Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 2 March 2013

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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Other old material is available in the page history.

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom....since you were nominated by a scumbag on the first go, you may wish to go for a reconfirmation! I know if I were you I would...I'm surprised that all the nominations made by that scumbag that succeeded haven't been emergency desysopped already!MONGO 12:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you're an admin again...I'll make sure I adjust my tone when I address you so that I don't get blocked!MONGO 19:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh! Tom Harrison 02:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysop

Glad to see this. Well, provided "more time to contribute" isn't code for something like losing your RL job! Bishonen | talk 14:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC).

Tom and I would have made an excellent Good cop/bad cop duo...it only takes 3.14 brains cells to know what roles each of us would have played! Tom has always been one of the most approachable, fair and polite administrators around...I'm glad we'll have his admin experience back again...MONGO 15:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dang, I never get to use the taser... Tom Harrison 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom, given that earlier this you were briefly topic-banned from 9/11 articles for very serious and blatant POV-pushing (as well as more recent edits showing a similar pattern) I think your adminship would be extremely contentious if brought before RfA now. Would you consider taking the step of a reconfirmation RfA?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

TDA...that's not very fair. The community overwhelmingly overturned that ban and the AE admin that was leading that AE decision gave up their tools under a cloud.MONGO 16:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

MONGO, you and I both know that Mkat's resignation was only "under a cloud" in the sense that you and a few of Tom's friends bombarded him with frivolous accusations of involvement in ARB911 on the basis of his self-declared involvement in ARBPIA. I think we also both know that the community did not overturn the topic ban due to any determination of wrongdoing by the admins, but rather on the good faith assumption that Tom would not make similar edits and that a month was enough for someone with his otherwise clean record.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

How often does an AE admin resign their tools? If, as you say, the complaints were frivolous, then why resign?...MONGO 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

When you fear an angry mob is threatening to hang you from the gallows on spurious charges, it is not uncommon to flee the jurisdiction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

For those following along at home, the standard for resysop requests is whether the admin resigned the bit in a manner so that it appears he did so to avoid scrutiny that has a high probability of leading to desysopping (such as a pending RFC or RFAR). Short of extremely outrageous behavior (socking, severe copyright violations, etc.), behavior subsequent to a resignation is not considered in a resysop request. Nor is the likelihood a user would pass RFA if they sought one considered in a resysop request. MBisanz 17:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bishonen! I am still gainfully employed, and it looks like 2013 in America will be another great year of vision, and boundless hope, and optimism. Tom Harrison 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

TDA, none of that has anything to do with being an admin. There's an idea that admins have more say over content than non-admins; that is not, or should not be the case. It's unfortunate that view has become more common over that last few years. A reconfirmation RfA would not be a good use of my volunteer time, or anyone else's. Tom Harrison 18:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

One's contributions to content can reflect on an editor's judgment. If you think the edits highlighted above reflect policy-compliant editing then it does raise serious questions about whether you should be vested with the authority necessary to determine whether others are engaged in policy-compliant editing. Has your opinion of the above edits changed in any way?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference used backs up the addition. If there is a dispute over the reference, then the article talkpage would be the place to hammer things out.MONGO 19:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

TDA, that should be taken up on the article talk page, or in some kind of dispute resolution if you want to pursue it. Tom Harrison 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

darwinbish 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC).

Darwinbish! Haven't seen you in long while....just remember I'm your friend...last thing I would want is a Jurassic piranha critter chasing me! Be nice to TDA...he ofts lives up to his username.--MONGO 03:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I must apologize for the naughty little sock, as so often. Words like "pursue" set her off. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC).

The diversity of our users is wonderful. Tom Harrison 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kate Soper (disambiguation)

Hi, I was just cleaning up short pages and saw you declined a speedy at Kate Soper (disambiguation) as not qualified for speedy. {{Db-disambig}} would seems to indicate otherwise. Care to take another look? -- KTC (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, but if someone else sees a valid reason and decides to speedy delete it I won't object. Tom Harrison 14:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking closer

Thanks for looking closer at the edits! I was worried for a minute. I've spent all day working on blood libel. 174.51.31.120 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I believe it is policy to warn someone before blocking them. Not trying to pick a fight, just sayin'. 174.51.31.120 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it was my mistake. I thought you were running some kind of rapid-editing bot and thought a short block was the way to stop it. As it turned out, you're just an extraordinarily diligent and active editor. Thanks, Tom Harrison 22:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Rfc

Rfc's are so helpful...I've decided to list a few reasons why...

• They allow participants to generate at least 100,000kbs of discussion which leads to an absolute consensus every single time.
• They allow the arbitration committee the opportunity to stay out of situation...issues that cannot be resolved by the community should be resolved by the community.
• Trenches are formed, allies found and/or lost...but in the end, all are filled with an overwhelming sense of happiness and joy.
• Lasting rarely more than a day or two, the always productive outcomes lead to increased feelings of commitment to Misplaced Pages, its mission and our desire to spread good will towards each other.

These are but a few of the reasons Rfc's are of great benefit to the pedia...others may have their own!....MONGO 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My favorite is the RfC's associated talk page. That's where the action is - not in the RfC itself, but in the meta-discussion about the RfC, and about the propriety of having meta-discussions. If it's done right, one RfC talk page can spawn three other RfCs with talk pages of their own. Sooner or later one of these RfCs will be deleted, and then it can go to deletion review. Somebody will finally snap and delete the whole works and block everyone, then get desysopped, and we can have an RfC on that. Tom Harrison 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about that! Of course...in the extremely rare times when absolute agreement can't be reached on the Rfc, we can always use the Rfc talkpage! I can't imagine that this has ever been necessary though. I think that the NPA policy needs an Rfc on it...its obviously just an outdated notion written by Americans that are still (400 years later) "suppressed" by the "puritanical" influences of the earliest English speaking settlers. I've been thinking some of the following amendments are needed:

• Its okay to say "fuck off" to anyone that needs to be told to fuck off. It is up to the editor to determine on their own if and when to use this or similar phrases. However, citizens of the USA are still reminded that this sort of commentary can sometimes lead to an impromptu visit to the dentist or proctologist and are asked to use utmost care when typing "excited commentary".
• America or American-bashing is to always be tolerated. However, no citizen of the USA will be allowed to make similar ethnocentric, bigoted, ignorant and xenophobic comments about places outside the USA and or its territorial realm. For clarification, Americans need to realize that whether it is warranted or not, America(ns)-bashing is a cultural norm for non-Americans and it is partly due to Americans overuse of commas and our lack of common courtesy towards others such as the benign al-quacka organization.
• and a notation stating the obvious...that personal attacks don't really exist. Since real article improvement can only happen after "rigorous written exchange", all editors should either "grow thicker skin", let the alleged insult "roll off you like rain", or simply "turn the other cheek". MONGO 16:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  You forgot that in "my" culture, "your argument is shit, you must have crap for brains to come up with that" is constructive, not uncivil and certainly not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua 16:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  Grr! Rough! My arguments are always "shit"...! I don't know anything 'cause I iz jus a peasant from Montana...but I do want to be known as "Baron von MONGO" for now on if possible....lol.MONGO 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If the policy is changed, we'll need to make sure the language is global. Verbs are parsed differently in America, e.g. "I am frank; you are uncivil; he is a brilliant prose stylist whose delightfully quirky manner, abhorrence of pretense, courageous commitment to truth, and refined sensibility make him indispensable to the project, you abusive liar." Tom Harrison 18:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I for one am tired of the chains upon us...we should all be able to say whatever we want! Imagine when bad Baron von MONGO is unleashed!MONGO 18:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe "The Mad Baron?" Tom Harrison 21:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure...since I'll never be an admin, least I can do is get an honorary title of Baron bestowed upon me! Least in the flicks, Barons always seem to be dastardly seeking to make trouble for the higher nobility.--MONGO 22:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, there is already a TheMadBaron. Sorry. User:MadBaronMongo is available, however. KillerChihuahua 17:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Baron von MONGO exists...feel free to vandalize the page!--MONGO 23:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mad Baron?????--MONGO 23:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"After a six hour and 15 minute trial on September 15, 1921, prosecuted by Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, the Baron was sentenced to execution by firing squad. The sentence was carried out that very evening or night in Novonikolaevsk." Faster than arbitration anyway. Tom Harrison 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Classy fellas, real classy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mail

mail me

You have Mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzerker1982 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I will wait and try again when I have all the pieces together. I should not have created the page until it was all together, including Sites and Sources.

Berzerker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.213.202 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious!

Great edit summary! Jayjg 22:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ;-) Tom Harrison 15:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope Santa treated you right! Tom Harrison 15:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Posse Comitatus

Hi Tom - I saw the deletion and thought it was appropriate. Are you sure it belongs on the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, after all it doesn't. Thanks, Tom Harrison 15:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And thank you. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your input will be appreciated.

Thanks.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that the other night, and am of two minds. I'll think about it and say more if I reach a conclusion. Tom Harrison 20:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cerinah Nebanda

Hello Tom. I've reverted your redirect at Cerinah Nebanda, as the stub article was well referenced, and is about a person currently receiving national news coverage in Uganda. I have no idea why it was tagged for speedy deletion in the first place, but since you haven't merged any content to the main article, I think it should remain. If notability is only WP:ONEEVENT then it can go to AFD, but there's no reason why it should be merged or deleted without discussion. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's not hurry. We can see how it develops. Tom Harrison 15:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Altered Walter (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Chance at RfA?

What would you gauge my chances are at RfA? --DHeyward (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Knowing your work, I'd support you. We need stable mature people. But I don't often read RfAs. My impression is the process is badly deranged. Tom Harrison 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Jean de Venette

I followed your instructions and reverted my last edit at Jean de Venette and have now been accused by Truthkeeper as reverting five times. Would you please advise her so I am not reported for doing something I was instructed to do? Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Other critics

Not to be outdone, some articles don't even bother to indicate that the article is a critique at all...such as George W. Bush substance abuse controversy (the controversy was created by Bush-haters...as I don't recall Bush's actions in his younger years including anything even remotely similar to driving under the influence and wrecking his car, killing another occupant and then waiting many hours to report the accident).--MONGO 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this Tom, I think that story was attributed to Mrs. Laura Bush not her husband. I am talking about the original news source, not the article. Hope this helps. This is what I could quickly find: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1698.htm Mugginsx (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I see the connection, but I haven't really followed the article. Anyway, thanks for the source. Tom Harrison 18:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, quite a few pages with controversy in the title. I see we have Bush Derangement Syndrome. I've been searching Google with intitle:hate site:en.wikipedia.org. It would be nice to exclude article title that are themselves titles of books and albums. Tom Harrison 18:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi attacks controversy...Impeachment proceedings against President Barack Hussein Obama still redlined...MONGO 20:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As is The Obama economic recovery, though distinguished economists surely have written enough in the Times and the Post to source the page. And of course US Senate Budget 2010, US Senate Budget2011, and US Senate Budget2012 are red, but that seems appropriate in a couple of ways. Tom Harrison 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite right! The U.S. leadership is still more concerned about social issues than economic vitality...so long as "the agenda" is still center stage, the economy will continue to languish.--MONGO 12:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please check your email.MONGO 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Francisco Franco

Could I request that you check the "Francisco Franco" article revision history? The user Cliniic is attempting to bulldoze the article's lead (which is the result of years of consensual editing about a controversial subject) with his own version (a whitewashed flattery of Franco's supposedly stellar military career). I have started a discussion with this user in the article's Talk section. I am willing to listen to his position and would be happy for us to work consensually and incrementally in editing the text. Meanwhile, would you consider reverting the article to its original version (before he bulldozed the introduction with his own version)? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spet1363 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to revert or edit. Let's wait on unprotection until others have said what they think. 19:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Jean de Venette

Tom: Three Times? Doric stated that he is known to all scholars as Jean de Venette, yet Johnbod kept in the name Fillons as if that were his name and not a Sobriquet. The only scholar who has stated he believes there are two Jean de Venette is historian Regis Rech. That was also pointed out. It is no wonder why only 4% of scholars read or use Misplaced Pages. Since you are an administrator who is also editing on this article, I have no choice but to leave it in three times but it is unquestionably wp:UNDUE considering only one scholar has stated this theory. Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as that article goes, I'm just an editor with no more rights than any other. Administrators don't generally (or shouldn't) use their admin powers on pages we edit. Please regard me as any other editor. That said, it's not a good idea to keep reverting against consensus. Tom Harrison 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yule Log

Hi, you've blocked Yule Log from being edited. Please see this SPI report, and the history. It is clear that the Vodafone mobile IP is a block evading banned editor. Perhaps blocking the article from being edited by non registered editors is a better template. --HighKing (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm still looking through it. Any admin more familiar with the situation should feel free to make that change or take other action. Tom Harrison 13:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Link (or email if privacy is a concern) anything else I should read. Tom Harrison 13:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No panic. just a FYI. There's a bit more here --HighKing (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That block-evading banned sock has now moved onto reverting a recent change I made at Black British. Perhaps you could lock that article against anon editors? --HighKing (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted; we'll see how it goes. Tom Harrison 23:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

It's the first time I see someone reverting a vandalism back....--94.65.145.7 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well okay. I'm not sure it's much less reliable than what's there, but what's there is cited. Tom Harrison 00:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It would have been an obvious hoax if the document had made claims about future leadership of the Priory of Sion. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh; would it? :-) Tom Harrison 00:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Describing a hoax can be really controversial. Anyway, what I reverted was an obviously stupid edit by the IP just before my edit.--94.65.145.7 (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Different rules for different people

I demanding an answer, why was no action taken to the user who wrote this about me?: ""I'll take that one. "Blah blah blah yammer yammer yammer propagandists blah blah blah yammer yammer yammer bullshit." Poor little, tiny conspiracy theorist. Mommy doesn't love him enough to give him attention. Feel free to "silence" (conspiracy theorist talk for "rightly make fun of") this latchkey kid as needed. 68.0.236.131 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)"" 91.145.38.53 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. User:68.0.236.131 has edited twice, attacking you. If he continues, he'll get blocked as you were. Tom Harrison 02:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Fly Me To The Moon--MONGO 05:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably what NASA is hiding has something to do with Space Nazis. Tom Harrison 14:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see Space Nazis in an edit summary without thinking of Sam Spade (the editor not the literary character) now how sad is that? KillerChihuahua 14:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Where are they now, the editors of old? Tom Harrison 16:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Sam got hisself under ArbCom probation and retired, thank goodness. KillerChihuahua 16:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It all started with that Werner von Braun dude.--MONGO 15:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

After 15 minutes with Google, I'm thinking that every conspiracy has been linked to the Nazis by someone. I blame the History Channel. Tom Harrison 16:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Pretty sure the French did it first - and better. KillerChihuahua 16:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that Merovingian propaganda? Or is Francis Bacon the real author of Somnium (novel)? Tom Harrison 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And now for some reason I'm reminded of when I tried to explain Anonymous to my ex. He condescendingly "explained" to me that "anonymous" just meant someone who didn't give their name, and it was not the name of a group. He'd given me the same type response earlier when I tried to tell him I wanted the Live album Throwing Copper". He laughed at me, and "explained" that the band must be named "Throwing Copper" and this was their live album. This is the guy who accused me of buying a set of encyclopedias when our first child was born "just so you can win arguments". (Yes, I divorced him. But that wasn't why.) KillerChihuahua 17:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

poor boy, dont take it personaly! EVERY wikipedia admin totaly sux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit warring on Resurrection of Jesus

Please don't revert without continuing the discussion, as you did yesterday. That fans the fire. Also, please make sure you are keeping your religious beliefs out of your editing. I see you have taken a personal, religious stance on the matter. Humanpublic (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit and your revert here would seem to be examples of everything you complain about. You fan the flames, inject your religious beliefs, and revert without discussion. You should have condemned me as well for being a judgmental hypocrite. Tom Harrison 16:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)