User talk:Tom harrison/Archive/Jan06

Need your help

Hi, there seem to be a consensus developed on article talk page about moving it from Third holiest site in Islam (expression) --> Holiest sites in Islam. However, I am afarid that it will be moved back and forth. How can I have it move protected after having it move to Holiest sites in Islam? --- ALM 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen references to this debate, but haven't followed it myself. If there is a general consensus, just move it. If the move is likely to be controversial, list it at requested moves. It is important to work deliberately: no cut-and-paste moves, no moving pages back and forth. I'll put the page on my watch list. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blend

Hi Tom, could you please clarify this merge here? I see you've noted it as such and I'm not sure how things work around these sorts of issues... However, I did discern that nothing was actually merged; only redirected? Lovelight 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was merged in when the redirect was created. I think User:Bov was involved, though he may have opposed the merge. You might ask him about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

I think I may take a good long wikibreak from the project. Tom, I want to thank you for stepping in on MONGO’s talk page. You are one of the most civil people I know. The problem is, this issue will still be around even when I have returned. I can stay away from the controversial articles. My contributions elsewhere - will they be lost if the true hot topics, such as the political articles are left unchecked? Project-wise we do not have the respect we should. I think even J. Wales would agree that this project should be built correctly. But that’s my opinion. Again, thanks. It has been rough lately. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I have added my input to the straw poll. I think I should stay out of the wiki-works for a while though (I left the wikibreak template on my talk and user page). I will still check back and read more on the comments as this Arbcom is still in progress. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability edits

This note (verbitim) is going to User:VigoDeutschendorf and to User:Tom harrison & User:MONGO: Yesterday's borderline edit-war was rather unnecessary. Vigo: please discuss major changes (like adding entire sections) before making them, especially to a (contentious!) guideline/policy page. You appear to be a new Wikipedian judging from your Contributions page, so your overenthusiasm is understandable. Tom and Mongo: It's not really fair to Vigo (or everyone, for that matter) to revert someone's work without a reasoned and detailed explanation for why in the edit summary or the Talk page, especially if you were not part of the ongoing Talk discussion about the direction of the guideline page in question in the first place. FYI, Vigo's ideas have been integrated (albeit in different worcing) by two heavily-involved editors on this topic, and fit well with the overall direction of the new "Misconceptions" section. This is not meant as a flame against anyone (nor even to everyone equally >;-) but a process-enhancing/consensus-building request. Wikipedia:Notability has been one of the most debatory issues on all of WP, and it's really nice to get some progress on consensus happening. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Vigo...You appear to be a new Wikipedian" You think? "This is not meant as a flame..." Neither is this. Let me know how it works out. Anyway, I'll think about what you said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:MONGO#Wikipedia:Notability edits; he (MONGO) metioned the same "not a newbie" issue; I s'pected "Vigo" was a secondary account all along, just by viirtue of the fact that he engaged in a WP:N debate at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, re: "Let me know how it works out.":

Swimmingly thus far. I'm not sure (and not sure I care to know) what previous battles (under whatever nyms) have cause such rancor against him, but "Vigo" (whatever his/her/its name really is) made genuine forward-moving edits on, well, pretty much THE most contentious non-article page on the system. I'm just saying judge an edit on its own merits. Anecdotal anaolgy: On one topic (namely WP:N), I've been damn' near User:Radiant's mortal enemy, but on some others we're totally of one mind. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

168.169.177.148

I suggest you keep an eye out on 168.169.177.148. This user has been sneaky at vandalising pages without anyone knowing, not even the Anti-Bots could detect the person's unconstructive edits. ----Power level(Dragon Ball)^{Stacy's Mom} 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll watch for it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Dear Tom, and I should have done the same, so never mind. Do you think we should leave the two reports as they are, or merge the information. I do not know the eticette on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just leave it. Whoever reviews it will understand what happened. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All right. I agree. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom, a bit of a delicate question for you but... do you think the project would be better without IPT? Funny enough I don't think so. (→Netscott) 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Best of all would be having him here contributing responsibly. I hope that is an option. Banning him from individual pages would be less bad than having him blocked entirely. But really, he can't just keep dropping in once a week, reverting to his preferred wording, and then defending his work by edit-warring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand... there's not much of an argument against what you're saying... Tom's an intelligent person and I think if only he could moderate his editing better he'd make a good contributor. (→Netscott) 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Qu'ranic terrorism nonsense

Isn't there some sort of CSD criteria that such an article might fall under? (→Netscott) 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious. If we let the AfD run its course we can speedy it in the future as recreation of deleted material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Israeli art students

This article was AfDd long ago; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_students. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for letting me know before I sank any more time into it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream vs. official

Tom, once again I appeal to your good sense. The section you've retitled "mainstream account" does not describe the mainstream account but explains what the CTists mean when they say (as they often do) "the official account". I have a longer explanation of this difference on the talk page, but if you reread the section in this light it should be clear that the title was correct as it was. Anyway, happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"I have a longer explanation of this difference on the talk page..." Yes, it's on my watch list. I'll look in when I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I made them back in late november. The last time this was changed.[1]--Thomas Basboll 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's on my watch list. I'll look in when I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I seem to have caught you at a bad time again. Sorry to be a bother. Like the last time, I really didn't mean for you to get right on it. I added the link because using the watchlist to find that old remark of mine (rather than just going to the talk page and looking at the table of contents) seemed like doing it the hard way. Maybe there's a trick I haven't learned yet. Also, I did mean that "but" up there in my original question. A simple reading of the section ought to suffice to see that "official" is the right word (perhaps with the quotes).--Thomas Basboll 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian fractions and David Eppstein

Hi Tom,

Over the last couple of weeks David and I have been 'churning' the defintion and 'fair' introduction of Egyptian fractions leadin). David is an apt modern number theory mathematician, someone that has aptly worked on the greedy algorithm and its clones, pointed out by Sylvester in 1891, an algorithm that Fibonacci knew of it, and wrote up in his 1202AD book. I support David in his post-1202 AD work, in great part.

David, oddly does not seem to know or wish to read about the demise of the non-algorithmic form of Egyptian fractions related to the 1600's raise of base 10 decimals, first by Stevins in 1585, and later by Napier and his log tables, That is, David tends not to grasp, or wish to discuss per many of my Wikipdiea citations being removed without solid references. Even the latest aspects of the pre-algorithm history Egyptian fraction conversion methods written up in 1202 AD, per Heinz Lueneberg's 1993 Liber Abbaci book (published in Germany, and a best seller there) have been tersely removed - with no serious comment.

I have delayed in contacting you over these subjects that easily connect to Greeks and Egyptians (as old as 2,000 BCE), a broader subject that the readers of Wikipedia should be allowed to 'determine for themselves' the correct history. David also removes my older solid references citations of Egyptian fractions (written by scholars other than myself), a subject that he is totally unqualified to judge. David's rationale is often personal in scope, a point of view that should first be discussed with the author - before acting on his feelings and removing the Wikipedia lines of texts.

Can you let me know how to contact you on this class of problem? I have offered David a 'peaceful' resolution to our common definition of Egyptian fractions, a definition that states that three aspects of the subject should be discussed in the ancient or modern era: (1) the beginning rational number, (2) the method that converts the rational number, and (3) the final Egyptian fraction series. David commonly only cites two aspects of the subject, most often omitting the mention of rational numbers in the ancient context.

Can we begin again and properly define all Egyptian fractions as unit fractions belonging to the final 'Egyptian fraction' series? Without rational numbers, 2,000 BCE Egyptians would never had written one Egyptian fraction series, as the EMLR and RMP 2/nth table strongly attest, as all the clones of Davids' greedy algorithm also attest.

Best Regards,

Milo Gardner

This is the way to contact me if you need to, or use the article talk page. I have to say, much of what you present is likely incomprehensible to the non-specialist. Remember, we are writing a general-purpose encyclopedia. Further, we are not doing original research. Everything we write here has to have been published first in a reliable source. So we are not going to craft a definition of Egyptian fractions by discussion and compromise, we are going to record what mainstream scholars say Egyptian fractions are.

On style and readability, I mentioned this on the article talk page as well. I only have an undergraduate minor in math, but I do have some interest in historical methods of calculation, and I have read a bit on the subject. Stuff like, the EMLR, and its 1/p and 1/pq methods, and the RMP 2/nth table and its 2/p and 2/pq methods, that taken together extrapolate into n/p and n/pq conversion methods used in the AWT, MMP and other texts... makes my eyes glaze over. To the extent that I can extract any meaning from this, it seems like a tendentious presentation of your own research. From your point of view, I do not doubt that you are trying to inform the reader about the current state of knowledge, but without giving myself airs, if I cannot understand it, I wonder who can. I suggest you take special pains to keep it simple and basic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I too have only a BA in Math, earned in 1964. However, I have gone on and spent almost 20 years working with the data presented in the ancient texts, based on an earlier three Army stint as a cryptanalyst. I was taught, in the Army, to read language and numeric patterns, assigning the language text to the proper lanuage (by the number of letters, vowels, syllables and so forth) and the numeric data to its initial encoding devise, if one was used. It is clear from several points of view reported by scholars dating back 111 years that all the ancient texts have been demeeded as readable in modern arithmetic and algebra once the Egyptian fraction series are replaced by the scribe's beginning rational number. You may deem my point of view as modern research, but you would be incorrect. I have not cited one of my papers, and I have published several, such as on the EMLR in two publications. Best Regards, Milo Gardner 12/1/06.

Tom, David Eppstein's debate on this topic may be improving by our discussing the 'best' 2/nth table series. My position is that Ahmes showed that four algebraic identities were used to find all Egyptian fraction series between 2/5 and 2/101. David seems to wish to debate the 'best' aspect of the modern subject by suggesting that Ahmes' work was not always the best - say related to his modern set of methods. David seems to say that Ahmes' work was therefore deficient in some way. Clearly the history of Egyptian fraction should include Ahmes' four methods, as suggested by Kevin Brown, and others, and 'cute' modern attacks on ancient Egyptians should be discouraged.

I hope that you come to agree with me, to the extent that modern number theory views are exactly that - modern. Ancient number theory took different paths using different definitions to partition n/p and n/pq into short and concise series (many of which were not the best even in the minds of the scribe writing them).

Thanks again for moderating. Wikipedia is an interesting forum. Wikipedia is worthy of publishing the latest professional papers on Egyptian fractions, thereby updating the confusing 1920's researchers that seemed to 'fight against' Hultsch- Bruins, as first noted in 1895. Best Regards, Milo Gardner 12/6/06.

As I have pointed out a few times now, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Your points may have merit, but this is not the place to publish the latest professional papers on anything. All we may do is record the current understanding, giving due weight to notable minority opinions. I'm pleased to see everyone discussing things on the talk page and working towards concensus. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom, at no time have I stated an interest other than reporting well documented, sometimes very old, meaning 1895, citations of Egyptian mathematics. The thrust of your position statement does not include the existance of a lively debate, one dating to the first 'bootleg' release to the RMP in 1873. German scholars worked hard on one aspect of the text, its abstract arithmetic, with the Brits and a few others working hard on the practical additive aspects. With the end of WWI, all things German tended to be taken out of US and British math books, meaning Gauss and all the 1910 and other agreements on international ways of teaching arithmetic. In 1910 that meant college arithmetic, as Gottengin and Gauss' work on the subject had been accepted for severalo years. However, by 1920, the turn of the century consensus was gone --- a point that oddly has adversely effected a wide range of mathematical studies.

I'd like to go on. In summary, the delayed release of the EMLR until 1927, after the RMP 'debate' was proposed to have been closed by Chace in 1927 should be seen as a red flag. The actual contexts of the EMLR contained five (or more) abstract examples contained in the relationshop 1/pq = (1/A) x (A/pq), where A = 5, 7, 25. The relationship also appears in the RMP for 2/pq = (2/A) x (A/pq), where A = (p + 1). This partitioning method was used as a "best" series over 20 times. The German side of this issue was quickly muted, due to the run up to WWII, with the British Museum position (where both the RMP and EMLR have been stored since 1863), doing nothing to fix the one-side practical only side created in the 1920's. That is, the modern consensus should contain a large number of British/US practical arithmetic series, say in the EMLR where 21 of the 26 series may have been first 'additive'. However, concerning the 2/nth table, the majority of its Egyptian fractions may have followed the abstract German side of the discussion, as noted by F. Hultach in 1895. Give the abstract aspect of the EMLR's five 1/pq = 1/A x A/pq rule, the RMP, has this been the primary 2/pq method, overall 50 of the 51 members of the 2/nth table can be seen as German. Hence, adding the 21 additive EMLR 1/p and 1/pq series, to the one confirmed RMP additive series, means that 22 additive series can be confirmed out of a total of 77 EMLR and RMP 2/nth table Egyptian fraction series. Given this updated breakdown, should not, or can not, a new consenus have swung to the abstract side of the discussion given, dating to 2002, such that 55 EMLR/2/nth table series may have been created by the higher form of arithmetic? Best Regards, Milo Gardner 12/10/06.

Hi Tom, Thanks for the comments related to the above. You are correct to comment that a few of the above points could have been posted directly to a paragraph within Egyptian fraction or Egyptian math. More people would read it. However, as you and David have clearly noted, new research, as mine surely is related to the 1910 international conference on the teaching of arithmetic being 'German', meaning Gottingen and Gauss based, prior to WWI, and not mentioned after WWI, in England and the US, is a simple point that BA folks like you and I can easily see. I ran across the fact in a 1990 NCTM work table, almost next to Chace's 1927 copy of the the NCTM, both offered for sale as equals, which surely they are not.

My present interest is not to document the 1863 to 2006 time period and the twists and turns that have held back or misquoted the EMLR, RMP and the other Egyptian fraction texts. My interest is the extend the Greek and Hellene methods of writing Egyptian fracions to 1202 AD, as written up by Fibonacci, a clear fact proven by Heinz L. and others long ago, one that David E. seems hesitent to include in his review of modern Egyptian fractions and the greedy algorithm, and its Islamic post 800 AD roots - that have little or anything to do with the 2000 BC to 1585 AD history of Egyptian, Greek and medieval Egyptian fractions. Best Regards, Milo Gardner 12/11/06

Hi Tom,

Thanks for taking an interest in Egyptian fractions by adding the word 'probably' a term that escapes my understanding. Reading all the RMP algebra problems and working forwards, or starting with the answers, and working backwards, all the rational numbers and steps were easily converted to the Egyptian fractions as previously cited. That is, once reading the RMP and the data, probably should not be associated with it in the way that you suggested. Your suggestion only shows that you have not read the hard data - cited by Robins-Shute, or any other reputable scholar.

Concerning David's revision of Liber Abaci contents, it looks good in several areas. I wonder why it has taken David so long to look up one version of the 1202 AD text? I also wonder if David has looked up the reference that I cited, Heinz Leuneberg, written in German? Best Regards, Milo Gardner 12/12/06.

Hi Tom,

Today a 'final draft' was submitted, somehow not linked to my name in the Egyptian fractions section. Someone removed the changes, yourself or David?, that had been made over two days. You or David? replaced my work with an outdated set of references that tends to show Fibonacci used n-iterations in his greedy algorithm, when the Liber Abaci data presented by David Eppstein only shows 2-iterations. When 3rd and 4th iterations are cited in the Liber Abaci - an algorithm my be implied, but not until. The 2-iteration method dates to 400-500 AD, Akhmim Papyrus (published by W. Knorr, 1982) written by a Coptic, well before Islamics invented the algorithm, as we know it. Best Regards, Milo Gardner 12/15/06.

You seem not to be logged in, so your edits are not being attributed to your name, but instead to your ip address. See the page's edit history for who did what. I'm busy with real life just now, so I will be able to follow the page only occasionally. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism

Dude, I'm going to take out the "further reading" section of this article every time I see it's returned until one of you who want it there explains what connection each book has to the subject and what credentials you believe the author or authors to have. That's the proper way to deal with contested material, not simply for you to run over objections. Grace Note 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer following the page, but I suggest you avoid edit wars. Work to build consensus on the talk page, and use dispute resolution if necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for 24 hours, or as much as a week for repeat offenses. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not useful or just, and does not remedy anything. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What would you do?

You've asked me to stop, and I respect that, but honestly, what would you do? If you were a casual user like me, and someone of the stature of JzG was going around calling you a POV pushing troll, would you ignore it? I should have taken him to arbitration or RfC when it happened, and now I think it's too late. I regret that now, because now he's basically tainting my reputation everywhere and if I try to stop him, I'm a stalker. If I had dealt with it back then, he couldn't do this today, but I took the high road and I'm paying for it.

I joined Wikipedia with the best of intentions: to protect it from an obvious troll, a guy who has waged a relentless 3-year propaganda battle against a fringe technology and was trying to bring that propaganda to Wikipedia. I stepped in purely out of a sense of truth and justice - I hadn't had any association with PRT or anything like it before coming here, and still don't. My only "agenda" was preventing an obvious abuse. And for my trouble, I've gotten nothing but condescension and accusations from the very kind of authority I would hope could help me in fighting a troll. Now, for all my trouble, I'm now being told to shut up and let JzG spew whatever he wants about me, whenever and wherever he wants.

I've seen you around (especially on the 9/11 pages), and I respect your judgement. So, please, tell me what I can do here to protect my reputation without coming across as a stalker. ATren 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the past is often in the past. Often politicians do stupid things. They appologize and try to move on. If the subject is brought up again, they tactfully avoid it by concentrating on the "main issue." It's what you do with your future that matters. I wouldn't have even really noticed this if you didn't pin-point it! You appear to be wise enough to know the wiki rules and policies. JzG can be a fiesty one if you are fiesty and he will have his own POVs as well. There is nothing wrong with a POV, so long as you balance it out with all the other ones. Also, I once heard someone say "So and so did this!" when he knew he obviously didn't. When asked why he said such a rumour he responded "I just wanted to see him denny it!" So... don't worry, be happy! What's that saying...smile in the light of adversity. And as a wikipedia part-time editor I will certainly be hold a good regard towards anyone that can do that! (As for all that evidence you have... just make another user sub-page, and put it all there. Good place to vent your frustration. And then, if you really want, show it to the person that bugged you. Maybe they'll even appologize. Who knows?) --CyclePat 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I feel like I did what I had to do: defend myself from baseless charges. I am now going to drop it, but if he continues to do what he's been doing, I'm going to DR or arbitration with it. ATren 13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you either drop it, or take it to dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I will consider DR if it continues. ATren 13:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding removal of article link on 9/11 Truth Movement page

Hello Tom,

I'm new to this Wiki thing, but I added my article on The Nation magazine's attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement because I posted it on 9/11 blogger and it got a VERY strong positive reaction. I think it's highly relevant to the Wiki entry.

The Nation magazine weakly trashes 9/11 skeptics, David Caputo, Totally Fixed and Rigged Magazine, December 2006.

If you'd prefer, I'm happy to have the 911Blogger.com version of the link listed instead.

Read the article and the comments. I think it's a worthy contribution to the discussion, and so do my readers.

Please let me know if/why you disagree, or kindly restore the post (with the 911Blogger.com link if you prefer, I care not).

Thanks

David Caputo

http://TotallyFixed.blogspot.com

Article in Question:

http://911blogger.com/node/5078 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.195.190 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

It is better not to add links to your own work. If it is good and notable enough for inclusion, someone else will add it. Beyond that, links to weblogs are really not very encyclopedic. They are in general much better for the blogger than for our readers. Until your blog is as well known as Daily Kos or Instapundit, a link from Wikipedia is probably not appropriate. If you think it should be included, you can make a case on Talk:9/11 Truth Movement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:OurWeTheOnlyOnes

This attack page has been recreated yet again. The next time you delete it, please salt it as well. 68.161.115.24 01:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Str's comments

Hi Tom,

Can you please have a look at [2], [3] e.g.Esposito-Apologist-for every-kind-of-monstrosity -if-only-committed-by-Muslim-hands and I think this is the most heneious thing that the son of Abdallah ever did in his life(son of Abdallah is Muhammad) a butcher like Hamza or Umar The tone of the comment is also improper. --Aminz 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Tom, I have some real life news! I'll email you soon. --Aminz 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 says Esposito is not objective; a pro-Muslim apologist who overlooks the misdeeds of those he favors. His language is more forcful than I would use, and maybe comes across as harsher than he intends, but it seems within the bounds of civility. The second diff looks like a technical discussion about whether a battle was a stalemate or a defeat. I don't see the problem there. Lately I have had to reduce the time I spend on Wikipedia, so I probably can't really mediate here. I would suggest that everyone take it easy, nobody respond in kind, and take breaks when needed. Consider formal mediation only if necessary. Aminz, I look forward to hearing your news. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to take that easy. Merry Christmas--Aminz 01:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you enjoy the holidays. Anytime there is vigorous discussion on topics we care about, it's easy to write something that will be read as too aggressive. I think most of the time with most of us it is not meant that way. Most of us respect each other's work, even if we find each other a bit exasperating. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

911 attacks on list of conspiracies

My purpose in placing the word 'operatives' was not for the reason you reverted it. It was to make it read a little closer to the summary in the main article. I was really trying to say Alqaeda {{people}}, where people could be operatives, agents, terrorists, hijackers, members, affiliates or something similar. It wasn't meant to be a euphemism. You probably didn't understand my reasoning in the edit summary when I did this. I think that the summary for the list items should be as close as possible to the main articles, when the items have a main article. Otherwise, they should try to summarize the section of the article that is being referred to. Also, I don't believe that there is a need to cite sources anywhere on the list, as there should be nothing on the list that doesn't have an article (or part of article) associated with it. In this way it will make it easier to keep original research off of the list. I am going to make a comment of the afd page with some proposed guidelines for the list that should help with most of the arguments being presented. Anyway the basic structure that I envision for the summaries on the list, for entries with main articles, would be:

• main article: title in bold...rest of summary.
• list item: [[link to article]] ...rest of summary.

It would be nice if a template could be developed to help automate this, but I don't know if there is a template variable just for the summary of an article. Umeboshi 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. If every entry summarizes and links to an existing article, that would help with the sourcing. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I'll give it some thought. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your support! MONGO 09:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on my campaign to become an administrator

Hello Tom harrison/Archive, I hope that you are having a happy holiay season. I have recently been nominated to become an administrator here on Wikipedia. I am asking that since I have worked with you in the past that you stop by my nomination page and consider entering a vote, hopefully in support of my becoming an administrator.

• Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk:No1lakersfan if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RV to Frank Gehry

Please note you rv'd my vandalism revert back to a blank article. Pedro1999a |  Talk  13:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• [4] Sorry, I misunderstood your edit. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Sorry I resent this. And your protect of the article hasn't taken (pointless anyway). Look at my 400+ reverts of vandalism. I AM NOT A VANDAL.Pedro1999a |  Talk  13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I misunderstood. As you can see from the diff above, your edit appeared to add a childless insult. I do not understand in what sense the protection has not taken or is pointless. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Block has now taken. This shows why pointless, but you weren't to know that. I spend enough time fighting vandalism, so was a bit red ragged when I saw my RV being reverted. My fault for not checking that the rv still had abuse. Pedro1999a |  Talk  13:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. I've done the same myself. I can fully protect the page if that would be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be no need to fully protect, but will advise if necessary. Thanks again. Pedro1999a |  Talk  14:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube RfC

I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Termination of debate on renaming 9/11 conspiracy theories

Please justify your decision to terminate the debate on renaming 9/11 conspiracy theories. Snorkel, an opponent of my proposal, had made an excellent suggestion to disentangle the arguments and deal with them point by point. You terminated the debate just as this process was getting under way, even though the core points of my argument, some of which had been echoed by others supporting the proposal, had not been rebutted.

If the debate is a tiresome old chestnut then surely the arguments I raised have been raised before and could be refuted by pointing to the relevant sections of the archives of those discussions. Yet this did not happen. Instead you terminated the debate without allowing my arguments to be refuted, which will inevitably mean that the matter will be raised again, which is something you obviously do not want to happen. Ireneshusband 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out that there is a consensus to keep the name as it is. I don't see how that terminates debate. There are four comments after mine, two of them your own. As one observeres, this has been decided half a dozen times in the last couple of years. If I could terminate debate by fiat, I'd consider it, but that is beyond my powers. Debate all you want; just don't mistake silence for assent. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ave

Nuntium tuum calidissime legere possum! I'm glad you enjoyed the tongue twisters. I can never think up suitable matter to put in the `edit summary' field, so I thought of just using surreal nonsense.

Also, I think I may have been a little sharp in dealing with Ireneshusband: I tend to be rather impatient about that sort of thing. I followed the link from your `welcome' message to the policy on civility (since I was wondering about that), and cannot quite make up my mind whether I have overstepped the mark or not. I shall certainly attempt to reign my sarcasm in a tad in from now on, but will my prior comments be actionable?

Thanks, Rosenkreuz 21:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult not to become exasperated with each other, and most of us realize that. You might strike the parts you think were over the top, or mention that the tone turned out to be harsher than you meant. The most that would be appropriate for a minor first offense would be a caution to be civil - 'comment on content, not the contributor' is a good rule. That you noticed on your own and thought about it pretty much mitigates the offense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I left the chap a note on his talk page, explaining a tad and apologising. I have been watching these shennanigans from the wings for a while, and finally decided to do what I could to help out here...these policies would all work wonderfully, if they were interpreted in the spirit in which they are no doubt meant, but unfortunately they seem to be so easily subverted by people Hell-bent on foisting their own incoherencies upon the public, under the mantle of respectability which an encyclopaedia provides. Not on my watch! Rosenkreuz 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted posts

Hi Tom, I see that you deleted some of my posts to a user's talk page. I hope I didn't do anything wrong. I saw that some info that was posted there was questionable so I acted. Anyways, just curious, thanks! --Tom 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi Tom. I appreciate your respectful request, however I am compelled to respectfully decline. To do so would be the same as complying with someone's request not to participate in a talk page discussion. I have attempted to appease the concerns of the few in the community who have expressed concern by amending my question with a disclaimer that further emphasises that this question is optional. The disruption you refer to appears to have been caused not by me but by a particualarly vocal minority who for whatever reasons are offended by the question. At least one participant appears to be an administrator on a personal crusade. I have only been contacted by one RfA candidate who expressed annoyance by the question but was satisified by my rationalization and explanation for how I participate in an RfA. All of the other candidates have given mostly candid and/or thoughtful responses. None of the participants in the talk page discussion have been directly affected by the question. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks 911tm

I was just about to go back and restore those the templates again. Thanks :) Umeboshi 19:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps at that it's going to have to be reported. It still violates 3rr even if he uses multiple ip addresses. I think that new category is a good idea, by the way. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to make it sensible. Btw, the dude is still at it with the 911tm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umeboshi (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I see that. I have to go out, but if you want to deal with it you might request page protection or report a 3rr violation if he has violated it. If not, someone will deal with it later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Wildnox and Durin are taking care of it. Don't think protection necessary yet, would rather wait for 3rr since it's only one ip. Umeboshi 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Phaedriel

What grounds is there for protecting this page? There was no vandalism occuring. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11: The Big Lie

I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoffman Page

Why are you adding the template to Hoffman's page when it has never been on there before? It has bogus information on it and doesn't belong on there. Please do not repost it. bov 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a useful navigational aid. Someone who wants to know about Hoffman may well want to read more about the movement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a useful navigational aid, I see it as an effort to wrap up UFOs with 9/11 by describing "Rense" as a 9/11 researcher. He is not one, nor does anyone in the movement consider him one. He has never been invited to a conference, has produced no videos on 9/11, no books, has no website dedicated to 9/11, etc., etc. He has no characteristics that should include him on a supposed 9/11 oriented "navigational aid." Since you insist on reposting it despite it's obvious flaws in content, I suppose it's content doesn't matter. In that case, maybe he should also be included on the official story version on the 9/11 template, given that he's written some on that too. bov 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it is useful. He is after all part of the movement. Take it up on the talk page if you want and see what people think of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Undelete

Tom, someone has deleted the project page without discussing it anywhere. Can you please undelete it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antisemitism . I want to move everything to an article RfC. --Aminz 00:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Aminz 00:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

a matching sock

User:72.184.244.25 who you blocked for 3RR is sockpuppeting to evade the block as User:MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus. I am certain they are the same, as this user has claimed ownership of the IP's edits. — coelacan talk — 00:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

He continued to revert, so I blocked him. Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for the quick response. Peace, — coelacan talk — 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Message to Tom killing civillians IS a war crime

911 External Timeline

If you have time, please take a look at the 911 External Timeline individual passage discussion [5] and comment/contribute. Abe Froman 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external link matter. [6] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot

Hello Tom, Cplot believes he should be unblocked to participate in an RfC regarding his conduct. I'll assume that you blocked Cplot for avoiding his initial block. But you didn't do his initial block and neither did you do the extended block. So, I currious to find out why you unblocked him to simply re-block him? I understand MONGO was desysoped since he blocked Cplot. Would that be sufficient evidence to show that MONGO may have been overly harsh during his initial block? Maybe, in fact the contreversial block wasn't even warrant. I believe the root of your "block" which is based on Cplot suckpuppets goes back to when Cplot was originally blocked. What where the reasons? Where they justified at the time? (even though they may be justifiable now!) Finally, Cplot has told me that he is willing to stop and appologize if he can participate in an RfC. --CyclePat 23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose unblocking, and do not care to discuss it any further. Take it to dispute resolution if you want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Existence of dispute in Antisemitism article

Hi Tom,

Hope everything is going well and Happy New Year!!

Some editors are disputing "the very existence of a dispute" on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here [7] and see if that testifies existence of at least some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Please sign your name if the evidences prove the existance of some sort of dispute over the neutrality. Thanks. --Aminz 12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a POV. Christians were not always doing what the Bible teaches. That's only Christians not Christianity. --Aminz 01:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianity was influential in the development of the modern ideas of tolerance(something which still many don't understood its value), I read it somewhere. --Aminz 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reference:

How the idea of religious toleration came to the West by By Perez Zagorin, Princeton University Press.

--Aminz 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Muslim and Christian view of Jews were different. Muslims were viewing Jews as weak. To Muslims, their attempt to kill Jesus failed Muhammad overcame them. Muslims viewed them as being unable to stand in front of God's will and humbled whenever they wanted to do so. That's a crucial difference. Relation of Muhammad and Jews was not traditionally viewed as an important part of Muhammad's life (only in recent times it has been under focus). --Aminz 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, happy new year to you. Things are good so far, if busy.

Yes, that is one view and may be presented as such, with due weight, etc. Christianity did maintain that whole "Christ killer" idea for far too long. Christians, and even secular, non-religious westerners, have persecuted Jews more than Muslims have. Looking at all of our articles on antisemitism, I think this balance is reflected. See Dreyfus Affair for one example. There are at least eight seperate pages on that. Historic Muslim attitudes toward Jews would be interesting only as history, but for the modern political situation.

On the development of tolerence, I was reading about Tanzimat the other day - interesting stuff. I think over 2000 years of interaction among Jews, Christians, pagans, and Muslims there have been a lot of ideas traded one way and another. Hopefully we can all adopt the good ones and discard the bad ones.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a POV. And it should be presented with due weight. I, too, hope that we can all adopt the good ones and discard the bad ones. Cheers, --Aminz 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Autobiography

My name is John Riolo. What do I need to do to have my article about myself not deleted? I submitted it under my own name. jriolo@efn.org is my email address.

detail follows

I was with the group PEOPLE! from it's conception during the period prior to signing with Capitol and the Hit Record "I LOVE YOU". I was the original founding member drummer along with the other founders Al Ribisi on guitar and organ, Geoff Levin on electric guitar, Rob Levin on electric bass, and Dave Anderson on acoustic guitar and vocals. This was the formative stage for PEOPLE! and we all wanted to perform somewhere in a Rock and Roll band and have some fun! I played with PEOPLE! with Dave taking care of the lead vocal chores and I continued with the band for about a year after that when Gene and Larry came onboard and replaced Dave. I stayed with PEOPLE! until Denny Fridkin replaced me in about January 1967. I was only a Junior in High School and the group PEOPLE! was about to go professional and tour extensively and I was not able to do those things at ripe age of 16-1/2 years, so it was necessary for them to find a replacement. It was absolutely necessary also for me to finish school at the famous Jesuit High School Bellarmine Prep and hang for a few more years with my wonderful parents George and Lucille Riolo, who provided me with a loving home to grow up in. I sure was a lucky guy to have worked with Larry Norman(who became the 'Godfather of Christian Music' and recorded well over 40 albums), my pal Al Ribisi(who owns LA Publishing and whose son is Giovanni the famous young actor), Geoff Levin(Film score composer, great musician, top LA Record Producer), his brother Robbie Levin(Clothing mongul turned Resort tycoon), and Gene Mason(Life long Professional Entertainer, Recording Artist, Bluegrass Picker).

Back in 1966, I was 16, and 21 year old PEOPLE! guitar player and leader Geoff Levin was giving guitar lessons downtown at Moyer Brothers Music to finance his music equipment habit and college expenses. Geoff had quite a few students but then a new student turned up for lessons one day. His name was Mike Hunter, aka Captain Mickey, the program director and main jock at the biggest local AM radio station in San Jose, California, KLIV. Mike just wanted to learn some guitar licks but before long Geoff realized what Captain Mikey might be able to do for PEOPLE! Geoff was cautious at first but then approached him straight up to see if he was interested in managing a new Rock and Roll band. I can remember practicing some songs very thoroughly so we could impress Captain Mickey when he came by to see us over at the Ribisi Garage where we always practiced. Al's parents were very supportive of our music from the start. His Dad, who was a very busy surgeon at O'Conner Hospital, would often show up at a teen club job unannounced to smile and encourge us. Dr. Ribisi would just pop in virtually out of nowhere and say "You boys are Really Fabulous!, I Loved it!, Good Going!," as he smiled ear to ear". I am sure he had to speed away many times to save someone's life after showing up at one of our initial forays onto the stage. Mrs. Ribisi would usually be home when we practiced and would show up magicly just at the right moment somehow with cookies when we were practicing and having a "low blood sugar" extended disagreement, plus she let us use the piano room with a record player in it to learn our songs and work out our four and sometimes five part vocal harmony arrangements. The were a Super Sweet Couple! Geoff Levin, our wise and able 21 year old leader, had played Bass, banjo, and guitar with some prominent folk musicians around the San Jose, Palo Alto, and even San Francisco hip folk club circuit. Geoff was alway throwing his big Bass fiddle or some other assorted acoustic instrument cases into his VW bus and heading out for another gig with the Mountain Dew Boys who made real dollars promoting a new soft drink at supermarket openings and fairs. He was also a member of Jerry Garcia's Bluegrass Band, yes, THE Jerry from The Greatful Dead! Geoff was also continually designing speaker systems for the band which he carefully made by hand at home. Nothing much existed at the time in music stores for public address systems, so you had to build your own or remain in the world of "Surf Instrumental Music" like the Ventures. He even used a tape recorder once at our job to achieve an echo effect. The band who opened up the show for us at St. Christopher's that night wanted to start trouble because they thought we were using pre-recorded vocals instead of singing it live ! Geoff had smarts, experience, and charm, something Rob, Al, and I had not quite acquired yet at the tender ages 15 or 16. Geoff was the musical director and helmsman for the group and us younger tots would have still been playing advanced marbles, pulling weeds, or chasing rabid dogs if we didn't have his maturity and know-how to break the huge waves out ahead in the dreaded open seas of showbiz possibility. Along with Geoff's leadership came responsibility and sometimes alot of pain, and it was probably not the brightest Happy face day for Geoff when he realized he was going to have to part with his good buddy Dave Anderson, who was our singer at the time and who thought of the name "PEOPLE!" Dave Anderson, came from a home with deep Christian Science roots and he helped run his family's poultry farm in Morgan Hill. Dave was a man of integrity and knew exactly what he liked what he liked and insisted on a "Folk Rock Path" for PEOPLE! along the musical lines of Bob Dylan, P.F. Sloan, or the Jefferson Airplane. PEOPLE! were getting wiped by other local bands at local teen clubs,Temples, and Church dances by bands that played harder edged stuff like R & B Soul Music from Motown or the British Invasion music of The Yardbirds, The Beatles, Kinks, and The Animals. Geoff and Captain Mikey knew an axe had to fall if the group wanted a chance to prosper in the current musical scheme of things around San Jose and the South Bay. Like the Rolling Stones once said, "You gotta be a success right where you are today, in the area right where you live, right now, or you're dust!" As they say "timing is everything", any change in PEOPLE! had to be the Right one at the right time, you only get ONE lucky shot in this CRAZY Music Business, if ya once miss it's curtains!

One of the first great opportunities PEOPLE! somehow obtained before Dave departed was to appear as entertainment at the Asilomar Conference Grounds in Monterey. The event featured Buckminister Fuller the Fabulous Scientific Inventor and Father of Geodesic Design, how lucky I was to have seen a real genius. Larry Norman opened up the show for us on solo guitar and voice . It turned out that he was the hardest act we ever had to follow. He was such a great entertainer and he looked great, was animated, made the audience laugh, told wonderful stories, clowned around etc., and most of all sang his ass off! I'll never forget his parody of a Jan and Dean hit called Catch a Wave and he changed the words around in it to be about skateboarding and called it Bust Your Bunz instead, which was hilarious! Weird Al Yakovitch was probably still in diapers! Larry's comedy, acting pranks, and obvious show biz wizardry were irresistable to all and he made em' laugh, look into their own private Souls, wanna cry like babies, and jump up and down and scream for more in just the few minutes he was on stage before we had to come out. We saw in him a Light of Love and a Spark of the Divine that night, and his beautiful singing could melt your tender heart one moment and burn down the barn the next. Geoff made Larry an offer and Larry wanted his pal Gene in the group too because they had grown up together dreaming of becoming the Righteous Brothers or something. Anyway, to the GREAT benfit of our Rock and Roll band they were our new singers in short order. These two guys could cover any of the top hits, could dance, sing lead, switch off, and put on an amazing show... they came on like "Gangbusters" and the kids went wild wherever we went! If their colaboration with us did not take place, we probably would have eventually drifted into teenage obscurity with most of our other "showbiz" friends around town.

Captain Mickey our manager, the Disk Jock, would feed our young band all the top records before they were played on the radio and we would learn them note for note. We knew lots Beatles songs and other new music before the tunes were on the radio. Hold on I'm Coming, Working in a Coal Mine, Mellow Yellow, My Generation, Last Train to Clarkesville and lots of other songs would be in our show before the other bands had a chance to buy the records and learn them, because Captain Mickey had advance copies and somehow knew what would become a hit. Captain Mikey would also get on the radio for his regular evening show and tell all the kids to come and see us at the Continental Roller Rink,The Watzit Club, or wherever he booked us and our act began to get attention and SELL!

Here I was, skinny little Johnny Riolo, former boy accordionist, who never dreamed he would actually be able to play drums in a real band now in the spotlight performing at major teenage events around the San Jose area. I actually had alot of experience as a musician and singer before playing any Rock and Roll with PEOPLE! Further more and even more importantly music was no fad for me. I was an acomplished musician long before The Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show and changed the world . I had already taken accordion lessons for over four years by the time I was 12 from the Great Master Accordionist Teacher and Music Publisher Mr.Louis Figone. Mr. Figone taught me music theory and helped me develope great timing and co-ordination. I practiced seriously twice a day and I took a First Place trophy home in 1959 at Northern California Accordion Contest at the San Jose Civic Auditorium. I also took drum lessons at school and played in the orchestra from the 4th grade onwards,and sang in the school choir with my sister Dianne three times a week before school. There were always performances and concerts coming up for the PTA or Christmas shows and such. Later in Junior High I continued to take Orchestra as a regular class right up to the 9th grade and took an Orchestra class as an elective in summer school each and every summer. I had several pals who had drumsets in Junior High and I rented one for awhile when I was in the 6th grade. I learned how to play Louie Louie, Money, and later the king of drum songs Wipe Out. I first got excited about Rock and Roll when I went to Junior High dances and became completely mesmerized by live music which usually occured in the gymnasium. Performing with a real Rock and Roll Band was not even a remote day dream possibility back then in the seventh or eighth grade, but little did I know what lie ahead... you can never see into your own future and I just kept mowing lawns and saving my dough so I could go downtown to Moyer Music and get my very own Drum Set as soon as possible if not sooner ! I used to borrow my baby brother's wagon to transport my Blue Sparkle 3 piece drum kit up the street and around the corner to Al Ribisi's house to practice, I balanced it somehow! Heck, Al didn't even know if I could play when he first had heard about me and my drums, and he never really spoke to me at school, for I was just a freshman and he was a big giant sophomore; but after Al looked into my parents garage window and saw the Blue Sparkle kit sitting on a shelf , I was hired to play drums in his band down the street called THE ARRDVARKS, a surf music combo.

Anyhow... back to the story...

PEOPLE! actually got to play the Filmore and we opened up for Love with Arthur Lee. We also opened up for Van Morrison and THEM for 5 nights at a local club in San Jose called The Losers Club (this was Van's Gloria/Here Comes the Night/Mystic Eyes era). PEOPLE! then open up the concert for THE DAVE CLARK FIVE at the San Jose Civic, now those guys were a tight and powerful group, what a show and they really blew the lid off the joint! PEOPLE! also did gigs with other locals Bands who had some national record success like Syndicate of Sound and Count 5. Over in Santa Cruz we also did shows and hung out with a surf group called, I think, The Baggies who became Harpers Bizzare of "Feeling Groovie" fame and yielded the Super Producer TED TEMPLEMAN who was the singer at the time. They were all nice guys, much older than I and treated me like a little brother and made sure my pants were zipped up and stuff.

The Rock Group "PEOPLE! was a great time for me, I was a noted celebrity at my all boys Jesuit High School, and met all the local players and music industry people around the scene in our home town. I worked with some wonderfully talented boys in the band and learned alot about life and growing up. One thing about PEOPLE!... they were ALL Good Boys and exercised a positive influence into my budding personal growth. They were always kind to me, had charming manners in public wherever we had engagements, and never led me astray, they were my loving big brothers! When I had to be replaced, it was a major letdown, but I was well known around the hood and was immediately offered some of the best gigs in town and was working all the time

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jriolo (talk • contribs).

Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move debate opinion needed

Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

Next time you participate in an edit war, please address the issues on the talk page. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are our recent contributions to the page, unless you are talking about something else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly it, when you edit you leave an edit summary, there was an edit summary asking for talk page participation, but its ok its been noted that you participated in yet another edit war without attempting to use the talk page. --NuclearZer0 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Obturating ring

Some user moved obturate to obturating ring, but that meant the article content didn't at all fit the title (obturation being a process, obturating ring being a single application example). I moved the contents back to obturate, and pointed obturating ring to driving band, which I though was a better fit. Upon some additional research, I decided that there was only a partial overlap between driving bands and obturating rings, and decided to create a new article for obturating ring that linked to driving band and had additional content covering items such as breech seals and mechanical components such as the plumbing fittings. There are probably more engineering uses that could be added (do a Google search) but I'm not up enough on the subject to do it without a lot more work. scot 16:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks. It all looks good. I thought at first might have been a cut-and-paste move somewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, done from scratch. Also put together gas check this morning, since it's tangentially related to the driving band. Today it's either Wiki or watch Blue's Clues with the kids... scot 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). TheOnlyChoice 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what does turnip mean? Grandad 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant it as kind of a commentary, or maybe a metasyntactic variable. Page deletion is not stricly a vote, so some people avoid saying 'keep' or 'delete', and just present an argument. I meant to expand on Hipocrite's point, so I used the same random word he did. I was tempted to say Pecans, or maybe potsherds. Deletion is in practice unlikely, so I might have said 'speedy close as keep', except I do think the page should be deleted, or maybe merged in much abbreviated form to 9/11 conspiracy theories. As far as I know, there is not yet a conspiracy theory involving turnips. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CD Hypothesis "two camps" citation request

Hmmm. I looked at that one. To me it looks like citing the obvious. Please bear in mind that I thing the hypothesis is WP:BALLS and am simply interested in a good article when I say this. It is a statement thatappears to be borne out by all teh available facts rather than a single one, but I donlt think you want a stream of ever single ref after it ;). I think it is unanswerable, but equally I feel the statement is valid. I'd appreciate your thoughts on how one might handle your tag, please? Fiddle Faddle 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My reply is on the article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I'll continue there. Fiddle Faddle 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Oklahoma City bombing

(diff) (hist) . . Oklahoma City bombing‎; 14:20 . . (-31) . . Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rm dispute tag)

• Oklahoma City bombing

hi Tom, you just deleted the dispute flag - without explanation?

I had assumed we agreed to disagree. During my wikibreak Peephole deleted the flag.

Please either explain yourself or put the flag back up. — Xiutwel (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not a dispute just because you don't like what the article says. The dispute tag cannot reasonably be used semi-permanently, or to hold the page hostage until everyone is satisfied with it. The sources are clear, and the facts are not in dispute. I'm going out, so excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. We can keep it on the article talk page from now on. I'll watch for your remarks there, and post there anything I have to say. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, for clarity, if you would motivate changes to the article on the talk page of the article, or if you must, on MY User Page in stead of your own. I initially missed your explanation, causing me a lot of extra work. Thx. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your explanation, and your away-notice. I see this differently: the matter is not that I disagree with the facts presented in the article (though that may be the case); the matter is that I think an important fact is omitted. I judge this to be not a POV dispute, but a factual accuracy dispute (cherry-picking the facts). I agree we cannot use the flag semi-permanantly, and I hope you will work with me to find a solution to this. Surely it must be possible to find some wording for the fact that these news stations aired these reports? — Xiutwel (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Hi Tom,

We're having a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a 'Conspiracy Theory' over at the Conspiracy Theory Noticeboard and would like yours here, >LINK< if possible. TIA - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That hypothesis article about the collapse of the world trade center is up for deletion I see. But most of the people have voted to keep it. So now what do we do?--Beguiled 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a consensus to delete, the article gets kept. People who are interested can work to make it neutral, well-sourced, and informative. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

about A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services/Temp

You changed it with "(probably not a speedy - use afd if needed)" - what is "afd"? I'd like to make the article better unless someone else wants to take it on....--Smkolins 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, too much Wikispeak. I meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Feel free to improve it if you like. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

the 9/11 TM template and the CD Hypothesis

I hope you take my thoughts on the CDH talk page at their face value, a genuine request for understanding the rationale for deployment. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'll try to articulate the main points as soon as I can get to it. I have to go out in a few minutes, so I may not reply until later tonight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)