User talk:Tom harrison/Archive04

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 February 2006 and 28 February 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/Archive05. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

No worries

I broke my irony detector a few days ago. Despite all the machinations the page is actually improving, which is the important thing. Marskell 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

um.. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU AND WHY DID YOU SEND ME A MESSAGE!?!?!?! ARE YOU A PEDAPHILE OR SOMETHING!?!?!?!?! IM ONLY 14 JEEZ GET AWAY FROMK ME!!!!!!!!!! RAPE RAPE GO AWAY!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.117.181 (talk • contribs)

Do you know if

Admin power is needed for editing a user talk page and leaving no record of it in the history? See reference on mine regarding boot camp and "help me" that inexplicably appeared and also now appears in every previous version. SkeenaR 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has played a funny trick by editing my talk page and not only leaving no history of it, but making it appear in all the previous versions. I'm basically wondering if I'll be able to identify the culprit. SkeenaR 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been added in the history. Something is missing from the history. That would be the reference to boot camp and "help me" that was just added to the greeting that Blackcats sent me in December. It is also made to appear in every previous version so that it looks like Blackcats put it there. SkeenaR 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK that explains it. I knew that wasn't there before and there was no record of it. I wasn't aware of anything called a live template and didn't think that was possible. I thought somebody was trying to imply that I should be sent to bootcamp! Thank you for clearing that up for me. What about you? You think I need boot camp? :) SkeenaR 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting stuff. SkeenaR 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Wyss

Hi, he/she has e-mailed me claiming that it wasn't a 3RR violation that he had -- that he did make four different edits rather than reverting. Can you look at the situation again? (I told him/her that I'm uncomfortable removing another admin's 3RR block, but I'll look at it myself as well.) Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

After examining it, it looks to me that User:Wyss was removing/reverting "ROHA"'s vandalism (I am calling it vandalism because ROHA has shown no desire whatsoever to abide by 3RR/NPA/&c.) and, as such, didn't violate 3RR. I'm going to go ahead and unblock Wyss. If you believe that a reblock is warranted, please let me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Advise Skeena that he has violated the 3RR rule on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article as I am going to go ahead and report it.--MONGO 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I blocked or just reported and if blocked am I blocked from discussion pages as well? SkeenaR 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your help Tom. SkeenaR 21:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your thoughful reply. It made a difference. Wyss 13:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Some help needed

Remember that user you blocked for 3rr a few days ago. Well he's back to revert warring and making attacks. Users on the Dhimmi and Infidel pages will need some help dealing with him. I have protected both pages because of the edit war. They need an admin who wasn't involved on any articles with him but has dealt with him to intervene. So please help if you can. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's who I meant. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. I think we might need some very long blocks if this gets more out of hand. I don't think there are admins willing to join the discussion though and that includes me but we really do need someone who can. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI he isn't getting any more civil with racist comments like these [1]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It isnt just an accusion of lying . Its a propaganda spread on the net that all Muslims are commanded by their religion to lie . Sorry for my personal attacks , but this person.....he is impossible to deal with . You cant talk to him in a geltleman's way . See his very same hatemongering at Talk:Sharia & Talk:Honour killing . You talk to him decently , you will get hurt . Cheers . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes what Farhanser said. :) An accusation which is also racist. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User 64.251.195

This user, has today vandalised The Beatles Page. As you blocked this IP on the 1st, I thought you should be made aware of this. Best wishes, Lion King 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

No problem, thanks. Best wishes, Lion King 17:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom,

on article Benjy Bronk, you keep putting in a graduation date, I have looked into this there is absolutely no published verifiable source for your information, yet you keep putting it in. This is 100% contrary to the wikipedia rules, yet you continue to break the rules, you have the power to do this because you are a an administrator. YOU ARE ABUSING YOUR POWER. Show your citation that that gives you that specifi info.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calzone (talk • contribs)

Tom,

you yourself say:

"Proof by assertion Is "Often used by those holding strong but controversial opinions, particularly where there is a lack of credible evidence to back them up." As a corollary, The phrase "I know for a fact" does not have the rhetorical effect that you intend it to have."

where is your proof?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calzone (talk • contribs)

Dhimmi

Will you be able to mediate in the disagreements on Dhimmi? I believe we need cool-headed outside assistance to resolve the issues there.--Pecher 09:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gregory S. Paul

He almost certainly is the paleontologist. See my explanation on Talk: Pope Pius XII. Robert McClenon 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

You may want to have a looksie through the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles...I have spotted at least two text copy violations from websites and my latest comment which you probably saw is here [2]...it's actually very easy to do...simply bring up the google browser...copy and paste a few different lines or pieces of wording in the search bar and check out the links provided. I googled the following line only once "which groups load-bearing columns in the core" and the first link took me to the evidence I provided in the diff linked above. I suspect that some of the information in some of the aricles related to 9/11 are riddled with copywrite violations of text.--MONGO 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That link is actually to information retrieved from Wikipedia to begin with, but it may still be a copy violation since it was moved outside of wikipedia, placed on a separate website and then magically reappeared here. My links above on the talk page for collapse of the WTC did demostrate the technique I provided a bit more accurately.--MONGO 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?...does this newest edit by skeena fall into the realm of personal attacks...[3]...it is the passage I have deleted twice but now he has remmoved the list of names that he hijacked directly off the website, leaving only the personal remarks.--MONGO 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

remove these cartoons

im blocked because i tried to remove sm hurting images from wikipedia??????i dont c any logic for these cartoons.for whom they r????and wut for??? fun??? i think anything devine is respectable.u r a believer of sm religion or not,one shud atleast have sm respect for other's religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imama Qayyum (talk • contribs)

edit summaries

Usually I would do that but this user seems to refuse talk page communication.--Urthogie 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check out collapse talk SkeenaR 02:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you notice that? SkeenaR 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Trouble from another quarter...

Could you take a look at this post from User:Pinktulip [4] and decide if it requires any action. I ask you because you have warned this user previously. He is tiresome and troublesome and has hijacked the Terri Schiavo page. Marskell 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I will place a note on the admin noticeboard when I get a chance. I'll let you know so you can comment. At the moment I want to revert TS back to the point before he arrived but I have no energy to deal with him so I'll see if a third party can look into his activities. Marskell 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a post to WP:AN. See "User:Pinktulip and User:Fplay" there. Looking at his contrib's, particularly to talk pages, I think he needs a leash or at least a good "setting of things straight." I'd really appreciate even two sentences to back up my post on the noticeboard. I never post there and I know (with good reason) unneeded things can get swatted down quickly but I hope someone uninvolved acts on this. Cheers, Marskell 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my

Check this edit summary: [5]. I have notified another admin who has helped my previously (User:Ta bu shi da yu) as you are involved with Pink. Marskell 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom!

I notice that you reverted my edits - I was trying to add some npov to the article, and it would help me if instead of simply reverting, you could discuss some of the particular problems you have on the talk page - thank you! 67.40.249.122 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that - I find it had to know how to try to build concensus with Wahkeenah - his only responses to my edits have been reverts and rudeness - since many of my edits are corrections of factual errors (that I am pretty certain are not controversial) and neither Wahkeenah nor yourself have given me anything to go on in terms of exactly what it is you find problematic, I'm not certain how to proceed - any clues as to which edits are the problem? Do you really want to put a bunch of typos and factual errors back in? 67.40.249.122 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I have asked the same question on the article talk page.

Please let me know which edits you find objectionable. 67.40.249.122 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

-I catalogued some of the edits I made, that you reverted. Could you let me know which ones you object to? Perhaps you could unrevert any you don't disagree with? Particularly the factual errors - thanks. 67.40.249.122 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the apollo issues - in case you're interested, my motivation is that to remain truly neutral, we must be neutral even about articles that we have made up our own minds on. That's not the same as giving undue credence to fringe theories, it is simply not denegrating a group for disagreeing with us - for example - we may not like Sibrel, but to call his harrassment of Aldrin 'assault' while we call Aldrin's punching him in the face a 'response' is simply misleading. We do no credit to the cause of a neutral encylopedia this way, and we give no undue credence to Sibrel by describing the facts as they happened. Thanks for your help, 67.40.249.122 06:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing

See [6]

I believe that the latest edit you reversed was a valid edit and contributed the web address of Hiedelburg College, the official partner of Holy Cross College. As I believe this information is useful i request that you unrevert it, or allow me to add the address again. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.223.139 (talk • contribs)

Tom - it looks as though you were editing the article after it was protected - I'm sure that was a mistake you will correct!

User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you removed the photo?

If so, I'm not sure why - if you didn't, could you put it back? It is in the protected version, and I think it improves the article. Thanks! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, could you just check that the current version is the one that happycamper protected? I don't think it is. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You removed the Deletion tag?

Hi, you removed the deletion tag, but it was tagged as a list with producerism. I correlated the two as they are similar, for discussion on deletion. There is already a page for Conspiracy Theory as well, another reason for deletion of this article. I also put in my explantion on the talk for this page. I will give you time to restore this, as per the instructions until debate is over on this and producerism; and the reasons I gave for deletion.

NORTHMEISTER

Reverted to Vandalized Version

Tom, you reverted the Oklahoma City article back to the vandalized version. The accepted version was the one that was on there before the anon user changed it a couple of times today. --Claygate 02:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it back. --Claygate 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page - it was really appreciated! I left a reply and an apology there too. If you notice, I modified your response very slightly (I hope you don't mind) - I did this hoping to subtlely convey to others who might come by my talk page that on Wikipedia it's okay to make mistakes. We all make mistakes, but what matters the most is how we manage them. We should not be worried about walking on eggshells and such. I wanted to say that I was really heartened by your post - you were gracious about everything, and it made me feel good to know that we have editors like that here. Thank you, and I'll see you around! --HappyCamper 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also followed up here just to tie things off. Thanks again. --HappyCamper 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI: A vandal struck at you

A vandal you warned (141.154.70.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) re: Muhammad) then vandalized your user page. I reverted your page and reported the vandal at WP:AIV.

Atlant 16:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalizing the Bonnie and Clyde article

Tom, an address you had to revert previously is back doing vandalism to the Bonnie and Clyde article today -- 66.144.187.60 -- can you block them? Thanks! old windy bear 18:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted

Hello, Tom. No problem at all. I haven't been near the computer all day, but just logged on a few minutes ago. I was starting an e-mail to you when you unblocked me. In any case, I see the reason for the block, even though it was in error, so no hard feelings. It didn't inconvenience me in any way. I'm sending you an e-mail. Grandad 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

EC

Have you seen this? KHM03 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

***Sorry Tom

Tom sorry for the external links. It is taking some time to understand how this works. Wanted to show the connection to the tools that can make these calculations. How can i publish a story? (That way you won't say that its spam, right?) R.

Thank you

Could you please take a look at the Current events page as it has currently some doubled information? Get-back-world-respect 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Tom. Yes, that's from my old days when I was unfimiliar with wikipedia as an encyclopedia. My first week actually. But thanks for reminding me. As you can see I have moved from that now and I was very unfimiliar with wikipedia at the time. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Just some friendly advice to stop considering blocking me under the 3RR. You can only block people under the 3RR if they have broken it, and I haven't. I haven't checked whether Get-back-world-respect has although I suspect he has. An admin has to enforce policy as it is and against those who break it, and not against those who have not broken it, regardless of their feelings on the matter. I hope this helps. David | Talk 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv even made a sixth revert after the warning, again deleting factual information about the people being kicked repeatedly while they were forced to the ground: [7] Get-back-world-respect 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Smelly socks

I'd post the suspected sockpuppet template on every IP, sock account he/she is using, or if checkuser has idenified them as all one and the same, I'll ban two of them right off for trying to circumvent 3RR. Has any of the socks violated 3RR today?--MONGO 01:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a complaint that was unrelated by User:Gator1 that User:SOPHIA was insulting him in his usertalk and was reverting his removal of her posts there. But that is unrelated...you want me to extend the block on the other three in question...looks like they're up to nothing but trying to supercede consensus and avoid 3RR.--MONGO 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All three blocked for 48 now...had to unblock two and reblock...let me know if they fail to hold.--MONGO 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, two of them can be permabanned I believe...lets see what unfolds after Thursday.--MONGO 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bed now, but perhaps you could look at a message I left here. I'm sure you're already watching this. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 04:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom:FYI...like I said, smelly...[8]--MONGO 07:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• You've done the right thing[9], but how about a try with User:David Gerard to speed things up...--MONGO 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

block of User:Get-back-world-respect

This user emailed me to complain about your recent block. Although I didn't investigate it in detail it appears to me that, while a block may have been permissible, it may not have been genuinely necessary. In general I don't believe it is wise to block users under 3rr unless they have been warned or are clearly engaging in a pattern of abusive editing. I realize this isn't necessarily policy but I'm troubled by the fact that an increasing number of admins are making 3RR blocks more or less automatically regardless of the circumstances -- something that was never intended when the policy was adopted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That user has been involved in very abusive editing and makes it a point to get involved in edit wars nearly anywhere possible. I've already submitted them twice to the various administrator noticeboards. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mehmed II

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye on things, and I have some more material about that incident that may put tempers to rest all around (when I get home). Haiduc 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

As the block expired, I request you to speedy delete my pages. Get-back-world-respect 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are not typically deleted. As for your User page, I'll look into it, but I probably won't be able to get to it until tomorrow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If the user page goes, I assume the talk page goes, too. There is a section Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F so apparently user talk pages can be deleted. I have not received an email as you wrote. Get-back-world-respect 23:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As advised by NSLE I reported your unfair behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Get-back-world-respect 01:28, 16 February 2006 I just want to point out the request I've made of you at {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_unfairly here]. I don't intend to unblock, but if you want to then I will support your decision Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom: There's an arbcom request about this. I'd like you to give your opinion. WP:RFAR. Something like, 2nd one down from the top. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Fred Bauder says he ran the check and it came out negative. I don't buy it, meaning, I don't know what the methodology of check user is so I can't even begin to speculate how it might be gamed. Something loopy is going on over at Adolf Hitler... too many identical reverts by new users related mostly to Christianity who use the same syntax and accusations, word for word. I'm happy so many people are watching the article for the moment and keeping them at bay and I suspect time will bring a solution. Meanwhile, any ideas or suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks. Wyss 02:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• As AnnH said a few minutes ago here:

How strange that MikaM should copy Giovanni33's most common mannerism. hehe. AnnH ^(talk) 01:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss 02:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Hi Tom, Thanks for reverting my user page. Cheers, BanyanTree 18:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmph

Based on his edits, he'll probably break one or another wikipedia policy in discussing the NPOV tag. --Urthogie 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic / Jewish / Zionist / Israeli Terrorism pages

The Jewish extremist terrorism page is now redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism page. The Jewish terrorism , Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism pages have been reverted or/and redirected to other pages. Why don't we have also have the same rule for Islamic or Christian or Hindu terrorism pages ? I think Islamic extremist terrorism page should also be redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. Why don't you also look at conduct of your friend Urthogie for violation of three-revert rule he has reverted and redirected my contribution more than three time.

Siddiqui 22:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not redirect pages on Jewish terrorism , Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism to other pages.

Siddiqui 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your request

You ask that I not redirect pages on Jewish terrorism, Zionist terrorism, and Israeli terrorism to other pages. Those pages have for some time been redirects, and established so by concensus after much discussion. If you want to change that, I think the burden is on you to get people to support the changes you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I am reopening these pages and if people have any objections then they should discuss it on their respective discussion pages. I am not comitting vandalism by uncoupling the redirect. You and your friend are actually reverting my changes. I am again going to uncouple the redirects and if there are any objection then discuss it on discussion pages and have a consensus.

Siddiqui 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a sockpuppet

This whole edit is:

[10]

see history it will be clear who did it.

Best,

Zeq 14:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

weird

Maybe you have to refresh your cache?--Urthogie 16:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboard removal of my response to AnnH

It's not fair to remove my comments, below. If AnnH, and others are going to attack me, I have a right to refutes these false allegations. So suppress only one side but leave the other infact is unfair. I've e-mailed other admins and they do not condone this action.Giovanni33 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My response below is a correction of the one-sided biased characterizations that are being made against me:

"I admit edit warring in the very beggining. I was blocked for it. I have stopped (although it takes two side). AnnH does follow the letter of the rules (but the the spirt--she uses the rules to edit war and go after those who don't conform). I have learned the rules as well and follow them all, including in spirit. I have never broken the 3RR rule after my block, AnnH keeps bringing up my past 3RR violations so as to paint me as an aggressive edit warrior. The truth is otherwise. I extensively used the talk pages to try to and infact did build real consensus. I pleaded that no one reverts, undoing another editor's work (except vandalism) without first at least going to the talk page. My idea to stop edit warring was ignored. Still, I learned that simply winning an argument by providing references when the other side failed to do the same, and went silent, did not entitle me to edit war in vio of the policy. So I stopped. I am reasonable and I have been convinced when wrong. I can be swayed, but with reason, and evidence to support the claims. As one longer time user that AnnH will admit is well respected, has said of me, before leaving in protest over the tactics used by Annh and her team, "Maybe that was the point in all this - to clear what has become crowded ground. Gio may have broken the rules or not but he always referenced his arguments which is all that wiki is supposed to be about. He has moved topics when convinced he's in the wrong place and has tried to work with the other editors."

After my first block, I never violated the 3RR again. But I continued try to find out what the objections were and have them substantiated, using reasoned arguments, and sources. This apparently emboldened other users (my theory) who started to show up, agree with me and help me out--but no different than the tag teaming AnnH has enjoyed with her confidants in pursuing for their POV. (another theory is that they are real sockets created to make it look as if they were my sockets to use as a diversion away from editing work which was gaining traction). But, I will assume good faith. When the threat of possible equality for a secular POV encroached, in part by my winning over the moderate voices, the aggressive attacks of socket puppet accusations started, and expanded so that anyone who agreed with me was automatically suspect; to assume bad faith was made the norm and civility was thrown out. That Belinda proved to be my wife (a fact I felt I had a right to keep private--AnnH keeps repeating everywhere that this was wrong), it was seized on as excuse to avoid even trying to work on the article to address contentious points. Now it's locked. Temporarily this might not be bad if it forces others to go to the talk page to address the issue. If you go to the talk page now you will see, again, that I am almost alone trying to deal with the content dispute to work out a solution while AnnH and her ideological twins (Str1977), continue the distruptive accusations and attacks. See the talk page, that illustrate this in as it unfolds: [[11]]

AnnH says it was wrong for me to invite Freethinker, who contrary to her spinning this into some wrong doing by using his account to answer my talk page (hardly something I'd do if I were trying to hide anything!), I felt it was perfectly ok to invite others here who have the same POV. Despite the fact that Ann has told me this is not allowed, I note that AnnH herself joined Wikipedia in a similar way: "Hi, Jdavidb, I'm really here to wish you a happy Christmastide...thank you for bringing me to Wikipedia. I think it was you, wasn't it, who posted something on some blog last April, appealing for people to come to Wikipedia...and I know that to you, at least, I don't have to say "Happy Holidays". A Saviour is born for us. Alleluia! AnnH (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)"

[[12]] We should be welcoming of new users, even if they agree with a secular Pov, and even if, heaven forbid (no pun intended) they know me.

I think the Christianity article's problems, in part, stems from an ideological rigidity kept in tact by a dominance of multiple users sharing the same basic POV. Apparently any new comer doesn’t meet groupthink standards is bullied into conformity, silence, or expulsion. I felt I was. You will recall that user Sophia stated she felt bullied and ganged up on, when she first joined, that it was scary. Others stated similar sentiments. The very fact of the nature of maintaining one POV means that newcomers who do not fit will get the bite experience. Most will probably leave. In this sense the article space acts like just like institution, it’s self-selecting.

The socket puppet allegations have not stopped but are now being pushed agressively despite the fact that the checks have cleared me and the others. This now objectively serve as a tool keep the status quo by attack users integrity instead of their arguments. I see it as intimidation and disruption. In my forced wiki-break (although I've been editing in the other wiki language sites) I've also had a chance to read a lot of messages so I'm confident I know whats going on, what you have been saying, and others, and can easily see what the motivations and goals are not in good faith. You want me gone for good. I'm sorry if I'm not going to violate any rules to make that easy. Belinda is not my socketpuppet, and I can prove she is my wife. I’m willing to forgive and continue assuming good faith as I realize that is not a luxury but a necessity in order to focus on the collaborative effort we are all supposed to be part of.

Despite my concilliatory and amicable disposition, and the fact that I've pleaded to to focused on my arguments to improve the Christianity article, the continued allegations of socketpuppetry by those I've had Pov diputes with, continue unabated. I think, are being done in bad faith being pushed by a handful of edit warriors as a result of the POV differences. The speculations continue to disrupt good faith discussions and turn them into personal attacks. It has gotten so bad that I think it borders on harassment. See the Talk pages of Sadly, I've been convinced that AnnH has been making this her mission, expanding it to anyone whose agreed with me, is taking the form of an ugly inquisition; even an older valued editor has left in protest describing it with this kind of language. AnnH continues to lead this attack spreading bad faith assumptions, making interpretations and speculations to cast the worst possible light over me and others, over and over in different places. I have had a hard time even keeping up with trying to defend myself over the many one-sided half-truths being spread. Keeping my marriage private was my right; that I chose to not share this fact is irrelevant to the fact that she is my wife and hence not a sockpuppet, which is all that should matter (I've offered to prove it-- if any arbcom admin is interested, by sending you our respective ID's for Giovanni and Belinda Gong, our real names). I disclosed this after a usercheck showed our connection to offer a valid explanation for the appearance of sockepuppetry. We were both blocked. Due to the POV dispute I've had with AnnH and a couple others, they are now taking advantage of this to continue what is essential a personal attack, including anyone else who has agreed with my pov. Even after a usercheck has cleared them and myself, accusatory speculations continue unabated. The result is in effect to disrupt constructive edit work to improve the substance of articles. This is indecent, counter-productive, and harassment. The role that AnnH describes of my wife, also exactly matches her own role in pushing for her own Pov with user Str1977; they have use up 3reverts each between each other. She is careful to follow the letter of the rules, although this McCarthy like witch-hunt is certainly violating the spirit of several other equally important wiki rules and principals, not to mention edit warring as well. I've ask her to stop this, if not for me then for the good of Wikipedia project, as it's inimical to the project. Giovanni33 23:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

"I'd like to say that given the difficult nature of the topic, everyone seems to be doing pretty well." You must be kidding![13]. Pecher ^Talk 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tom!

Hi, dear Tom! Thank you for your kind words, and for asking me to review the design of Byzantine coinage; it is the first time I am asked to redesign an article's layout, so Ihope to do my very best. It is certainly an interesting article, very well illustrated; I'll try and rearrange its structure to make the images fit a little better. I am having some difficulty to spend much time here this week tho, so it may take me a few days to finish it. However, I promise I'll try as hard as I can. Cheers! Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

since when is technical accuracy vandalism?

When I am scanning the recent changes I try to revert only what is clearly vandalism, but I do make mistakes. If I have misunderstood your contribution, please let me know on my talk page. please see my JEHOVAH talk notes before you go and revert the article to a very inaccurate potrail.*****022006 jiohdi

Cap and Skull

Tom -- I added the history of Cap and Skull to the listing because I wrote that information on the C&S website and feel it is very relevant. So it is no copyright violation. Here is proof -- http://capandskull.rutgers.edu/tomharrison.txt

It is certainly more relevant than the "revelation" of the Class of 2006 when the entire membership is listed on the website -- http://capandskull.rutgers.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.73.190 (talk • contribs)

rules work one way?

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first.

I made an edit and it was blindly reverted without comment, so why does the rule apply to me and not those whow undid my edit without comment? .. perhaps I am missing something, but even after I made a comment, you came along and reverted it without comment as well. 022006:2117UT Jiohdi

Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

meta-hoax - uncited

Dear Tom,
you removed my paragraph "meta hoax?". Would you please inform me, what can be improved with the citing? I learnt of this in a presentation by the Dutch organisation "Keerkracht" which is researching genetic manipulation. I then decided to look at the video's to verify their claim, and it seems plausible or at least feasible to me. How do you suggest we could more properly cite them?
Another thing is, that I am not wild about the question mark. Perhaps a better heading would have been: Alleged meta-hoax.

regards,

— Xiutwel (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockcheck

Tom, do you have the powers to run a sockcheck? I am curious whether some hit-and-run commenters on Talk:Dhimmi are sockpuppets of a more regular editor. Pecher ^Talk 19:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory

Hi Tom,

What's the go with this Striver bloke? He's hell bent on promoting some agenda whereby he'll include the accepted account of event on 11th Sep. as a conspiracy theory. I'm assuming that you had a hand in the initial debate with him on the September 11, 2001 attacks article. The article 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory obviously has to go, if not for NPOV reasons, then for the fact that he is violating Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by maintaining it (and by disrupting the AfD vote by posting about 2 replies to every comment).

What is he trying to demonstrate? Bobby1011 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If he is using the phrase in titles to demonstrate that it is POV, then he's in violation of WP:POINT. I've also shown that his "article" is a copyrights violation. Bobby1011 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pure Evil

Hello. I recently tagged Pure Evil for a speedy deletion. But the user who created the article has removed the tag 2 times already. I don't want to put the tag again (3RR). Can you please look at the page and tell me if I was correct in tagging it. - Aksi great 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you can put it at AfD. Google doesn't give any significant hits for Pure Evil, only the site of a brand of clothing called pure evil. - Aksi great 16:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Did not find the article anywhere on AfD logs for today or yesterday, though the artice still has the AfD tag and it's own entry. - Aksi great 05:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it. The tag was removed from even the AfD log page by User:Pure evil. See his contributions. Am readding the tag on today's log. - Aksi great 13:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the tags, I just saw your message on my notes page... I just started adding and amending a few entries for the first time yesterday and I'm only just getting used to the whole set up...

there are a number of pure evil hits on google not related to the clothing line... here are a few examples

http://www.beautifulcrime.com/public/exhibitions/view.asp?ID=58

http://www.steal-life.com/features/75pureevil.html

http://www.woostercollective.com/2005/05/vitamin_f_2_pure_evil.html

http://www.sztuka-fabryka.be/festival/17thfestival/program01.htm

I would ask you not to delete the page .. I am a clueless newbie to Wikipedia and I will never delete tags again...I now know that it is an evil thing to do.

thanks Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure evil (talk • contribs)

My reply is on User talk:Pure evil. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:hatemongering

Well I dont exactly know what would be a good substitute for hatemongering other than hatemongering . See the previous version of the article , see the version that Pecher is forcing as NPOV & sourced . See his refusals to accept that whatever he is adding here is claims from outside Islam by people who donot define Islam . I have no idea what else to do . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

afd question

Ok so I have a question here, and I want a second opinion before I submit this as an AfD

The Drowned Baby Timeline appears to me to be non-notable fan-fiction. It's admittably fan-created alternate history by User:Johnny Pez. A google search of Drowned Baby Time Line and Drowned Baby Timeline both come up with a handful of hits, however two of those hits are the wikipedia and answers.com wiki entries, and the remainder appear to be either blog entries, submissions to short story database, and a link to a Flickr.com photo archive [14], [15]. Now I'm of the belief that while the article appears to be well written, it's non-notable. I don't want to generate any ill-will, however, and I wanted a second opinion before I submit to AfD. Do you think this should be submitted for deletion? Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To Tom Harrison

Hi...

You've sent me a warning. I just wanted to ask if adding a site, instead of content is a violation, since the places i posted had half the links directly to the index of other sites that were relevant. I mean I could add content links, but the whole site is content that is relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raze78 (talk • contribs) .

Anti-Ahari

Hello Tom Harrison, I strongly agree with the Afd. I moved the inflammatory text to talk page when the article was created. It has been re-inserted and worse added. The article is a troll magnet. --FloNight 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits to the Muhammed al-Ahari article

Mr.Gunho andMoorBeyEl should be banned from ediiting because they keep adding slander such as calling me gay, not aMuslim, etc.to the text of the article. I thought doing such things were reasons a person gets banned from editing articles. Check the edits they have made things they said wereeven worse than what I just said. MoorishAm@aol.com Muhammed al-Ahari —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.175.47.164 (talk • contribs) .