User talk:Tom harrison

For new users

If you are new here, welcome. The page Wikipedia: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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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 Wikipedia: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.

Advice, not sure what to do here

SirShawn (talk · contribs) is behaving at Ancient Egyptian race controversy exactly like some past editors who ended up ban under the ArbCom sanction on pseudoscience (pov, loads of material that belongs elsewhere, etc - see the talk page and the discussion at DRN if you have time). I've complained at WP:DRN but his response has been basically to make personal attacks and continue to reinsert his material. I haven't had much time to go into specifics but I will be doing that. Meanwhile, although the fact that the article is under probation has been mentioned in the discussions and it's clear on the talk page, he hasn't had a warning. I was about to warn him with {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=ps}} but then realised that as an involved Administrator I shouldn't do this. So how do we get him an official warning? Given his behavior so far unless he changes it he's heading for a ban (in my opinion, of course). I know you've dealt with this sort of thing before. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If the article is under sanctions, you might try Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement; or maybe take it to ANI and try to get a topic ban. I'll watchlist the page and contribute when I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be warned first? Sorry, thought I had this page watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he needs to be warned first. Anybody can do that as far as I know - it doesn't need to be an uninvolved admin. I haven't had a chance to read through it all yet myself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The template says "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system" Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, so it does. I hadn't seen that, and can't see any reason why an admin needs to be the one to warn - it doesn't require any admin tools, and admins do not (or at least didn't when I was an admin) have any special authority over conduct, except what's allowed by the blocking policy etc. If you need to have an admin, there should be a way to summon one; "Requests for admin to warn a user" or something, because we need another noticeboard. Seriously, I guess you'll have to ask on ANI. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Good advice, I've done that. Silly really. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It turns out anyone can give the warning. The trick is a parameter. Non-admins can use {{Uw-sanctions|topic=ps|admin=no}}. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I stopped reading when I got to the template I wanted, didn't notice there were instructions at the bottom (not the best place for those of us who read from the top down). Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring

[1] Instead of revert warring, why didn't you start a discussion on the talk page saying that you didn't agree with the removal of the material? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Millennium Falcon discovered at bottom of ocean

Did you see this one?[2] Apparently, they're jamming communications.[3] :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's intriguing. I look forward to finding out what it is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's Barack Obamas mothership...he's one of the Reptilians...supposedly?--MONGO 01:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he's a reptoid, but he's a 100% born-in-the-USA reptoid. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to be verrrrry careful...since Ashland Nebraska is just down the road 20 miles from me...--MONGO 01:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

1967 - I didn't know alien abduction stories went back that far. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

They've been amongst us all along...once they've gotten us where they want us, all we'll be to them is a source of electricity and food!MONGO 13:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Tom did you create the proposed FAQs on the 9/11 Conspiracy theories page?

Tom,

In other words this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories

If you did I have an edit request for #1 which currently reads:

Q1: Why does this article dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories as a valid scientific or historical hypothesis?[hide]

A1: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections Undue weight and Equal validity, requires that editors not add their own editorial biases when writing text based on such sources. As the relevant academic field universally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it would be a disservice to our readers to fail to report this as part of a full treatment of the topic. Further advice for how to treat topics such as this one may be found at the Fringe theories and Reliable sources guidelines.

Specifically regarding the claim in A1 that, "the relevant academic field universally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of 9/11 conspiracy theories"

First not all conspiracies are the same. Similarly not all conspiracy theories are the same. Second there is no citation or reference given for this very broad and outrageous claim. Third, the so called "relevant academic field" is not even identified!

If you are not the author of the proposed FAQs can you help me identify the author?

Thank you!

Beasley Reece (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember working on the FAQ; you'd have to look through the page history and the talk page archives to see. In fact the 9/11 conspiracy theories are nonsense; outside the walled garden of ct websites, nobody but antisemites, cranks, and the mentally ill take them seriously as explanations of what happened. Researchers study them as social/political/psychological phenomena, not as history or science. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said...anyone do a sockcheck on this guy? Same tired argument, presented the same way, with the same quirks of writing styles...MONGO 17:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Between socks, clean starts, renamed accounts, and people simply abandoning old accounts and opening new ones (often a reasonable thing to do, given the environment here...) I pretty much assume everyone is someone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

MONGO isn't really a who, he's more of a what.--MONGO 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you guys please stop being so hostile to editors who, apparently, edit in a way or ask questions that rub you the wrong way? Who do feel the 9/11 articles belong to? Cla68 (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely they don't belong to those that want to violate our policies to promote fringe beliefs. Hugs and kisses!MONGO 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Its the BOOGER-MAN!

That just shows you how much you know. Bigfoot is on Mars and I have undeniable photographic evidence to prove it.[4] :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know there were pictures... Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I've told you guys this before. I was in the Pentagon when it got hit. I am, however, more embarrassed by the behavior to fight the inclusion of mention of the alternative theories than I am by those who want to believe in those theories. Freedom of speech is one of the reasons that motivates terrorists like those in action on that day to want to hurt the U.S. We fight and die to preserve that freedom, only to see a few try to suppress it on Wikipedia. Irony. Cla68 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The First Amendment only prevents government from suppressing speech, not other people. So even if you are correct and Wikipedia is censoring the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (which we are not, they don't deserve equal weight because they aren't supported by anything), there is nothing wrong with us doing it. Any Constitutional lawyer will reiterate that. Toa Nidhiki05 14:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Tom, your recent comment on the article talk page is sarcastic, insulting, offensive and highly disrespectful. It does not belong there.

Furthermore, in reverting my edits, you rudely, conveniently and completely ignored my reasoning for the inclusion of the dual-membership and for the fact that the second mention of the 9/11 conspiracy theories is redundant and unnecessary, because the conspiracy theories are already discussed in the previous paragraph.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote there, "We should then include links to Cockaigne, The Matrix, and Gnosticism, because these ideas are almost identical to those of Zeitigeist." How can what I say about the ideas of the Zeitgeist movement insult or offend you? It's not like I've said you are a mass murderer, or that your religion is bunk. I could understand a man taking offence if I'd said Zeitgeist was like The Matrix sequels, but the original was pretty good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You have neglected to mention the context of the discussion on the talk page of the article. The context is very important. I do not object to your three suggestions for See Also. (Except perhaps a mild objection to Cockaigne because a link to Utopia is already provided in the body of the article.) The Matrix is mentioned in the TheMarker newspaper article, and I'm OK with including Gnosticism. The sarcastic, insulting, offensive and disrespectful part of your comment is the part where you write "because these ideas are almost identical to those of Zeitigeist," because here you are directly mocking, belittling, disparaging and degrading my immediately preceding comment showing ideas that are almost identical to those of Zeitgeist, i.e., my explanations on the roots of TVP (going from Fresco back to TTM, and from TTM back to Kropotin and Bakunin, and back to Marx, and, of course, the people who influenced Marx, etc., all the way back to antiquity - these influences are listed in the respective WP articles on these persons). And in your edit (as separate from your comment), you ignored my reasoning for the inclusion of the (well-supported) dual-membership and for the fact that the second mention of the 9/11 conspiracy is redundant because the conspiracy is already discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"I could understand a man taking offence if I'd said Zeitgeist was like The Matrix sequels, but the original was pretty good." I'm smiling every time I read this. You have a good sense of humor Tom. Also based on some of your other comments on your user and talk pages. (I'm not being sarcastic.) And I agree, the first Matrix was pretty good, but regretfully I did not yet get a chance to catch the sequels, maybe on some weekend when you don't give me a hard time on the TZM article, freeing-up some time for movie viewing. Take good care, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The sequels really aren't very good. :-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Zeitgeist Movement". Thank you. --IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let discussion abound

Clearly we need another noticeboard.[5] Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)