Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:52, 24 August 2007

Tom is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

For new users

If you are new here, welcome. The page Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Haroon Rashid Aswat

Hello Tom. I saw your response and comments in that article's talk. May I suggest that if you are actively editing an article that you ask other admins to intervene when there are policy violations? That will leave you free to edit, and leave other uninvolved admins to take care of enforcement. You can always count with my help :), just drop me a line in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

FYI

FYI.

• I am not trying to provoke you.
• I am informing you of my recent edit, and my comment on the talk page, in the interest of transparency.
• Your statement that you will block me, without warning, is still hanging over my head.
• I really think the responsible thing for you to do is to either explain yourself more fully, or withdraw the block threat.

Geo Swan 02:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

it is against WP policy to remove NPOV tags unless consensus has been reached, you seem to be taking sides in the debate and as an involved party your deletion of the tag puts you in an awkward place I suggest if you are passionate about chritianity you may consider not editing the article and move on to other things, I will stop editing and observe what is happening around this issue and shall bring the attention of others on it if admins seem to be acting contrary to the spirit and letter of WP policy/guidelines. respectfully Esmehwp 04:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"it is against WP policy to remove NPOV tags unless consensus has been reached"

Can you point me to the applicable policy?Proabivouac 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your removal was appropriate, Tom harrison. There needs to be a reasoned justification for INSERTING the tag...otherwise an article like Christianity would be constantly tagged. Good job with your vigilance of the article, particularly in the past few days. --Anietor 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zogism

I thought is was a racist slur until I read your reason for reverting it. I would have reported it as vandalism if I had discovered it first. Thanks for clarifying it as part of your edit. Albion moonlight 07:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can you refresh my memory? Is this related to antisemitism? Tom Harrison 20:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was. You made the revert on August 10th . I just now looked at the history of that page and can no longer see your explanation. That seems weird but I am a Wiki neophyte. Albion moonlight 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. All's well that ends well. Tom Harrison 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo

I think it is more likely that ThAtSo is the banned user Lancombz. They both use the same types of personal attacks and have a similar writting style. They also edit the same groups of articles. Why do you think he is Alienus? Endlessmike 888 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't contradictory hypotheses.Proabivouac 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. They could all be the same guy. I read up on your Christianity article dispute. I think you should know that when Lancombz was banned, he was suspected of being Esmehwp‎ as well. There was never any evidence, though. You can read about it on the Lancombz sock puppet page I linked to before. Now Esmehwp‎ is deleting warnings off his user talk page which is exactly what Lancombz et al did when he/they were found out. So a Lancombz/Esmehwp‎/ThAtSo connection is a good possibility. Endlessmike 888 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted, Endlessmike 888. I'm not entirely certain about Esmehwp, but the others are plainly one and the same individual.Proabivouac 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

Why did you block me without talking to me at least once before you do it? Panonian just accused me (falsely) with anti-Semitism (Magyarization talk page) and you won't block him? Tankred was also reverting at this page and you don't say a word to him? Squash Racket 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Now Tankred threatens to have me blocked AGAIN becuse I edited a false number in an unsigned comment that later turned out to be his. I believed the unsigned comment with the wrong number was vandalism in itself. Now what would you do? Squash Racket 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Violate the three-revert rule, get blocked. If someone else violates it, report them at the 3RR noticeboard. Tom Harrison 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Are you sure about this reversion? I don't think it's clear to anyone what's in the video. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 77 is the one that hit the Pentagon. I must be missing your point. Are there reliable sources that say it is unclear, or that it is not flight 77? Tom Harrison 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The video is unclear. In fact, it's so fuzzy, that if it wasn't from an official source, I'd suspect photoshopping. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But how do the sources describe it? Does the Times say, "This is a picture of flight 77 about to hit the Pentagon," or "This is a fuzzy still from a video said to be..."? Tom Harrison 00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:His excellency

User:Cheszmastre‎.Proabivouac 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. Tom Harrison 23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you caught how he set up User:Matt57 with a bunch of other socks. That's the second time he's manipulated the system to get someone else blocked.Proabivouac 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that does not list you as a party. However, I think that it would be appropriate for you to join the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, and sign on if you agree to mediate. --MaplePorter 07:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article history

Tom, I need you to look into the edit history of the deleted article Andy Stephenson. Back when I first started editing (spring/summer 2006 I think), an IP editor did a lot of reverts to my edits. I believe it resolved back to Germany. Compare it to this IP: 81.169.170.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and let me know if they look connected. I think the whole mess of my RfA and collateral disruption was payback for the deletion of Andy Stephenson. - Crockspot 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That ip never edited the article, but it is a tor proxy so anyone could have used it. Tom Harrison 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, at least it doesn't rule out anyone. That's actually helpful. - Crockspot 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement

Could you revert Zen's last alledged edit? I'm at 3RR, and I'm should have already been on WikiBreak. I'm supposed to be packing for a convention my wife and I are attending starting tonight. "alledged refutation" is wrong, it is a refutation. Whether the refutation is complete is argueable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, someone will take care of it if it doesn't have consensus support. Have a good trip. Tom Harrison 18:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cheering me :)

Kind words are ever appreciated :) May this rose remain memento of my gratitude:)

--Alexia Death the Grey 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How nice! You're most welcome. Tom Harrison 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case for SevenOfDiamonds

As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed: Reversion of protected conspiracy article

The anti-Russian edit warrior Biophys is persistently whitewashing the article of anti-communist conspiracy theorist Jeffrey Nyquist, a non-entity follower of Anatoliy Golitsyn who thinks Pat Robertson is "pro-communist". After a warring session yesterday, the article is now locked on the wrong version - correct version here. I'd prefer to stay anonymous on this one for obvious reasons. Thanks 217.134.80.15 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I know enough about this to prefer one version to the other, though I do have doubts about the reliability of spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk as a source. I don't mind that you asked me to look at it, but I do want to make clear that I am not the administrator in charge of conspiracy theories, and I do not want to be. You might ask for input at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. Tom Harrison 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

you reverted one of my edits.

I noticed you reverted one of my edits. I added a place for discussion of it on the talk page entitles "Edit reverted without cause." I encourage you to add your opinion there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debeo Morium (talk • contribs) 18:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Tom the same source used for the quote also indicated (on the same page) that it was a "liquid eutectic mixture", so the citation is already there. Please remove your citation needed on the word molten.

Also it seems as though you may have violated the 3 edit rule you warned me about with the reversion of the citation needed comment (third reversion today on this article). I certainly dont mind as you seem to have good intentions. But im a bit upset that you warned me about this when i did 2 reversions and now your on your third right after warning me Debeo Morium 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I added a new cite request to a new addition about molten iron. Again, you should carefully read and understand the policy, but if you think I have violated it you can report it at WP:AN3. Tom Harrison 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not trying to attack you, and have no desire to report you because, as i said, it seems to be done with the best of intentions. You added a citation needed to the end of the sentence, and when reverted you added it back two words earlier (refering only to the molten part). However like i said, you should revert it yourself because the citation was already given. Debeo Morium 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not revert. I added a new citation request to a new assertion - that molten iron was found. Tom Harrison 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The source i cited for the FEMA quote also said a few sentences after that quote "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron..." and goes on to verify the other things stated in the quote and surronding text (Teh sulfur etc).. so yea, FEMA was the proper source for indicating the iron was molten. Debeo Morium 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Big problems at Battle of Jenin

The section you looked at in this article (and took out the reference to Rense.com) is actually one of the least objectionable, but even there good/fundamental information such as "*May 7 - The PA statement to the UN estimated that 375 Palestinians had been killed in the attacks on the West Bank. Amongst these would be the 80 Palestinians (and 4 Israeli soldiers) killed in Nablus in April." has been ruthlessly exised out. PalestineRemembered 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really follow that article. My only concern is the inappropriate use of rense.com as a source. Tom Harrison 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful clarification removed from 9/11 conspiracy theories

In one of your recent edits of 9/11 conspiracy theories, you made a consensus supported revert (using conspiracy theories instead of alternative theories). However, your edit also removed the following sentence (and footnote):

• Although the official account theorizes a conspiracy between Al Qaeda members, this article is titled 9/11 conspiracy theories to refer only to theories of an "inside job".

This sentence had nothing to do with the edits that changed "conspiracy theories" to "alternative theories". In fact, this sentence buttresses the use of "conspiracy theories". Why remove it? —Kanodin 04:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it inaccurately calls the mainstream account the official account, and inaccurately implies that any theory involving a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article needs to mention what scope the title refers to. You last comment has two objections. The first objection states that the sentence inaccurately calls the mainstream account the official account. The second objection states that the sentence inaccurately implies that any theory involving a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory.

With regard to the first objection, I do not see how the sentence involves anything "mainstream". The sentence does not use the word. The first part of the sentence refers to the 9/11 Commission Report, and even specifies text from the report in the footnote. The second part of the sentence refers to the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, which by no means equates with mainstream perceptions. I do not see where you get mainstream.

Your second objection is more salient. I understand that you do not want the article making unattributed claims (implicit or otherwise) that explanations involving a conspiracy are automatically conspiracy theories. I agree that the sentence addresses the possibility that the reader can interpret the 9/11 Commission Report as a conspiracy theory. The sentence rejects such a characterization and reminds the reader how the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article categorizes the official account. The official account is not a conspiracy theory.

If you think that the sentence above implies that all explanations involving a conspiracy are conspiracy theories, I will welcome ways to rephrase the sentence so that it only addresses the possibility that a reader may make such an interpretation. You know that some people make such an interpretation. The sentence above goes a long way to answering POV objections. If we can put the "9/11 conspiracy theories" language in as much non-pejorative connotations as possible, then readers will appraise the acceptability of the 9/11 conspiracy theories based on their merits, and not on any prejudicial basis. If someone rejects a 9/11 conspiracy theory, I want them to reject it based on, for example, defective evidence, or inconsistent claims. Such reasoning would be much better than "Oh, the Misplaced Pages article called it a conspiracy theory, and you know conspiracy theories are wrong, so don't listen to them." The sentence above turns the title of the article into a designator, removing as much connotation from the words as possible. Without the sentence, the reader continues with preexisting connotations, which conspiracy theory famously details. Can you understand my concern? —Kanodin 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss this, so that others can more easily take part. Tom Harrison 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your most recent edit to 9/11 conspiracy theories, demolition section

Hi tom, i didnt want to just go and revert, or blast you ont he talk page (as ive been trying to figure out the best way to handle this sort of thing, i figure ill try this first)... I noticed you changed the following "Samples of a molten mixture of iron, aluminum, and sulfur were found in the rubble and analyzed by FEMA," to remove mention of molten iron or sulfur, or aluminum. Did you read the FEMA reference that is cited for the quote that follows it? or are you just basing this on the quote itself. I have a copy of the fema report in front of me, and while it isnt in the quote just a few sentences before the text i quotes the report clearly states that it was a liquid mixture of these compounds. So that is very clearly cited by fema itself. So why did you remove that? Debeo Morium 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually i see i pointed this out to you before.. copy and pasting what i said a few lines up on this talk page...

The source i cited for the FEMA quote also said a few sentences after that quote "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron..." and goes on to verify the other things stated in the quote and surronding text (Teh sulfur etc).. so yea, FEMA was the proper source for indicating the iron was molten. Debeo Morium 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So why remove mention of finding these compounds in a liquid state? Debeo Morium 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also you changed it to read "Jones believes the sulfur is a result of deliberate demolition using thermite." but it wasnt just the sulfur that lead to this, it was the combination of all the compounds that led jones to this conclusion. Debeo Morium 14:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They did not find the samples in a liquid state. "Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field." Please use the article talk page to discuss the article, so everyone can more easily take part. Tom Harrison 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Started my first political article, will you help?

Hello, I started my first political article. And thought maybe you and some of your RW friends could help write it with me, so we can learn to get along. It is the very important new RW group Freedom's Watch. They justed debuted today. Let us join hands and work in harmony. Will you tell your RW friends, or should I? (I told Tbeatty) ΞSMEDLEYΔBUTLERΞ 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much news coverage it has had, but I will put it on my watchlist. Tom Harrison 13:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

F9/11 reader

Would you kindly explain the reason behind the redirect. Ta. smb 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Essentially everything in The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader was already in Fahrenheit 9/11. Tom Harrison 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

did no study was cited

You removed my edit about NIST not doing a study, however this was cited, in the FAQ. I wont revert your edit, but please revert it yourself if you agree after looking at the source that was cited. I will quote the FAQ as i did on the talk page for you "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." Do you think i should add this quote instead of just citing the reference as was done? Debeo Morium 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NVM, i saw you only added citation needed, and didnt actually remove the phrase. So i added the citation. Sorry Debeo Morium 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Zenmaster

I support your reblock of the account. User:Zscout370 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you had earlier mentioned supporting a reblock. If not, I'm sorry I didn't approach you first to discuss it. Tom Harrison 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

我稍短比你

你们的斗争,邪恶的白剧组的人对我的.许多痔疮希望你现在!

我国气垫船充满鳗鱼! --88.76.172.250 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus. Retrieved 9th Aug 2007]
2. The 9/11 Commission Report often refers to many of the highjackers as conspirators, and labels the organization of the attacks as "the 9/11 conspiracy" (9/11 Commission Report, p. 88, p. 160, p. 172). The official report is available here.