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.

Jon & Kate Plus 8

A few weeks ago you protected Jon & Kate Plus 8 after an editing dispute where one editor kept refusing to discuss the issue. On the talk page, other editors were able to build a consensus, you removed the protection, and things seemed to settle down. Recently the same user came, fully removed the table because it wasn't their version, ignored the consensus on the ages, and made other unnecessary changes to the article. I've reverted their edits, encouraging them to discuss this on the talk page, but I doubt they're going to and I'm positive they'd ignore any consensus anyway. Could I please get some advice about this? Should I just keep reverting? Should the article be protected again? I just don't know how to deal with this user. Thanks for any help. --13² 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Should I just keep reverting?" No, definitely not. Wait for a consensus to form on talk. If it takes a while for everybody to speak up, try to be patient. It's frustrating, but we have to accept that the article will be in a state we don't like from time to time. (I don't have any preference myself; I know nothing about John or Kate; whatever you guys agree on is fine with me). The page is on my watchlist, and I'll check in again later this evening. If you need help urgently, for a WP:BLP concern or something, ask at WP:ANI. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. I will mention though that we got a consensus over those two issues. Several editors agreed that her version needed to be changed and agreed that this version was better. She left one message on the talk page and it was basically "Either keep my version or I'm taking the whole thing out." which is what she did. She refuses to discuss the issue unless it's in her favor and she throws a fit when it's not (you can see the few messages by her on that talk page as well as mine). She claims she cites everything, but, in reality, she'll throw a website name out there, which hardly ever says what she says it does. She's also said before that she refuses to discuss issues and refuses to gain consensus. She's had several edit summaries for that article with stuff like "Survey says..." when she's never even done a survey (at least not on anyone but her). It's immensely frustrating. --13² 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put in my two cents here (as I've been dealing with her on the same article, as well)...if you look at this user's talk page, you will see many instances of other editors trying to engage her in discussion on this topic, and she stubbornly refuses to communicate. She often edits without a reason in the summary or without gaining any consensus. When she does have an edit summary they are usually extremely haughty and rude. She refuses to discuss changes on the talk page, but instead goes to user talk pages or argues her point in the edit summary. I'm with 13 that it's been extremely frustrating. Her user page says she's "learning the ropes" still, but I believe she needs some additional guidance. Cactusjump (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, she's back again making the same changes although she has not gained consensus on the talk page. I reminded her as such, but she has yet to go to the talk page to discuss. Cactusjump (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...And back again, adding the info yet again. Cactusjump (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With this as an edit summary: "The Canadian dates and the one UK *are* staying. Do the work with the sources I've given in previous comments. On that note, I can now get rid of the rediculous "Region1" link." Just more of that same old ignoring of consensus and own-y stuff. --13² 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this user seems to have no intention of resigning their position, should the WP:ANI report be updated, or what is the next step? Cactusjump (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's back and reverting again. Cactusjump (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And she back....yet again. --13² 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Fiorina

Hello. I noticed you were the most recent person to protect Fiorina's page. Did you mean to indefinitely protect it? APK that's not my name 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced it to semi-protection, which is probably appropriate because of blp concerns. Leaving it at full protection so long was a mistake; thanks for catching it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. APK that's not my name 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J&K

I don't know if you caught my message above, but R7604 is back edit warring again. Can you please advise us where to go from here? --13² 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user for 3 months, and will keep the page on my watch list. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. --13² 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duck?

User:BC223 is making nearly identical edits as R7604 on the J&K page and just started editing today. I don't know if this is a block evasion, but right now it's looking like a duck. Any suggestions? Should we just keep an eye on the page to see if they continue? --13² 18:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the most recent diffs by each user: BC223 and R7604. Aside from adding italics to one of the DVD titles, the edits are identical. --13² 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the last month or so, R7604 has edited in all but two of the articles that BC223 has within the last hour. --13² 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clearly the same user, now blocked. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gmacnroll

Hi, user Gmacnroll (talk · contribs) who you blocked has returned as 174.116.36.197 (talk · contribs). He was also 142.162.18.39 (talk · contribs) at some point. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Maybe best for now to Revert, block, and ignore. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPG

Sources - This page used many sources I have challenged. The only one that people attempted to refute is the NYT piece. It provides very little and nothing new, so it doesn't matter with notability.

The others I refuted as reliable are: Artnet, not a reliable new source on legal matters and lacks an author, BJP, the same as art net and lacks an author, Amateurphotographer, not a reliable news source on legal matters , and NYLawLine, a blog and not a reliable source for "facts" and not allowed for notability. Then there is a 2007 source Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy, which obviously lacked the ability to predict the future. etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<ref> tag for editing and adding a reference

Tom, Thank you for your note welcoming me. I am attempting to add a sentence to the article on George Whitefield and add a reference to document my content addition. My reference addition for the book by John Pollock was saved and accepted, but the content addition I've tried to save tells me something is wrong with "<ref> tag. Can you help me with his now? Thank you.Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exuberate (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I still don't understand specifically how to enter my sentence in the "Advocacy of Slavery" section of the article on George Whitefield with the proper symbol(s) or whatever is needed at the end of the sentence to correct the <ref> tag issue. Specifically what do I type besides the sentence I want to add? This may be rudimentary but it is not clear to me. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Exuberat (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 August 2009

Another duck?

Another user making nearly identical edits as R7604 on Jon & Kate: diff. --13² 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked; thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another. :| --13² 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm not sure about that one. Let's assume good faith and give it some time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)~~ Blocked, Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I decided to notify you since it was nearly identical to the last one (except for one link and fixing the capitalization of a name (which needs to be removed anyway as it was an unexplained change by someone else prior to this)). I'm cool with waiting and seeing; I just wanted to bring the name to your attention. --13² 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Treat the user nice and the reaction will tell us a lot. Best case, maybe a new user - we could use a few. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No joke. My sister joined up this afternoon. So far so good! :) --13² 02:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I'm an anon doesn't mean I'm incapable of anything besides vandalism

Care to explain how this makes the article better? Next time, *review* the edit before jumping to conclusion. I commented it out because I didn't know if it was important, but I know it's not suppose to be like that. Edit summaries are nice too unless IPs aren't worthy. Remember you "established" users are where we get these bad habit from. Don't be so bitey. I'm guessing you're an admin or something too. Wikipedia used to be a much friendly place. 71.155.241.19 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]