}</div>
</div>


<small>This message was sent to all administrators following a [[Special:Permalink/891851004#Return of permissions for compromised administrator accounts|recent motion]]. Thank you for your attention. For the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]], [[User:Cameron11598|Cameron11598]] 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
Some points: 1. starting from beginning "A Yemenese woman enveloped in Niqab dress. In general circumstances, Islam dignifies females" - Please note the comment:"In general circumstances," It tries to push the POV that niqab is an Islamic commandmend. In fact, it is not. Nobody in Iran has niqab. It is a cultural thing. 2. "In general circumstances, Islam dignifies females with half the inheritance share available to males who have the same degree of relation to the deceased." It is Arrow's original research that the inheritance share has a dignification connotation. The reasoning given in a hadith was completely of economical and social nature. That in traditional societies women didn't work and were dependent on men, so, boys inherit twice because they have to form the family and engage in business. In fact, there are dissent voices among the contemporary shia jurists in Iran because the nature of the society has changed. 3. "The formulation is unaffected by any additional childrearing responsibilities that the female may have." this unsourced statement is also telling 4. One can ask why the caption of this image should talk about inheritence. 5. Why the size of this image is big? 6....
<!-- Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Cameron11598@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bradv/Adminlist-mms&oldid=891852932 -->


== Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular) ==
--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 06:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
:I revertd back an edit which largely fixed grammar mistakes and one unfortunate word choice is being used in some kind of impromptu trial here. Take out the "dignified" already. The fact that women don't get extra inheritance even if they have children is an interesting observation, especially considering that Lewis and others have commented on the ease with which women were divorced. But yes, that is somewhat inappropriate and I'll take that out. Aminz could have just made these corrections himself instead of wasting three people's time. I have to say that I think this is all stemming from my additions of sourced material to [[Islam and slavery]], I'm sorry to have to say. As long as we're on the subject of bad edits, Aminz turned this: <blockquote>Nevertheless, contact with the realities of the modern world and its ideology began to bring about a discernible evolution in the thought of many educated Muslims before the end of the 19th century. They may be fond of emphasizing that Islam has, on the whole, bestowed an exceptionally favourable lot on the victims of slavery. Yet they are ready to see that this institution, which is linked to one particular economic and social stage, has had its day... that the Quran (xlii, 4) forbade the making of new slaves... Without going so far, his illustrious compatriot Ameer Ali includes slavery among the pre-Islamic practices which Islam only tolerated through temporary necessity, while virtually abolishing them: man-made laws were later to complete the abrogation of it, which could not have been done formerly by a sudden and total emancipation. This thesis gradually found its way, to a varying extent, into the circle of the Ulama, already open to the older arguments of the Tunisian muftis, which were more restrained and more legalistic. But obviously it could not gain the support of the Wahhabis of Arabia, those uncompromising restorers of the sunna of the Prophet; up to the present day they have vigorously maintained their downright antagonism towards abolition.</blockquote> into this: <blockquote>The abolitionist interpretations of slavery has been widely accepted by Muslim scholars.</blockquote> at least, that's what he indicated on the talk page. I think that this misrepresentation of a source is worth some kind of censure. Even if you take into account the EoQ quote this is still clearly a misrepresentation, and far worse than any evidence he has managed to compile against me. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 07:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Tom, Arrow is refering to this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Islam&diff=next&oldid=121598432]. Points number 1,4,5 are still there.
::In the case of slavery, Arrow has presented an [[straw man]] here. "The abolitionist interpretations of slavery has been widely accepted by Muslim scholars." was sourced to EoQ (not EoI)which says that ''even the conservatives'' "continue to regard slavery as opposed to the Islamic principles of justice and ..." --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Security|required]] to "have strong passwords and [[Wikipedia:Personal security practices|follow appropriate personal security practices]]." We have [[Special:Permalink/891851004#Return of permissions for compromised administrator accounts|updated]] our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, [[WP:2FA|two-factor authentication]] remains an ''optional'' means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
Arrow740 needs to be nice and call everyone by his username unless invited to do otherwise. No calling people 'Allah', and no pretending to not understand how that could be annoying. I believe a couple of people have suggested this now, so I expect he will never again call anyone by anything other than his username. Proabivouac has some good points above that a mediator would probably echo, if mediation becomes necessary. About the editing disagreements, it sounds like he is prepared to recognize and correct his mistakes. Ideally, there would be a demonstrated change in behavior and no further dispute resolution. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
==[[White & Nerdy]]==
Agent Harrison, I always had you pegged moreso as white & nerdy. LOL. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:Word. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee, -[[User:Cameron11598|Cameron11598]] 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
== [[Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher)]] and [[Georges Chatelain]] ==
<!-- Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular correction -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Cameron11598@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bradv/Adminlist-mms&oldid=891852932 -->


== Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society ==
Hi,
[[File:Fifteen Year Society userbox.svg|left|125px|link=Wikipedia:Fifteen Year Society]] Dear {{PAGENAME}},
You deleted two pages of which I am the author: Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) and Georges Chatelain, whose bio I was in the process of finishing, under the pretext of
non-notoriety. Both the personalities are well known, not only in France but also in English-speaking countries and correspond exactly to the criteria of notoriety imposed by wikipedia.


I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the '''[[Wikipedia:Fifteen Year Society|Fifteen Year Society]]''', an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;
(in fr_wikipédia :
[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Robinson Jack Robinson]
[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Chatelain Georges Chatelain])


Best regards, [[User:Urhixidur|Urhixidur]] ([[User talk:Urhixidur|talk]]) 16:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you examine my request for restoration of these pages? Thank you [[User:Adrienne93|Adrienne93]] 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
{{clear}} <!-- Template:Fifteen Year Society invitation -->


:It looks like you recently added those pages to the French Wikipedia too. I think my speedy deletions were correct, but you can ask someone else to restore them or take it to [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] if you want to. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


== [[Black Hebrew Israelites]] ==
'':It looks like you recently added those pages to the French Wikipedia too'' Is it the reason of the deletions ? because, I don't understand these deletions ... [[User:Adrienne93|Adrienne93]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::I deleted the pages under our [[WP:CSD#a7|policy on speedy deletion]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::So you're aware, Adrienne93's listed both of these on [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 11]]. &mdash;[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Thanks. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi you recently protected [[Black Hebrew Israelites]] for edit warring. Looks like it is starting again except this time they are calling it vandalism. Should I take it to [[WP:AN/EW]] since this is a long term issue with them removing the same material against consensus for months? [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
== A request to the Wikipedia administrator ==
:Yes, unfortunately that's the next step. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 11:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
:I've protected the page again. Please give your views on the talk page if you would. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 18:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
::Done, thanks again for the help! [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 19:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


== Review ==
Hello! I have just placed the proper templates at my former user page and my talk page. I would like to ask you if you could protect my user page and my discussion page from being edited by removing the ''edit this page'' section as I have left the project forever. I do not intend to come back here and I want no Wikipedia members contact me in the future. In case you want to say something, I ask you to place your statement under this request message at your talk page, please. I will appreciate it. Have a nice evening! --[[User:Riva72|Riva72]] 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
What is missing or should be culled from [[Collapse of the World Trade Center]]. I feel we have too many sections and some areas could be combined. I have a period of free time and may try and push this to peer review after I reread the NIST report. If you're inclined, feel free to post any suggestions to the article talkpage so we can get a dialogue started.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 19:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
:Great, I'll start reading. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 01:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


== Collapse of the World Trade Center ==
== Disappointing ==


Hello Tom, Can I ask you to look at the recent "edits" on the [[Collapse of the World Trade Center]], which you reverted earlier. A noted conspiracy buff then reverted back to his preferred version, which I reverted back. This has been reverted, yet again, by the same person. My suggestion was to wait until [[User:MONGO|MONGO]]'s proposed rewrite, but this has been ignored. Regards, David, [[User:David J Johnson|David J Johnson]] ([[User talk:David J Johnson|talk]]) 18:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Attack_sites&curid=10503996&diff=122306526&oldid=122233442 Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag]. - <font color="#0000C0">[[User:DennyColt|Denny]]</font> <sup><i>(<font color="#7A1616">[[User_talk:DennyColt|talk]]</font>)</i></sup> 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:David, I'd say wait and see how it develops. Thanks, [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


==Edit summary==
== Restore page ==
Yes I saw that...but only afterwards. Apologies, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:No problem, but it is a good illustration of why you should use the edit summary to just summarize your edit. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::Lol, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Cheers, [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi, can you restore [[User:EchetusXe/Nathan Ferguson]] for me please? I had it deleted but he has come back to the game and is now notable. Thanks,--[[User:EchetusXe|Echetus]][[User talk:EchetusXe|'''X'''e]] 17:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
== 9/11 stuff ==
:Done; happy editing. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==
Whether or not much of the content of ''[[Loose Change]]'' is true or not (much of it is exaggerated, or based on urban myths), the fact remains that the person in the footage who is allegedly Osama ''does'' write and eat with his right hand. He also does not look very much like Osama bin Laden, but since many people have difficulty differentiating between peoples of different cultures (e.g. distinguishing an [[Arab]] from a [[Persian people|Persian]], or a [[Vietnamese people|Vietnamese]] from a [[Japanese people|Japanese]]), I would not object to omitting this part. Let the rednecks protest, "they all look the same to me!". − [[User:Twas Now|'''Twas ''Now''''']] <small>( [[User talk:Twas Now|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Twas Now|contribs]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Twas Now|e-mail]] )</small> 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
==Thanks==
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2019|2019 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Election_timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
Thanks for imposing the block on [[User:Harvardy|Harvardy]]. It's good to see the wheels turning, albeit slowly. --[[User:Gene Poole|Gene_poole]] 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
==[[Template:pnc]] nominated for deletion ==
See [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc]] for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
== From one month to 31 hours? ==
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=926750232 -->


== Request to unprotect [[2006 Bilderberg Meeting]] redirect ==
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:69.251.14.96]] just curious why 31 hours when they month they last got blocked didn't seem to help any?--[[User:Xiahou|Xiahou]] 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:Because 31 is a prime number. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
using that idea 31 months would work :-) --[[User:Xiahou|Xiahou]] 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hmm... it would depend on the vandal's [[Cicada#Lifecycle|life cycle]], I guess. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


{{yo|Tom harrison}}
==RS for Women Slaves in Islam==
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, [[User:Nayan Nev|NN]] 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:Is there a policy that says I have to point specifically to some policy? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Nayan Nev|NN]] 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Would you mind kindly unprotecting the [[2006 Bilderberg Meeting]] redirect so that I can fix the double redirect error and also nominate for [[WP:RFD|RfD]]? Protection is no longer required, as I believe it was protected ~13 years ago or so.
== Mongo RfC ==


Cheers,
FYI, I have now posted an RfC on Mongo's behaviour.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Candidate_pages 9].--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
<br />--[[User:Dmehus|'''Doug Mehus''']]''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;"> [[User talk:Dmehus|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/Dmehus|C]]</span>'' 19:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


Done, [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
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?--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 06:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


== Bob Dylan and Alcohol ==
: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. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tom harrison, Following my deletion of this material [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Dylan&diff=950598130&oldid=950523763]], there is a discussion of Bob Dylan and Alcohol here: [[Talk:Bob_Dylan#Alcohol]]. Any comments you wish to make are welcome. [[User:Mick gold|Mick gold]] ([[User talk:Mick gold|talk]]) 18:13, 14 April 2020 (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.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


== Quest Software spam ==
== [[9/11 Truth Movement]] ==


Hi Tom. I'd appreciate your input [[Talk:9/11 Truth movement#%22negligible%22|here.]] Thanks. [[User:Evanh2008|Evan]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]])</sup> 09:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting [[Foglight Experience Monitor]], one of the several [[Quest Software]] product spam pages that were also deleted. Admin [[User talk:Veinor|Veinor]] chose not to delete one of the other product pages, [[LiteSpeed for SQL Server]], however. I asked him about it, but I'm not sure he holds that page in the same regard as you do the other spam page. So I'd like to {{tl|db-spam}} it again, if that's okay with you. — [[User:Loadmaster|Loadmaster]] 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


== Mark WikiProject Linux as inactive? ==
==Muhammad==
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). [[User:WilyD|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, [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi! I was directed to your talk page by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux/Participants#Participants| participants list]] on [[WP:LINUX | WikiProject Linux]]. I've started a [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux#Mark As Inactive? | discussion]] whether we can keep it running, or mark it as inactive.– [[User:Abuluntu | Abuluntu ]] ([[m:User Talk:Abuluntu | talk]] 06:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
==press for truth==
Hi, say, what's wrong with press for truth? Not notable? Disturbing? [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


== indef ==
== Thanks for your excellent edit ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=125040174&oldid=124900972] Cheers, :) --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Please consider making your block [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sparhelt on this user] an indef, given their userpage and edits, I see no good coming from this account. [[User:Praxidicae|Praxidicae]] ([[User talk:Praxidicae|talk]]) 13:15, 11 November 2020 (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.
:Yes, I'm changing the block to indefinite; other admins are welcome to review and change as appropriate. Thanks, [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
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 [[Samuel Zwemer]], was that "The aim of missionary work is not to bring a Muslim into another religion; it is to bring him out of Islam, so that he may become its opponent and staunch enemy." When Jesus commissioned his disciples to ‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations’, did he asked them to do that with the help of exploitative colonial powers? The close cooperation between certain missionaries and the colonial powers made most colonized Muslim to become bitter about and look at all missionary work with suspicious, regardless of its motives. At the same time there have been ''always'' very honest, fair and sincere Christians as well and that makes me full of joy. They are living signs of God on the earth. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
: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. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2020|2020 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
:: 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. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== Vedic Mathematics Removing External Links ==


If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom,
</td></tr>
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.
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 -->


== About a Research on the History of Conspiracy Theories ==
Would request you to please reinclude the removed links. Or provide me an explanation for the same at gtekriwal@gmail.com


Dear Tom Harrison,
Thanks
Gaurav <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/220.225.0.179|220.225.0.179]] ([[User talk:220.225.0.179|talk]]) 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
: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]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


I take the liberty to contact you, I am a doctoral student in Political Science at the University of Paris 1 and my work focuses on the history of conspiracy theories, on which I have already published a few scientific articles and I am now preparing a book. I have been interviewing conspiracists and truthers, their critics and opponents for several years, working particularly on the French association ReOpen911 and the question of 9/11, as a now "historical" case of conspiracy...And obviously wikipedia has been a rather major theater of discussions/criticisms on the subject.
Tom, the thing is that nowhere on the internet will anyone find such tutorials on the subject. There are exercises also at the end of the slide show which the students will find it useful. There is a link on the slide which means that the owner would like to keep it copyrighted thanks to the growing mass copying on the net. Whats wrong in that? Please let me know. Wishes Gaurav
: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. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Looking at the related conspiracy pages' statistics, I realized that you have worked for long on these issues on wikipedia, hence my message and a small request: I would really appreciate if you can share bits of this "experience" with me in an interview.
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
== Why did you block me ==


All the best
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 <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Buzzard123|Buzzard123]] ([[User talk:Buzzard123|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Buzzard123|contribs]]) 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


Pierre France
== Thank you, Tom ==
pierre.France [arob.] zoho.com
https://univ-paris1.academia.edu/PierreFrance <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/94.187.1.47|94.187.1.47]] ([[User talk:94.187.1.47#top|talk]]) 09:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Sorry, no. Best wishes with your research, [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 18:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElinorD&curid=10841707&diff=125370081&oldid=125369713 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UnSaintLike&diff=125370343&oldid=125368640 this]. Quick work! [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:All part of our fast and friendly service. :-) [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


== Alt-right ==


Hi Tom; just wanted to see what your particular reasons were for this revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right&diff=1026109099&oldid=1026107188] on [[Alt-right]]. Did you think I was cutting too much? I've been a major contributor to this article for a few years, adding a lot into it, but it's clearly gone way over the recommended [[WP:Article Size]] so I've been trying to prune in back, in the hope that one day we can get it through GAN and FAC. Any particular parts of my pruning that you disagree with? [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
:Hmm, must have hit rollback while scrolling through the watchlist. Thanks for letting me know, sorry for the inconvenience. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
::Not a problem, Tom. Have a good week! [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 12:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
==Three Marys==


Dear Tom, would you care to explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Three_Marys&diff=1052719376&oldid=1052699033 your revert]? [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
== Lovelight RFC ==
:Sorry, must have hit the button by accident. Thanks for letting me know, [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
:That's allright. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
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. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, I'll read through it later today. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2021|2021 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.


If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
== Links on OK City Bombing ==
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1056562944 -->


== Administrators will no longer be [[WP:AUTOP|autopatrolled]] ==
Hi Tom,


A [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Passed:_7D_Remove_autopatrolled_from_default_toolkit|recently closed]] Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove [[WP:Autopatrolled|Autopatrolled]] from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with [[WP:EFM|Edit Filter Manager]], choose to [[Special:UserRights/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|self-assign]] this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Administrators_will_no_longer_be_autopatrolled|Administrator's Noticeboard]]. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
In your edit here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=124615231], 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? [[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=1058184441 -->
:They are not reliable sources. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:List of secret societies in popular culture]] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:List of secret societies in popular culture]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].


The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secret societies in popular culture]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
== Abuse of rollback ==


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
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. [[User:72.198.121.115|72.198.121.115]] 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
:Restore the names again and I will block you for violating our policy on [[WP:BLP|biographies of living people]]. Complain about it to whoever you like. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:72.198.121.115|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. [[User:72.198.121.115|72.198.121.115]] 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


== How we will see unregistered users ==
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".


<section begin=content/>
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 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tom_harrison|your RFA]]. [[User:72.198.121.115|72.198.121.115]] 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi!


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
Still waiting on that apology for your threats, abuse of admin tools, and use of untrue edit summaries. [[User:72.198.121.115|72.198.121.115]] 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Please stop using misleading edit summaries. The material is well sourced. You keep making outright false claims. [[User:72.198.121.115|72.198.121.115]] 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin '''will still be able to access the IP'''. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on [[m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/Improving tools|better tools]] to help.
== What's a sock or meatpuppet? ==


If you have not seen it before, you can [[m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation|read more on Meta]]. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can [[m:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors|subscribe]] to [[m:Tech/News|the weekly technical newsletter]].
What's a sockpuppet or meatpuppet?[[User:24.218.139.157|24.218.139.157]] 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)User (Talk): 24.218.139.157


We have [[m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation#IP Masking Implementation Approaches (FAQ)|two suggested ways]] this identity could work. '''We would appreciate your feedback''' on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can [[m:Talk:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation|let us know on the talk page]]. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
==2005 civil unrest in France==
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. [[User:KazakhPol|KazakhPol]] 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Thank you.
== Wood and Reynolds (space beams) at CD article ==
/[[m:User:Johan (WMF)|Johan (WMF)]]<section end=content/>


18:12, 4 January 2022 (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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Wood_and_Reynolds_.28space_beams.29 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.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Johan_(WMF)/Target_lists/Admins2022(2)&oldid=22532495 -->


== New administrator activity requirement ==
== Questionable block ==


{{ivmbox|The administrator policy has been updated with new [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators|activity requirements]] following a successful [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements|Request for Comment]].
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 [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/] Christian Science Monitor [http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html] and Harpers [[Harpers]] [http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/05/0080541] (convenience link here: [http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FeelingTheHate.html]), are widely accepted across the project as reliable sources, a point you conceded weeks ago: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Dominionism&diff=prev&oldid=122319491] 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. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
: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. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
#Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
#Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period


Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
::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? [[User:72.198.121.115|72.198.121.115]] 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
}}
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_administrators&oldid=1082922312 -->


== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
==Food, not Typos==
Tom, thanks for catching my [[Food Not Bombs|gnarly edit]]. I should wait until after my first cup of coffee to go after typos. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Gruber76|Gruber76]] ([[User talk:Gruber76|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gruber76|contribs]]) 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:You are welcome, and thank you taking the time to fix all those errors. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Stop violating the blocking policy ==
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
[[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]] '''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. [[User:Guettarda|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. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I stand by my reply above. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::But I appreciate your review, and am sorry for my abrupt reply. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
I posted to ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tom_Harrison_block_and_subsequent_unblock_by_Guettarda here] as this doesn't need to escalate to a wheel war. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


</div>
:There will be no wheel war, because I will not undo any other admins's actions, and I imagine Guettarda feels the same way. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1124425177 -->


==Reverting my edit: Student day in Iran==
== Hi Tom can u help me? ==
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! [[User:Sangak| <font color="purple">'''Sangak'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sangak|<font size="-4"><font color="Black">'''Talk'''</font></font color>]]</sup> 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.


I contributed a lot to the mu online article in Spanish and LuchoCR just for having contributed without vandalism blocked me forever from Wikipedia, you can review the changes I made on the page and I asked them in a good way to remove the block since I had not done anything and instead they gave me a 13-day block and then for asking librarians for help in Spanish they undid my changes asking for help on their discussion pages and they blocked me forever, the librarian Taichi is complicit I asked for help with this user https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusión:MajinBaki who is 3 years old and they blocked my IP forever without having done anythinghttps://es.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&redlink=1&title=User_discussion:186.11.123.149 Taichi deleted my discussion page where I put the unlock template explaining everything and rightly put that it was unnecessary, just to delete it, vandalizing my page discussion page Here is an example of the help I asked a librarian in Spanish on the subject and the ocelot librarian as a mafioso reverted the changes https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:MobileDiff/152986729 and asked my ip ban without doing anything, I just ask for help to do justice, the user Ocelot asked for my IP ban and the mafia user LuchoCR thanked him for reverting my help changes on librarian pages and said yes to me ip ban requested by ocelot https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tablón_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Nombres_inapropiados_y_vandalismo_persistente/Actual?markasread=52216326&markasreadwiki=eswiki#c-Ocelot-2023081016300 0-Block_Breach_10 there is a mob on wikipedia in Spanish that is why I ask you for help, please translate everything that appears in the links that I send you so that you understand MajinBaki(talk) 20:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [[User:MajinBaki|MajinBaki]] ([[User talk:MajinBaki|talk]]) 23:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
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 ???


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
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.


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
[[User:Sangak| <font color="purple">'''Sangak'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sangak|<font size="-4"><font color="Black">'''Talk'''</font></font color>]]</sup> 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== [[Ishmael]] ==
I have nominate [[Ishmael]] as a GA article. Any comments on that would be appreciated. Cheers, --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:Good, I'll read it tomorrow morning. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
== {{tl|NPOV}}-tagging ==


</div>
Several days ago you added {{tl|NPOV}} to the James Kennedy article. However, you made no comments on the talk page, so there is no way for your fellow editors to figure out what it is about the article that you think does not conform with the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. In the interest of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], I am assuming that you tagged an article that you believe to violate NPOV, and that the edit was not just another example of your tendentious editing. Please address the issue, and be specific. Your fellow editors cannot determine what you had in mind if you don't explain your actions. Thanks. [[User:72.198.121.115|72.198.121.115]] 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->

Latest revision as of 00:20, 28 November 2023

Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks.

For new users[edit]

If you are new here, welcome. The page Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Archives[edit]

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Other old material is available in the page history.

Noel Rose (a page you deleted in 2006)[edit]

Hi Tom, I work in the field of autoimmune disease and went looking for a page on Noel Rose, but noticed a 2006 version had been deleted by you. I expect it was a guideline problem (e.g., a verbatim copy of existing content), but let me know if there was some other reason. I am going to start creating the new page, but if you have issues please let me know. Thank you.

Aaron Abend (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invited![edit]

Hi Tom! Next on my list to bring to Featured Article level is the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I have commenced doing some adjustments and some may become major as it proceeds. I feel it lacks the engineering discussion needed to provide a full understanding of how and why the buildings collapsed and for that I need persons better versed than I to at least steer it along the correct path...so anything you have to suggest there or here is welcome.--MONGO (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds good. Tom Harrison Talk 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think some organizational issues persist and was thinking a brief summary of the attacks, followed by a detailed description of the collapses (the article lacks many finer details) then on to the mechanics of what happened. I am not sure a lengthy discussion about lost artwork, etc, belongs as I think this needs to mainly discuss the engineering aspects. We may have to address conspiracy theories was well near the end if for no other reason than to put them in their bed.--MONGO (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; some pruning is due. Tom Harrison Talk 14:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry been absent a bit still thinking about what the article should emphasize..will be working on it more next week.--MONGO (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, same here... Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Tom harrison. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock?[edit]

As it's such a long time since the block and a Checkuser has said there's been no evidence of recent block evasion, would you be happy with an unblock at User talk:Mstrojny now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society[edit]

Dear Tom harrison,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi you recently protected Black Hebrew Israelites for edit warring. Looks like it is starting again except this time they are calling it vandalism. Should I take it to WP:AN/EW since this is a long term issue with them removing the same material against consensus for months? PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately that's the next step. Tom Harrison Talk 11:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page again. Please give your views on the talk page if you would. Tom Harrison Talk 18:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks again for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

What is missing or should be culled from Collapse of the World Trade Center. I feel we have too many sections and some areas could be combined. I have a period of free time and may try and push this to peer review after I reread the NIST report. If you're inclined, feel free to post any suggestions to the article talkpage so we can get a dialogue started.--MONGO (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll start reading. Tom Harrison Talk 01:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of the World Trade Center[edit]

Hello Tom, Can I ask you to look at the recent "edits" on the Collapse of the World Trade Center, which you reverted earlier. A noted conspiracy buff then reverted back to his preferred version, which I reverted back. This has been reverted, yet again, by the same person. My suggestion was to wait until MONGO's proposed rewrite, but this has been ignored. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'd say wait and see how it develops. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 12:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore page[edit]

Hi, can you restore User:EchetusXe/Nathan Ferguson for me please? I had it deleted but he has come back to the game and is now notable. Thanks,--EchetusXe 17:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done; happy editing. Tom Harrison Talk 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect 2006 Bilderberg Meeting redirect[edit]

@Tom harrison:

Would you mind kindly unprotecting the 2006 Bilderberg Meeting redirect so that I can fix the double redirect error and also nominate for RfD? Protection is no longer required, as I believe it was protected ~13 years ago or so.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Tom Harrison Talk 20:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan and Alcohol[edit]

Hi Tom harrison, Following my deletion of this material [[1]], there is a discussion of Bob Dylan and Alcohol here: Talk:Bob_Dylan#Alcohol. Any comments you wish to make are welcome. Mick gold (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. I'd appreciate your input here. Thanks. Evan (talk|contribs) 09:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark WikiProject Linux as inactive?[edit]

Hi! I was directed to your talk page by the participants list on WikiProject Linux. I've started a discussion whether we can keep it running, or mark it as inactive.– Abuluntu ( talk 06:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

indef[edit]

Please consider making your block on this user an indef, given their userpage and edits, I see no good coming from this account. Praxidicae (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm changing the block to indefinite; other admins are welcome to review and change as appropriate. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 13:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About a Research on the History of Conspiracy Theories[edit]

Dear Tom Harrison,

I take the liberty to contact you, I am a doctoral student in Political Science at the University of Paris 1 and my work focuses on the history of conspiracy theories, on which I have already published a few scientific articles and I am now preparing a book. I have been interviewing conspiracists and truthers, their critics and opponents for several years, working particularly on the French association ReOpen911 and the question of 9/11, as a now "historical" case of conspiracy...And obviously wikipedia has been a rather major theater of discussions/criticisms on the subject.

Looking at the related conspiracy pages' statistics, I realized that you have worked for long on these issues on wikipedia, hence my message and a small request: I would really appreciate if you can share bits of this "experience" with me in an interview.

All the best

Pierre France pierre.France [arob.] zoho.com https://univ-paris1.academia.edu/PierreFrance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.1.47 (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Best wishes with your research, Tom Harrison Talk 18:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right[edit]

Hi Tom; just wanted to see what your particular reasons were for this revert [2] on Alt-right. Did you think I was cutting too much? I've been a major contributor to this article for a few years, adding a lot into it, but it's clearly gone way over the recommended WP:Article Size so I've been trying to prune in back, in the hope that one day we can get it through GAN and FAC. Any particular parts of my pruning that you disagree with? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, must have hit rollback while scrolling through the watchlist. Thanks for letting me know, sorry for the inconvenience. Tom Harrison Talk 12:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, Tom. Have a good week! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three Marys[edit]

Dear Tom, would you care to explain your revert? Str1977 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, must have hit the button by accident. Thanks for letting me know, Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's allright. Str1977 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled[edit]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of secret societies in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secret societies in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement[edit]

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom can u help me?[edit]

I contributed a lot to the mu online article in Spanish and LuchoCR just for having contributed without vandalism blocked me forever from Wikipedia, you can review the changes I made on the page and I asked them in a good way to remove the block since I had not done anything and instead they gave me a 13-day block and then for asking librarians for help in Spanish they undid my changes asking for help on their discussion pages and they blocked me forever, the librarian Taichi is complicit I asked for help with this user https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusión:MajinBaki who is 3 years old and they blocked my IP forever without having done anythinghttps://es.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&redlink=1&title=User_discussion:186.11.123.149 Taichi deleted my discussion page where I put the unlock template explaining everything and rightly put that it was unnecessary, just to delete it, vandalizing my page discussion page Here is an example of the help I asked a librarian in Spanish on the subject and the ocelot librarian as a mafioso reverted the changes https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:MobileDiff/152986729 and asked my ip ban without doing anything, I just ask for help to do justice, the user Ocelot asked for my IP ban and the mafia user LuchoCR thanked him for reverting my help changes on librarian pages and said yes to me ip ban requested by ocelot https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tablón_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Nombres_inapropiados_y_vandalismo_persistente/Actual?markasread=52216326&markasreadwiki=eswiki#c-Ocelot-2023081016300 0-Block_Breach_10 there is a mob on wikipedia in Spanish that is why I ask you for help, please translate everything that appears in the links that I send you so that you understand MajinBaki(talk) 20:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) MajinBaki (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]