User talk:Tom harrison

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

AFD Helper

Although -- as Radiant has pointed out in your RFA -- you should get familiar with other aspects of Wikipedia moderation, I think you will find the afd helper tool useful in voting on AFDs. Enjoy, good luck in your RFA, and have a happy new year. jnothman ^talk 07:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

going to heaven

Actually if anything I'd have done it the other way round... I think our article on paradise is rather better; it's not a massively different concept in islam and given the small nature of the differences the "paradise" article explains it much better. I'd only point at jannah if it was specifically Islamic aspects of it that were under consideration. Also, using Arabic words, and different articles based on those words, for concepts that only differ slightly between Islam and Christianity in my view is likely to give an impression that they are two different concepts when that is not the case.

I've made similar remarks on Talk:Islamist terrorism, in case you wish to reply. Palmiro | Talk 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, i should have referred to heaven all along, not paradise. I was misremembering what the different articles looked like. Palmiro | Talk 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATS!

I see you'll be an admin before you know it...I am most pleased...and wanted to be the first to offer my congratulations! In case you haven't already...time to read through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. Good luck to you!--MONGO 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 08:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your promotion! Enjoy your mop and bucket! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! Happy New Year, and happy editing! --King of All the Franks 13:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Good luck and thanks for helping keep conspiracies out of Wikipedia. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with the others, congrats, and good luck! =) —Locke Cole • t • c 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and good luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Tom! You'll make a good admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many congratulations! (Still poking about for those skeletons... :)) Banes 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Congratulations glad you made it.--Dakota ~ ε 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janos

Sure thing, I'll get right on that. He's also talked with me through email, and I'd have to agree with you. I'm going to make sure to leave him a note that if he reverts that tag again he's going to get reblocked. Mo0[talk] 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

71.102.13.252 blocked.

I've blocked 71.102.13.252 for his behavior on Sixteenth Amendment and on your talk page. BDAbramson T 04:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Pius XII Question

I think that all of the editors of the Pope Pius XII article, both those who hold him in high regard and those who think that he made moral errors, would be in favor of including any statement that any historian states that Pacelli agreed to the dissolution of the Centre Party in exchange for the Reichskonkordat. If you understand what User:EffK is requesting, please provide me with a summary, since it appears that you write standard English that I can understand. Robert McClenon 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom, I agree with Robert. I wouldn't object to including such a statement, if properly worded (NPOV), but the problem is that that is merely one point in the complex issue of concordat negotiations. We would have to include the whole concordat with all its regulations and that would make the article explode. Currently, Reichskonkordat links to a separate article, and IMHO that's a feasible solution. Another problem is that EffK will not be satisfied by including this, as his real thesis goes much further than this, which is also the reason for our "heated" relationship. Str1977 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thesis is that I am whitewashed despite source. I refer you, though, to that which was there whitewashed and which therefore is what has already been said by me. I would not say that it is irrelevant nor beyond this apparent agreement here stated. However , it was removed by the agreeing parties, over time. Or if not by McClenon here, cxertainly several articles elsewhere .The answer to the latter is that there was no link to reichskonkordat at all, before I insisted, and I find the off-topic a means to vitiate reality, as I demonstrate at Adolf Hitler. And Im sorry, I write that which needs to be said, as Str1977 confirms, it is complex. That is why the template is important, and I again request that you promote its acceptance precisely at the Pius Article. Did you read Bengalski ?EffK 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping

Thank you for showing me that Wikipedia actually does have people surveying even the least looked-at pages. I already read the Welcome page, and that particular experiment couldn't be done in the sandbox, but thanks for telling me.

Userpage vandals

Thanks for rescuing my user page! - Jjjsixsix 01:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this nonsense!

I kinda thought this was funny (in a sick way)...you'll run into one of these soon, if you haven't already...[1]--MONGO 03:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that idiotic doll image and almost fell out of my chair...we haven't actually blocked him yet...he's not done...should make for an interesting banning at some point, but maybe he'll reform...--MONGO 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I congratulate you on your elevation to adminship, and wish you all the best in your new role. --Bhadani 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Hi Tom, congratulations to your successful RFA. Good luck and all the best to you. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message, and let me second the congrats, good luck :) Arm 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

208.22.91.4

...is vandalising Dickens again. JackyR 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (gearing)

Thanks for your speedy reversion of vandalism on 'Bicycle gearing' Murray Langton 23:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question about nowcommons

Hi Tom,

Yes, once you've checked that everything is in order, just speedy. Thanks for helping out to clear the backlog! :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

freenet

hi there,

I must protest against the blocking of my account; this merely leaves the playground open for those who don't wish the article refer to any criticism (and thus making it less NPOV). I fail, btw, to see how I would be blocked, certainly as first, since the original revert (which was the edit made of a wikiadmin) was not reverted by me; I merely restored the work of another.

As the 3rule says:

"Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version.The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word."

As you can see in the history, I have merely reverted to a previous version; I did not undo any work, since it was exactly that edit that was removed.

And besides, even if this didn't apply: since the original page was WITH the edit of the wiki-admin, and that got deleted by someone else, and THEN I reverted it back...how can I be the first one to break the rule anyway?

For this reasons, I ask to reinstate my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.104.153 (talk • contribs)

206.207.175.162

Well done for banning this vandal.

Guinnog 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If that makes me a vandal, keep calling me a vandal, you ninkenpoop."

This exchange was the result of confusion and misunderstanding. The user wasn't calling me a nincompoop; he mistakenly thought Guinnog's remark above to be directed at him. It was not. I am not offended, and I don't think anyone else should be either. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the revert3-page, and as I understand it, you actually have to make 4 reverts in 24h (?). In that case, logic and consistency dictates that Rhobite is not eligable to be blocked on those grounds, I concur. I'm still a bit confused on the "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word." Since I merely reverted to the page (albeit 4 times) which contained the edit that a wiki-admin made, I didn't actually added or deleted anything: the addition was already made by that wiki-admin, and nothing was added by those who reverted before me, so I didn't delete anything neither.

So, what exactly is the applied reasoning then, by and for which I'm blocked, since in the explanation of the 3-revert-rule, it is explicitly mentionned it doesn't mean that reverting to a former version should be considered reverting.

Also, I'm curious about your viewpoint of the actual discussion. Personally, I found it rather frustrating, seen the rather arbitrary manner in which rules seem to be applied one-sided and inconsistently, and agreed compromises unilaterally broken. But regardless, even one would refute the importance of the criticism, I do think I have proven enough to make the case that there *IS* crticism on the freenet project. In fact, this actual factual: the moment you have people criticising, then the fact that their is criticism seems undeniable. This is regardless of whether one agrees with the criticism or not. This seems a rather logical conclusion, but one that is heavily disputed by others, it would seem. What is your take on this?AntiPanemEtCircensis 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, all too easy, isn't it? Call someone who tries to make an article more NPOV and balanced by also pointing out some criticism a vandal. Or better still; a troll, like the founder (Ian), who's ego doesn't go well with any criticism. I wonder who the true vandals of wikipedia are; those that at least acknowledge there *is* criticism, who tries to include opposing viewpoints according to the NPOV-guidelines, who abide with the compromise and agreement made with the edit of a wiki-admin...or those who want to deny any criticism exist, don't care to make the article more NPOV, and throw away agreements when it doesn't fit them any longer.

It really disgusts me sometimes that people like you virtually rape the noble idea behind the wikipedia as being (or at least trying to be) a repository of NPOV knowlegde. You are the kind of person, I guess, who would have no trouble reverting and deleting any mentionning of criticism against nuclear powerplants, if you were against it. I on the other hand, would acknowledge that criticism, whether I agree with it or not. If that makes me a vandal, keep calling me a vandal, you ninkenpoop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.104.153 (talk • contribs)

I never called you a vandal, and I would never call anyone a "ninkenpoop." I blocked you for violating the three-revert rule on Freenet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ermmm...I was responding to the guy with the nick Guinnog, if you may have missed that, not you. I do no not resort to namecalling to people who are being reasonably polite, but I have no problem with serving someone his own food. Frankly, he got of easy with ninkenpoop; it's a lot less polite to be called a vandal. I basically treat people like they treat me, so no-1 should complain about the treatement they get from me. :-)

But now something else; since you seem keen on applying the rules, and no doubt, in the spirit of equal and fair treatement, want to apply those rules consistently, I have to ask to block Rhobite too. As you yourself have already indicated on the discussionpage, he clearly made 3 reverts by which he deleted the edit of haakon (starting before me, thus) within 24 hours. Since rules apply to everyone, it would not be more then logical that you should block him too. Mind you, it's not out of spite or something, I ask this, but I've seen enough hypocrisy in these edits and the appliance of rules (at least by others) as it is, and fairness isn't well served by it.

also, to make this discussion go a bit more easy, I've decide to register, so ppl don't have to resort to the IP always (which can be used by different people anyway). AntiPanemEtCircensis 21:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Friendship

You are destroying America's youth's chance at becoming more literate. You are a heartless monster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurestories (talk • contribs)

User 64.213.217.120

I see that you recently blocked 64.213.217.120. This user seems to be resetting their IP address to vandalize several different articles at a time. I believe this user is also 68.216.148.66, which should probably be blocked too. If he continues (easily noticed by his appeal for "wikipedia defcon 1 or bust") it may be necesary for an IP range to be blocked. The only problem is that the first number of the IP range seems to change too, which may make things difficult if all they are doing is resetting their IP. Cowman^Talk 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist terrorism

Thanks for the heads up, im still learning my wikiquette..Ill aplogize for the summary on the talk page. I'm planning on doing a complete NPOV overhaul. Wanna know where I learned objectivity from? Ayn Rand. I hate her works, because they are wrong, but they are the most robotically objective and scientific philosophy papers I've ever read :) Thx again, --Urthogie 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber is a known Islamist POV Warrior under arbitration committee sanction for his activities, but he CONTINUES to edit war on Islam articles and no admin seems willing to actually enforce the arb sanctions. It's bullshit but that's what we get. When I see him edit warring, I'll revert him and it's that simple. Extc

Although I might be wrong, I'm yet to see him post any especially POV'd edits. Perhaps if you reconciled with him it would lead to better contributions overall?--Urthogie

All he does is go around reverting anything he considers "offensive to Islam." He never comes to talk pages or anything. He's a sad POV-warrior joke.