User talk:Tom harrison/Archive08

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 June 2006 and 30 June 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User Talk:Tom harrison/Archive09. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

---

Secret Society Deletions

Tom, could you please clarify what is notable vs. what is "non-notable"? You deleted a link to an article I had written regarding a secret society at Boston College, yet you leave untouched several comparable articles with little or no citations or available data. If notable means something that should be a house-hold name, then only 2-3 of the rather lengthy list should be there. Thank you.

Re: Personal Attachs

got it

Moon Hoax

Hi Tom! Can I invite you to discuss your issues on the talk page, rather than reverting without comment? Thanks! For great justice. 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, please take a look at WP:3RR, and take your issue to the talk page. For great justice. 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me! Let's talk on the talk page! For great justice. 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for voilating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC) - I trust you reported yourself as well? For great justice. 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but you can if you think I've violated it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since all the edits you mention were repairs to your reverting without explanation, you clearly have. For great justice. 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They weren't though, as I say on the 3RR page. Anyway, if you think I violated it, report me, and if you think you did not, go and make your case. I'm content to abide by whatever is decided. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him. I was thinking of stepping the block upto indef but I'm not sure that's a good idea. I'm currently ignoring him on his talk page since he's shouting cabal abuse all the time and I've found such users rarely listen if you tell them there really is no cabal. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Great Justice" also repeatedly reverted all the edits I tried to make to the Moon Hoax page, as if it were his private property. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 20:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hopeful things will go better tomorrow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Ahari article discussion

This is an entry from someone calling themself LogicBiH. There several things wrong with it: 1) I was in a symposium on Kamil Avdich in 2002 in Sarajevo, Bosnia and the paper I wrote was published in Bosnian and English with a collection of the Islamic leader's Bosnian writings that LogicBiH claims is long dead and long forgotten. Why would the religious leadership of Bosnia publish such a work if he was unimportant. He must think the religious leaders of Bosnia are idiots too since they just collected the writings of "some long dead and forgotten Islamic leader". 2) I wrote a thirty plus page introduction to his collected works. That seems like a little more than just reprinting his works. 3) I was on a panel that wrote a coffee table book on Bosnian immigration to America that was in Bosnian and English on facing pages. Of those articles I wrote more than a quarter of them. 4) The Bosnian community must think the work is important since they had two book promotions for it the past month. 5) It seems LogicBih is jealous that I married a Bosnian, visted Bosnian, and have published over a dozen articles about Bosnian and Bosnians in the United States. 6) LogicBiH is a coward and if he knew me he would say those things to my face. 7) I don't go around talking about people's wives behind their back and my wife did go to school and knows how to read. It just shows you the lengths some jealous people will go to. Muhammed al-Ahari

LogicBih's original entry in the discussion that I deleted

How did this guy get an entry in Wikipedia? I can't believe you people let this one through. Al-Ahari is a joke! His only connection to the Bosnjak community is the fact that he married some illiterate village Bosnian woman and he reproduced some texts that were already written by some other people. He goes around acting like this is some big achievement. I mean, what idiot could not take the writings of some long dead and long forgotten Islamic leader and reprint them. Give me a break!

This is not an area in which I have any interest. I just delete vandalism when I find it. Since this is already deleted, I'm not sure what you want me to do about it. Please refrain from making personnal attacks on others, regardles of provocation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Here is a barnstar for your tireless efforts in refuting irrational 9/11 conspiracism on Wikipedia articles and talk pages. Huysman 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome; keep up the good work! -- Huysman^talk 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Ahari article

Just keep reverting it to the article original. I really don't care if people critique what Hussein Abiva (Bektashi110) wrote about me, but most of the comments have been nonsense and personal attacks. Materials I've written are easy to find if people want to discuss my writings. Thanks for all you have done. I would like such people to be blocked when caught if possible. If they want to contribute to scholarly discussion fine, any thing else I'm against. Muhammed al-Ahari

Are you an anti-Semite?

Well, according to SirIsaacBrock you belong to "a small group of anti-Semites" on Wikipedia because you have received a certain barnstar. He has repeated the statement several times, for instance at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Perhaps you would be interested to have a word in it. // Liftarn

Liftarn has spammed many talk pages with this message. Pecher ^Talk 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you count two as "many". ;-) // Liftarn

Please stop vandalizing my user page

thanks....75.2.106.46 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Perhaps you can give me some advice about how to deal with people who simply revert, while refusing to discuss? What strategies are there for dealing with that sort of thing? For great justice. 22:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SirIsaacBrock

Your block didn't take, because I had just blocked him for 48 hours, and the shorter one works. If you want to block him for a week, please unblock and reblock. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom harrison, can you please help with User:UniverseToday

Hi User:Tom harrison. I've seen your excellent efforts to block abusive users. I've never tried to complain about an abusive user, and I'm not sure how it's done. I've put together the beginning of a record on what is apparently a single abusive user under a few different sock puppets. I hope you will suggest what I should do or take some appropriate action.

UniverseToday was a newbie unfamiliar with the rules. He mistakenly believed the highlighted message at Wikipedia.org that anybody could contribute. He did nothing wrong but was attacked by petty little users and banned. So he came back under new names. As most visitors are forced to do. Wikipedia is an elitist outfit full of liars and manipulators. UT—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.56.233.122 (talk • contribs) .

The user is User:UniverseToday, and I believe is the same user as User:Bad Astronomer and a few IP sock puppets. The main reason I think they're the same is that they keep inserting linkspam to the same sites as apparently their primary activity on Wikipedia. The linkspam is to a BB called Universe Daily, and much of it is in the form of redirect URL's including badastronomy.com, robertzubrin.com, and amateurspaceflight.com, that all redirect to the same "Universe Daily" site. User:UniverseToday explicitly claims ownership of the linkspam site, the same one User:Bad Astronomer had slathered everywhere, on his userpage. The User:UniverseToday username was apparently created two days after Bad_Astronomer was caught linkspamming after he had been given several warnings and a final warning to stop linkspamming (May 23, May 21). Since User:UniverseToday created his account, his chief activity (contribs) seems to have been adding linkspam to the same URLs that User:Bad Astronomer spent his time adding, and creating new sites such as Amateur Spaceflight with names corresponding to his redirect URL's to host his linkspam, and complaining of the "vandal" who keeps deleting the linkspam.

As an example of the continuity of linkspamming between these two usernames and a few other apparent sockpuppets, the Robert Zubrin article has had the same linkspam added six times in the past two weeks (History of Robert Zubrin article), including three times in the past hour and a half, by User:Bad Astronomer, a few IP addresses with no other contributions, and User:UniverseToday. The first time, the added link was to "universedaily.com", then after that was reverted away, the subsequent five times have all been to a URL, "robertzubrin.com", to match the title of the article, but which is just a redirect to Universe Daily:

• first addition of linkspam by User:Bad Astronomer (contribs), [1]

• second addition of same linkspam by 203.217.13.143 (no other contribs, likely sock puppet), though from here on out, the bait-and-switch URL "robertzubrin.com" is used that redirects to same linkspam site: [2]

• third addition of same linkspam by 203.51.240.22 (no other contribs, likely sock puppet): [3]

• fourth addition of same linkspam by 203.10.59.63 (contribs, which include linkspamming to Universe Daily): [4]

• fifth addition of same linkspam by User:UniverseToday (contribs): [5]

• sixth addition of same linkspam by User:UniverseToday: [6]

In addition, User:Bad Astronomer made abusive comments to those who warn him on linkspam, e.g. from talk page: "What is the point of having links then? Stop talking gibberish. Wpel? Speaky english??? Oh fine. While you try and figure out what the hell you mean I'll play around with my handle page. I assume THATS ok with you? You remind me of an old granny."

I'd really like to do something about this negative activity. I have not yet reverted from the third addition in the past hour and a half of the linkspam to Robert Zubrin since that would be a 3RR on my part. But I hope you will help find an appropriate solution to this.

Thanks! - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. Also, the site robertzubrin.com was registered three days after "universedaily.com" was reverted off of Robert Zubrin, and the same day robertzubrin.com was added to Robert Zubrin as a redirect to universedaily.com. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 02:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted a lightly elaborated version of this record at Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#New_requests. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As you seem to be dealing with this could you please take whatever action is needed and then archive the RFI? Petros471 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take care of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom harrison, thanks for your action on the two registered username sock puppets. I've discovered that at least one of the same IP address sock puppets used before has been used again to revert to the same linkspam, after the indefinite block of the registered usernames. It doesn't seem any solution will be ensured unless action is also taken against the three known IP address sock puppets.

I've updated the RfI on the IP addresses at Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#Requests_2. Thanks again, - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For Great Justice

You've nailed it. It's a phrase from that Zero Wing game, which is famous for that broken-English statement "All Your Base Are Belong To Us." Recently FGJ asked some other user if that user had ever played that game. So that has to be the connection. Now I can rest easily. :) Wahkeenah 02:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Friends of South Asia

Hi Tom. I've been working on an article about Friends of South Asia (talk, history), a small Silicon Valley peace group made up of expat Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans advocating for peace between their two countries through vigils, letter-writing, etc. (References: San Francisco Chronicle, AsianWeek, Metro Santa Cruz, FOSA website).

FOSA is strongly opposed by some Indian nationalists and Hindu fundamentalists, who apparently believe that the group harms Indian and/or Hindu interests by calling for secularism and peace between India and Pakistan. When I first encountered the article, it was short on facts, and presented in a way that appeared biased against the group (see initial revision). I've been working on the article, and added a substantial amount of detail -- both on the group, as well as on specific criticisms. Three Wikipedians have kept deleting segments of the text that didn't match their POV, so I started sourcing every statement possible. (See my most recent revision.)

These three users continue to make edits and frequent reversions supporting the conspiracy theory that Friends of South Asia is secretly a Pakistani-controlled organization, biased against India, supportive of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan, and working to bolster the Pakistani army. What's left is a boring slow motion edit war, continually chugging along for two months now.

I've been documenting detailed, externally-referenced, critiques of the Indian nationalist POV edits on the talk page; my comments are typically ignored, and my edits swiftly reverted by editors pushing the secret-pro-Pakistani-bias theory, often without explanation. I believe my edits are NPOV, and I've posted the dispute to Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics over a month ago, trying to get outside opinions; neither request has gotten any bites.

Edit wars with conspiracy theorists are pointless and unproductive. I'm looking for advice or assistance on what to do next. I'd really appreciate feedback. Thank you.

- Anirvan 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Thanks for looking at the page. My issue isn't that the POV edits make members of the group look like monsters, but that it makes the group look primarily Pakistani (which it isn't).

Imagine there existed a US-Soviet Peace Action Committee in a neutral nation during the Cold War, but that American nationalist detractors red-baited the organization by lying in an encyclopedia, writing that the group was founded and secretly controlled by Soviets, that it never criticized the Soviet government, and that its public support is actually 8x lower than what's reported in the free press. Replace the US with India, and the Soviet Union with Pakistan.

Pakistani-baiting Indian nationalist editors are actively manipulating facts to paint FOSA as a Pakistani front organization (as opposed to a joint Indo-Pakistani peace group) as part of their propaganda efforts. I don't think FOSA is all that important, but I find it offensive to see blatant lies being inserted into Wikipedia -- particularly when the conspiracy theories are contradicted by the sources cited in the article itself.

What does POV look like? There a massive difference between:

NPOV: "FOSA was founded in December 2001 by a group of nine Indian and Pakistani expatriates concerned about the threat of impending war between their two nations"

POV: "FOSA was founded in 2001 by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends, concerned about the threat of military action by India, as a result of Pakistan's support of terrorist activities in India."

I know it's a long talk page, but you can see more of what's going on at Talk:Friends of South Asia#Cardreader's edits, May 12, 2006 (just start there, and skim the next few screenfulls). Thank you.

- Anirvan 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Tom, We have to thank Anirvan for starting to search web documents regarding FOSA and bringing quite of few of them to attention by citing them. That has lead to the discovery of the more facts about FOSA. However, about the founders of FOSA, what we know is this:

1. It was "founded" by 9 individuals (the first meeting was apparently attended by 9 persons). No information about seven of them.
2. I know names of only two of the co-founders, both from Pakistan; from claims they have themselves made. I don't know the name of any Indian co-founder.
3. For all practical purposes, it has been coordinated by a Pakistani individual, the FOSA address and phone for the past several years has been his personal work address and phone.

Thus I think FOSA should be described as a "Pakistani and Indian" organization and not as an "Indian and Pakistani" organization.--Cardreader 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point I see no reason to prefer one order to the other. I'll discuss it on the talk page if anything comes up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion?

Hi Tom,

Any opinion about the matter addressed by my recent post on WP:3RR?Timothy Usher 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - what about reporting yourself for trolling?

For great justice. 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Hello. Do you know what direction to point me so I can learn to use those citation formats? SkeenaR 08:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, those links were exactly what I was looking for. You think the ct article should be cited in the same manner as the 9/11ct article? SkeenaR 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything yet about citations in the lead, but I haven't managed to look through this material yet. I'll let you know if I find anything like that. SkeenaR 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Webgirl in distress here, need attention

Hey babe, I need help with something. I wish to post a link to my website on my user page, but I don't know how to do it. Please help me, big chunk of machismo ;)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.Perfect (talk • contribs) .

My reply is on the user's talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:Irishpunktom

Just wanted to comment about that and express the view that you were perfectly right in doing that as the bad faith expressed in the commentary by User:Irishpunktom "got to wait about an hour or so" is clearly evident. You might want to post your block for review on WP:ANI. Netscott 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to unblock him. He has made 4 reverts within 24 hrs, and the one he made a self-rv on was his 5th. Try to review the diffs on my 3rr report again. It should be pretty straightforward. -- Karl Meier 18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He also made a 3rr on another article just a few days ago, and he didn't get blocked for that eighter. It seems 3rr doesn't apply to Irishpunktom these days... -- Karl Meier 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the page, I've unblocked Irishpunktom and locked the page instead. I'll mention it on ANI. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Help, adding to the entry "Christianity"

Hello Tom Harrison!

I would like to add to the article "Christianity". I have the scholarly material prepared. I know little of computers, and need help. Would You suggest someone who might assist me?

Thank You! Lyn Sanny lynsanny@hotmail.com

Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers is a good place to start. You contributions are welcome, but Christianity is a contentious article. Most pages are, when they touch on religion and politics. After you visit the sandbox, you might want to first make a few edits on a non-controversial subject, just to get a feel for how things work. After that, you could read Talk:Christianity to get an idea of what people have been doing lately. Good luck and best wishes, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I did some research, being an avid Wikipedia reader in my spare time, and found that in 2008 the tenth nimitz-class supercarrier of the U.S. Navy is to be the USS George H. W. Bush. If I am wrong, please correct me and include where I am wrong. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.83 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know anything about it, not that I necessarily would. Where did you read about it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for yet another new sock puppet for UniverseToday

Hi again Tom. It looks like UniverseToday, after you blocked two more of his sock puppets indefinitely, almost immediately created another brand new sock puppet. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inappropriate_username.3F. Thanks, - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Placebo

Please look at Placebo (origins_of_technical_term). It is the first part of the merge of all of the placebo bits; and I have separated it from the others because its inclusion would have made the reat far too long. Hoope it meets your approval. (formerly had the tag of "cogtrue", now it is consistent with my log-on details) Lindsay658 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

911

Feel free to add it back in. You can say I'm neutral on the subject in your edit summary, I didn't take enough time to review it. --mboverload@ 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

From Jimbo's talk page

I guess this is how Striver and others feel about admins like me....[7]--MONGO 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi

Tom, Amibidhrohi is using his talk page to attack others:

• Timothy Usher: "Someone tell him that. lol. I seriously think that kid is in need of help. Or some more serious parenting."
• Muslims: "I think Muslims do tend to stand out as the most apathetic and cold hearted people amongst religions and nations. They're pathetic."
• Jews: "The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots."

Pecher ^Talk 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This "rebel warrior" (Google "Ami Bidhrohi") is out of control.Timothy Usher 08:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've lengthened his block to one week. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom:talkless tagger

Just happened to notice your comment on Irishpunktom's talk about Apostasy in Islam and couldn't help but notice how similiar what you were saying about that was to his tagging Islamic extremist terrorism. It's strange, if he feels that such tagging is warranted you'd think he'd add to the article's corresponding talk pages explaining why. Netscott 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a trend, by no means limited to Irishpunktom, of people dropping tags with no comment or previous discussion. I think that's not the best way to use the tags. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Its in need of various citations - I do not have the time at the mo to go {{fact}} through them all, so I thought a broad one would suffice till such time. Nice to see Netscott chiming in again though. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all busy. Absent any justification, I'm removing it. Please take your concerns to the talk page; Please do not lard the article with {{fact}} tags as an alternative. We've all seen that one already. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"that one"? - if it needs citations, this should be highlighted. Whats wrong with that? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with correct use of the tag. I've seen people follow every declarative sentence with a tag, in a disruptive attempt to discredit the article, holding the article hostage until their demands are met. One or two tags, in conjunction with an explanation on the talk page, is fine. A dozen or more with a generic declaration that the whole article in a steaming pile of POV is not fine. I hope you mean to take the high road. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Did you give the spam warning to User:Thrawn03 because of him adding links on the World's Wildest Police Videos article? Mike Beckham 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RMP #31

Tom,

I'd like to offer you, personally, a challenge.

Use 'false position', as you have defined it on RMP #31

x + (2/3 + 1/2 + 1/7)x = 31

as you suggest was actually written in hieratic, and I'll show you a jumbled set of ancient 'proofs', with many logical steps omitted.

Occam's Razor then can be properly introduced to the discussion, since Ahmes' answer surely reached the conclusion:

97/42 x = 33

x = 1386/97

or, by subtracting or dividing, the quotient

14 appears, creating the remainder

x = 14 + (1386 - 1358)/97 = 28/97

such that,

2/97, as solved by the 2/nth table, using the firt partition 1/56, and

26/97, solved by the first partition 1/4, such that

26/97 - 1/4 = (104 - 97)/(4*97), using Hultsch-Bruins

so that,

26/97 = 1/4 + (4 + 2 + 1)/(4*97)

   = 1/4 + 1/97 + 1/194 + 1/388

as the RMP cites.

That is, show me a shorter 'false position' method that calculates the same answer - as Wikipedia had been unable to correct - for some time now, only citing 28/97 without citng its derivation!

Remember, I suggest that Occam's Razor be the judge, and not Otto Nuegebauer and his group of long dead Hellenophile 'geometry' loving friends.

Best Regards,

Milo Gardner

Assume for the sake of argument that you are entirely correct; certinly you know more about it that I do. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not publish original research, regardess of merit. I suggest you write up your work and submit it to the appropriate journal. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

Tom, I would like to archive all the non-immediate discussions on the talk page, but don't know how to do it.

Additionally, I request your input on the guidelines I've proposed for this project. You're also free to join, though I'm not yet quite sure what this would mean in practice, it's nice to see serious editors on a list, even if it is just a list. What would the project need to do to earn your support?Timothy Usher 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Case Study - Business Process Mapping

Tom - you deleted the case study link I inserted at the above page (a case study with useful, relevant information in it), yet you left a direct link to a consultancy which has nothing of value in it. Please explain this behaviour?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hughch (talk • contribs) .

The material wasn't very informative, and you added links to hdmgmt.co.uk to half a dozen articles. That's more promotional to hdmgmt.co.uk than informative to our readers. If you see links you think are useless, feel free to delete them. See also the message I left on your talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom - a few points which you might like to bear in mind........

• The case study was linked to several process related articles to which it was directly relevant. The case study concerns a world-wide project that has won numerous awards.
• Since including the case study links to these half dozen articles (some 3 days ago and some today) there have been over 250 direct hits on the case study web page. There have been over 40 enquiries for further information on a variety of related issues, which has been provided free of charge and has further informed those recipients. Clearly other people find the case study more informative than you do.
• I personally have nearly 20 years' experience in this field and to be frank, normally when we offer information on process improvement, BPR etc, people are interested because bluntly we know what we are talking about
• I don't know you Tom, but I do not think you are in a qualified position to offer an opinion on this case study, nor on the links to it from the associated articles. May I suggest you seek advice from Wikipedia in future before deleting links which you personally consider inappropriate, failing which I shall approach Wikipedia directly as to your actions.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hughch (talk • contribs) .

My reply in on the user's talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Irishpunktom just violated 3rr again, removing the category "anti semitic people" from the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article. -- Karl Meier 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And try to take a look at this revert: [8]. It's a pretty sneaky revert if you ask me. I don't think there currently is any rules against that kind of reverts, but somehow I feel that there should actually be rules against edits like that. It's quite dishonest towards the other editors of that article. -- Karl Meier 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posted to WP:ANI about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny enough, aside from the edit-warring I actually do tend to agree with the swap Irishpunktom made away from Anti-Semitic people to just Anti-Semitism. But I suppose that issue is a bit immaterial relative to him now with the ArbCom case in motion. Netscott 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a page I edit, but I do have some concerns about our having such a category for living people. I mean, what else? Racists? Bigots? Jerks? Still, if there is going to be a list if living anti-semites, it's hard to see what criteria would exclude Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I actually am inclined to agree that he tends to qualify but in researching sources concerning this topic all that I'm consistently seeing is the term "anti-Semitism" in his regard (which is why Irishpunktom's swap for that cat over the semitic people made sense to me). The only individual of note that I have found that has in fact described him with the words "anti-semite" is Ehud Olmert (which somehow doesn't seem surprising). Netscott 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious in a sick sick way

"Loose Trains" the real 9/11 conspiracy--DCAnderson 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is hilarious! I wonder how long it will be until someone takes it seriously and adds a link to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise wording

Thanks, Tom. Such a compromise was exactly what was needed.

Raphael1 has been spamming all manner of talk pages aimed at recruiting sympathizers to make an appearance at his ArbCom case (which I may do myself in a little bit). He's a very direct interest in removing these words of advice, as he is among their most egregious violators. I have no doubt that he is an earnest and well-meaning individual, but he's also one of the most persistently and unrepentently dispurtive users of wikipedia, and he's made it crystal-clear that he's no intention of stopping.Timothy Usher 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I expect Arbcom will judge his case on its merits. I hope the compromise is useful. I've been trying to move away from contentious pages. I have no particular expertise in this area beyond haveing read a few books, and the pages just don't seem to give very much return for my labor. Others have been able to do some excellent, scholarly work under very difficult conditions. It may be that I can best help out by enabling that work, rather than by editing directly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom arbitration application

I've applied for arbitration in the case of Irishpunktom [9]. You may want to unblock him to enable him to respond. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Flight 77 Videos

Tom, regarding my edit concerning the accuracy of what lead to the release of the recent Flight 77 videos, you wrote:

>>rv- flight77.info is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks

In response, the edit was concerning the legal documentation in the case. The edit was made to correct the inaccuracy written that the Department of Defense released the videos to Judicial Watch in response to their lawsuit. This is not accurate. I don't know how to correct the inaccuracy without linking to the related documentation that is on the site, flight77.info. Perhaps the documentation files could be moved to a different source.

I've worked for this site and its efforts, but I sincerely don't wish to promote it in correcting the inaccuracy on Wikipedia.

It was the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense that released the videos. Here is the letter from the Department of Justice concerning the release. As stated in the letter, the release was a CD ROM which represented "...the responsive record described in the Declaration of David Hardy dated August 1, 2005 in the above-captioned case."

The case mentioned was the case filed by the webmaster of flight77.info, Scott Bingham. I don't know how to avoid referencing Scott Bingham and his site in describing why the videos were released. It was simply through his lawsuit that they were released. That lawsuit had been active for over a year when Judicial Watch filed their lawsuit. Their lawsuit was a junior lawsuit. All junior lawsuits were issued the same release as the senior lawsuit. The release was forced by the senior lawsuit. You can refer to the final court order in the case. It is this information that explains why these particular videos were released and about the timeing, and why the other videos referenced in the documentation have not been released.

If you can suggest a way and a reason to omit Scott Bingham's effort in the release of the videos, it can be arranged. The supporting documentation can either be moved to a different server and/or Scott Bingham's name can be removed from the documentation.

The important thing is to convey accuracy in why the videos were released and when. The inaccuracy that Judicial Watch forced this release has fueled conspiracy theories due to speculation.

You may or may not agree with the views or integrity of Scott Bingham, but that shouldn't stand in the way of providing an accurate article.

Your comments are appreciated.

Cordially, Jimwilson 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm moving your remarks to Talk:American Airlines Flight 77, where the other editors can read it. I will reply there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

You reverted my contribution to the intro of Christianity, without comment, which as you should know as a fellow admin is not good practice. If you have concerns, lets discuss on the talk page. In the meantime, I'm re-reverting, because the original text has some NPOV problems. COGDEN 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations

You claimed in your revert from my work back to Musical Linguist's that you were restoring the word monotheistic. I ask where you see that altered in my version at all.

Christianity is an array of diverse but interrelated monotheistic religious movements centered on the life and teachings of Jesus, as recounted in various sacred texts, the most generally accepted being the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion.

It calls says "an array of diverse but interrelated monotheistic religious movements"! That is leaving no place to restore monotheism. Rather, you removed the concepts that Christianity refers to many, many diverse but interrelated movements, and that some of them use other texts than what is in the New Testament.

KV(Talk) 18:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read too quickly. I thought you had changed 'monotheisitc', but you had not. My edit summary was inaccurate, as you say. I should have said, 'restored intro'. Sorry, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We all make an occasional inaccurate edit summary. It's not a big deal, and edit summraries can't be altered afterwards. But in any case "rv - restore 'monotheistic'" is not an accusation. Tom didn't put "rv King Vegita's attempt to remove monothestic", so there was no false accusation. AnnH ♫ 18:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann, if I walked in to a Church, and handcuffed a priest, and yelled out "I'm preventing rape!", no I'm not saying "I am preventing this priest from the raping he was about to do" but that is what it is implying in the context. Try not to belittle this.

Tom, apology accepted.

KV(Talk) 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom

He appears to be editing as normal. I thought his unblock was solely so that he could respond to the ArbCom. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, o.k., but he continues to edit, albeit not as belligerently as before. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

		An Award
		Barnstar, awarded by Aminz to Tom Harrison for his remarkable friendliness, fairness, good faith and “staying cool” Aminz 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O)

Tom,

There's a cited version under that cruft, here. I know that reverting a blocked user doesn't count against 3RR, but I'd prefer not to do another revert... -999 03:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can't really figure out what User:Zanoni666's problem is with the cited version of the article. The cited version was derived from the original which he is reverting to by a very nice back and forth collaboration between myself and User:Kephera975 where I asked for citations, he provided them; I removed info not on the cited pages and improved the formatting, and both of us were apparently satisified with the result. The kind of editing that makes one believe in WP again after dealing with incessant edit warriors. The funny thing is, there is very little difference between the two versions except better formatting and clear citations and references. I don't get it. ??? -999 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, they keep citing an ad for a fundraising campaign for the legal conflict that has spilled over into Wikipedia. Is that appropriate. They claim that it is --Zanoni666 15

40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I was saying Tom, the Cicero-HOGD, Inc members and lisencees continue to use the same gating and ganging revert tactics that the were using on the A+O page, but now they are doing it on the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. page as well. They are even bragging about it

Will I have to tell him that two editors can gate a single editor? And gangs are certainly not within Wikiquette. Nobody can stop him from adding cited information, but two can stop him from a revert-revert approach to bear fruit. -999 (Talk) 04

04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--Zanoni666 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Curious. You're quoting a comment that was make to blocked user Frater FiatLux. And I also find it curious that you changed a signature from HermeticScholar to Zanoni666 ([10]). Looks like you're both socks of Frater FiatLux to me... And like Frater FiatLux, you don't seem to know how to indent... -999 (Talk) 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock, but you are definitely a pro-Cicero HOGD, Inc. troll using gate and gang revert techniques to keep an inappropriate advertisement for legal fundraising on a Wikipedia page where it has no business being. Keep this nonsense up and we will wind up with Wikipedia dumping all of the Golden Dawn pages. Why not stop this nonsense and collaborate instead to create balanced articles. Any admin can clearly see your gate/gang revert activity or do you deny this?--Zanoni666 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison, please follow the discussion on the admin page as much of this mess is being clarified there.--Zanoni666 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Plausible deniability (talk · contribs) Edit War in Democracy Now

Check out the Democracy Now article, there is an edit war going on in that article. The User:Plausible deniability has been not logging in and reverting in order to avoid being caught for edit warring. At one point, I warned him in his talk page about the 3RR and he did a fourth revert using his IP to try an avoid the rule. [11] [12] [13] [14] I didn't want to call him out on it because a block so early after registration sets off the "vandal/pov pusher" alarm and I didn't want to bite the newcomer. This however has gotten to far, he is continuing to log off to avoid being called on edit warring. [15] [16]...I also suspect this might be his as well. [17]--Jersey Devil 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon tapes

Have you read Jim Wilson's comments lately in the Talk:American Airlines Flight 77 page? I don't think we can add his info but then again, it might have some relevance somewhere...any suggestions?--MONGO 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:FairNBalanced

Are using abusive words are allowed in wikipedia? # I'd like to say Zarqawi was a piece of shit # I should have permission to violate WP:NPA against this jackass. wait.. oop... uh.. did I just?.. from [here]. # Allahu Akbar my ass [18]/s>< --- Faisal 22:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry I had assumed that wikipedia not for supporting foul language, in any circumstances. --- Faisal 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment (my apologies for us wasting your time here Mr. Harrison)

1. Please see this edit for the entire quote in context
2. My tongue in cheek humor. I acknowledge the silly comment was made after repeated efforts to try to addres a very anti-Muslim user who didn't seem to understand the issues at hand. --FairNBalanced 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Again, here's a direct link to the edit: Allahu Akbar & Nick Berg --FairNBalanced 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Petty snitching is not the kind of behavior that generates respect for those who indulge in it. Pecher ^Talk 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually as a rather neutral individual I too find User:FairNBalanced to show less than good faith when it comes to the topic of Islam and Muslims. Netscott 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab

Tom, according to recent interpretations of WP:3RR, BhaiSaab is over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. However, the edits are in three parts. On the one hand, I want him to stop. I asked him to self-revert, and he replied that I should feel free to report him. I am not certain whether a report will (or should) really stick - as I said, I'm opposed to this interpretation anyhow - yet at the same time, I don't wish to violate the rules by reverting him. Any advice?Timothy Usher 01:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks.Timothy Usher 09:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your message on the Golden Dawn blocking

Thank you for following my request up in regards my being blocked. The block did expire, and thanks for your comment letting me know that the block would expire, as I wasn't aware of that!

Frater FiatLux 03:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Tom, would you please let me know if the most visited website on the internet is a reliable source or not? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#Islamonline_IS_a_Reliable_Source )

Thanks, --Aminz 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for your input. --Aminz 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't unlock the Rosicrucian order of A+O article

I've sent you an e-mail about this.

Please don't unlock the Rosicrucian order of A+O's article, as 999 will simply keep on with the edit war. He hasn't shown any sign of compromise and I believe if the article were to be unlocked then 999 would undo all the work that has gone into making the article verifiable. The article should remain locked as I believe if you unlock the article 999 will continue to edit war the article. Something has to be worked out first so please do not unlock the article as 999 will maliciously interfere with the article.

Thank you for stepping in and locking the article.

Frater FiatLux 09:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of my changes

The policy page on verifiable sources contains no verifiable sources (by its own definition). The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources (by its own definition). Both of these cause problems, because there are no verifiable and reliable policies on Wikipedia. There are only people who go around making changes without good reasons. The fact that you think my change is more clever than useful is not a good reason. It would be useful if Wikipedia had some verifiable and reliable policies from Jimbo Wales, which were PUBLISHED in some place other than Wikipedia, as he demands that all other sources be. Can you not see that point? The fact that no such secondary source exists, is the source of an enourmous amount of problems here.Sbharris 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

UFO conspiracy theory

Regarding your comment:

Do you understand that you have to provide verifiable citations to reliable sources before you can add these things to the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Do YOU understand that citations were already provided in the material, two Wikipedia articles which covered the material in more detail, complete with more citations? If your real concern had been proper citations or verification, you would have at least attempted to read the links. Further, if it was really a question of no citations being provided, you should simply have asked for a citation instead of immediately deleting the material. No, this was nothing more than your usual kneejerk censorship of material that doesn't fit your own prejudices. 66.117.135.19 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Resumption of Irishpunktom block

I think that he was misled by my directions which were pretty clear that he had, in my opinion, fairly wide latitude but it probably wasn't in his interests to go back to editing articles. I think he understood the spirit of my directions and kept within them, although this was different from your interpretation. Anyhow I've apologised to him for misleading him. I think he is being well behaved and it was my fault. Would you please consider unblocking in the light of my instructions? It was, if anything, my fault and not his. --Tony Sidaway 22:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit War on the Golden Dawn article (Please Help)

Full Immediate protection needed.

A full scale editing war has broken out on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_tradition#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_.28Inc..29

They’re reverting the article incessantly, and arguing over whose order is at top of the links section, furthermore, there is also an editing war being perpetuated rampantly about a non- traditional Golden Dawn order being included in the links section. The article is being edited and reverted now, every couple of minutes.

Help! Can someone please lock this article to stop this vandalism, so that the other editors and myself can work this out. Please lock this article to stop these new, unscrupulous users frivolously editing the links in this article. Please lock the article immediately, so that myself and the established editors on the Golden Dawn article can stop this rampant editing war.

User 999 is making false claims that I am using a so-called sock puppet, I vehemently disapprove of this, and I can state categorically that I am not using a sock-puppet. I am willing to send my IP address into a Wikipedia admin so that they can verify that these other new users, that are frequently editing the page are not operative via my IP address.

User 999 is creating schism and false intrigues against me they should he should rightfully receive a warning or a 24 hour block ,so that myself and other established editors of the Golden Dawn article can put a stop to this edit war. Please lock this page immediately to stop further abuse and editing wars.

A moderator has already blocked new users to the article; however, this is not the problem. It is not new users that are causing the disruptions, it is established users: 999, synergetic maggot and JMAX555. The article needs to be immediately fully protected as the aforementioned users are on one side of a current trademark litigation case and I am on the other. Their trying to get me blocked to that they can vandalise the article to their own biased political agenda. The aforementioned users have in fact had me innocently blocked a few days ago and then vandalised the article to You need to intervene more seriously and put a permanent block on the article, as these problems won’t go away until you take action against the aforementioned users.

These aforementioned users have instigated a full-scale edit war and the problem isn’t due to vandalism by new users. Take a look at the Rosicrucian Order of A+O page that was locked due to these aforementioned users creating an edit war, and now this has spilled over on the main Golden Dawn article.

These users are conspirators and are attempting to get me blocked so that they can go unchecked in an edit war to change the article in a defamatory tone, in an attempt to promote their political agenda over the other orders entries.

Here’s the link to show the aforementioned users last editing war that has now spilled over onto the main Golden Dawn article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_%28Rosicrucian_Order_of_A%2BO%29

Frater FiatLux 21:04, 11 June

I see active editing by a number of people, but nothing like an edit war. You can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom this edit war has spilled over from the Rosicrucian A+O article that you blocked last night to the main Golden Dawn artilce. JMAX555 has reverted back to a version that promotes his politcal agenda, that page needs to be blocked so that a compromise can be reached. As this will spiral into a full blown editing war when JMAX555 reverts back to his biased article. The establihed users need talk about this to sort this problem out. The only that will happen is if the article is locked and their forced to discuss their changes. This will develop further into a full-blown edit war, strong action needs to be taken, as I've reverted the article back to the neatral POV, Jmax555 will now just revert back to his version when he spots the changes. To aviod another edit war you shoulf lock the page now, so that we can go about sorting the differences out, otherwise people will just continue to edit the article and will be an edit war.

Please help me out. Frater FiatLux 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: I've reported this over at the link you suggested. Thanks

Comment:

Tom, there has now been more editing and reverting please fully lock this article as it is now a full blown edit war. They're reverting the article back and forth now every couple of minutes. Please lock the article so the established, legitimate editors can cite citiations and sort this editing war out with a compromise.

I am not using sock puppets and I will send you my IP address I you like, so that you can see that the sock puppets are not operative under my IP adddress.

Please take action to stop people constantly reverting this article, this edit war is only going to get worse if its not blocked. I have appealed to the protection page again.

Frater FiatLux 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Please lock down the HOGD Inc. article as there is now an editing war on that page, please see this link. It needs immediate, full lock down so that reverting can stop and the compromises can begin. Citations need to be worked out properly without users reverting the article back and forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn%2C_Inc.&action=history

Frater FiatLux 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom re: block

At Tony Sidaway's request, I have removed the block on Irishpunktom. I will not block again unless he does something new that warrants it, but if anyone else blocks him, I will not unblock him. I expect that this will be my last admin action involving Irishpunktom for at least a week. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Emm, thanks. Am I to gather that, I am to edit nothing except the Arb-Com page then?--Irishpunktom\^talk 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, thanks for reverting Irishpunktom's block. It was totally my fault. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I appreciate your keeping up with it and seeing that the process is fair. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now joined in piling on to FairNBalanced. This is a rather unseemly use of his unblock. Thought I suppose a popular one nowadays.Timothy Usher 14:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

His one-week block would have been up by now anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, I guess everyone pile on FNB. He did upload a farm animal with the word "God" superimposed thereupon. In a foreign language, no less.

The more I think about this, the crazier it seems.Timothy Usher 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really getting annoyed here, maybe I will walk away for a while.. but.. I asked a simple question and now User:Mantanmoreland and Timothy Usher have taken to referring to me as "trolling, taunting, gratuitous" - A user I never heard of is an Honorary Member of a Guild I've been a member of since inception, and when I ask what makes his membership Honorary I'm blasted for it. Usher is right, the more I think about this, the crazier it seems --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom's question was anything but "trolling, taunting, gratuitous" and it's utterly ridiculous to describe it as such. Netscott 23:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I said it was unseemly and might be perceived as taunting him.Timothy Usher 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. Netscott 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, diffs?Timothy Usher 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, thanks, your opinion here is appreciated. Me and Mr. Usher earlier however agreed to let this drop. I don't see how what i wrote was taunting, or kicking when down, or all the other things I was accused of, but, by virtue of the comments of Mr. usher and User:Mantanmoreland, that is how it was taken. Mr. Usher at least accepts that that was not my intention and so no harm was done

--Irishpunktom\^talk 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tustena

Why have you deleted Tustena page? I really don't understand what's wrong. Is not advertising and is in line with all the others CRM software pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asafras (talk • contribs) .

Active Recruitment of Wikipedia Users for Gang Edit War Activity by User 999

In an escalation of the conflict which has led to the protection of the page Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O and to the semi-protection of the page Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and has spilled over onto the page Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., user 999 has begun to actively recruit other users to come in and revert edit the two latter pages, as well as to vote in surveys to create the illusion of consensus. Here is evidence of this active recruitment for gang edit war. Here is evidence of improper recruitment from one such user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baba_Louis#.5B.5BHermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn.5D.5D Thanks for your input on The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Do you think you could also put Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn on your watch list? The same characters are pushing their pov into that article with a revert war as well. -999 (Talk) 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) --Zanoni666 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC) So you object to bringing in unbiased users from an article RfC? Why is that? -999 (Talk) 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Here's your talk page 999, you’re using multiple users to ram home your political point of view. Your discussion page is full of pre-arranging editing with other users to avoid the three revert ruling. This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that your using gang tactics to irregularly edit the Golden Dawn articles and avoid the three revert rule with your numerous conspirators. Here's the link to 999's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:999 Look under entries: "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn." Frater FiatLux 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baba_Louis#.5B.5BHermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn.5D.5D Thanks for your input on The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Do you think you could also put Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn on your watch list? The same characters are pushing their pov into that article with a revert war as well. -999 (Talk) 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) _____________________ Here is evidence of user Baba Louis subsequently engaging in gang revert war activity: (cur) (last) 19:17, 13 June 2006 Baba Louis (revert user who has not joined discussion and survey on talk page; consensus is 4 to 1 against most of the changes you are making) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn%2C_Inc.&action=history Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Frater 999 further recruited User SynergysticMaggott for gang revert war activity as well as rigging a survey to create illusion of consensus on page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SynergeticMaggot Please help watch! User:Frater FiatLux is at is again! -999 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC) If you have the bandwidth, you might want to add all the subarticles to your watchlist as well. It's where the action is going to be... -999 (Talk) 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.® Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O)® The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati Ordo Stella Matutina For the love of LVX! Zos 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

-) -999 (Talk) 17:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is further evidence from the same page of recruitment for gang revert edit war activity together with recruitment for rigging a survey to create the illusion of consensus. Reverting Just a note, I think it looks a lot better to admins if each of us do only two reverts. I'd have got that next one but you beat me to it. -999 (Talk) 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Just as well to use my three, so if Fiat went for four, I would have reported him directly (instead of him reporting me...). Zos 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that 3 reverts is not an entitlement. People can and have been blocked for multiple cases of 3 reverts. Safer to stick with two and have patience. (Though I must admit that I don't always myself :-) -999 (Talk) 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] Discussion + survey Please respond to the survey at the bottom of Talk:The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. -999 (Talk) 16:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC) On page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn%2C_Inc.&action=history You will notice that user SynergeticMaggott, after being recruited by User 999 above, subsequently beginningt on June 13 joined in gang revert edit war activity as evidenced in the history on page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn%2C_Inc.&action=history (cur) (last) 20:23, 13 June 2006 Opuaut (cur) (last) 20:15, 13 June 2006 SynergeticMaggot (3rd revert) (cur) (last) 20:14, 13 June 2006 Frater FiatLux (RV: back to verifiable version, Cicero propagandists trying to ram through their biased political POV) (cur) (last) 19:54, 13 June 2006 SynergeticMaggot (2nd revert) (cur) (last) 19:52, 13 June 2006 Frater FiatLux (RV: four are Cicero licensees and one isn’t in that survey, how biased is that?) (cur) (last) 19:17, 13 June 2006 Baba Louis (revert user who has not joined discussion and survey on talk page; consensus is 4 to 1 against most of the changes you are making) (cur) (last) 19:08, 13 June 2006 Frater FiatLux (RV: RV back to verifiable version with truthful citations) (cur) (last) 17:21, 13 June 2006 SynergeticMaggot (revert) This all amounts to clear evidence not of active recruitment for gang revert edit war activity by User 999 as well as recruitment to stuff ballott boxes on surveys to create the illusion of consensus. --Zanoni666 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Another request

Hi Tom,

It's again me with another request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed

The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.

Thanks, --Aminz 08:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Best wishes --Aminz 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian math

Tom,

Progress is being made, at least from my side of the discussion. The issue of RMP #31 not being written in 'false position' arithmetic on Wikipedia is a problem that may take up too much of your time. Others have already worked on the topic, as St. Andrews U., Scotland's web site on the subject has already noted. Modern arithmetic does offer the most direct and convincing method to write out 28/97, and many other vulgar fractions, and weights and measures problems.

Given this one explicit non-use of 'false position' in RMP #31, another explicit proof that modern arithmetic and algebra were used in all other vulgar fraction problems written by Ahmes may follow relatively quickly (for those that take the time to review the subject with pencil and paper).

Given that you have not read this 10 year old posting, I can see why you are reluctant to expand the current debate of attested or contested scribal methods to 'false position'.

How has your review of Boyer and the Encyclopedia Britannica.com progressed , on Egyptian ciphered numerals, the first anywhere recorded in the world, if Britannica is to be believed?

Best Regards,

Milo Gardner

User:His excellency

Netscott thinks it's "rebel warrior" coming back. Pecher ^Talk 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll watch for personal attacks. As long as there's no incivility, it shouldn't be a problem. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What about evading the block? Pecher ^Talk 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It was for a week; it should have expired. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Time passes so quickly. Pecher ^Talk 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is Amibidhrohi, but he's not evading a block. I'm a little curious as to why he removed the notice he'd placed on his user page. My interest is just to make sure people know it's the same user.Timothy Usher 21:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding MedCab case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-09 source documents

You have received this message due to your name being attached to the above case brought by User:Jimwilson.

We regret to inform you that this case regards a policy change and not an inter-editor dispute. MedCab has no authority over Wikipedia policy, and we suggest that changes to policy be made at Wikipedia:Village pump.

Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Improperly Blocked as a Sock

I have been improperly blocked as a sock. Who do I talk to to straighten this out?

Sorry, Mr. Harrison, it looks like I was mistaken. I misread something in my talk. In any case, two of my friends and fellow editors have been improperly blocked today and this made me paranoid. The group of editors on the HOGD pages with HOGD, Inc. bias are behaviing quite unfairly. They (especially User 999) are actively recruiting other editors and every time a new editor enters that shares our POV they complain that they must be a sock. Please note that Frater Fiat Lux and Opuat are two distinct editors. The former lives in the and the latter in Berlin, Germany. A simple examination of their IP addresses should straighten this mess out. --Zanoni666 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)]]

Roman Catholic High School

Hey thanks for clearing up those edits. Brandt is definitely leaving though, and I've heard Bongard will be the replacement. But since I haven't found a source naming his replacement, I didn't change it back. (I put all this on the talk page of the article too.) Roman's website is in terrible condition, so I'm going to scour the Archdiocesan press releases instead of relying on Roman to update the info. --Magic 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness

Please take a look at this section and my comment thereto if you have the chance.[19]Timothy Usher 22:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Friends of South Asia article

Moved to article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Crackdown

I'm done with the POV pushing by all the trolls in the 9/11 articles. I think sprotecting flight 77 is not going to work as it is all that Rich111 character and he and his IP have been around awhile. Expect to see me blocking the trolls such as Truthseeker and others on very little provocation...I just blocked User:Pokipsy76 for 48 hours since he routinely reverts me everytime I edit the 9/11 articles.--MONGO 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's entirely appropriate. Having failed to gather a consensus, some are now trying to force their changes by repeated reverts. That's disruptive, whether it's one revert in twenty-four hours or four. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He's going to post an unblock request and I have told him that if he reverts me one more time, the next block will be for a week...heading out now, so back in 8 hours or so.--MONGO 18:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Return of Johnski

Hi, just wanted to let you know that Johnski is testing again. Although all he has done was a spelling correction, it won't be long before he's back at it. Please keep an eye out on the DOM page. Thanks... Davidpdx 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; the page is on my watch list. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism

Tom, What is your opinion about deletion of this article? I, personally, think there is a lot of good material that can be added to this article. For example, I am personally interested to know a comprehensive list of points on which Jesus criticized Judaism. (I have heard some points here and there; + many of those criticisms may apply to Islam as well because of centrality of law --> Too useful for some Muslims to correct their false view point). This article can be very useful in general I believe. But that's just me. I may be very well wrong. --Aminz 00:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, thank you so much for the cookie. Best wishes. --Aminz 07:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, One of my goals in wikipedia is to change the view of Muslims about the bible. Unfortunately Muslims usually do not read or study the bible BUT fortunately, according to my POV this is against the teachings of Qur’an. This, I believe, will bring Muslims, Christians and Jews closer to each other. + it seems practical. --Aminz 08:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck (gulp...)

Good luck with Donatello. I saw how much trouble there was before you semiprotected it. --DLand^TALK 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping now that school's out, things will quiet down. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes I added about Shulgi are quite True. I read History as a Hobbie and one of my favorite is Samuel Kramer the top Sumeriologist of the 1950's.

bye

Please answer me on Muhammad page

After that you may remove this from your talk page. Also may I know why you never reply me regarding this. [20]

About Zarqawi, my reply is on your talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well because I would never like to abuse anyone even people I hate a lot. Hence I was thinking that wikipedia will have similar policy. Sorry I was mistaken as you, yourself like to use ugly words like "piece of s***". I take my post on your talk page back now. --- Faisal 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott and 3RR

Netscott has reported me for what he perceives to have been a 3RR violation. Pecher ^Talk 12:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jeremygbyrne IP block

Greetings Tom, can you take a look at User:Jeremygbyrne's unblock request? He appears to be mistakenly blocked behind a co-blocked IP address. Thanks. Netscott 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This talk page appears related to the issue. Cheers. Netscott 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. Netscott 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And thanks too from me, Tom; much appreciated. I have been in touch with Westnet about this problem, and most recently sent them information about needing to add give proxy a DNS entry so we could use the X-Forwarded-For information to selectively block rather than simply blocking the proxy, so with luck this will be resolved soon. &#0151; JEREMY 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again Tom Harrison but Jeremy's blocked for the same reason again. Netscott 08:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorted now; thanks. &#0151; JEREMY 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

McKhan

He's reverting to a page that is 90% polemics, irrelevant to improving the article. How do you suggest I go about resolving this "graciously"? Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Also, how do I get him to stop making personal comments? BhaiSaab ^talk 01:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Harrison. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, thanks for tring to keep this madness under control. I've complained about his behavior before, to no avail. This is the only issue I've ever seen him discuss, with the same set of links and talking points which he keeps on his user page. All who differ are Habashi agents.Timothy Usher 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. So far he's accused me of trying to "sanitize and islamacize the Al-Ahbash" (because I nominated this article for deletion) and pushing my "Shia agenda." Also, Mr. Harrison, he has posted a comment on his talk page, but I really don't understand it. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just ignore it and give him time to cool off. I have no opinion of the material on the article talk page (some of it is in Arabic script, which I regret I cannot read), but my browser would barely load it. It's still available in the archive if anyone neede it. And after all, four reverts is four reverts. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My comments

You're right I did lose my cool. Apologies! Question: why does that user deeceevoice get away with making so many racist comments about the Egyptian and Arab peoples? Just look at the comments he left in the past on that same talk page and elsewhere. Egyegy 01:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem; it's easy to get worked up about something you feel strongly about. As for Deeceevoive's comments, you'll have to be more specific. Which comments do you mean? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My (Mtz206) RfA

Hi Tom - Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and I'll do my best to live up to your expectations. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Fadix block

Tom, User:Fadix has been blocked for 3 days by InShaneee for incivility. Fadix has requested an unblock and he has also provided an edit difference, showing InShaneee signing an RfC against Fadix in which case the block does not come from an univolved admin. May I ask you to review this block? Many thanks, Pecher ^Talk 09:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Truthseeker

[21]--MONGO 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The comments section reminds me of a Wikipedia talk page... Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

70.25.48.58 and User:Elfguy

I wonder if 70.25.48.58 is a sock of User:Elfguy used to avoid 3rr, in the 9-11 attacks article, all Elfguy ever done was adding the PoV tag in the article for his own personal views and general trolling. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Hi Tom. I see you removed the NPOV tag on WTC 7. As there is a content dispute under way, I'll assume this was a mistake. Please replace it. Thanks in advance. --Guinnog 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My reply in on the article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Master

What happened to your Sockpuppet Master userbox? SkeenaR 05:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I came on one day and found the template had been deleted, maybe as a userbox. My puppets are User:Bprsolt Qaoddz and User:Bprsolt qaoddz. Just for full disclosure, I have used them for checking something on new account creation, and occasionally when I have wanted to see how a default setup works. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Hi, I'm not a speaker of either of those languages. My bot just picked those up from Tamil Wikipedia interwiki links. Perhaps, I need to fix them there. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not lie

Do not claim content is 'original research' when it is in fact externally referenced. I think lying is wrong, in the WIKI, or anywhere. Thanks. Timharwoodx 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatreallyhappened.com is not a reliable source for "Osama did not look any different to 2001. Remarkable, considering his beard was greying rapidly in 2001. The 2004 Osama appears to have mastered pausing the aging process at will. Also, the face is too fat. The real osama has a thinner face." [22]Thanks for recognizing that and removing it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Timharwoodx 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

I think you've blocked my IP address by mistake:

 My username is: geryms (not will314159) my IP address is **.***.***.**
 The reason I was blocked, which is: 

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Will314159". The reason given for Will314159's block is: "3rr on Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole".

I have never wrote anything about Juan Cole nor had correspondence with you or will314159 before.

Thanks.

Geryms

I have unblocked you. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Moesogoth

Hi. I'm hoping I can solicit a little help. I'm about to leave for vacation, but have suddenly become embroiled in some kind of trolling by User:Moesogoth. I reverted a POV edit of his in Brett Favre, and he seems to be taking it quite poorly. Check messages on Talk:Brett Favre as well as my User talk:Mtz206. Also, he's left odd posts (and generated community feedback) on some ESPN sites (on which I've never posted, btw): [23] & [24]. Just a tad worried about what might materialize in my absence, and would appreciate another set of eyes on his edits & comments left on my talk page. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like Favre's obvious problems with interceptions could be pointed out in a more objective tone than the one taken by that obviously embittered Packers fan. Wahkeenah 08:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (Bears fan)

I've added it to my watch list. I know nothing about it; let neutrality reign! Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

Please do not repost that. Personnal information used in that way is a disruptive personal attack. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The personal information lends a great deal on the subject matter at hand. Furthermore, since the admin in question is now the subject of an RFC, this action bears a great deal with respect to that. Bastique▼^parler _voir 17:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking me will result in a block Bastique▼^parler _voir 17:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me elaborate on this. I restored the information in an administrative capacity. Mongo re-deleted it. I am leaving it off, not because of your threat but to avoid some admin/revert war. The rationale for its removal however, is not as clear-cut as you might believe. Bastique▼^parler _voir 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard James 'Rikki' Holt

Why was Rikki Holt removed from Wikipedia? surely a man with such a cult following deserves his places under your rules?

If you could e-mail me back explaining your decision at vtfoxx@hotmail.com I'd be more than happy to read your explaination.

I demand he is returned to Wikipedia, without Rikki, this is not a full encyclopedia—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VTFoxx (talk • contribs) .

There is a note on your discussion page about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic question

Hi, Tom. I'm sure there is a term for that, but I'm afraid I can't think of any. Sorry. I bet it's in one of my books, but you can't look up something when you know what it means but not what it's called! AnnH ♫ 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I'll look around. Maybe it is as simple as "idiom." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What?

Hi. What? User:Khross

Reply

I'm new to WikiPedia editing, I'm confused as to what was wrong. User:Khross

Apology

Sorry. User:Khross

The three-revert rult

I know about the three revert rule, thank you. Esaborio 02:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

9/11 fatality number

Tom,

You erased my edit to the 9/11 attack page. The "265" fatalities figure is wrong, according to the wiki entry's own numbers. If you look at the next section ("Fatalities"), a chart shows deaths by individual crashed plane. They add up to 266. Also, if you add the deaths within the section where the 265 number is found, you get a total of 2985, not 2986 like the section claims (WTC deaths + plane deaths + DC deaths). Please do not remove my edit again unless you think I am adding wrong; I am not going to continue editing it in the face of administrative deletions, but I think it's scandalous to have a basic addition error on such a major wikipedia entry.

3RR Rule Administration

You should be blocked from administering the 3RR rule b/c you do not administer it fairly. U R about as "fair and balanced" as Fox News. You blocked me twenty 20 minutes after Isarig's report. His report was a preventive strike to protect himself from a report on his violations and vandalism. Yet at the same time you ignore a report on his violations- encouraging him to proceed further in endless reverts and wheel wars. That's fine. I"ll find out how to proceed further. My advice- keep your daytime job. Best wishes. Will314159 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for MONGO RfC qualification

Hi Tom. I just wanted to thank you for your qualification to your comment on MONGO's RfC. I think the situation is complex, and a bit of a grey area, with very important issues at stake on both sides of the argument. As a result, a number of well-meaning users who have weighed in (including myself) have said things more harshly than they intended to and been less charitable in their reading of others' comments than they might have. Hopefully we'll all learn a little bit from this, even if we don't overtly reach any sort of agreement. -- SCZenz 14:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I echo that sentiment. I'm in the process of "weighing in" myself at the moment, but I really appreciate that you can qualify away from a black-white approach on this one. --Guinnog 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Saima nia

Look at this edit, as well as the vandalism warning. Pecher ^Talk 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. If it happens again, I'll make in indefinite. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Big brother

Is listening...[25]--MONGO 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

revert war

Dear Tom,

Please respond to Talk:Oklahoma City bombing. Thanks. Thank you also for the warning, I will keep in mind not to revert 3 times in 24 hours but instead will try and discuss with patience on the Talk page. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See: Talk:Oklahoma_City_bombing#Proposal.2Fapologies. Thx &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my apologies. And how about my proposed solution? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC) // Sorry, missed that one. &#151; Xiutwel (talk)

---

• Thank you for your efforts in this article. Your verbose replies, however, have still not adressed my questions to you. Are you aware of that?
• I would like a specific suspicion about the video's I produced, in stead of general criticism of Jones' viewpoints and Modus operandi. Please?

&#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

American terrorism

Could you explain, why did you remove my changes in the article American terrorism. Thank you--HenryS 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you said that there should be a quote. A quote on what?

• That the term "American terrorism" could mean:
  • "Terrorism in America and by americans" OR
  • "Terrorism by american government"

Sorry, it is obvious for me. I'm not a linguist, so I cannot provide a qoute on that, however I hope, that a professional could do it, if needed.

• May be there should be a quote, that there were acts of terror in USA, and some americans are terrorists, or potential terrorists? Well, anybody could provide a lot of quotes.
• May be there should be a quote stating that the state could not be a terrorist by definition. If you use the definition by Baltasar Garzón, it is obvious. There is no any other definition yet.

Finally. You are so concerned about qoutes. Have you read all references in the article? Does all of them support statements?

Please, place my edition back. I believe, that the community would be able to provide linguistic professional quote on double meaning of the term is needed.

Tnank you --HenryS 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)