User talk:Tom harrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Admin mop.PNG
Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks.

For new users[edit]

If you are new here, welcome. The page Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Archives[edit]

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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 12 13

Other old material is available in the page history.

Noel Rose (a page you deleted in 2006)[edit]

Hi Tom, I work in the field of autoimmune disease and went looking for a page on Noel Rose, but noticed a 2006 version had been deleted by you. I expect it was a guideline problem (e.g., a verbatim copy of existing content), but let me know if there was some other reason. I am going to start creating the new page, but if you have issues please let me know. Thank you.

Aaron Abend (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Invited![edit]

Hi Tom! Next on my list to bring to Featured Article level is the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I have commenced doing some adjustments and some may become major as it proceeds. I feel it lacks the engineering discussion needed to provide a full understanding of how and why the buildings collapsed and for that I need persons better versed than I to at least steer it along the correct path...so anything you have to suggest there or here is welcome.--MONGO (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. Tom Harrison Talk 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think some organizational issues persist and was thinking a brief summary of the attacks, followed by a detailed description of the collapses (the article lacks many finer details) then on to the mechanics of what happened. I am not sure a lengthy discussion about lost artwork, etc, belongs as I think this needs to mainly discuss the engineering aspects. We may have to address conspiracy theories was well near the end if for no other reason than to put them in their bed.--MONGO (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed; some pruning is due. Tom Harrison Talk 14:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry been absent a bit still thinking about what the article should emphasize..will be working on it more next week.--MONGO (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem, same here... Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Tom harrison. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock?[edit]

As it's such a long time since the block and a Checkuser has said there's been no evidence of recent block evasion, would you be happy with an unblock at User talk:Mstrojny now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society[edit]

Fifteen Year Society userbox.svg

Dear Tom harrison,

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

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


Black Hebrew Israelites[edit]

Hi you recently protected Black Hebrew Israelites for edit warring. Looks like it is starting again except this time they are calling it vandalism. Should I take it to WP:AN/EW since this is a long term issue with them removing the same material against consensus for months? PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately that's the next step. Tom Harrison Talk 11:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I've protected the page again. Please give your views on the talk page if you would. Tom Harrison Talk 18:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Done, thanks again for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Review[edit]

What is missing or should be culled from Collapse of the World Trade Center. I feel we have too many sections and some areas could be combined. I have a period of free time and may try and push this to peer review after I reread the NIST report. If you're inclined, feel free to post any suggestions to the article talkpage so we can get a dialogue started.--MONGO (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, I'll start reading. Tom Harrison Talk 01:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center[edit]

Hello Tom, Can I ask you to look at the recent "edits" on the Collapse of the World Trade Center, which you reverted earlier. A noted conspiracy buff then reverted back to his preferred version, which I reverted back. This has been reverted, yet again, by the same person. My suggestion was to wait until MONGO's proposed rewrite, but this has been ignored. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

David, I'd say wait and see how it develops. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 12:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Restore page[edit]

Hi, can you restore User:EchetusXe/Nathan Ferguson for me please? I had it deleted but he has come back to the game and is now notable. Thanks,--EchetusXe 17:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Done; happy editing. Tom Harrison Talk 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)