User talk:Tom harrison/Archive 2010

About Tom harrison/concerns

Tom, I may want to quote the remarks you made at User:Tom harrison/concerns. I request that you amend paragraph 2 there. In the last sentence, please change "loose" to "lose". (I concur with your observation about how the process works at Wikipedia. I concur that the process needs change urgently.) PYRRHON  talk   18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I always have trouble with lose/loose. Some of the essay may be dated, but feel free to use it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Work on Number of the Beast

Hi Tom

As you can see I did a lot of work on the Number of the Beast article. Can you explain why you went in and wiped it out? I see you put "commentary" in the edit note but what were you referring to? I'd like to avoid situations where my hard work is wasted. Thanks Tntdj (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I read "supranational currency" and saw no citation to support that, then I read "are believed to imply...", and undid your changes. Thinking about it, that was an over-reaction, and I'm sorry for inconveniencing you. I've restored what you did, and added 'citation needed' tags. The same material in World currency will also need citations.

It's my feeling that constructions like "are believed to imply..." have as much place in an encyclopedia as "Some guy at the coffee shop said...". Better to say who believes, and cite it to a reliable source, like "atheists and liberal Christians think Calvinists are hiding under their beds."<ref>(Barkun, 2003)</ref> Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be a good boy and add references, and try and quash the weasel phrases. Good things CAN happen in Wikipedia editing! Cheers. Tntdj (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sts Cyril and Methodius

Please, restate the article as it was and then protect it. There is nothing to work out here. The two brothers were Greek Byzantines as is accepted by the academic and religious community (including the Vatican). The IPs and certain single purpose editors are just fanatics as you can easily understand by viewing their edit history. This is not a dispute about whether RoM should be mentioned as Macedonia or Republic of or Former Yugoslavian Republic of and you will also see that they also attack the Bulgarian origin of another painter mentioned in the article. Please do it promptly. GK1973 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Please, restate the article as it was and then protect it." - No, absolutely not. It says they were "born in Thessaloniki in the 9th century." Should it also be specifically noted there in the lead that they were Greek, or should it be mentioned in the section Early life, or should it be mentioned at all? I have no idea, but it sounds like a legitimate point to discuss on the article talk page. If a consensus emerges there, I'll unprotect it, or someone else may do so if I don't reply promptly, or you can wait a week for the protection to expire. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no legitimacy question here. This is and should not be another Graecomacedonian dispute. The ethnicity of any persona is normally stated in the lead and the brothers were of Greek origin as is stated in 99% of the academic bibliography (a small portion of which is stated in the said discussion page). Did you see any alternative bibliography given by the "other" side? There is no question or any controversy here, this is why NO regular editor, not even those from RoM really dispute the issue. If you made the effort to check out the editors advocating the non-Greek position, they are only IPs and single purpose accounts with an edit history of 6-7 edits, all in this or similar articles. This is clearly NO controversial issue and the point was not really raised in any legitimate way. There is consensus, both academic and here in Wikipedia and it is clear if you just read the comments on the edits made (NONE whatsoever!) or in the discussion page (only an argument about modern scholars not knowing the meaning of "Greek"...). I personally have stood by many of the RoMacedonians points, but here there is absolutely NO controversy and therefore absolutely NO reason for a debate (which was NOT started by the "disputers" as was their responsibility before making "their" changes). I have personally edited off disputable Greek internet sources in other articles and also edited back the "Bulgarian" origin of a painter in the same article you did not include in this "debate". After a day and you clearly see that there is no discussion going on, no arguments, no nothing... By acting the way you did you only encourage fanatics to disrupt wikipedia articles, who see that by edit warring with no arguments whatsoever only leads to the protection/freezing of articles as they want them. You should rather ban the said IPs for edit warring and disruption. Just look into the matter more closely, judge the "arguments" and the quality/history of the editors in question. GK1973 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as I just saw, arguments against the non-Greekness of the brothers were asked for about A YEAR AGO and no were presented...(just check the first discussion)GK1973 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I protected it the way I found it.
• The existing discussion does not establish a clear consensus to say 'Greek' in the lead, to say 'Greek' elsewhere, to say some other ethnicity, or to say nothing at all.
• Let it sit for the weekend. If nobody else speaks up on the talk page, or if a consensus emerges, I'll unprotect on Monday.
• I'll look in again Monday. If the situation changes before then, another admin can do what he thinks wise with my blessing.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Blackstone GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Timothy Blackstone for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

""the Evangelist"" Philip listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ""the Evangelist"" Philip. Since you had some involvement with the ""the Evangelist"" Philip redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey...thanks for the speedy delete...it took me a moment to figure out who had done so, I am so rusty these days...best wishes.--MONGO 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Likewise; always good to see you around. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am around per se...avoiding some areas so I don't vapor lock. Likewise to you though, always calmer and wiser than I.--MONGO 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Systematic removal of "Roman"

I appreciate your care (unlike the careless anonymous editor who has been vandalizing around this issue for weeks), but still, you seem to view it as a mission to remove "Roman" from references to the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this, at the least, that it is problematic in an ecumenical context to use the word "Catholic" as if it referred only to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. As you go about making other edits, perhaps not wading into a giant fight would be opportune? Tb (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No reasonable man looking at my contribution history and admin actions could conclude I was on such a "mission". The anon (after I rolled back his edits and blocked him) similarly questioned my motivation. He said, "Mr. Harrison, i suspect you are one of the very Protestants to whom i refer..."[1] He was wrong, and so are you, but none of this needs to be a "giant fight." We should say "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic" as appropriate, case by case. This edit of yours,[2] for example, was perfectly correct and improved the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol, that's ironic, isn't it! I have no difficulty with case-by-case thinking through it. Indeed, that can much help clarity. Sometimes "Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches" is a very helpful expansion, other times it's too belabored. So I'm sorry for my overreaction; and thanks for being on the same team of trying to make Wikipedia as awesome as possible. Tb (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup...we're clueless newbies...

Surely this was something I had forgotten....that entire long argument from like 5 years ago regarding the notability of schools was a mess I avoided...I always wondered what the outcome was (but also still don't care as it's other people's mess)...alas...I am too interested in article work and have like a full time plus job to worry about so I suppose, like you, I'll never know it ALL! But apparently now, we're suppose to know it all BEFORE we become admins...geez.--MONGO 05:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Like someone said in his support statement, "I feel much more comfortable supporting candidates like this, whose edit stats may not be perfect in every way, than ladder-climbing mandarins who have spent the last six months in training for the truly epic goal of becoming a Wikipedia admin." It reminds me of certain people who shall remain nameless, who build empires in university administration without actually doing anything. Better not think about it, or I'll I find myself agreeing with Giano:-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Tom harrison/Archive 2010 - Thanks for your participation, support and off-wiki advice in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congratulations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rita Monaldi

fyi, updated Rita Monaldi with some UK media quotes, for BLP project. cheers Pohick2 (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cessationism article

Tom, would you be willing to comment on my talk page entry? --Labreuer (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why uncritically accept anything?

You don't have to; you can look at the record of behavior which drove several of us to appeal to ArbCom, here, with diffs; you can read the editors who said to ArbCom, and say now, that the article must present a positive view of its subject; you can observe the desperate reasoning being employed in the interest of a POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I may come to agree with you, but my conclusions will be based on behavior I see, not other's descriptions of what heinous thing their enemy did. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to believe Karanacs' description; I ask you to look at her diffs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To what end? I'm not clear what it is you want me to do, that I'm not doing now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To be aware (if the diffs are what Karanacs and I believe them to be) that Nancy's claims of consensus, her appeals to irrelevance FACs, and so on, are old songs, often repeated, and that she has not absorbed (as Sandy put it "taken on board") any of the comments on this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, more briefly; we think them relevant. We appealled to ArbCom on them, and ArbCom has deferred to "uninvolved admins" - i.e., you. It would be a courtesy to look at them to see why we think them relevant. Many statements about Nancy and Xandar are not wanton abuse; they are a summary of experience about a continuing problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the way you have censored me now. Don't you think the way he dismissses a major historian, and Antony Beevor is a best selling historian, respected I believe, he just dismisses it, can we only use right wing books as source material? Don't you see any danger to NPOV? He couldn't make it clearer that he despises left-liberal authors. Why is that not a problem but my edit gets censored?. I find it very sinister that you don't like free speech. Not abuse, just responding in my way, to being lectured. Free speech, man, no abuse, but free speech. Sayerslle (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Free speech, Wikipedia:SOAPBOX. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOVSayerslle (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MPOV; Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you delete anything I write now?Sayerslle (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not, since here we are. But the article talk page is only for discussing sourcing, references, changes to the article, etc. - not for slagging your rhetorical opponents, or indulging your creative impulses. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit florid. I'll keep it polite and straight to the point then. I was sincere when I said I would accept the rules , but I still think the language 'liberal left writers have a romanticised..etc.' is idelological kind of language. But drop it, I'll move onSayerslle (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your forbearance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And I appreciate your sardonic air. Sayerslle (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary)

Tom, coincidentally, I've been reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan, and I'm more relieved that an experienced editor is on board at CC; patience will be needed. But, on this other matter, could you look over issues occurring on the above article, and Wikispan's behavior here? Seabhcan was involved at that article, and I'm wondering if you see any similarities with the arb case linked above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll take a look, when I'm not actively suppressing free speech. If there are privacy issues, feel free to email me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This self-revert was interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church 2

Tom, I really appreciate the way you are helping us. Some of us can not be on the page everyday to engage in discussion so it is very helpful to have a stopping point where the new edits can be reviewed and agreed by others. I just went through today's changes and I think Uber's edits are fine and appreciate his/her? time to go through and make these improvements. I reverted one of his edits to the wording in a picture showing Jesus giving the keys to Peter because he did not use the name of Peter, he changed it to say "man in robes" and I think that should be discussed first - Johnbod is more of an expert on our pictures than I am. I am not agreeing to Sayerslle's edits to the Spanish Civil War section. These are not neutral and they change a sentence cited to a reference "Alonso" that does not say what that reference says. NancyHeise ^talk 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

I'm off to bed now. I see why Taam retired. I think it is hopeless. Sayerslle (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Thanks for the admonishment. I know the article has had a contentious history. I'll be more careful about that. Mamalujo (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Tom harrison, you are the very first person with special power to come to this page and actually do something to help create a more constructive atmosphere instead of exacerbating it. There have been a lot of admins visiting this page and contributing but they are almost always more of a problem than a help with the huge exception of Richard and maybe some others that I cant remember right now. I should probably put a star on his page at some point.NancyHeise ^talk 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unforunately this seems to be yet another example of Nancy's blatant manipulative flattering of administrators in order to present herself in a positive light. She also did this during the recent consensus process. Please don't fall for her sucking up to you. Afterwriting (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Look guys (not just Afterwriting), I've heard this already - she's Darth Vader and Sarah Palin in one body. This continuing condemnation is uncivil, it's disruptive, and frankly it makes you all sound a little deranged. Let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree (Tom is no dummy, and having been on receiving end of same myself, I'm sure he'll see it soon enough :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I accept the slap on the wrist but I think your comments are somewhat off the mark. I am not too deranged - but if I was I suppose I wouldn't really know - and try to keep a reasonable psychological distance from the ongoing dysfunctional behaviour involved with this article. But I believe that a number of editors on there, not only Nancy, need to be made more aware of - and called on - their negative behaviour. It's far too easy to suggest that we just "let it go" - I don't believe that we will be really able to do this until there are some significant changes of behaviour and attitude. Afterwriting (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The duo

I have no intention of saying it again, except perhaps to justify any request for page protection (and that will not be on that talk page); once is enough. ArbCom's refusal to listen to a well-documented case against POV-pushing is another matter, to be dealt with elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Busy

Busy the rest of the day. Any admin should feel free to act on anything that needs doing at Catholic Church. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87 has some sort of template or something in place that you might want to look at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church 3

No I don't expect any special treatment. You can ban me right away if you feel it's necessary. Just make it like one day or something at first, and go progressively harder after that.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have three hours to change the article or three hours is the maximum time you'll block me at first?UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha.....but seriously wow...only three hours? I hesitate to ask an administrator this, but are you sure about that? I thought standard blocks were 24 hours. Did they change the rules or something? I remember the only block I got was four years ago and that was for 24 hours. But I was in the wrong then and I deserved that block, although I was hoping for something less than 24 hours. Well this is strange but good news. Don't worry I won't get crazy, but if I do, you have my full and anticipatory support for any blocks you issue on me. It won't be a problem either way. Just don't ban me outright. I've done lots of great things for Wikipedia and I want to be here in the future.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks for the clarification. Well, I'm going to go ahead and start making some of the changes I proposed. As I said above, and I fully mean it, you have my full anticipatory support when issuing blocks against me, and you can even copy and paste that statement verbatim if anyone (admin or otherwise) questions your decision. This article has brought down too many people in the past and I certainly don't think it should do that to you. You've been a great voice of reason in a place that almost completely lacks it. And because it lacks it, I am going to give it the treatment that prompted Haldraper to say this about me in a dispute we had over another article:

I must say UberCryxic for a self-proclaimed liberal you've got some decidely Stalinist tendencies. You can paste that too to defend yourself, if you have to.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aww...at least give me this final night. I know things look bad right now, but I think Xandar's opposition will collapse soon. And if it doesn't, well you can start issuing bans as you see fit. But I think to protect so soon ruins the momentum we just established. I'll be cool with whatever you decide.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, better to continue on a subpage in your user space. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have no problem doing that. But after I make the necessary changes in userspace, I want to post them live immediately when the article comes back up. If they go to that talk page for "consensus," which let's face it has become a silly buzzword that no one there cares about, they'll be filibustered faster (and longer) than any bill in the US Senate. It's up to you, but I think the best general strategy is to start issuing individual blocks rather than placing the entire article on protection.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I look forward to seeing your finished version. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec sorry, Tom to be lighting up that little bar again)Individual blocks actually worked a little better than page protection in Nov/Decish...except on tagging, nothing seems to stop those wars. Nancy stopped reverting text as much when she got blocked for the first time, and Xandar calmed down a little too. My bigger concern is how to resolve the filibustering, and I'm out of ideas and am probably frustrated enough to be contributing to the problem more than I'd like. Karanacs (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I filed this [3] because I thought you were offline when I the reverting started. Do you want me to withdraw it now that you've protected the article? Karanacs (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry to put you to the trouble of writing it up. I came in, saw the revert, and protected - didn't think to check the board. I'll add a note about protection. Leave it up if you want - it might attract another admin or editor to the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And it's really shameful for Xandar to claim that Karanacs was breaking Wikipedia rules when clearly I was the only one doing so, and proudly admitting to the act. I mean there's lying...and there's Xandar. That should be like a slogan or something.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Best to avoid commenting on people - keep it about content. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And check your AGF-o-meter now, Uber; they honestly don't see it as lying or being unkind. They just haven't grokked Wiki processes, policies, or guidelines. If you want to edit there, you have to be patient as a saint. Like Karanacs ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember my talk page looking like this once (three CC headings :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh. In other circumstances I'd tell people to use the article talk page to talk about the article, but... Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I plan to make some massive changes to the article on my userspace over the next two or three days. I'll notify you when I'm done. Take a hard look at that point and if you find it roughly acceptable (adopt your own standard on what that means), I'd go with it.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I learned over time to combine them all into one thread, with sub-headings :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I support Uber's revision in principle.

As a tactical comment, you may have been too hasty in protection; it is likely that Xandar would have calmed down after using his third revert. My reading of 3RR is that it is intended to give numbers an advantage over a solitary determined editor (or even two of them). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I have started working in my sandbox. Please hold the protection until I'm done, which should be within two days for sure (so not that long). You can take a look at my changes at that point and see what you think.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done

Hey Tom, you asked for my version and here it is. I urge you to thoroughly review what I did on your own if you have time, but let me briefly explain my changes. Bear in mind that even this version has vast and massive problems, but I believe problems of the kind that can and should be solved through consensus later on. At this first and early stage of the process, I was trying to resolve two fundamental issues that I consider to be beyond discussion (hence my invocation of IAR): length and categorization. To that end, the version I present to you is down from 190 kb two days ago to 115 kb now. That's still very long, but at least we're down from insanely long. I achieved such a reduction in length through the removal of extraneous content that belongs in daughter articles and the consolidation of related paragraphs. The second fundamental problem was categorization, and here I wanted to lighten the TOC by presenting a more rational layout for the article. The TOC you see there now is due half to me, half to Karanacs, who had removed some unnecessary sections and summarized the content in other locations when the article was unprotected.

I wanted to assure you, in particular, that I made my changes with a veil of ignorance. I was not trying to answer the question "Here I have the Catholic Church article: what can I do to change it how I want?" Instead I thought of it as "Here I have a Wikipedia article: what can I do to make it better?" My personal feelings aside, I removed content that could both inspire sympathy with the Church or condemnation against it. On the latter front, I removed various internal and external controversies in the early history of the Church that I thought were too extraneous to its development. I also completely removed the very controversial paragraph on the sexual abuse scandals in the Modern times section because I thought it gave undue weight to a relatively minor event in the history of a very old institution. On the former front, I removed content on the persecution of Catholic priests in Mexico and the Soviet Union because that information, while historically notable, is also relatively unimportant to the overall history of the Church. I even left in the controversial opening sentence that prior consensus had agreed to modify significantly. I don't know who reinstated it, but I did not touch the lead at all. In other words, although I do have my own biases about what this article should say, these changes were not about content or POV disputes, and I left intact all tags. My thought process was very simple (try and imagine me as Homer Simpson): "Set categorization. Crunch down the article." That's all there was to it. I just wanted to get the basics down, and I think I did.

Although I did resolve some of the article's most fundamental problems, or mitigated them at the very least, this version of the article will never see the light of day unless there is some executive authority behind it. I rejected Xandar's suggestion that current version of the article should be the "base version" because the current version is hopelessly flawed. Instead I want to make this version the standard. It's not great either—it's got numerous prose, content, and POV issues inherited from the earlier version—but at least it's not irreparably hopeless like what our readers are currently facing. If this version is going to have a chance, however, only you have the authority to ensure its success. I am hoping that you will present this version as the standard on which all future redactions will be based. After that, I'll end my rebellious IAR mode and enter back into the warm embrace of consensus, which will most definitely be required to implement further changes in the article. But there is absolutely no doubt in mind that consensus itself will never produce any version of this article that's anywhere near 115 kb. Look at the history of the article over the last two years: it has never been as small as what I'm proposing now (and it's still big!) That should give pause to us all.

What I'm hoping for, in short, is to start a new chapter, but I need you to lift and turn the page. One person—or two, three, four—cannot overhaul the article in this kind of editing environment. We need a push here. Remember my earlier dreamy, hopeful, idealistic, and misty-eyed argument about the Autobahn and the lack of central control (see a few sections above)? That was before I knew what this place was like. Ignore that advice entirely, and thank you for taking the time to read this essay.UberCryxic ^(talk) 08:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it, but I cannot use page protection or blocking to favor one version over another. If someone is disruptively edit-warring against consensus, that's another thing. But to get there, you have to convince enough regular editors to support it. I'd suggest getting 'buy-in' (hate the bizspeak, but in a hurry) by removing material instead of adding qualifications and replies. It's going to come down to numbers. After several days discussion on the talk page, there may be a clear consensus for one version. If not, we may have to vote. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we end up with any kind of RfC or vote (and I suspect that we will), Tom, will you please take the lead - or nominate someone to do so - in crafting a netural wording? We've had issues before with RfCs that have been presented in an extremely POV manner, and I'd like to make sure that doesn't happen again. Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If necessary I can do that, but it should be pretty simple - should we adopt the version in UberCryxic's userspace? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiss the man (5,700 words !!!! That's what has been needed all along) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha are you telling me it's shorter than Liberalism?!?! I'm very surprised. I guess it's all those unnecessary notes/references that still make it huge in terms of kb.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I will try very hard to gain consensus for my version during the next few days as you suggest. I predict that I will fail miserably, but I'll try. After I fail and the page protection comes down, I'm going to put up my version anyway and force you to ban me.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't get consensus support, there's no point in reverting to it. I ask that you not do that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you consider consensus in the context of the straw poll? WP:CONSENSUS is deliberately vague here:

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others.

It does say that a good argument might override, in principle, majority opinion, but that rarely happens in practice. That's why you have to interpret the relevant policies and give us strict guidelines.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My reply is on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If it's not too much trouble, can you keep the article protected until we close the straw poll?UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That will probably be necessary, but we'll see. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left some comments in the talk page about my new attempt to forge consensus. Please read the very last part because I think you should be the one who determines how long the Straw poll lasts.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just saying

I think Nancy and Xander have the ability to drive sane people to drink. And I think that explains everything that's wrong there. They go round and round and round on the same arguments, and have the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever encountered. And that's why anyone with a brain disengages from that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I've been told I lack a brain, so I'm perfect for this article. I'll try to be here for the long run, don't worry. We are going to win the straw poll by miles anyway. Not only do they not have the arguments, they don't have their precious majorities anymore either.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"We are going to win the straw poll by miles anyway." Boy is that not the right thing to say or even think. Wikipedia is not about "winning" anything (certainly not straw polls) it's about collaborative editing even when that seems damn near impossible (or seeking dispute resolution if it has become completely impossible). And in context the term "we" suggests a pretty severe us vs. them attitude. I don't doubt that the "other side" has evinced that attitude as well, but that does not excuse your previous comment. Also given that your main "opponents" (loathe as I am to use the word) are currently blocked the comment provides rather excellent fodder for accusations that blocks were pushed as a way to remove them from the discussion at a critical time. You're not helping yourself much, but then again the "other side" isn't either. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just passing through, but I agree with Bigtimepeace. And if "their" majorities didn't mean anything, why should "yours"?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And I apologize for those comments. They were made in a moment verging dangerously somewhere between frustration and triumphalism.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For having the guts to say what few would at AN/I, but which rings with truth and integrity.Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...and a request

"Well, dammit!" is about the only thing I can think to say right now, and I almost never swear. I'm very sorry to see you've given up on the article, but I can't say I'm that surprised. The atmosphere is toxic, which is why I had hoped to get some guidance from Arbcom. Thank you very much for trying. If you are willing, I'd be very receptive to get any feedback from you, our only truly disinterested observer, on the flaws you've seen in my own behavior/postings. Feel free to post publicly on my talk page, email me, or disregard the request. Karanacs (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fare Thee Well

Tom, our paths hardly crossed but I'm sorry to see you leave. As I understood it you gave tacit approval for IAR, and that certainly belies the picture painted of you elsewhere. My feeling was that you had the support and trust of all parties. You had mine. I'm sorry to see you leave and wish you well. --MoreThings (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're leaving?

You've been on Wikipedia for many years - you are the best admin our page has ever had and you're leaving? Tom, gosh - please come back - I just came to your page today to see if you would like to participate in our Wikipedia-wide experiment to find out which version of the Catholic Church article is most preferred by the most number of editors. This is something new and interesting that I had hoped you would be a part of. Please come back. NancyHeise ^talk 03:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cowstar

The awesome COWSTAR has been awarded to Tom Harrison for putting up with more cow manure than any man should ever have to.--MONGO 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

..but seriously, do you know if a team is studiously censoring the Catholic Church article on behalf of the Vatican? Reading through both the article and its history it seems to be one of the most professionally censored and ideological articles I have found on Wikipedia. All serious attempts to achieve a NPOV have been defeated. All neutral references to historical controversies or objective explanations of criticisms of the church have been removed. Is there any way to tackle such problems that have not already been attempted in relation to this article? --Tediouspedant (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there's a request for arbitration - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Also see MPOV. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

well spotted. Thank you. --Tediouspedant (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to keep things going smoothly on the article. I hope you stick around - we've never had a truly uninvolved admin monitoring things. If you see me coming too close to the line, please point it out - I'll be happy to take a break until I'm in the right frame of mind to edit (and I think it's time for me to bow out today). Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just came to the Catholic Church article right as it was protected. My first and only edit there was made a few hours ago, and I also left a comment in the talk page yesterday, for the first time, about what I thought was a problem in the lead. I'm not exactly sure what brought people to this point, but I think the decision to protect was a mistake. The Autobahn is one of the safest highways in the world and much of it has no speed limits. Central, forceful control like this won't erase the bitterness and it won't improve the article. You might have had different experiences, I don't know, but in my four years at Wikipedia, I've usually noticed that things tend to work themselves out despite the edit warring and the duplicitous backstabbing. Through all the evil and the heartache, editors will usually settle down under some sort of controlled explosion mechanism. You are not seeking and you don't need my advice, I know that, but I want to give it to you anyway, largely because what you're doing is unfair to me (I'm a bystander in all of this), but also unfair to users like Nancy, with whom I disagree but feel sorry about because her input to the article was cut short by your protection. I advise you to fix your mistake, set the article free, and let the process evolve between the editors on their own, unless an absolute catastrophe that threatens to derail all of Wikipedia (!) requires central intervention. In that case, you can kick all of our asses, but we're not at that point yet. Please remove the protection. Thank you for your time.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think about what you've said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't entirely accept your argument in this case, but we'll unprotect and see how it goes. If it gets out of hand and I'm not around, any admin can reprotect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1

You signed up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. I thought you might want to sign up for Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. Sunray (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis Conduct

Our friend Draganparis is constantly and shamelessly slandering me and other editors [4] [5] not to mention admins among which you) [6]. He has already been banned once for disruptive editing, he was not additionally banned for confirmed socking and just weeks after he was again banned for confirmed socking (2 accounts). He filed a sockpuppetry case against 4 users he considers his archenemies and the verdict was that 3 of them (among which me) operate from the same region in Greece (actually something like half of Greece). Since then he is always writing, "warning" and whining that we are socks, posting his customized "technical notes" and warning other editors and admins not to remove them [7] [8]. I have warned him that he has to stop doing that [9], especially since the verdict was that no single IP was the same as was the case with him (thrice!!!!), but of course that does not stop him from going on in his usual loving style [10]... He keeps trolling about the cabal of nationalists that war against him etc... Even when I refrained from occupying myself with him trying to at last make some constructive edits instead of (s)word fighting with him, he kept slandering my name and using my absence as proof that we were "socks"... These and many more such edits are Draganparis' sole contribution to Wikipedia since day 1... He, of course has also been targeted and dealt with in an uncivil manner by different users (sometimes including me), most just pleading with him to leave us in peace, but he never backs down and just inflames things. My question to you is how can I report him for propagation of false accusations and personal attacks? Is it enough to do it here to you or should I make some kind of more formal complaint? No matter how one tries it is impossible to ignore this endlessly whining and howling chap... GK (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just read this, too.... [11].... GK (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rumors about the September 11 attacks

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rumors about the September 11 attacks. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 attacks. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

September 11 attacks GA review

September 11 attacks has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Laurent (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

DO

Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation! Signup is here. You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout.

I see you have signed up for the last dramaout. Consider notifying 3 good editors of this to encourage more participation. Perhaps saying

I am participating in this. Please consider doing the same! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church#Long_version.   — Jeff G.  ツ 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A Question For You: Re: New articles for living persons

Hi, Tom. I am new to Wikipedia and enjoy opening up new articles about living persons. Please advise me regarding how to create new pages for persons with identical names to those already covered by existing articles. Do I need to establish notability for the article on the new person before a new disambiguation page? Or only after I have established notability? Please answer, or point me to where I can find the answer. Thank you. Houseofisaac (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Obama Deception

Hello, I noticed you locked The Obama Deception redirect. Could you please unlock it and allow me to redirect or move it into The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off? I've recently created this article complete with some sources, and I'm trying to improve it. Thanks -  Burningview  ✉ 02:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !

Oh won't you please consider joining WP:WikiProject Bacon? :)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SophiaBLiu's Research Request

My name is Sophia and I am a PhD student at University of Colorado in Boulder researching the use of social media for historically significant crises like the 9/11 attacks. I am interested in what kind of values and practices are emerging from these disasters especially with the use of ubiquitous technologies like blogs and social media sites like Wikipedia. I am contacting you because I noticed you are one of the top contributors of the September 11 attacks Wikipedia article. I was wondering if you would be open to answering some questions for my dissertation research on this topic. One example of a question I have is: You provided a considerable amount of edits to the September 11 attacks Wikipedia article. What kind of edits did you make? What story was being told before you edited the article and how does that differ from what is in Wikipedia now? Feel free to email me at Sophia.Liu@colorado.edu if you have any questions. Thanks for your time, Sophia --Sophiabliu (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)