User talk:Tom harrison

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.

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

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, Munkee madness 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it for having no assertion of importance or significance. I agree that it was not spam, and I'm sorry if I seemed to say it was. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, Mr. Harrison. 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 High Order1

John Robert Kinahan

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

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, 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.

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. [1]

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#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. --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? --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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have found Tom Harrison's edits often controverisal and hidden behind his admin. privelages. 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. --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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. (→Netscott) 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The semiprotection expires automatically on 16 March.[2] 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. (→Netscott) 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. (→Netscott) 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, don't worry about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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.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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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.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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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.--MONGO 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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.--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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And now the white space is a problem... Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Check it now...this is as close as I can get it.--MONGO 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. I'll look around and see if I can find anything else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Aude saved the day...again...I think she must have gone to college or something.--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 living people must be attributed to a reliable source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unexamined cultural bias: bad thing?

That was truly a brilliant question.Proabivouac 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you, that's nice to hear. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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--Looper5920 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm glad I could help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. --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? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

edit warring

In 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 edit history of "Political Cult" to see whether you ought to make a similar warning to User:Dking. --Tsunami Butler 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think he is edit warring, report him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. --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: here, and the discussion 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.--Cberlet 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I was not the one who started the debate on how to (re-)name the Nazism article. [3]
2. I initiated a poll after reading upon on the naming policy: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. [4] 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.
3. 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 [5], while solliciting for votes.[6].
4. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. 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). Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. 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: Lygophile, Slrubenstein, Jmabel, Mitsos, Flammingo, Xyzzy n , Intangible and me; one users is perfectly ok with it: Nikodemos, and one user supports redirecting Nazism to National Socialism: 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. -- 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. -- 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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 — and were probably wondering what on Earth my notice was there for. Two minds with but a single thought. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh; I guess I block first and notify later... Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. (→Netscott) 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. (→Netscott) 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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 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 right to vanish was not meant to be abused in such a way. (→Netscott) 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. (→Netscott) 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. (→Netscott) 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You know even TU using one of his sockpuppets expressed support for BhaiSaab. (→Netscott) 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be appreciated Tom. Also if you could take a look at this talk on User:Rama's Arrow's talk page and possibly contribute that'd be helpful as well. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, User:BhaiSaab is 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. (→Netscott) 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. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 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. Fourohfour 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! 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? --NathanDW 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad/images

Tom, I've just archived my talk page. My response to you is here. Cheers. (→Netscott) 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Friday then? (→Netscott) 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

re: is this correct?

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

Good to see you

on this article Tom... as it needs serious help right now. Cheers. (→Netscott) 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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.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. (→Netscott) 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? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed to your address the EoI and EoQ articles on Slavery. Cheers, --Aminz 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll read them as soon as I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

What on earth are you doing? -Lapinmies 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Helping to write an encyclopedia supported by reliable sources. You? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to use common sense and avoid wikilawyering. -Lapinmies 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess we are both virtuous people. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this bothers me. The picture shows nothing but I can't fix it, why not? -Lapinmies 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. -Lapinmies 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? RonCram 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A helpful label for affixing to any articles you find locked at the Wrong Version.

You have quite a sense of humor there Tom. Unfortunately, you didn't answer the question. 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? (→Netscott) 19:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, couldn't hurt. I'll put something in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust the language. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.228.87.143 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

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[7] -- 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.228.87.143 (talk • contribs).

Or the best kind of Gate-Keeper. Gold stars in my book.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How much

does it pay? I might have to join up there... heh. :-) (→Netscott) 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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,--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.--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,--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.--MONGO 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Full protection on: Taco Bell

Please explain why have you unprotected the article: Taco Bell? — zero » 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 requests for page protection. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarningSchool (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

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. ;-) Chris cheese whine 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then my edit must have been like the flowers that bloom in the spring. ;-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. --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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. --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.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 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 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.--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.--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." diff of 15:12 31 March 2007  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 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 {{subst:test2}} 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.--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: [8]. I warned him about this vandalism: [9]. 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, 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. --Aminz 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in the concubinage section, and should be read in the context of the article. 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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 protected it for 3 hours but that was at 10:57 and it's now 14:51... can you look into this? Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the protection has expired. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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, 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 {{Template:Db-attack}}, or take it to misc. for deletion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. 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. --Justanother 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF?

Tom Harrison:

• Why do you see my attempt to get feedback on my behavior as an attack on Justanother?
• I was asking for a review of how I've dealt with 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 Anynobody 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Take it up on deletion review if you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a 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. 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. --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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. --Kevin Murray 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're generous to say so. We'll see where the consensus is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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 [10]). He inserts dubious tags to material sourced from EoQ. [11]. In the same diff [12], he violates the WP:POV policy by writing that Wahhabis are the true followers of the example of Muhammad (i.e. other Muslim sects are wrong).

He removes the "exceptional condition" here [13] 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: [14].

There are many diffs of his personal attacks: [15], [16], [17],[18],[19], [20] Please see this diff from User:Netscott: [21] and this one [22] --Aminz 10:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks [23] (edit summary). --Aminz 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when I see User:Arrow740 making edits like 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. (→Netscott) 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. --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 [24].Such comments are provoking. He has made several personal attacks against me. --Aminz 10:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Another recent example of Arrow's incivility was on Muhammad's talk page: [25].

I was very offended by this harsh diff.

Please see this quote by F.E.Peters [26] and the quote by Stillman at the top of this section [27]. 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." [28] )--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)

Tom Harrison ^Talk 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. 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. [29], [30], [31].

And this diff certainly was made after his block [32].

Also, Tom, please note what Arrow provides as a justification for this accusation: [33]: "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."

--Aminz 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, what is your analysis of Aminz's presentation here? Arrow740 05:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And, Tom, what do you think of this tagging [34] --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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 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 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? --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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi, I'm 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midasminus (talk • contribs).

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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that helped a lot!--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 [35] 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.

Thanks for your help. Davidpdx 13:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Hi Tom,

HAPPY EASTER!!!!!!!!

Cheers, --Aminz 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Aminz; Happy Easter to you too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material by Arrow Again

Hi Tom,

please take a look at [36] where Arrow clears up the intro again. The quotes are all here in this section [37]. --Aminz 08:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Objective Point of View in Slavery Article

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.--Toddy1 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wahabis and slavery

Tom, as I indicated on the talk page, the EoI says that the Wahabi's are 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? 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.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Two more diffs of Arrow

Hi Tom,

Just wanted to provide two more evidences of recent incivility of Arrow: Referring to Itaqallah as Allah: [38], [39] --Aminz 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How is calling someone God incivil? I'm at a loss. This is getting very tiresome, Aminz. Arrow740 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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).

Remember, both of you that, our goal should be to get along despite our disagreements.

Aminz, missteps are to be strongly disliked, addressed and ideally resolved, not treasured and hoarded for ammunition in future disputes.

Arrow740 it would help if you would acknowledge the problem here and make it clear that you intend to refrain from the disputed behavior.

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.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. --Aminz 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.

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.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. 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[40] rather than to write about Islam. 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. Arrow740 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More of Arrow

Hi Tom,

Please take a look at Arrow's original research here [41].

This is the first addition of his:

File:Yemenese niqabi.jpg

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.

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....

--Aminz 06:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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:

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.

into this:

The abolitionist interpretations of slavery has been widely accepted by Muslim scholars.

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. Arrow740 07:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, Arrow is refering to this edit [42]. 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 ..." --Aminz 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

White & Nerdy

Agent Harrison, I always had you pegged moreso as white & nerdy. LOL. (→Netscott) 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Word. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) and Georges Chatelain

Hi, 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.

(in fr_wikipédia : Jack Robinson Georges Chatelain)

Can you examine my request for restoration of these pages? Thank you Adrienne93 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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 deletion review if you want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

: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 ... Adrienne93 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the pages under our policy on speedy deletion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're aware, Adrienne93's listed both of these on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 11. —Cryptic 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A request to the Wikipedia administrator

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! --Riva72 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing

Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny ^(talk) 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Yes I saw that...but only afterwards. Apologies, 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, SqueakBox 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

9/11 stuff

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, or a Vietnamese from a Japanese), I would not object to omitting this part. Let the rednecks protest, "they all look the same to me!". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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. --Kevin Murray 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From one month to 31 hours?

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

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

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

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

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, NN 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Mongo RfC

FYI, I have now posted an RfC on Mongo's behaviour.9.--Thomas Basboll 19:15, 18 April 2007 (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?--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm sad to hear that. One possible result of this RfC (if it lasts) seems to be to vindicate Mongo's behaviour. This would be a very strong signal to "conspiracy theorists who want to use the project as a soapbox" since it would indicate even to people like me (who have much more moderate aims) that we are not welcome here. As I see it, however, the conspiracy-POV-pushers are currently being dealt with as sternly as possible (what more could an RfC on that accomplish?) and the moderate sceptics are being pushed away. The result is a series of articles that are very, very difficult to improve and often less than good. My suggestion is to change the tone of the discussion and see if that might help. But the decision to certify is of course entirely yours.--Thomas Basboll 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Quest Software spam

Thanks for deleting Foglight Experience Monitor, one of the several Quest Software product spam pages that were also deleted. Admin 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 {{db-spam}} it again, if that's okay with you. — 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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). WilyD 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

press for truth

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

Thanks for your excellent edit

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

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

I just would like to make the history and development of such ideas clear. Isn't it odd that the attitudes of some well-known missionaries toward Islam like 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. --Aminz 08:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Vedic Mathematics Removing External Links

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

Would request you to please reinclude the removed links. Or provide me an explanation for the same at gtekriwal@gmail.com

Thanks Gaurav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.225.0.179 (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

They look promotional to me, and the content is not that great. If they are good, someone else will probably put them back in, and then we can discuss it at Talk:Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Why did you block me

Sorry I had to change my user name but I did not meen to vandle any thing i just whanted to tell the world about free toast Thank You Adam Davies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buzzard123 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, Tom

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

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

Lovelight RFC

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

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

Links on OK City Bombing

Hi Tom,

In your edit here[45], you removed citations to "whatreallyhappened.com" and "youtube.com". I'm not familiar with the issues surrounding the removal of those links. Can you help me understand the motivations for removing them? Otheus 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Abuse of rollback

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

Restore the names again and I will block you for violating our policy on biographies of living people. Complain about it to whoever you like. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's a sock or meatpuppet?

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

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. KazakhPol 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wood and Reynolds (space beams) at CD article

Hi Tom, I can see you are busy so don't feel you have to rush right to it, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion about the basis for including the "space beams" idea in the controlled demolition article. I've started a section on the talk page here to discuss it. My view, which I've also communicated to Arthur Rubin, is that if the idea is to stay there has to be more to say about it. I just haven't been able to find any solid sources to begin to elaborate the idea.--Thomas Basboll 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable block

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 [46] Christian Science Monitor [47] and Harpers Harpers [48] (convenience link here: [49]), are widely accepted across the project as reliable sources, a point you conceded weeks ago: [50] 3) Repeatedly ignoring and trying to dismiss notable sources long deemed reliable across the entire project is not acceptable behavior from an admin, and by repeatedly doing so you've demonstrated sufficiently for me and other admins that you're personally far too wrapped up in this issue to be going around blocking anyone involved there. Considering these points, I think you're block of 72.198.121.115 was unjustified. Therefore I'm unblocking him and urge to apologize. FeloniousMonk 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Food, not Typos

Tom, thanks for catching my gnarly edit. I should wait until after my first cup of coffee to go after typos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gruber76 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

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

Stop violating the blocking policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting my edit: Student day in Iran

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

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

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

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

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

Ishmael

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

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

{{NPOV}}-tagging

Several days ago you added {{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 neutral point of view. In the interest of 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. 72.198.121.115 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)