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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

"Controversy" vs "Conspiracy Theories"

Hi! I'm waiting a proper justification for your deletion of my change in 9/11 attacks article. Thanks Normal nick 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the section i asked you to comment was "Biased and Non-Standard Section Title "Conspiracy Theories"" and not "Controversy shouldn't be allowed". Normal nick 03:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

!

[1]!!!4/1/06--MONGO 04:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

fools

This user wishes you a happy WikiFools.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof! [2] SkeenaR 03:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah man! There's more to this guy that meets the eye!!! [3][4] SkeenaR 03:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The mediation page

Hi Tom,

Why should we close the mediation? What should we do after that? can we have another mediation? Thanks --Aminz 18:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I know I am responsible for the current instability of the articles. But I was really frustrated. I don't expect you to agree with me, but just hope that you understand me. --Aminz 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian bacon

Note that user Jcooler has not participated in the talk page to try and resolve the canadian bacon controversy. --MateoP 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure both articles may have some problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? --Aminz 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. I think wikipedia has its own advantages and disadvantages. I think in general it is good to allow everybody edit the article, but not in this special case. This is really a special case. I think there will be no need for RfA then. --Aminz 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I have made an slot for all people involved in the articles on the mediation page.[5] I am gathering their opinions there. Thanks for your interest in discussion about the idea--Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying for smaller TeX font as an optional choice

This is an equation created with Wikipedia's TeX font for math markup:

$Q\;=\;C\;A\;P\;{\sqrt {{\bigg (}{\frac {\;\,g_{c}\;k\;M}{Z\;R\;T}}{\bigg )}{\bigg (}{\frac {2}{k+1}}{\bigg )}^{(k+1)/(k-1)}}}$

This is the same equation created using WikiCities' TeX font for the very same math markup:

It is quite obvious that the WikCities TeX font is smaller than the Wikipedia's TeX font. In my opinion, the WikiCities font is also much neater and tidier. What I mean by neater and tidier is that it is much closer to the size of the regular text so that the overall look of an article that uses equations is more balanced.

Also, the smaller TeX font allows for displaying longer equations (within the limited display screen width) than does the Wikipedia font.

I submitted a request to Bugzilla about a month ago asking that Wikipedia make available the smaller WikiCities font as an alternate option ... not to replace the font now used by Wikipedia, but only to offer the smaller WikiCities font as an optional choice to Wikipedians. My request was assigned the bug number 4915. Anyone can vote in favor of proceeding with the bug request at Bugzilla Bug 4915 and thus far I am the only one who has voted to proceed.

If you agree with me that the smaller font should be offered as an alternate, please visit the bugzilla page at Bugzilla Bug 4915 and scroll down to the page bottom where is says "Vote for this bug" and do so. If you are not already registered with bugzilla, it will ask you to do that first ... but it only takes a minute to do so.

If it isn't correct for me to lobby you for the smaller font, please let me know. Thanks and please vote.
mbeychok 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

??

Is this supposed to be a joke?--Striver 17:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on User pages.

Please do not vandalise user pages of other users or make personal attacks. Seabhcán 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That was not vandalism, it was an "April Fools" thing that went around Wikipedia on the 1st with various users putting "codes" that created random infoboxes on user pages. I would say that your claiming of false vandalism in order to try and play legitimate posters off as "vandals" to promote your "9/11 was an inside job" POV is WP:NPA.--Jersey Devil 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I accept you explaination - I didn't know about this April fools gag. Its silly to accuse me of 'claims of false vandalism'. I am an admin and have no history of it. I am also not promoting any POV. Check my contributions. I only started editing 9/11 stuff a few days ago and that is because I have noticed a huge amount of anti-9/11 POV edits and lists for deletion. That is really quite shameful for wikipedia. Seabhcán 20:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez

[6] wasn't bad enough to kill once, now we got to kill it again. Sort of akin to a twice-baked-potato....--MONGO 20:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

At least I learned something I would never have known otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You and I are just biased Americans....[7]...and the request or preference for a non-American should be duly noted.--MONGO 03:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, please note this, and weigh in accordingly? It references this section of this talk page.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Further vandalism

Please note further vandalism by User:70.251.179.95 to Art and Glassblowing, both of which I have rv.

Tyrenius 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Tom- thanks for the advice. I'll try to do a better job of documenting my references.

Bobbaxter 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Link farm

Your comment here that "I think a number of pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories are being used to promote the theorist's website" is quite an under-statement. For example, I'm starting to become very concerned about the number of links to Prisonplanet that User:Striver has been inserting into articles. I suspect that some articles are even being created just so such links can be made; and that he's adding links to any existing article that is of a topic that happens to be mentioned on that site. I want to WP:AGF, but the evidence is mounting. Any thoughts on a course of action? --mtz206 22:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which Tom, did you happen to ever come across a way to get individual Wikipedia page hit #'s or know who a guy could ask? Those pages like "most popular wikipedia pages" don't really do it and neither does trafficranking. That would be pretty interesting for us I think. SkeenaR 05:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not; It would be handy too. I was surprised when someone in the real world mentioned using a particular page, and it wasn't one I would have expected. I'll ask on the mailing list. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. SkeenaR 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamism

Dear Tom,

I realize you’re probably very busy. In addition to our limited contact, you have been recommended to me as a fair admin. I am wondering if you or someone else you know and think highly of would be willing to take a look at the Islamism page dispute.Timothy Usher 08:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

“My instinct is to archive the whole thing and start over, and agressively block anyone who says anything uncivil or off-topic. I recognize that's pretty heavy-handed.”

Sounds fine to me. In fact, Katefan0 has already done the archiving bit.

The problem boils down to user violations of wikipedia policy, and their bad-faith efforts to draw admins into the fray on their behalf.

The main problem on the talk page is far and away User:24.7.141.159, who repeatedly and flagrantly violates WP:NPA, even going so far as to create a sock puppet User:216.118.97.211 to agree with his personal attacks - one of his ongoing themes is that he is supposedly humiliating his opponents in the eyes of the wikipedia community, so he had brought in this user to write “DUDE YOU GOT OWNED BY USER:24. Many of us have been watching this talk page and getting a kick out of you pwning yourself at the hands of User:24. User:216.118.97.211” - and that pales in comparison to the constant stream of personalized invective from the main account, including unspecified threats to ObsidianOrder and then myself - indeed it was my defense of ObsidianOrder which put me in 24’s sights to begin with.

Another user, User:Hrana98 showed up last night with a style conspicuously like that of User:24.7.141.159 (though so far without personal attacks), and whose edits consisted of reposting 24’s violations, some of which I’d reverted according to WP:RPA and deleting comments by User:67.188.110.197 (see below).

Besides the similarity in style and the history of the talk page, in which it's just kind of obvious, the notion that User:Hrana98 is the same user as User:24.7.141.159 includes the fact that until just last night, their time on wikipedia didn't overlap at all - Hrana had quit editing last year, User 24 started this January - and that their interests as seen in their edit histories, besides Islam-related issues, center around celebrities and television shows...basically,User 24 remembered his old account.

Umreka is generally far more civil, but resorts to sock puppets such as User:165.230.73.20 to evade WP:3RR on the article (since frozen), an assessment with which Kyaa the Catlord (since driven from the page in disgust) concurred, and last night attacked User:67.188.110.197 as a homosexual *in his edit summary*, as you probably noticed. Not the kind of thing one likes to see popping up on one's watchlist.

User:Hotdamndiggity is also a transparent sock puppet - one edit, a revert to the MuslimsofUmreka/165.230.73.20 version just before the article itself was frozen by Anonymous editor - but as the idiom is uncharacteristic of Umreka, we can only speculate as to its creator.

Finally, there is User:67.188.110.197, whose comments, while not overtly hostile, are nevertheless inappropriately personalized, unhelpful and off-topic.

So, yes, your proposal to “aggressively block anyone who says anything uncivil or off-topic” makes total sense to me. It doesn’t solve the problem of the frozen sock-puppet-supported version of the article, but as that is frozen I suppose the point is moot for now.

The most depressing thing about all this - one of them at least - is that, as seen in the archive, several interested and legitimate users have been successfully driven from the page by these tactics. Hopefully they will come back when some semblance of wiki civilization is restored.

Your consideration is deeply appreciated.Timothy Usher 21:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom,

It is happening all over again. Take a look at User:Hrana98's recent edits if you are so inclined.

"It is becoming quite clear that you are an argumentative editor with paranoid delusions," etc.

I keep posting WP:NPA but it must be seem quite the joke just about now.

Note also that User:24.7.141.159 has jumped in at precisely the right moment to support User:Hrana98's claim, just as before with the User:216.118.97.211 account and the "you are being humiliated on Wikipedia" theme.

Timothy Usher 06:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just one of many common points of style, particularly salient in that it violates WP:NPA, is the opening with a derogatory psychopathological diagnosis:

User:24.7.141.159: “Let me demonstrate to everyone who insane and unstable you are.” [[8]]

User:Hrana98: "It is becoming quite clear that you are an argumentative editor with paranoid delusions" [[9]]

Timothy Usher 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am really reluctant to take up mediation - I've never done so, but it sounds inefficient. But I've never done it, the only example I've seen seems a variant of limbo. I am curious as to whether this process could conceivably result in the enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines - if so, I reluctantly choose to initiate it, how do I do this? - and if not, is there any other way one can hope for these rules to be enforced?Timothy Usher 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ultimately both informal mediation and an RfC work about as well as both parties want them to." Then there is basically no point, as the Hrana/24 etc. cluster doesn’t operate in good faith. If wikipedia rules are just empty talk, I’m obliged to leave this forum to Hrana/24/etc. and the like.Timothy Usher 12:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock farm?

Thank you for alerting me to WP:ANI. While I was there, I noticed something familiar, Deuterium. I believe this to be yet another sock puppet of Hrana98/24.7.141.159/216.118.97.211 as is made quite obvious by his page Deuterium/Timothy Usher and the specific incidents highlighted therein. Note also (just saw this) his recent "minor" edits now that he's been caught. Timothy Usher 09:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium maintains a dossier on all users who disagree with him, not just on Timothy. Pecher ^Talk 10:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, please see my most recent comments on WP:ANI. Plausible deniabilities aside, this is just obviously the same guy.Timothy Usher 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Superb call :-)

[10] --HappyCamper 12:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism

Most of Carl Sagan's published writings deal with skepticism, which is related to true-believer syndrome. Dr. Sagan never uses this exact terminology, but The Demon-Haunted World does expose many popular hoaxes and fallacies. I'd also recommend The Big Book of Hoaxes and The Big Book of Little Criminals from DC comics Paradox Press/Factoid Books. They're graphic adaptations, but they're surprisingly well researched and well written. Your local Barnes & Noble should be able to order them. The writings of James Randi and Martin Gardner are also good. None of these books mentions true-believer syndrome by name, but they all point out the value of skepticism.

Bobbaxter 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion on the mediation page

Tom, Could you please have a look at the mediation page: [11]. There has been some discussion on my idea about a committee. Could you please let us know your opinion? I do not believe my idea actually stops anybody to edit. Everybody can always suggest his/her edits to the committee and if he/she is sure about his/her edit, the committee should accept it. Moreover, we all have already edited the article to a great extent; the committee may just need to modify some sentences. I think this idea is fair to everybody assuming they all agree on the committee. The majority of us have agreed to the idea so far. Please post your opinion. Thanks --Aminz 04:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing style

Actually, i didn't mean it to be gratuitously offensive, I meant it quite seriously. The user was demanding we accept a particular version of his text which was incredibly poorly written. Good writing is just as important as clear factual content; maybe more so. Graft 16:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism

Hi, I thought I would draw your attention to ongoing minor vandalism from User:64.8.191.2. It's been blocked before, but it's a state IP, so has lots of users. I haven't left another warning, as there are enough there already.

Tyrenius 18:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Poetry Articles

I have an idea. In articles about major poets, why don't we include brief examples of their work? For instance, the article on Tennyson could include the poem "Crossing the Bar". After all, the best way to get people interested in any poet is through his poetry.

Bobbaxter 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise found on Dhimmi

Looks like a compromise has been found on the ritual purity on Dhimmi. Can you look at the suggestion[12] and make changes into the article, if possible? Pecher ^Talk 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:70.48.241.41

The user is engaged in an orgy removing external links to articles by Martin Kramer from miscellaneous articles. I warned him yesterday when he edited from a different IP address not to do that, but it seems not to have made any impression upon him. Can you look into this issue to see whether additional action is justified? Pecher ^Talk 22:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Page and SkeenaR

You look like someone who can help. I edited out the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, and I was hoping that what I was doing was getting the page to NPOV. I was a bit reckless with deleting text, but the page was filled with a lot of junk and was looking like a persuasive esay. I deleted a lot of text that was just persuasive fluff, and not a main point, and then Skeena R reverted the page back, I changed it back again, and then he changed it a third time, and he wrote that I was "wrong" in the edit notes.

Our discussion in the talk page went Like this:

---

DISCUSS major changes I changed the article back to after SkeenaR made the changes about "pull."

I will assume on good faith that "pull" is an industry term.

However Skeena R, as has been stated WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX.

I have kept all the facts and points in the article. What I have removed are the rhetoric and weasel words.

If you want to make a seperate webpage where you present your case, that is fine, but Wikipedia is not the place for it.--DCAnderson 23:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw insults like that at me. And DC, you have to discuss changes like that before you go ahead and do that. It doesn't really matter how much sleep you missed to do it. Have a look in the archives and you will see that we work together on these things, and collaborate on far less substantial changes than this. Plus, you add weasel words. Like in the whistleblower section. Exactly, this isn't sup[posed to be a persuasive article. SkeenaR 23:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories"

---

So after he claimed that I was insulting him, I assumed that talking with him would be pointless.

Please help--DCAnderson 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I'm kind of a newb here. It's good to know I'm not just flailing in the dark here.--DCAnderson 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kyaa the catlord

Kyaa the catlord keeps reverting the Islamism page back too the original version from about a week ago, please get her or him to stop. MuslimsofUmreka 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I support both of these blocks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Gunpowder

Hello there. Will you kindly enlighten me as to your motive of repeatedly reverting the gunpowder page, other than for purely the purpose of causing irritation? Much appreciated, =Axiom= 02:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is nonexistent. I strongly disagree about your opinion that the other version is more balanced, better-written, etc. etc. I have some major points of contention, but I would like to hear yours first. =Axiom= 03:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If my editing is "reverting", why isn't other people's?

I add to the item, people remove it. I add the same material, it is removed again. And a third time. Why aren't you blocking others for doing the same thing?

Oh, that's right: my comments, regardless of their veracity, don't agree with the majority. Facts don't matter, popular agreement does.

The hypocrisy is astounding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.58.53.139 (talk)

User:65.145.31.236

Tom, can you look at the behavior of this editor 65.145.31.236 (talk · contribs) whose only contributions are personal attacks on Talk:Terrorism? Thanks. Pecher ^Talk 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reminded the user to keep it civil. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Pecher ^Talk 17:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslims of Umreka

Since you blocked him, and Katefan increased his block, he's returned with a sockpuppet account. Please check Islamism for details. Kyaa the Catlord 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm keeping my nose clean. :D Kyaa the Catlord 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for the message. It seemed so to me as well (re: your suppositions about the IP and the new account); I had thought to sprotect the article myself. Get out of my head! =) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hotdamndiggity (talk · contribs) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at User:ShawnCarter and his attempted edits to my user page (only minutes after apologizing to Kyaa from his MOU account).Timothy Usher 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated.Timothy Usher 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike Gabbard

Having followed your AN/I link to the Gabbard talk page (though I'm not, I should say, an admin), I think it is eminently clear that, for the reasons enumerated most prominently by IslandGyrl and subsequently expanded on by Hetar and you, a link to criticsm/a negative link should remain in the "ExL" section; BillF seems not to appreciate that the link is not being cited as a verifiable, neutral internal source but rather is provided as an external link. Notwithstanding my view that a negative link may appear (and likely should, inasmuch as there seems to be significant criticism of Gabbard, to which one may, as in the Santorum article IG cites, refer in a sourced, NPOV section) and, assuming arguendo that another such site exists, I am disinclined to think this site is the one to include; the site is, as you would surely concede, in its format and language, of the puerile/kooky variety (even as I agree with the points it essays). If there is no other site at which criticism can generally be found, and if the site considered is understood to be more than indiscriminate ranting, then surely the site may be included; we don't find an Alexa rank, which I suppose isn't surprising, but which further complicates things. On the whole, I think, I suppose the link should be left, but I think one would do better to add a sourced criticsms section and to try to find, along the way, a better link to serve as the "critical external link". The article, finally, seems to need a good deal of cleanup (it refers, for instance, to the subject as "Mike"), but it seems there are enough editors already working on it to help in that respect. Joe 20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The mediation

Hi Tom, Can you please post your updated opinion regarding my committee idea. I think my suggestion, assuming the committee is well chosen, is fair and does not stop anybody to edit the article at a deeper level. thx --Aminz 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The war against my user account

Tom, I appreciate your comment on my talk page. It is a sad day in the Wikipedia community when a user like Timothy Usher decides to wage war on my user account over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Deuterium. Apparently I'm 10 different people and I'm supposedly a schizoid nut with a private jet or a Star Trek transporter system beaming all over the US.

What can we do about banning problem editors like Timothy Usher? What are Wikipedia policies on using Wikipedia as a battleground and dragging in Administrators from all over the place to fight his wars? What is the Wikipedia policy on censorship?

I find it amazingly disturbing that User:Timothy Usher is somehow claiming that I can't come home from campus to sleep at 3:30am and my daily commute to campus involves either a 400 mile or 1800 mile journey. Should I just resign from this place because users like me trying to step into an unruly Talk page discussion to bring order are not welcome? The old saying that goes something like "no good deed going unpunished" is probably very true. I'd like to know what advice you have for me. Thank you and my apologies for disturbing you. Hrana98 11:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my statements on WP:ANI.Timothy Usher 11:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you let Tom answer my questions on his talk page. You've attacked my account everywhere else so please stop the assault. Thank you for respectfully aknowledging this request. Hrana98 11:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have tried and failed to resolve your differences, a request for comment might be the next step to take. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a sock puppet image on my page. I was just doing my friend a favor and removing the sock puppet symbol off his other usernames. Please remove the sock puupet symbol off my page, though I maybe a close friend off Muslims of Umreka, I am not him. InDaHoodSoGhetto 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Removing the sockpuppet symbol off his other usernameS"...or was that supposed to have been singular? In any case, I think the preponderance of the evidence is toward the proposition of this user's being a sockpuppet; his/her first two edits were to remove the {{sockpuppet}} tag from accounts, and he/she has no mainspacce edits. One assumes good faith, but one also can't ignore what is plainly evident. Joe 20:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

template

I like the new template; it looks better and it has the three commonly used Yusuf Ali- Pickthal - Shakir translations. The Rashad Khalifa translation, I expect, should not be used by majority of Muslims. Rashad Khalifa is the messenger of the Qur'an alone Muslims, I believe. Thanks for working on the new template. --Aminz 03:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please let me know how I should use the new template? thx. --Aminz 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tom for the good work; the template will really help on Islam-related articles. Pecher ^Talk 08:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

POV forks on biblical figures

Tom, I am wondering what you think about this: there are articles on both Moses and Musa, Jesus and Isa. As there is no claim that these are distinct individuals, isn't this POV forking? For that matter there is also God and [[Allah] - the latter somewhat excuses itself as being about the term rather than the concept, but as this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, I rather suspect it, too, originated as a POV fork. Any feedback?Timothy Usher 09:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In these cases and several others (John the Baptist and Yahya, for example), I'm in favor of separate articles. Wikipedia is documenting a real-world pov fork. I think there is enough material to support two articles, and enough differences in content to make that desirable. Each article can go into particular traditions more deeply, and can use fewer qualifying phrases.

That said, I don't favor doing it just to be doing it. Yunus redirects to Jonah, as it should, at least for now. Each article has to make clear that it's the same person as the other, and has to link to the other. In our coverage of Noah, we have a huge number of articles with overlapping content. I suspect some are pov forks, or just duplicates made in good faith. I won't list them all here; the way to find them is to use Google to search just Wikipedia for Noah. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Kick back and relax

A DRINK WITH SOMETHING IN IT By Ogden Nash

There is something about a Martini, A tingle remarkably pleasant; A yellow, a mellow Martini; I wish that I had one at present. There is something about a Martini, Ere the dining and dancing begin, And to tell you the truth, It is not the vermouth — I think that perhaps it's the Gin.

There is something about an old-fashioned That kindles a cardiac glow; It is soothing and soft and impassioned As a lyric by Swinburne or Poe. There is something about an old-fashioned When the dusk has enveloped the sky, And it may be the ice, Or the pineapple slice, But I strongly suspect it's the Rye.

There is something about a mint julep. It is nectar imbibed in a dream, As fresh as the bud of the tulip, As cool as the bed of the stream. There is something about a mint julep, A fragrance beloved by the lucky. And perhaps it's the tint Of the frost and the mint, But I think it was born in Kentucky.

There is something they put in a highball That awakens the torpidest brain, That kindles a spark in the eyeball, Gliding singing through vein after vein. There is something they put in a highball Which you'll notice one day if you watch; And it may be the soda, But judged by the odor, I rather believe it's the Scotch.

Then here's to the heartening wassail, Wherever good fellows are found; Be its master instead of its vassal, And order the glasses around. Oh, it's Beer if you're bend on expansion, And Wine if you wish to grow thin, But quaffers who think Of a drink as a drink, When they quaff, quaff of Whisky and Gin.

Bush Crimes Commission

You are invited to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hi Tom,

The article dhimmi is protected and I can not edit it myself. Can you please add the original research tag ({ {OR} }) to the article? One but not the only disputed passage is for example the following(in the "Sources of dhimma" part)

"The verse calls upon Muslims to fight against the People of the Book until they pay the jizya head tax and are humbled:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

I disagree with usage of the word "humbled" and taking this passage out of the context(the first sentence does not mention the context of the verse and to my mind contains original research). There are many disputed passages. In any case, I think the tag should be added to the article if any of the parties dispute it. I would be thankful if you could add the tag to the article. Thanks --Aminz 23:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I agree with you. Good luck --Aminz 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody commented on adding the OR tag, however I changed my mind. I still do believe that there are original researchs in the article but I am not currently personally interested in adding the tag. Thanks for your attention. --Aminz 01:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to vandal warning toolbox

I hope you're finding the warning toolbox useful. I've made a few minor changes to it that you might want to be aware of. --Kbh3^rdtalk 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Is Wikipedia Miskin's domain? Is he the son of Jimbo Wales or something? Everywhere I am making proper edits with sources, User Miskin is reverting them back. Are we going to build the project to please user Miskin's mind? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.108.47.221 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have a diff to prove this? You've been edit-warring and vandalising various different articles under differents IPs the last week. Miskin 16:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Christianity

Im sure you know about three-revert rule. I thought I'd point it out that it applies to you equally. 206.61.48.22 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This users' edit history shows remarkable commonalities with those of User:Giovanni33, User:Kecik and User:MikaM (for starters).Timothy Usher 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Many thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, which passed narrowly. I will try to be worthy of your support. Regards, Kaisershatner 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cap and Skull

Mr. Harrison,

Please see my edit to the discussion page regaring information on Cap & Skull.

Thank you.

TomSmith

User:67.168.235.147

I hate to be a burden upon you, but might you take a look at User:67.168.235.147 as well? His recent edits speak for themselves.Timothy Usher 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help. I've blocked the IP for personnal attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fake Votes on Afd

An IP, User talk:68.48.32.65, had added fake votes in a recent afd. I think a block is in order here. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]--Jersey Devil 23:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now the IP has created a bunch of sockpuppets to vote keep. [18].--Jersey Devil 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)