Hi Tom. I'm wondering why you deleted my submitted page for the producer Anniene Stockton? A page for her theatre company (theatre in decay) already exists on the English Wikipedia, which mentions her by name and has been linked to within the article. I can provide other sources, if this is the problem, but saying that someone isn't notable enough when they already appear by name in accepted Wikipedia articles elsewhere doesn't make a lot of sense to me? Thank you AlamutJones ( talk) 07:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

My view is here. Reading your reply, it seemed like you thought Arthur or Earl had written it. To briefly repeat, as a matter of editorial judgement, I'd leave the quote out until/unless it's picked up by a secondary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello Tom, I don't think that your warning and temporary blocking of this IP has had any positive result. I have just reverted a mass of disruptive edits to various building articles (see my contributions log) from this address. Trust you can take some firm action? Best regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Blocked, longer. Thanks for keeping up with it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Tom, Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 23:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Bad faith implies conscious intent, which I don't think you have. People simply lose sight of NPOV after dealing with a topic for a while as an organic matter. I would too after a while. I haven't yet. I'm relatively new to the topic. Trust the outside opinions that were solicited over your own. It's best for the encyclopedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:48, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Again, if you've decided I'm arguing in bad faith, [1] it's hard to see how more discussion can be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Except I've just stated I don't think that. My comment was in error. Shall I say it again? "Bad faith implies conscious intent, which I don't think you have." If you want to continue focusing on what I said previously despite my having essentially taken it back, I can't stop you. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:54, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you want from me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Here? I don't want anything from you. I wanted to tell you that I don't think you're arguing in bad faith. What I want at the article is for everyone who has strong opinions either way regarding Peter Joseph, the Zeitgeist movement, and whatever other underlying biases are at play here to voluntarily take a break for a while. As someone coming into this without significant previous involvement I can say that what I'm seeing there is predominately not an attempt to make the article neutral, even if conscious intent to do otherwise is absent. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:03, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

It's possible you've mistaken MPOV for NPOV. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

That's a rather generic argument that anyone whose POV were compromised might make though. "You think I'm biased? Well, maybe you're just biased in the other direction." I'm not. I don't give two craps about Peter Joseph. In fact I think he gets way more attention than he deserves. But when a person says they were misquoted, and the article includes the alleged misquote, the denial is something the reader needs to know, no matter who or what we're discussing. I don't believe Peter Joseph was misquoted. I've heard that he often denies having said things simply to backpedal. Does that mean we leave it out whenever he does so? Our duty is not to inform the reader, even through exclusion, that he is not to be trusted. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:17, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

You've made and repeated that argument, and it's unpersuasive. I would not include his quote unless it appeared in a secondary source, purely as a matter of editorial judgement. Moreover and more importantly, blp does not allow us to include self-published material about a third party. But now we're both repeating ourselves. You can have the last word here if you like; real life demands my attention for a while. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll take it. My pure editorial judgment of course says otherwise, as you know, and BLP does not allow us to exclude the misquote claim. The person who says they were misquoted is a higher priority BLP concern than that of the news organization that might somehow suffer from it, not that it's realistic to think they would in any significant way. And although you say you've given me the last word you can indeed feel free to reply. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:35, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Also I'd like to know for the record if you would agree to removing both the interviewer's claim and the misquote claim as a compromise. You reverted that once. It seems that would solve both possible BLP concerns. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:39, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some kind of implied parity between what a reliable secondary source says and what the film production company says. It's better to leave it in than out, though a case might be made that Joseph wanting to distance himself or not is more relevant to the development of the zeitgeist movement or to him personally than to the film. In any case I'm not going to deliberately add or restore material that violates blp no matter who votes for what, in this article or any other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't think anyone is asking you to do the adding or restoring. Obviously you must realize that since the vast majority of the people in the discussion disagree with you on the BLP issue, and actually feel it's a bigger BLP violation to leave the material out, it would be inappropriate for you to revert if someone else made the addition; unless you get to decide that your opinion on the matter supersedes everyone else's since you've determined that your understanding of BLP is more accurate than theirs, and I don't think you get to do that -- despite BLP's wording that famously, infamously, and conveniently offers license to act unilaterally -- this case evidently comes down to a subjective call that isn't in your favor so far. If you do plan to revert regardless, it might be good to make that clear at the discussion before the edit is implemented so as to (hopefully) avoid another revert war. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:43, 28 Jul 2013 (UTC)

No, not my enemies, people who have declared me an enemy for my actions on Wikipedia. Think I should list it on my user page? The only ones I can think of at the moment are Karl Hewitt, Alex Jones, the section 230 poster girl, and two people who have hate videos about me on Youtube. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Having hate videos about you on Youtube is pretty impressive. You must be doing something right. These days I'm lucky to get my userpage vandalized. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

What am I? Chopped liver? ;) (kidding) Equazcion ^(talk) 18:07, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you temporarily blocked this IP user in July. They're back, and vandalizing pages again, such as V10 engine and Hyundai Tuscon. I just thought an administrator ought to know. Sacxpert ( talk) 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking care of that. Sacxpert ( talk) 00:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I asked the author ( User:Aude) of the FA on 7 World Trade Center if she knows from the research what the details on floors/stories are for that building [2]...I am hoping she will chime in and figure it out but I know she edits sporadically anymore. Thoughts here, there or at the article discussion page?-- MONGO 14:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Interesting. Taking into account Acroterion's reply and the reference Aude added, it looks like 52 floors is what to say. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Yuppers....I'll try and fix the sources on the article later...-- MONGO 20:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:Bloody days has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner  talk 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello You Labeled My Content As Un Suited For Wikipedia Can You Just Remove The Whole Page From Wikipedia, Or Tell Me How To Do That My Self — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsmelody ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The article about the browser tool Wajam is seeing some sharp debate. A number of users have voiced concerns in the article text and on the talk page about the portrayal of the software as an unmitigated good, when many computer security websites and at least one program call it a threat. I added a section to discuss the controversies surrounding it, and it's been blanked multiple times by an unregistered user who called it "slanderous." That user's IP address traces itself to central Montreal, which is where Wajam was developed. After that user posted some specific points attacking the "Controversy" section, I added more references and re-added the section. I don't know if this rises to the level of warranting semi-protection, but the article history certainly suggests that unregistered users revert any changes that are remotely critical of the product. I just wanted an administrator to be aware of it, and perhaps give input or guidance. I think that the section as reworked is solidly sourced, but I'd appreciate input. Thank you. Sacxpert ( talk) 00:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Interesting. I'll watchlist it and see how things are going, but time's short right now. Maybe others can have a look. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Tweenies episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tweenies episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peter James ( talk) 17:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Tom harrison. Your user page seems to indicate a good editing background/peer review possibility for a theology/religion criticism article. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve looking at one key book if this might be possible for you. It is presently available as a free twenty page preview on Amazon books. The book is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love." Any possible interest? AutoJellinek ( talk) 20:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that sounds more interesting than the List of Tweenies episodes just above, but I don't really have time to take that up right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply

He has a Bosnian citizenship, does this not make him a Bosnian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.20.139 ( talk) 13:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

On Wikipedia, what makes him a Bosnian is a reliable source that says he's a Bosnian. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

On Khalid sheikh Mohammeds page I read under citizenship, it says Bosnian. And the source was #7. This here, http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.2928330465.

If it's not reliable, that's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.20.139 ( talk) 14:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay, I see your point. I've put back "Bosnian" here: [3]. We'll see what others think. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Back in February, you pointed out that the Bibleverse template is broken ( Template_talk:Bibleverse(the domain bibref.heb domain expired) My questions: Is it worth my time to manually change links as I find them or will there eventually be some kind of robotic fix of all these. If I do find them, is it going to create problems if I change them to the niv template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver5 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Not quite knowing what else to recommend, I guess make manual corrections as you come across them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Can you do me a favor and look at the nativity scene article? It seems one revert by me and an attempt to mentor a person who claims to be a new editor (although it turns out he has had an account since 2005) stirred up a hornets nest in this "new" editor. I have since disengaged from the article but the new editor has continued on rants against me. I know proper dispute resolution channels but don't think they are called for yet in this situation. Just a third eye on the situation. See his talk page, my talk page history, and the article page itself for details. Thank you or if there is someone you think would be better for this situation, feel free to suggest them. Marauder40 ( talk) 12:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll read through the article when I can, and look through the contributions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I purposely haven't been fixing the different errors that have been inserted in the article, like those recently corrected by GoingBatty. I am pretty sure if I made those same fixes I would continue to get accused of bullying and other things. Marauder40 ( talk) 15:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Please don´t ignore the sources and the conflict of interest over RBE concept: venus project is not a relevant source.

The bibliography for RBE concept beyond of any kind of auto promotion to the venus project or another dark organization who try to be the owner of the term RBE, must be a priority for wikipedia and the admins of wikipedia.

- Response from Patent office of USA to venus project over RBE: https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP (RBE can´t have owner)

- Legal process about rejection RBE patent: http://trademarks.breanlaw.com/77829193-resource-based-economy.html ( venus project can´t prove the authority over RBE)

- Article. Debunked the venus project: http://theoverthinker.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/8.-Spirit-Of-The-Times-2012_issue8_web.pdf (venus project get money from activists to make a movie but they never made this movie and the money is lost)

- Real Bibliography from academic books:

• Barry C.Field (2000), Natural Resource Economics, McGraw-Hill. ISBN  0-07-231677-2.
• Thomas H. Tietenberg (1988), Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, Scott-Foresman. ISBN  0-673-18945-7.
• Philip A. Neher (1990), Natural Resource Economics: Conservation and Exploitation, Cambridge University Press. ISBN  0-521-31174-8.
• Steven C. Hackett (2001), Environmental and Natural Resources Economics: Theory, Policy, and the Sustainable Society, M.E. Sharpe. ISBN  0-7656-0682-8.
• Erhun Kula (1992), Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Springer. ISBN  0-412-36330-5.
• Juan C. Suris Regueiro, Manuel M. Varela Lafuente (1995), Introducción a la economía de los recursos naturales, Civitas. ISBN  84-470-0613-1.
• Pere Riera (2005), Manual de economía ambiental y de los recursos naturales, Thomson. ISBN  84-9732-369-6.
• Carlos Romero(1994), Economía de los recursos ambientales y naturales, Alianza Editorial. ISBN  84-206-6811-7.
• Alan Randall, Ricardo Calvet Perez (1985), Economía de los recursos naturales y política ambiental, Limusa. ISBN  968-18-1727-3.
• Roxana Barrantes (1997), Hacia un nuevo dorado: Economía de los recursos naturales, Consorcio de Investigación Económica. ISBN  9972-670-00-7

THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enano Humano ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello Tom! Please quit this fake reference "This article is about countries whose income comes mainly from natural resources. For use of the term as an economic theory, see The Venus Project." because is auto-promotion to venus project by Earl King Jr. and his friends of venus project, he don´t have any argument and only he reponses about this auto-promotion with things like that: "Are you a disgruntled ex Venus Project member? Why the attitude?" Thanks for your help and correct moderation in wikipedia. Hugs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enano Humano ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Tom, thanks for adding moderation to the Wajam Wikipedia page. An official statement from the company has been added to the Talk page. Lhop 22:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainkinwong ( talk • contribs)

You Statement and subsequent edit warring actions in the mistaken belief that the "article is about chemtrail conspiracy theory, not chemtrails" is dead wrong. Chemtrails redirects to the conspiracy which is an issue that was discussed on the talk page. Despite the false intentions "Contrail information" was not what was modified. Please govern your actions accordingly. If you have something to say or do, talk about it. One editor has deleted info from the talk page which is a separate problem. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

"If you have something to say or do, talk about it." That's exactly what They would be trying to do with their spraying, if there were any spraying going on, which there isn't. But if there were, they'd be chemicals chosen to turn American men into a pack of pajama-wearing coca-drinking talky-talky eunuchs. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I've reported Johnvr4 to AN3. Dougweller ( talk) 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Tom! How dare you try to interfere with the truth!!!!-- MONGO 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Remember the James Bond flick Goldfinger???? Goldfinger had planned to have Pussy Galore and her team of invincible hotties do a chemtrail from their airplanes over Fort Knox...so Goldfinger and his crew including Odd Job could steal all the gold after the U.S. Army personnel at the fort were neutralized by the aerial dispersal of toxins! But 007 alerted the authorities and they were prepared with gas masks and foiled Goldfinger's nefarious plans! Goldfinger himself almost got away with it though...but 007 came through in the end and he had Pussy Galore all to himself to boot....that was a happy ending! But not all true stories end so happily! And the movie proves that not only are chemtrails likely, they are probably being dispersed and it likely explains things like Nancy Pelosi and cats adopting small doggies.-- MONGO 15:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hmm, hadn't thought about Nancy Pelosi in this context. If extraordinary facts require extraordinary explanations, maybe I'll have to reconsider the plausibility of chemtrail spraying, at least over some parts of the country. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I bet Reptilians can fly too....think about it!-- MONGO 18:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It sounds like racist. It means northern vietnamese. -- Namnguyenvn ( talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It's up for discussion, as you've probably seen. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Why would you delete a page as A7 when a) it was about a fictional person, and thus explicitly not eligible for A7, and b) turned into a redirect, and thus not eligible for A-anything deletion? Wily D 21:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi,I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit on Timothy McVeigh because there is a manual of style policy that prohibits using words such as racist, terrorist,etc.Thank You- 173.12.115.146 ( talk) 21:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sources say he was a terrorist, engaged in terrorism etc....-- MONGO 23:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Tom,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 16:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Wow...ten years and you're still sane! That gives me hope!-- MONGO 20:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Still sane, yup, still sane. Yup yup yup. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Not linking section heading as I'm sure you can find the page in your own...odd I just now see this article as I remember the event and the conspiracy theory details vividly. A year ago another poster suggested at the talkpage that the article be renamed...I just agreed, but the entire article needs a rewrite big time...just look at the lede and you'll see why.-- MONGO 01:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

That one does need some work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Muslims of the Americas, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 23:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia" Thanks! That sandbox thingy looks like a great idea. So visit the page, and then click the button? The one labeled Click here.. or some other button? Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Uh, sorry about the template message, but this was an automatic message sent by Twinkle. I'll be careful with template messages in the future. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 13:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks :-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Tom, my name is Nick Bryant, and I'm responding to edits I made on the Franklin child abuse allegations page that were erased. You wrote the following about this page: This needs to be referenced to a reliable secondary source, not to Bryant's book itself. Tom Harrison Talk 13:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I've acquiesced to your directives, and I've provided a second reliable source. I recently wrote a book chapter on The Franklin Scandal, "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder," in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders. Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders is a book that was edited by two eminent psychiatrists, and it also contains chapters written by psychiatrists and therapists who counsel victims of child abuse. The book was published by Routledge, which is a subsidiary of the Taylor and Francis publishing group. In addition to my chapter on The Franklin Scandal being published by a "reputable" publisher, my chapter was also peer-reviewed. Here's a link to the chapter: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf And here's a link to Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders: http://www.guilfordpress.co.uk/books/details/9780415718073/

At this point, I would like to start making changes to the Wikipedia article that are based on Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders. I made a few changes to the page today, and the article was reverted to its former copy, and now it's "protected." I spent seven years researching this story, and the chapter I wrote for Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders meets the highest academic standards. I realize that you might be skeptical of the story, so please read the chapter I wrote for Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders, and it will demonstrate to you that its thoroughly researched and veritable.

I'd also like to give you a link to a review of The Franklin Scandal by East County Magazine: http://eastcountymagazine.org/book-review-franklin-scandal Moreover, if you provide an email, I can email you various articles I've written that will demonstrate my bona fides as a journalist. I'm acting in good faith, and I sincerely hope Wikipedia acts likewise.Nick 00:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBryant ( talk • contribs)

I'll look into it when I get a chance. You can email me from the email this user link on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello Tom, and thank you for reversion on the United Airlines Flight 93 article. I must confess to being very concerned by the attitude and activities of the unregistered IP user 99.238.74.216. They appear to be making numerous "linkrot" alterations without giving adequate reasons and failing make any constructive edits to a vast number of articles. Additionally, they are abusing anyone who tries to revert their "edits". Acroterion has warned them on their Talk page, but this does not appear to have any effect. My own view is that this is a sophisticated form of vandalism designed to disrupt Wikipedia and should be stopped. Your views are welcome. As ever, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 14:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

That's possible. He doesn't seem active right now, but I'll watch for it happening again. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Tom, Thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 10:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Would you mind deleting User:WhatamIdoing/Temp.js too? It doesn't look like {{ db-author}} works in .js pages, so I couldn't tag it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Done, Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Please feel free to comment on the RfC regarding the Zeitgeist Movement material you were editing.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your efforts but dispute statment is already present in the second paragraph in this article. The statement has been added by an indian nationalist who has not added the same statement in Jammu and Kashmir article as that is also a disputed area between Pakistan and India as mentioned in the same source that you just restored. I would appreciate if you could look at it as adding same info in the title line and in the second paragraph doesnt make sense. ThankyouSaladin1987 15:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 ( talk • contribs)

Hi i just want to bring into your notice that this user continously adds disputed words in the above mentioned article even though those words are present in the second paragraph. To my surprize is that he continously adds disputed to the Pakistani regions but proudly adds indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as he is acting like an Indian nationalist. I think you have already reverted some of his edits i would appreciate if you could look at his attitude towards the edits and give him a warning .. [ [4]]Saladin1987 14:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 ( talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll look into it more when I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

As one of the leading editors at Legend in terms of edit count, you may want to comment at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Tom, I would be very grateful if you could give this a look over. Thanks, Paul. Ceoil ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

With pleasure, Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for all your help and work so far.

I am notifying editors who participated in the recent discussion regarding the September 11 attacks that a brand new RfC has been created. The RfC was created in a brand new discussion thread. I don't wish to see any editors be disenfranchised so you may wish to comment in the new thread. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your good work on the article Mr. Harrison. Kirothereaper ( talk) 03:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Tom, I'm just calling attention to this new post on the WikiProject talk page alleging that a number accounts are engaging in paid editing and/or sockpuppetry. Similar allegations were posted by a different account a while back on the same project talk page, but were recently removed via this edit by the accused editor. I have advised the user to report such things to SPI and ANI going forward, rather than WikiProject talk pages where they are unlikely to receive attention. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That looks like it will require more investigation than I have time for right now, but I'll watchlist the pages. SPI and ANI are the places for him to go, as you said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

here, cheers. Thanks for all the edits. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. See [5]

Let me apologize for my gruffness at the Talk:Jesus page, and for the AN3. I should have just asked you to discuss, rather than pushing the issue. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 03:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Not sure how to fix all this spam of this channel by an IP hopper. Dougweller ( talk) 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Just raised it at ANI. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Since you took the time to consider the issues at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal, I am hoping you might help us consider a related issue at Talk:Legends (TV series)#Call for a vote on hatnote for this page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply

So far, about half of the people who took part in the recent merger discussion have considered this related matter and half haven't. This leaves us on the border between consensus and no consensus. It would be great if could take a moment to consider the simple matter at Talk:Legends (TV series)#Call for a vote on hatnote for this page. A few more voices should make it clear if there is a consensus opinion or not.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

...for the help on Patriot Day. I just filed a CU request. I didn't want to protect the page as this seems to be the target and a good way to block them until CU can do their thing. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 18:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Glad to do it, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC) reply

	Nollaig shona duit
	Best christmas and new year. Another year down, and so much more to write. Thanks for all your contribuitions and being part of the community. Hope January is at least resonabally tolerable for you. Ceoil ( talk) 09:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You're most welcome. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timing belt (camshaft), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 13:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello Tom, I could do with your advice/input on the above article Talk page. One editor had inserted the aircraft used in the attacks as "weapons", a edit that was promptly reversed by another editor. To prevent a edit war, I suggested a discussion on the Talk page, but as of the moment there have been no constructive contributions. I must confess to being on the fence on this issue: it does not seem correct to label aircraft full of innocent people "weapons", but that is exactly what they were! Your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 17:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Tom, I'm afraid I find your comment here unsatisfactory. If it were suggested to me that I had made the mistake of taking an administrative action which I did not have the right to do, I would be very concerned, and would regard it as my duty to sort it out, determine whether I had indeed made such a mistake, and if so self-revert. I don't know what you had in mind when you wrote that comment, but the way it comes over is as a rather light and airy remark, suggesting "I may have made a mistake, but I don't care. If I have, I will leave it to someone else to deal with". I emphasise that I am not claiming to know that that is how you were thinking, but I am simply trying to point out that it looks rather like that. I strongly suggest that you go back, check whether you did in fact take administrative action that was contrary to policy, and if so correct the mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I think I'm correct in unblocking, but I understand that others may disagree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Tom. I appreciate your help and also appreciate that it didn't put HJ Mitchell through the ANI process as he is one of the few admins willing to monitor the GS/GG pages and ANI is taking it's pound of flesh from him (which I think is why he was unable to respond yesterday). Putting the spotlight on you instead of Harry saved a lot of drama at risk to yourself. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Can't take credit for planning it, but I'm glad it had a good effect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Drink a beer! Works for me! MONGO 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks; two hours and I'm on it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The section you removed is not "less than biographical", it is entirely biographical. The less than reliable nature of the story isn't the point, the point is Chris Kyle told this story and therefore reflects upon his life and character. As an administrator, I would really expect better. Nulla Taciti ( talk) 12:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

My apologies for possibly being a nuisance, but I don't know why you removed the Counterpunch reference? I thought that it seemed relevant. David A ( talk) 06:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Now that the film has won virtually zero at the silly Academy Awards, the zealots should finally be "vindicated" that the movie was bad or something. God forbid such a terrible piece of propaganda and lies about a "psychopath" should win any accolades.-- MONGO 07:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The more hysterical negative comments say a lot about the people who make them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Selma didn't win much either. Somehow I think the vitriol will be exclusively leveled at the #1 grossing war movie of all time. -- DHeyward ( talk) 07:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

In general the burden of justifying an edit is on the person who wants to add the material. The article should not be a link-dump for every negative comment about the movie. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Amen.-- MONGO 14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

From the lede: Zeitgeist is a trilogy of...

Hi Tom, I was wondering why you restored "conspiracy theory" back to the lede when both of the sources are specifically about the first film only, not the trilogy. According to this Wikipedia policy, those sources are only applicable to this section of the article. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 14:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The sources support what's said. It seems disengenouous to claim the those two sources apply only to the first movie, but maybe I've missed your point. In any case, it would probably be better to put further discussion on the article talk page, so others can more easily take part. I'll reply there as time permits. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Tom, the sources do not support Zeitgeist is a trilogy of... --- Both sources are very clear that they are only about the first film which makes your reversion a violation of WP:OR. I'm willing to go over the sources with you if you have a chance. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I think I may have made a mix-up with the deletion template in my two sandbox pages: User:AxG/sandbox/9 and User:AxG/sandbox/10. The deletion template was not for these pages, is there and chance you could restore the pages, thanks. --  [[ axg //  ✉ ]] 09:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

September 11 attacks

Hello again Tom, It appears that XXzoonami is again edit warring on the September 11 attacks article, is for the third time changing "terrorists" for "members" - as well as a load of unnecessary edits on all of the 9/11 articles. As you will know, I have no intention of joining a edit war, but I really think that these edits should be stopped on a article that serious editors have spent a good deal of time creating a factual page for the encyclopedia. Best regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 10:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll keep an eye on it. Appreciate your edits, there and elsewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Tom, the same user is again altering the September 11 attacks article in a significant way - again deleting "terrorists" for "connected with" and also making numerous unnecessary edits. They seem to take no notice whatsoever with the notes placed on their Talk page. I am happy to revert back, but would appreciate your advice/action before doing so? Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 09:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I reverted his latest. There is great inconsistencies in that person's editing and something doesn't look right to me as well. I haven't checked but am wondering if he has been given a discretionary sanctions reminder that is applicable to the 9/11 arbitration case.-- MONGO 13:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I've informed the user of the sanctions. That's one heck of a notification process - hope I did it right. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello again Tom, It appears that XXzooonami is yet again edit warring on the September 11 attacks article - once again making unnecessary and less clear edits. I have attempted to revert, but yet again they have again reverted with a rather arrogant note. As I mentioned above serious editors have spent much time creating a factual article, only to have "edits" - sometimes contradictory - from this source. Can I have your advice/action please? Best regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 21:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

David, you gave no explicit reasons why you choose to revert the same one back to the original one, even though it doesn't make sense. You also haven't responded to one of my talk pages as mentioned in the talk page of the September 11 attacks a few days early. You gave no reason why you revert the one back to the original one in the article Collapse of the World Trade Center, even it seems to make no sense. Rather than asking someone for help, I suggest you seek a conservation with me. I am trying to create a factual article. The one you did in the collapse of the World Trade Center makes no sense and all the sudden you blame me for correcting the error. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 21:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but each one of my edits gives a reason for the revert. If you read your "contribution" above, it does not make sense: what on earth is a "conservation" with you. You have been repeatedly warned by other editors (including myself) regarding your alterations and contradictions, but taken no notice. As Tom is amongst the major editors on this article, it is only right to ask for his advice/action. David J Johnson ( talk) 22:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

You accuse me of that I have no reason to revert at all, but with that same reason, you revert into something that doesn't make any factual sense WHICH I'm trying to fix in order to make it grammatically sound, so no, in that, you have no reason whatsoever, other than attempting repeated statements without trying to refute my points. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 22:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Without trying to insult you, is English a second language for you? If so that may explain why some of your edits appear to be grammatically incorrect.-- MONGO 02:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

At least I'm trying to fix the errors I made, while you remove them without explicit reason. Worst, you removed them without attempting to talk with me about the certain edits I made, even with the reasons I gave out why. And yes, what you really said to me right now is an insult. That's a personal attack. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 06:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

You did not answer my question. Some of your edits appear to be quite trollish and inconsistent. In some articles you add the word terrorist and in others you change it to militant or something else with edit summaries like "interesting new term". Sorry but that looks like trolling to me.-- MONGO 12:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

XXzoonamiXX, many of your edits are good, and they stay in the article. Some edits are borderline incoherent; some are contrary to consensus, or otherwise not seen as improvements. The way to handle this is not to revert people who object, but to take it to the talk page and try to build a reasoned consensus for what you want to do. This won't always work. In any case, don't keep trying to force in your preferred version. It unnecessarily antagonizes people, and does no good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Private email

Tom, Have sent you a private mail. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 10:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Zeitgeist related

I just received what I think is a very intense personal attack on my user page. Also on the Zeitgeist film article page I received a very intense personal attack from Andy The Grump. This is the same person that called me a little shit at one of those Ani's from the past. I think I need some help dealing with this and would appreciate any help in this what I would call a greatly exagerrated content dispute. I am guessing there are going to be a bunch of people ganging up on me at this Ani that Andy has brought. What he said is beyond rude it is a very crude personal attack. Thank you Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your help. It appears to me the Zeitgeist related things are spinning out of control now. I have pretty much given up for now trying to even comment in the RRC's, they seem out of control. It also seems to me that I am close to getting topic banned, I think wrongly. [6] Any help or advice is appreciated. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, the talk page has become useless. I can't tell what's being proposed, what people are expected to be !voting on today, or what proposals have gained consensus. Probably a good time to step away and work in other areas for a while. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

User: Pudist

Hello Tom, Can I please ask you to look at the POV edits made by the above user on the September 11 attacks article. I recently reverted the POV edit this user has made, but they have now re-inserted a further two times. I have advised them to take reasons to Talk page to no avail. Thanks for your help and regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 08:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, Would you tell me please why did you remove my input that is mentioned above? Pudist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Request

Tom, if you get a chance I would appreciate a glance at Stefan Lochner. I need guidance. Ceoil ( talk) 09:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The page of my enemy

Hi I hope you do not mind that I swiped your modified poem to put on my user page. I just found it clever and funny, also indicative of how things are blown out of proportion and take on a life of their own here. Thanks. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Replies

Sorry, I'm way behind on everything. That's likely to continue for a while yet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Merger discussion for Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

Articles that you have been involved in editing— Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act —have been proposed for merging with Sex offender registries in the United States. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etamni |  ✉ |  ✓  18:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies ( talk) 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Worsted and woollen manufacturing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Worsted and woollen manufacturing. Since you had some involvement with the Worsted and woollen manufacturing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Re your revert

Not sure if you got my ping (added after initial comment was posted), please give input if required @ /info/en/?search=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Article_does_not_mention_the_most_common_theories_correctly Thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Re your revert (2) 9/11 conspiracy theories

There was no "slant". There is simply an attempt to improve and clarify the page's poor and overlong intro. Please do NOT do instant knee-jerk revert of bona fide edits. Let others see them and comment. Arrivisto ( talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Support the proposed WikiProject for the World Trade Center

Dear Tom harrison, king of Wikipedia, my name is ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 , and I would personally like to invite you to come support this proposed WikiProject which would focus on the World Trade Center site ( before and after the September 11 attacks) and related topics. You can read on why this WikiProject is vital to form and improve World Trade Center topics. If you have questions, feel free to ask. Cheers, ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 02:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Tom harrison. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC) reply

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Tom harrison.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC) reply

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tom harrison. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tom harrison. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. ( T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. ( T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

KJV Latin Vulgate influence compromise

Please unlock the KJV page. Compromise reachable

/info/en/?search=Talk:King_James_Version#Latin_Vulgate_influence_compromise_revision — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.187.112 ( talk) 16:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Let's give it a few days. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Deletion of Jim Ryan (football coach)

Hi, Tom. Please reconsider the deletion of Jim Ryan-football coach. The page was deleted on 8 March, 2007. Jim Ryan is a common name, and yes, there are a couple Jim Ryans involved in football. This one in particular has coached at the college level for almost 20 years. He also earned the 2015 American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) Division III Assistant Coach of the Year. He is currently the Head Coach at Rhodes College in Memphis, TN. Thank you

Sure, go ahead. You should be able to create the page by clicking on the link in the title and following the prompts. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

User talk:123.136.106.97, User talk:123.136.106.206, User talk:123.136.112.133, User talk:183.171.179.107

Can you delete all? Because of Elmodivot socks may revert. 183.171.181.88 ( talk) 18:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tom harrison. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply