Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 8 June 2006

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Re: Personal Attachs

got it

Moon Hoax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammed al-Ahari article discussion

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

LogicBih's original entry in the discussion that I deleted

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

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

A Barnstar

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

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

Muhammed al-Ahari article

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

Are you an anti-Semite?

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

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

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

Please stop vandalizing my user page

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

Thank you

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

User:SirIsaacBrock

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

Tom harrison, can you please help with User:UniverseToday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• sixth addition of same linkspam by User:UniverseToday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Great Justice

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

Friends of South Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any opinion?

Hi Tom,

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

Thanks - what about reporting yourself for trolling?

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

Citations

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

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

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

Webgirl in distress here, need attention

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

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

Blocking User:Irishpunktom

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

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

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

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

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

Help, adding to the entry "Christianity"

Hello Tom Harrison!

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

Thank You! Lyn Sanny lynsanny@hotmail.com

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

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

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

Evidence for yet another new sock puppet for UniverseToday

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

Placebo

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

911

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

From Jimbo's talk page

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

Amibidhrohi

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

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

Pecher 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Irishpunktom:talkless tagger

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

RMP #31

Tom,

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

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

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

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

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

97/42 x = 33

x = 1386/97

or, by subtracting or dividing, the quotient

14 appears, creating the remainder

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

such that,

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

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

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

so that,

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

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

as the RMP cites.

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

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

Best Regards,

Milo Gardner

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

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam

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

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

Re: Case Study - Business Process Mapping

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

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

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

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

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

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

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

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