User talk:Gamaliel/Archive9

Gamaliel is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you. Rock on.

March to August 2004: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 1
September to November 2004: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 2
November 2004 to February 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 3
February 2005 to April 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 4
May 2005 to July 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 5
August 2005 to October 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 6
November 2005 to February 2006: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 7
March 2006 to July 2006: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive8

Peter Roskam

FYI I wonder if those comments could be removed as personal attacks. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for locking the page, now we have a still target to discuss. I will, in the next few days go line by line and discuss this page. I am willing to be very nice and hope the other editors "BE NICE" too.

I have been in contact with User:Jahiegel to help me in this. Thank youJoehazelton 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment:Clay Shaw

I'm asking for an Rfc [1] on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment. Ramsquire 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trying to avoid an edit war

could you take a look at the recent edits of Jojouka.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_master_musicians_of_Jajouka

I have a couple of users who feel that the commercial link they placed on several different articles is ethical and should not have been removed. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Rsm99833 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link advertising the CD and I'll be watching the article in case it pops up again. Gamaliel 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please note my edit history. They're placing the link on other pages as well. Thanks again.Rsm99833 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please allow a registered Wikipedia user "Jajouka" to edit this mess!!!! Wikipedia has much incorrect information in its various pages on Joujouka, Master Musicians of Joujouka and The Master Musicians of Joujouka, all unfortunately redirected from Jajouka and Master Musicians of Jajouka. This is a serious error on the part of the editors who feel that users who correct incorrect statements about this group are perpetuating.

The user Jajouka just tried to add the following but it was not allowed:

Brian Jones (co-founder of the The Rolling Stones) recorded the Joujoukan musicians in 1968. This recording was released in 1971 as Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka. It fell out-of-print and became a collector's item before being reissued on compact disc in 1997 with a photograph of Bachir Attar, who was only five at the time of the recording, replacing Hamri's original cover painting of Brian Jones and the musicians in Joujouka. Hamri, who was never a musician, placed his name on the album as "composer" of Bachir Attar's father's music; he collected the money from album Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka, and kept the money for himself. Hamri was then fired by the leader of the musicians at the time, Hadj el Abdesalam el-Attar, Bachir Attar's father. To prevent problems with visual copyright when the album was reissued in 1994, the record company suggested that the album be produced using a different cover.

Mick Jagger described Bachir Attar and The Master Musicians of Jajouka when he recorded with Bachir and the Jajouka musicians in 1989 as One of the most musically inspiring groups still left on the planet.

Gammers

Please unblock Gammers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That is just his last name. Fred Bauder 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has he provided proof of this? I find it difficult to believe that two days after someone impersonating me on the Joe Scarborough article attempts to restart an edit war there, a Mr. Gammers appears and heads straight for that article (and no others) and makes extremely similar edits. For over a year I've been the victim of a vicious vandal who has attacked me because of my editorial position on this article (see the deleted edits on my user talk page for some examples) and I believe this is the same person attempting to get at me again. Gamaliel 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have bothered you without researching this more. this edit is good for an indefinite block. Fred Bauder 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Link

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm on the road (going to Las Vegas) and cannot follow proper protocol. Could you make a call or send this one up for consideration as if it belongs here or not-

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=6_Degrees_from_Truth&diff=prev&oldid=67578886

Again, sorry for any inconveniences. Have a good weekend. Rsm99833 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Vandalism

When you take it upon yourself to undo the work of two other editors who negotiated and compromised to include something that is based in reality, and not wikiality, then yes, I call that vandalism. The fact is that conservative bloggers DO use that alternate definition all the time. If you go to Conservative Underground and ask what swiftboating means, you will get that answer repeatedly. EECEE felt that blogs were not a reliable source, so I came up with those other three sources. He picked the t-shirt one to use. I'm not going to continue an edit war, but you have your head stuck up a dark hole if you refuse to believe that "swiftboating" means something other than the definition that you approve of. Crockspot 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your little warning about personal attacks is bogus. I made an equivocal statement, the outcome of which is determined by your ability to discern your own bias from reality. Are you going to address my concerns, or are you just going to play wiki games? Crockspot 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that was an equivocal statement that is only true if you are unable to separate bias from reality. I assume that you ARE able to make that distinction, therefore the statement would not be true. You are well known for using the wiki rules to get your way. I hope you are proud of the fact that you have supressed a bit of valid information about a term that is actually used, and done it within the rules of Wikipedia. I would report you for a 3RR violation, but since we both made the same number of edits, I'll let it go. But feel free to continue to post warnings. Crockspot 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now who is resorting to personal attacks? The fact remains that the alternate definition that I added to the article is widely used among conservative bloggers, and you have supressed it. Your verbal assault on my talk page, as well as your prediction that I will be banned from WP, only confirms to me that you have an agenda to pursue. I have a prediction of my own. The definition that you have called "bullshit" will get back in the article eventually, either through an acceptable publishing, or through a modification of the RS rules. You are not the only one who knows how to work the system around here. I may not have been around as long as you, but I suspect that I am quicker on the uptake. It's been a pleasure getting under your skin. Crockspot

16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So you insult and attack everyone in sight, and when someone responds in a way that can be interpreted as even the slightest bit uncivil, you attempt to take the moral high ground. How typical. If you're going to reinact the troll playbook, please don't waste any more of my time. Gamaliel 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just overexaggerating. If you really have looked over my edit history, you will see that I have a civil working relationship with BenBurch, who is a bitter enemy of mine outside of WP, and also worked out a civil compromise with an editor who could have potentially conflicted with me on the Ava Lowery article. If you go back and examine the first interaction between you and I, you will see that YOUR edit history was the first to use the term "bs". Perhaps you should examine your own attitudes, and how they contribute to the attitudes that you receive back. Namecalling is not a good trait for an admin. Crockspot 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. You have this tactic down pretty well, so you might actually fool someone. You accuse everyone in sight of bias and vandalism and then you have the chutzpah to attempt to claim the moral high ground. Impressive! Gamaliel 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (curtsy). Now, can we start getting along? Crockspot 17:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sincere about this, sure. You can start by refraining from accusing people of vandalism and bias. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allrighty then. Consider me being haved. Crockspot 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, please refrain from removing messages posted on MY talk page. That really is poor form. Thank you. Crockspot 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Reverting the edits of blocked users is standard procedure. Gamaliel 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of a user's talk page? Please. Your attempt to hide the information from me failed. Crockspot 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. *eyeroll* Give up the conspiracy theory. I could have deleted the edit from the page history with my administrative powers and you never would have known it existed. No one is trying to "hide" anything from you. If you want to follow the dubious advise of a blocked user, go for it, but it won't get you anywhere but blocked yourself. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one archive a discussion?

Looking at the JFK assassination page, I think it is time to do one. But I don't know how. Ramsquire 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you reach your decision? RPJ 23:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message on the top of the page saying "This page is 126 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable." Ramsquire 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect of my User: and User_talk pages

It's been almost a year. Can you unprotect these now? I promise, I will behave 99% of the time. 67.18.109.218 01:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalSniper

You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting my user talk page after Tchadienne's edit. I think he has problems and may need help. I doubt that editing Wikipedia is good for him just now. Anyway, thanks for your help. --Guinnog 11:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dagmarlife.jpeg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dagmarlife.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kevin 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Garrison

Hi. Thanks for your edits. I edited the Jim Garrison article, including putting back some of the material you removed. The reason was that this version left almost no information at all about the Clay Shaw/Kennedy assasination case, which certainly is what Garrison is most famous for. Making the article more factual and more in line with NPOV is welcome. I encourage you to explain what the specific problems are with material you remove. I think the article needs more info on the famous case. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my note at Talk:Jim Garrison. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick import

Refering to John Trumbull (poet). Added more links/pages off the 1911 text. Sidetracked by researching colonial american newspapers. My head is spinning. :) Electrawn 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Roskam

Hello. At the Peter Roskam page there were several disputes, which lead to you protecting the page. I have no problem with that; however, there is an edit that I was hoping you could make on my behalf. I've posted my propsed addition at Talk:Peter Roskam / [2]. In my opinion there should be a discussion of the O'Hare Airport issue. I appreciate your help. Propol 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

I know we have not agreed (although we have agreed once) but I am asking you for help. SBHarris is going over the top and definitely needs someone in a position like yourself to have a word with him. His answers to simple qustions are always long, lacking in paragraphs, have POVs, and worst of all, are extremely insulting. I know it has been said that a third party, or deceased, is "nuts", but attacking other editors so personally is attrocious. I think you may empathise with me on this one... Thanks. andreasegde 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some specific examples of behavior which violates policy? He's been a bit hotheaded, but then so have we all on those articles. RPJ's lowered the bar of civility and we've all stepped over the line a bit. I'd need something pretty serious if I'm going to single him out above everyone else. Gamaliel 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It´s respecting Wikipedia´s rules of editing. "Be nice", as it says. andreasegde 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from deletion vote

Figured this was not relevant, so I moved it here, if you mind, you can revert:

Grand, we have the conservative POV warrior circuit here voting now, what I called the neo-conservative cabal before. ~~User:Gamaliel~~, User:CJK, User:TDC, User:MONDO were is User:172? Travb (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of being a liberal POV warrior plenty of times, but this is first time I've been labeled a conservative POV warrior. Interesting that you draft me into a cabal that would hate my guts. One fellow member you listed called me an asshole during an edit war. But I guess that's in the past. When should I expect my cabal membership card in the mail? Gamaliel 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a neo-conservative cabalite and member of the VRWC Wiki Editors Guild, I can confirm that Gamaliel is most certainly NOT a member of our Guild. :) Crockspot 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL User:Gamaliel that is the problem with broad labels like this, you are bound to make mistakes, and look like a fool, like I just did LOL. I vaguely remember some of your edits, I must remember them incorrectly, sorry. Some of these users love to be called witty names like "neo-con Cabal" etc. It gives them a sense of importance maybe, I don't know. One of these users once told me in no uncertain terms he was not a "neo-con" but he works actively with the "neo-cons" all the time. So I will have to go back through our edits together. I have seen some editors proudly list all of the partisan names they have been called on their wikipages. Again, sorry User:Gamaliel for putting you in this group, you can list this label on your talk page if you want. I can move this discussion to our talk page. Actually I will do this right now.Travb (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gamaliel, as a Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (Member No. 31) here's the info: annual membership fee: $50000. For those leaving the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, however, the membership fee is waived as long as you turn over your user name and password to the VLWC's computers. Upon receipt of the fee or information, you'll get your hat, tee-shirt, and complete Ann Coulter library. PainMan 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I am going to add citations to the hannity page, there has been alot of vandalism, and im trying to fix the page. It would be great if you would remove your post from my talk page so I can finish this stuff. --Zonerocks 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't "fix" the page by inserting his biography from the Fox News web page and I don't see how my post on your talk page would interfere with your editing. Gamaliel 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Do you think neal Bootrz actually said wear blue ribbons to promote the beating of rodney king?? This a horrible page, and don't change it again. --Zonerocks 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. That is a very POV page and Im making it NPOV. Let's stick with that. Don't forget there is citations.[reply]

I make no claims about the quality or accuracy of the material you wish to remove. I merely oppose your insertion of a copyright Fox News promotional biography. Gamaliel 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swift vet article

I made a slight NPOV adjustment to the blatantly POV edit that you reverted. I suggest you check the "Alleged debunking of SBVT assertions" section of the article's discussion page to understand where I am coming from. Related to this syndrome, I will remind you that John Kerry had a recollection seared.. SEARED.. into his memory, of being sent to Cambodia by Richard Nixon, at a time when Nixon was not even President yet. Cherry-picking minor discrepancies in the 35 year old recollections of decorated combat vets does nothing to discredit their core assertions. Crockspot 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, try again. The factual inaccuracies were proven. The connections to the GOP were proven. Gamaliel 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply was so quick, I must assume that you refuse to read what I wrote in on the talk page. The factual inaccuracies are common to all Vietnam vet recollections. They are irrelevant to the core assertions. I will post here what I wrote there. "I lost a family member in a helicopter crash in Vietnam in 1970, near FSB Ripcord. I've spent the last five years researching the crash, gathering accounts from about twenty different men who had either direct or second hand knowledge of the event. I also had access to official records. What I found was that, in the minute details of their accounts, not one man's story jived completely with any others, or with the official records. But I did find that the general essence of their stories matched, even with the official record. When you ask a man to remember an event that occurred 35 years ago, and that event occurred in a war zone, where one's sense of time is distorted even at the time, you are going to get minor discrepancies in the details. In my own researh, after discovering other events that occurred in the various units around the same time, I was able to account for these discrepancies as details being confused with other events, and just bad recollection. While they all told slightly different tales, the important story was all the same. About 250 highly decorated Vietnam Vets participated with the SBVT, and I am not surprised that some of the details of their accounts turned out to be wrong. "Debunkers" have found these discrepancies, and use them to discredit the entire SBVT story. However, I have seen no "debunking" that does not fall into this "minute detail" category. The main assertions of "Unfit for Command" have not been disproven. Crockspot 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" Crockspot 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not refuse, I simply didn't notice it yet, but I will read it now that you have brought it to my attention. Gamaliel 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll look into getting you a cabal discount. Crockspot 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity

Your revert of User:Tregoweth on this article reinserted poorly linked (external links instead of wikilinks) and copyrighted material (a cut and paste job from the Fox News website) originally inserted by User:Zonerocks. I'm sure this was an innocent mistake, but please be more careful when you dive into an edit war. Gamaliel 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed an unintended mistake...and I wasn't aware of either an edit war or a copyright vio there. I simply noticed a blanket reversion involving a whole bunch of text in many different paragraphs with no edit summary explaining why. The previous version seemed reasonable so I felt, at the minimum, a reason should be given for reverting. Maybe, in the spirit of Wikipedia and trying to improve an article, it would have been better to simply convert the links to wikilinks and delete or rework the copyrighted stuff instead of reverting to a stagnant old version. Anyway, what's done is done. I'll check the edit history more thoroughly on that article when User:Zonerocks is involved. Perhaps you should also leave User:Tregoweth a note encouraging him/her to use edit summaries when making seemingly major changes to an article.--WilliamThweatt 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USF Health

No, our contribution is not a press release. Everything we wrote was a verifiable fact. Health is a major part of USF now. The fact that there is no mention of it on the page, was a glaring ommision, that makes the article, dated, and inacurate. I am sorry that our hard work and research offended you.

Ken DeRoche & Edward Saint-Ivan

9-19-06 11:47pm EST I made some Grammatical error corrections to the Health article. Right after I resubmitted the cleaned up version, someone named Michael halterman deleted the entire article. Do you believe that was appripriate. I have since resubmitted. This type of behavour does not seem to foster much in the way of community. How would this clown like it if I arbitrarily deleted every article he has submitted. Shame on him. I think I have wasted enough time with this supposed "Encyclopedia"

Ken

Swiftboating revisited

Hi Gamaliel. I wanted to revisit the alternate definition of Swiftboating with you. We butted heads a while back over the use of t-shirts being sold at Cafe Press as a source. You came down pretty hard on me over it. I notice that the Fitzmas article also uses t-shirts from Cafe Press to source the definition and usage of THAT term. No one seems to have an issue with it. Since this has now been brought to your attention, I'm sure that if I add that alternate definition with the source back into the article, you will either not have a problem with it, or you will have a problem with both articles. A good natured test of your neutrality, if you will. Crockspot 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for such tests. Go find some other test subject. Gamaliel 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Place a NPOV TAG on the Peter Roskam Page ASAP PLEASE!

I am wondering if there will be any changes allowed at the Roskam page?

In the mean time, I would like you, since you locked the article, to add a tag to the page indicating that there is an on going NPOV dispute about this article. Let it be known that I am disputing the NPOV of the Roskam article.

Considering some of the issues I have pointed out at the [Roskam talk pages], a {{POV}} tag placed on top of the Peter Roskam page would be most appropriate. The Peter Roskam article, as it sits, has to many sections, which any reasonable person could call in the question, the relevancy, accuracy and as well as the lack of poor or no citations for the pov assertions many of sections in that article make. The Roskam article appears, as I have read them, not to conform to the Wikipdia standards for living persons; is not encyclopedic in it's tone, and many of the assertions made in the article have flawed logic backing them. Until this NPOV Dispute is resolved, Please place the POV tag on this article.

ThanksJoehazelton 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Sorry that I did it again. I will slap myself silly until I stop it... andreasegde 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone (Gamaliel) tell me why Jack D. White´s testimony and link was taken out? (Sound of fingers drumming on desk...) andreasegde 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked this on the article talk page, so why is it necessary to ask it again here? Gamaliel 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clary

Hey there Gamaliel, I noticed that you voted for the Johnny Lee Clary article and I was wondering that you would be willing to help with an article or perhaps help with getting it out of its deletion tag. Any help would be appreciated. I have drafted it here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary Nick. Potters house 06:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gannon, and WP:BLP

Here we are again. Since you are an admin, I assume that you are familiar with WP:BLP. I suggest you refamiliarize yourself to be safe. Prostitution is a crime. Calling a living person a criminal on Wikipedia without high quality sources is not allowed. None of the sources provided give any proof that Gannon is indeed a prostitute. They are merely gossip, allegation, and political punditry. Gannon has never been arrested, charged, nor convicted of prostitution, nor has he made a public admission that he is a prostitute. I see no solid evidence that he ever advertised as a prostitute, only unsourced allegations made in articlea. These are not the "high quality" sources that are required by Wikipedia when dealing with living persons. When in doubt, always defer toward privacy of the individual. The policy is very clear. I think you are way off base in your position on this subject. If I have to, I will pursue this issue to the Board of Trustees if necessary, and I am positive that they will agree with me on this one. I have also asked for clarification on whether or not negative info has to be sourced at each instance, or if following a link to another article to find sources is "good enough". Crockspot 14:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Forgot to mention, I am reapplying the noncompliant tag. Please do not remove it until this issue is hashed out fully. As you know, removing maint. tags is considered vandalism. Crockspot 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't threaten me, I am well aware of Wikipedia policies and rules. Gamaliel 16:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I threatened you? I believe you are wrong in this case, that is a fact. If we cannot resolve the issue through a mutual understanding of the rules, the I have no choice but to seek redress through the process. That is also a fact. I take this matter with the utmost seriousness. I cannot just walk away and leave libel on Wikipedia. Are you taking this seriously? Or are you just following me around to thwart my good faith edits? I prefer to assume the former, not the latter. Crockspot 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You issued a vandalism warning to an administrator. Seriously, how else am I supposed to take that? And Gannon was on my watchlist months before I first encountered you. Gamaliel 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit to the Gannon article was April 25, 2005. Gamaliel 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use any warning templates, simply an advisory reminder. I can see now that you are not open to any fruitful discussion with me, so I will start the process of resolving this by requesting AMA advocacy. Have a nice day. Crockspot 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first message was to warn an administrator not to vandalise. How is that a productive way to open a "fruitful discussion"? Geesh. Gamaliel 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your failure to address the valid concerns expressed in my first message gives me that impression. In fact, in all of our communications in the past, I cannot remember a time that you addressed a single valid concern of mine. You zero in on what you perceive to be slights, and ignore the substantial issues. That is not a pathway to fruitful discussion. Crockspot 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't enjoy talking to people who threaten me. Is that such an odd position to take? You've also accused me of following you around to "thwart" your "good faith edits". This is not the way to engage someone in "fruitful discussion". Gamaliel 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't believe that I have threatened you. In any case, I would hope that an admin would have a slightly thickened skin, and would direct the discussion toward the subtantive issues at hand, rather than ignore those issues, and focus on subjective perceptions. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist in that regard. I had thought that our ideological divide could be overcome on this particular BLP issue, being that the best interests of the project are at stake, and the guidelines are so clear cut. I was wrong. Crockspot 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving back to left margin) I don't believe you an threaten or accuse someone and then demand that they address whatever you feel like addressing and pretend you never threatened them or accused them of anything. But if it will end this silly back and forth, fine. The information on Gannon was widely reported in multiple news outlets. He openly advertised his services on multiple websites. We have the testimony of the person he hired to put up these sites. This is pretty open and shut. Gamaliel 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the sources are of the "high quality" required by WP:BLP. I have read them all very carefully, and they are mostly of an editorial nature. The reporting on what was said by the web developer can hardly be characerized as "testimony". On a tangeant, I also believe that it is important to source negative info on living persons wherever it appears, and not rely on the reader to follow a link to another wiki article to find the source. That one has not yet been clarified in policy, as far as I know. Crockspot 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, then that is a reason to take the sources from the other article and add them to the article that lacks them, not to remove the information. Gamaliel 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, as the nutshell for BLP states, "Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." I am making the opposite claim, so it is not my responsibility to do the work of those who make the claim. In fact, it is my responsibility to remove the claim. As to the sourcres themselves, I should have previously stated that the authors of all of the sources can arguably be characterized as biased, further lending credence to my belief that they are not suitable sources for negative info in a BLP. Crockspot 19:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To remove something from a secondary article when you know the source is in the main article on that topic is wikilawyering, sorry. Gamaliel 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not when I dispute the validity of the primary source to begin with. Why would I source information that I believe should be removed, with sources that I dispute? This wouldn't be the first time you've tried that Jedi Mind Trick on me. "This is not the article you want to edit." Crockspot 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What trick would that be? Seriously. If I have Jedi Mind Powers, I'd like to know about it. Gamaliel 19:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was an attempt as Star Wars humor. You have in the past tried to convince me that I should do something exactly opposite of what I am trying to accomplish, in order to accomplish my goal, ie., that I should go remove the same types of sources from Fitzmas that I am trying to include in Swiftboating. A pretty neat trick, but the Force is fairly strong with me. Crockspot 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I caught the SW reference, thanks. I wasn't trying to "trick" you into editing Fitzmas, I don't care if you do or not, it was just my response to you trying to get me to edit it. Gamaliel 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion and Conjecture?

I would like to know what in my addition to the William Greer article constituted opinion and conjecture. Very little is known about William Greer, and the article is marked as a stub. What I had added was referenced and supported by fact, to any who care to look. What service do you think you are performing, as an "admin", other than censorship? Readers, I guess, are not allowed to consider the possibility that Greer fired the fatal shot into Kennedy's head, being content with the fact that he appeared in some family photos in 1962. Who do you work for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Laubin (talk • contribs)

Additions to Wikipedia articles must follow the rules of Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Additionally, your conduct must follow Wikipedia rules such as Wikipedia:Civility. Angry accusations of "censorship", etc., etc. are inappropriate and will not be tolerated. Gamaliel 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael H. Hart

I reversed your deletions (please excuse if impolite) because of some information on Dr. Hart:

He is not a member of the American Physical Society, the American Astronomical Society, or the American Geophysical Union. That means he can't even present a paper at a meeting of one of those societies unless he gets a member to endorse it.

This site has a free search service for paper, abstracts, and the like:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ads_abstracts.html

I searched and found almost nothing.

There is a review by Bruce Jakosky in Icarus, Vol. 127, pp. 264-265 of the second edition of his book,

Extraterrestrials, Where Are They? 2nd ed. B. Zuckerman and M. H. Hart (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995. 239 pp., $39.95 hardback, $19.95 paperback

It turns out to be just a compendium of essays! According to Jakosky, the last chapter (the only one written by Hart himself) is unchanged from 1982, which Jakosky finds "distressing." The "editors do disservice to the community" by publishing out-of-date work, he says (Hart is one of the editors).

Zuckerman is well respected.

So if you like Mr. Hart you could add mention of the other book (on extraterrestrials). I also looked at the Montgomery Community College website and among the staff found no "professor". I e-mailed them to ask if they used titles like that but they have made no reply. It is possible that the faculty are "instructors". Not to stand on ceremony, but just to avoid aggrandizement of a guy who wants to partition the U.S. along "ethnic" lines. Reminds me of Bantustans. Carrionluggage 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I edit an article about a person does not mean I am a fan of that person. Please don't make assumptions like that, especially when we are dealing with people who may be racists and white nationalists/supremacists. I initially removed your edits not because I am a fan of Hart but because of the rules at WP:BLP. Serious accusations like calling someone a white nationalist calls for reliable sources. White supremacist websites do not qualify as reliable sources. Gamaliel 05:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for the help. 132.241.246.111 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Seems you've stumbled into a preexisting edit war here. BTW, please be aware of and adhere to the Three revert rule. Multiple parties have broken it and everyone needs to calm down on this one. Gamaliel 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Problems

OK knuckles duly rapped and noted. IMHO User talk:132.241.246.111 is adding contentious material and in some cases NPOV material as he has done previously. note taken, and I will ignore all edits,however inflammatory, from this user. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can certainly challenge and/or revert his edits, but I just have a problem with him being treated like a vandal instead of a contributor. Gamaliel 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem being called a vandal when I overstep my bounds but it's inflammatory to threaten to ban a person for calling the Unabomber a serial killer. 132.241.246.111 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be a bit much. Gamaliel 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now this guy needs banning

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Madge_Oberholtzer&action=history

I don't know everything about wikipedia but I know trying to intimidate editors is not allowed and that's what 75.13.99.82 does. 132.241.246.111 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into 75.13.99.82's edit history. Gamaliel 22:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's got a rotating server. The best way to get him to appear is to revert the article on Madge Oberholtzer. 132.241.246.111 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your comment at the Talk Page for 75.13.99.82

Note the edits of 132.241.246.111 to that very page:

Now, look at these edits by 132.241.246.111:

These are just some of the more blatant examples of vandalism by 132.241.246.111.

In reply to your

Please discuss your edits on the article's talk page and do not refer to other editors as vandals.

I'll tell you: Please don't allow yourself to be played by a vandal who keeps shopping his complaints around, seeking an administrator who is both gullible and precipitous. (You do not appear to be the latter.) —12.72.69.26 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The preeceding stalker troll is likely the same guy I was telling you about.

He too is on a rotating server making it difficult to quantify his vandalism.

yes I listed him as a sock puppet because he is one and I was tired of dealing with him.

132.241.246.111 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Vandalism by 132.241.246.111

Now

132.241.246.111 has completely blanked the Discussion page for 75.13.99.82

My vandalism, BTW, quantifies at 0. —12.72.69.26 03:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kennedy Death

Hello Gamaliel,

Regarding the death of Chris Kennedy, my source for this information is the bands manager with whom I am acquanted. The incident happened early this morning.

I would imagine the information could be confirmed with local authorities, though I don't know which town in particular responded to the scene. I do no know that he was off the coast of Cape Cod at the time.

Chris Kennedy is in fact a stage name. At this time I don't want to release his actual name because of privacy issues.

If/when I found out more detail, I will let you know.

Thanks, Mike

Thank you for the information. There is no need to add his real name. Wikipedia rules require us to have a source such as a newspaper article, but I'm sure one will be published shortly. Gamaliel 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Vets

Amazing that got through. I figured the Kerry article was pretty closely watched. Anyway, it seems like the thing to do is grab the version of that section from a while back, from before the vandalism, and replace it entirely. I'm leaving town for a couple days in just a minute, so I can't have a closer look now. Derex 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Vance and racially motivated photo

All right, I cooled down a bit. You are too loose with that "bizarre" epithet. Let us try to resolve this peacefully. This is what I posted on "Template_talk:Blp#Image_change" page:

Please, change this "Two Girls" abomination to anything: Pioneer plaque, fine, though I think for a Biography Project it would be better to use an image of an old, leather-bound book with some press guilding and some silhouette that would offend no one: Beethoven's, Newton's, Aristotle's, you name it. I find "Two Girls" image so offensive that I am ready to blow the top and start a vandal war over it, and that's not really in my character. The problem is, this image is a racially motivated imposition of certain ideology that I despise. Human beings should be regarded strictly on their individual merits, without classifying them by race. Race-based political correctness is a racism, painful to anybody who has been persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity -- inverted racism, granted, but still a racism. Like those questions about your race in government's questionnaires. If they are skin-color blind, why do they care what my race is? The same with this "Two Girls" photograph. It is a real torture to me, to see it on the talk page dedicated to my favorite writer. Please, remove it ASAP!

You are too loose with that "bizarre" epithet. Insulting people will lead to nothing constructive for Wikipedia. I would appreciate any help in the speediest possible resolution of this matter. Please note that I am not the first one who has been revolted by this photo. Arvin Sloane 07:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a standard one and we aren't making a special one for the Jack Vance. Argue it, as you have done, on the template's talk page. I don't see anything wrong with using the word "bizarre" to describe your repulsion regarding a completely inoccuous picture of two children, and I expect many others will have the same reaction. Even so, if you confine your crusade to the template talk page, I have no other objection. Gamaliel 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, we don't often agree on much, but "bizarre" is appropriate in this instance. Just... wow. Crockspot 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double wow: It looks like he may have succeeded. Some well-meaning editor removed the picture from the template. Geesh. You might want to chime in over there on the talk page too. Gamaliel 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you don't talk about other participants of discussion in third person. This is an insult in itself. Secondly, every person of color in the US and in Europe is sick and tired of Blacks and Asians being used as PC "balancing" heads, stuck in ads, TV broadcasts, magazine articles, everywhere. You are using people of color to achieve your own, not very noble ends. If you don't understand such a simple thing, what do you understand? Arvin Sloane 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Gamaliel, you are afraid of something, aren't you? Otherwise, why would you insist on removing legitimate comments? Arvin Sloane 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jack Vance is for talking about the Jack Vance article, not for your rants. Please keep your comments on topic. You can rant about the template on the template talk page. Gamaliel 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Gamaliel. Jack Vance page is for talking about the Jack Vance article, not for your rants, not for your unsubstantiated edits and reverts, not for your vandalism, not for your friends' rant about tags that have nothing to do with Jack Vance, and not for those tags in the first place. I didn't start this "tag war," the Wikipedia editors inserted the tags without asking anybody's permission. And I wouldn't continue it if you wouldn't remove, without explanation, the whole record of my previous conversation with Peter1968, that shouldn't concern you at all. Can I ask you, as a human being (I know you are still cringing from losing the PC photo argument but please, get over it already): leave our page alone, you are an unwelcome and uninterested newcomer there. Who are you trying to fool? It is obvious that you are engaged in removing messages that you don't want to see, nothing else. Please, stop. Thank you. Arvin Sloane 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvin, you have been insulting and offensive, you have vandalised and you have made threats, and you have done more than enough to deserve blocking or banning. Wikipedia is not your sandbox or message board or a free speech zone. I'll let you have your little rant space for the time being, and when your conversation with Renesis13 is concluded, it will be archived. You will refrain from insulting individual Wikipedians or Wikipedians in general. You will refrain from using the article talk page for offtopic rants. You will refrain from making any threats or any other trollish behavior. If you persist in this behavior, you and your sockpuppets will be blocked. If you persist in evading those blocks, a report of your behavior will be made to your service provider. I hope it does not come to that. This will, I hope, be our last conversation. Gamaliel 04:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you made me laugh so hard my sides hurt. Whatever you say, Ms. Vandal-in-Chief. Just leave us alone on Jack Vance page, and let us continue a meaningful and largely polite discussion that we had before you appeared on the scene. Ciao, bambino. Arvin Sloane 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largely polite? You were threatening an open ended revert war because you felt threatned by a pic of some kids. Whatever you need to tell yourself to get by I guess. As long as your behavior improves immediately, you won't be hearing from me again. Gamaliel 06:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jack Vance

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the one to remove the discussion. I thought Arvin Sloane had. However, I am not discussing the template, and I do not see how the discussion is not related to the Jack Vance article. I want a legitimate answer -- it is destructive to Wikipedia to have little corners of the article space like this that are owned by a few people exhibiting troll-like behavior. If he wants a place that projects, templates, and Wikipedia work do not apply, he needs his own site. I want to know why Wikipedia is so important and yet so disgusting. -- Renesis13 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know that Arvin has no talk page I can work with, since he uses a dynamic IP to avoid being blocked. I can't leave messages for him on my talk page. How else am I supposed to do it? My goal here is not to "restore his trolling" (I tried to remove everything but the relevant messages last time), it's to find out why he and a few others do not want to allow any cooperation on the Jack Vance page. I don't think it is fair of you to say you'll protect the page just because you have the ability and I don't, as I am not vandalizing, nor objecting to discussion, nor trying to prove a point. I only left a message that I don't want wiped away 2 seconds after I wrote it. -- Renesis13 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. -- Renesis13 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can archive the talk page now, if you feel up to an edit war. I don't want to start anything, nor am I afraid of hiding the conversation like Arvin Sloane thinks I am, so I'm not going to move it to the archive just yet. -- Renesis13 06:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Paul Robeson

It's the first time when someone removes my contribution from a discussion. May I ask, what is your historical education to do such thing? I hope you have written a number of books about the Sviet Union? If not - would you be so kind to revert the discussion to the state before your action?

Paul Robeson has been used by Soviet propaganda and obtained Stalin's prize. It's a shame. Xx236 07:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are not a soapbox or a message board. It does not take a "historical education" to realize that. They are for discussing changes to the article. If you wish to propose changes to the Paul Robeson article, you are welcome to use the talk page to discuss that. Gamaliel 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalism Xx236 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mystery vandalism

Hi Gamaliel. I was wondering if you could clear something up for me. Tonight I discovered that somebody at IP 24.80.152.101 had vandalized the Mexico (game) page several times on 10 Sept. When I finished reverting the vandalism, I noticed that the IP in question appeared as a live link, so I clicked on it, planning to leave the user a message on his talk page. However, all I found was something called a "special page" for that IP number, with no talk page at all, and just a list of edits that had been carried out by someone at that IP (4 edits in total, all of them directed at the Mexico (game) page for some reason). So my question is: What gives? It almost looks like somebody set up a special page for himself just so he could do a little vandalism. Or is a "special page" actually "special" in some way that I'm not aware of? Buck Mulligan 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link above should be to User:24.80.152.101, which in fact resolves to this, because (I'm speculating here) anonymous users don't have user pages. John Broughton 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was the special page I saw; thanks for linking. But my question was/is: What exactly is that page? It doesn't look like a regular user page, and it seems to have been set up specifically to target one quite obscure game page. Or is it just a page that the system automatically sets up whenever someone edits anonymously? I guess it must be the latter. Buck Mulligan 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Garnett: copyright problem

Dear Gamaliel,

I wrote the Wikipedia article on William Garnett that you have flagged for possible copyright problems. I believe that I have followed all Wikipedia guidelines in writing this article and that I did not violate any copyrights. The copyright flag you posted indicated that I should assert my copyright on the William Garnett talk page, but the link to that page indicates that there is no such page. Therefore, I am posting my reply to your page.

My primary source for the article is "William Garnett Aerial Photographs," 1996, published by the University of California Press. Other sources include recent obituaries in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and an artist profile at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu.

There are 21 factual assertions about William Garnett in my article and each fact is corroborated by at least two of the reputable sources mentioned above. Most facts are corroborated by three or four of the sources. As a postscript to this note I have listed the 21 facts and then included an indication of what sources corroborate that fact. After that listing I include links to these online sources and a bibliographical reference to the book I cite.

If you consult these sources you will see that I have not violated any of their copyrights. I have simply laid out the salient, skeletal facts of William Garnett's life in the chronological order in which they occurred, according to these sources.

I hope you will examine the sources I have cited, agree that there are no copyright violations and remove the copyright flag from the article.

Sincerely,

H Lewis

The 21 factual assertions and their sources:

Birth year (explicit or implied): nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

Birth city: nyt, lat, wgap, getty

Move to Pasadena: nyt, lat, sfc (implied), wgap (to Altadena)

John Muir High School: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

Art Center School: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

Crime scene photography: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

Signal Corps service: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

G.I. Bill & flying: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

Bought first plane in 1947: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap (cites 1949)

Guggenheim grants: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

Fortune magazine appearance: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

One man show at Eastman House: nyt (says 4 man), lat, sfc, wgap

Family of Man exhibition: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

Use of a Cessna 170B: nyt, lat, wgap, getty (no model number cited)

1958 move to Napa: lat, wgap

UC Berkeley employment: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

Museum collections: nyt, lat (getty only), sfc, getty (getty only)

Wife Eula Beal & three sons: nyt, lat, sfc

Death date: nyt, lat, sfc

Death city: nyt, lat, sfc

Books by Garnett: lat, sfc, uc berkeley library

Getty Art Museum (getty) http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1580

Los Angeles Times (lat) http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-garnett5sep05,0,6657309.story?coll=la-home-obituaries

New York Times (nyt) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/obituaries/09garnett.html

San Francisco Chronicle (sfc) URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/10/BAG0CL2UHU1.DTL

"William Garnett Aerial Photographs," 1996, University of California Press, Berkeley. (wgap)

UC Berkeley Library http://sunsite5.berkeley.edu:8000/

Comment, I've replicated this at Talk:William Garnett.--Isotope23 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:William Garnett. Gamaliel 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kroupa article

I'm one of the editors who has contributed significantly to the Patrick Kroupa article. My interest in all this began when the 60's Yippie Speaking Tour showed up on my campus in 2003. I made a lot of the sections in the article and unfortunately probably made it too gung ho in places, especially with liberal POV, I think part of the problem is I took the overall tone from all of the books, etc, and it's probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.

I'd like to turn it into a good article which covers all relevant material (none of which is present post 2000 right now) removes material not necessary (civil rights section) and removes the liberal POV that got picked up from all the references used. I think I have a better overall grasp of style, after having read and used wikipedia for many years and contributed mostly to hacker underground articles, the latest of which was Mixter. I directly reference everything I write, backed up with real world books, articles, etc, not websites, there is no original research, but I guess that isn't the problem since nobody has ever found fault with that, only the overall tone.

I would very much appreciate advice on the following:

Although I made a lot of the article's structure, over time there have been hundreds of edits. May I simply add and remove sections without stepping on any toes?

I wanted to make changes and additions a long time ago, I even wrote the subject of the article and received no response. If I'm shooting a movie or writing a book, he seems to cooperate, any web oriented project does not seem to receive cooperation at all. This seems to extend to all projects they (the NY mindvox people) are involved with. Dead trees and movies, keep coming out. Their own website was last updated in 2003, all their efforts seem to be completely offline. At this point I mostly dropped it because my intent was not to anger or upset anyone and I ceased adding material or edits, which is when every organization he is a member of seems to have arrived and added themselves into the entry and started the "Affiliations" section which in my opinion should either be worked into the text, or removed.

To be succinct, my questions are:

May I edit/remove/change large sections of the article without upsetting the many editors or violating some policy of wikipedia?

Should I write any of the other main editors/wikipedia admins such as Myleslong (who is also in CDC with Kroupa) and ask them or mention this first, or simply do it and they can edit/revert at will?

The article has many links and all references I used are included. It also links web sites, but none are commercial or for profit. Neither Kroupa or anybody involved with Mindvox seems to be selling anything.

I've looked at bios of controversial people in similar positions such as Tim Leary, Burroughs, etc. Is there any other biographical article that stands out as a good example you think I should look at prior to making changes, or any other wikipedia policy I should read.

In short: I would like to bring the article into focus, remove the cruft and liberal POV and not enrage any of the other editors, some of them also admins on wikipedia. Probably that won't be possible, but I would like to do my best.

Thanks TrancedOut 02:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User evading block

The user evading block posted again on the Global warming talk page. Since you erased his comments before and he posted the exact same thing as before, I thought I'd let you know. Brusegadi 04:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've blocked him again. Gamaliel 04:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Roskam

FYI — goethean ॐ 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Hello, Gamaliel. I'm an editor who spends a lot of time working in politically controversial topics making sure that POV doesn't work its way into the project. I was recently involved in a dispure with the user Getaway on a statement on the Sam Brownback page, and while browsing other topics of political pertinence I happened on the ongoing dispute at the Fred Phelps page. If there's any way I can be of assistance in disputed material, I am more than happy to lend a hand to make sure that NPOV is maintained, that no unreliable sources get through, and that interests stay out of the project. Just give me a shout on my talk page if I can be of assistance. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football vandal

See my answer on WP:ANI. --LiverpoolCommander 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Manchester councillor

Hi, I've brought up this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan, which you had previously commented on a batch of Manchester councillors including Mr Chohan. I think he is one of the least notable entries. Perhaps you feel like commenting? JASpencer 14:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Channel

As an administrator, your reverts of the Fox News Channel article are especially astounding. This highly debated addition to the article has been discussed on the talk page and can be found in the archives as well. As a result, it was removed from the article. Now, without discussing the change, you are imposing a POV on the article that you believe the channel is conservative. Even if you believe consensus has not been reached, continuing to add this assertion of bias to the article is inappropriate. As the talk page states, this is not a factual position. Please stop adding it to the article, atleast until a firm consensus is reached (which I believe already has). AuburnPilot^Talk 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, I didn't realize this was being highly debated on the talk page. I saw a couple of what I thought were drive by reverts sanitizing an article on a conservative topic, something that happens quite frequently on such articles, and I saw no edit summary referring to a talk page consensus. Though I think this is quite absurd, I will refrain from restoring the objectionable word for now and when I have time I will read the talk page discussion and perhaps add some remarks. In the future, to avoid such confusion I suggest you and the other editors on this page use the edit summary to refer to a talk page consensus if you wish to use it to justify a revert. The edit summary by Clindhartsen is an excellent example of what I am refering to. Gamaliel 05:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just viewed the mess on the FNC Page that gamaliel has caused. It's common sense to view a talk page and anyway what you were trying to add was highly POV. Why did you keep editing with your own POV when different users were reverting it? if wiki has admins like this, it still has a long way to go before it can gain any real credibility. Perrymason 13:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go see Wikipedia:Be Bold. There is no requirement that I read a talk page before making an edit. Once the discussion was brought to my attention, I refrained from making that edit again. i don't see what the problem is here, other than an editor making a personal attack upon me for making an edit he doesn't like. What does that say about your credibility? Gamaliel 16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i know there is no requirement but it should be common sense (esp. for an admin). i didnt make a personal attack at you, i made a comment about the structure of wikipedia which seems very valid now looking at your actions a whole. and it doesnt matter about my credibility, im just a very minor user/editor of wiki. however, you are an admin which is suppposed to be a more major trusted role. oh and looking at the comments below it looks like you have a bit of a POV problem with FOX. Perrymason 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see any personal attacks in your comments above, look again. It seems you have a bit of a civility problem. Gamaliel 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doesnt matter if i have, i dont inject it into the edits i make Perrymason 23:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The civility policy, and note that it is official policy here at Wikipedia, applies to your interactions with other users. You might also want to take note of assume good faith. Gamaliel 23:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, I apologize for butting in here, but I notice that one of your edit summaries states that "obvious facts are not POV". I must ask, obvious to whom? Wikipedia is about sourcing claims, and verifiability. This is far from the first time I have watched you take this stance. Just because you think something is an obvious fact does not make it so, and does not release you from the responsibility of sourcing the claims you add to articles. In my opinion, you were adding POV OR. (Didn't the owner of Fox just give a bunch of money to Hillary? Certainly a multinational corporation cannot be labelled with an "obvious" political leaning.) Our history shows that there is a diverse group of editors, with widely differing personal POVs. But we must all learn to become more objective when editing. Not only does it make for a better encyclopedia, but is also gives us the added benefit of being able to hold our own POVs more credibly when they are based on verifiable sources. Crockspot 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious to a sane adult. Perhaps you buy the "fair and balanced" line, but I don't. In any case, I am aware of the need for verifiable sources, thanks, and since this is fact is apparently contested I will participate in the talk page discussion before editing on that matter again. I don't see what more could be asked of me than that. Gamaliel 16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning my sanity and maturity is beneath you. In my opinion, FNC is slightly to the right of "down the middle", and all the other networks are in the pocket of the left. But I would never impose that opinion on Wikipedia by adding it to ABC/NBC/CBS articles, because that is my POV. You being on the left are of course going to see Fox as uber right wing. That is your POV. The only thing that is "obvious" is that we have different POVs. I have no issues with you as an admin. As far as I am aware, you have never abused the admin tools. My issues with you are as a rank and file editor, though as an admin, I believe you do have a moral responsibility to set a good example for others by being extra careful about POV. Many users (obviously me not one of them) are intimidated by admins. Crockspot 16:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that wasn't intended as a personal attack, just a bit of hyperbole. I'm sorry you were offended as it wasn't my intent to insult you in such a manner. I'm sure you realize that if I wanted to insult you, I would just insult you. And in my experience I haven't encountered a user intimidated by admins (though I don't dispute that they exist) but I have encountered many, many users who feel that they have to try to take me down a peg because I have some extra cleanup tools or treat every editing dispute as the Man trying to keep them down. It is really quite tiresome and if I wasn't so dedicated to the project I never would have signed on for this thankless task. In regards to POV/NPOV, I stand by every edit I have ever made and I firmly believe that they have all been, to the best of my knowledge and ability, NPOV. We obviously see the political landscape very differently if you think that FNC is the middle of the road and not at all conservative. Gamaliel 17:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have insulted you plenty of times in the past, so I don't have alot of room to complain. But you are misrepresenting what I said about FNC. I said they are "slightly to the right of down the middle", not "not at all conservative". I actually haven't watched any cable news in a few years, except for the occasional CNN in airports and such, but I have more than once shaken my fist at FNC for exhibiting "lilly-livered librul" tendencies. But they do have the hottest babes this side of the Weather Channel, and the coolest sound effects to go with their flashy graphics. BTW, I just reverted your edit to Gannon. Crockspot 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I assumed that would be happening. So what do we do about this? Tbeatty's compromise, insincere though it was, was a good idea, and I really don't see any other way out of this. Gamaliel 17:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RFCs you started is the way to go. We aren't going to convince each other, because you believe you are right, and I know I'm right. ;) Crockspot 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to the introduction is an improvement and is fair. My only concern is that should such language be added to the CNN and MSNBC articles to be consistent? Especially with MSNBC, who in recent years has seemed to directly take on and try to counterbalance FoxNews. Ramsquire 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:FCFCcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FCFCcover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I could have sworn I used that dropdown menu. Fixed. Gamaliel 01:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

escort cat

I'm willing to work with the escort category, but I made a small adjustment. I removed the "sex worker" category from the category, and added this discription for the category: "This category is for persons who have offered or advertised their companionship for a monetary fee. Escorts may or may not be involved in sex work." BTW, somebody reverted your edit to gannon back to the courtesans and prostitutes cat, but I reverted back to your edit. Crockspot 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is a sexual therapist a sex worker? They are not prostitutes and usually do not have sex with their clients. Gamaliel 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, are they? I always thought that a sexual therapist was just a legal hooker, and did have sex with their clients. If they were a true therapist, and did not have sex with clients, then I would be hesitant to call them a "sex worker". Maybe I have a narrow view, but to me, "sex worker" implies sex, pornography, or simulated sex (such as table dancing). Did my few stints as a go-go dancer at a gay bar qualify me as a "sex worker"? I hope not. Crockspot 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe that's a bad example. I assume they don't since it's a legal profession and all, but maybe I'm wrong. More to the point are the other subcategories of sex worker which don't involve intercourse. Gamaliel 19:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is Fox

In regard to your statement on WP:BLPN, I left you this reply there:

"Since it is Fox"? That is very POV. Do you have ANY evidence that Fox has EVER gotten a story wrong on the facts? It's fair to quibble over perceived "spin" that a particular organization may or may not apply to their coverage, but the factual accuracy of their reporting has never been at issue. If this is the the standard that you apply to the reliability of a source, then to be fair, anything sourced by The Nation, Daily Kos, TruthOut (Leopold), heck, even the NY Times (remember Jayson Blair's stories they had to retract?) and CBS (fake but accurate) would have to be brought into question. Do you really want to go there? Crockspot 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that, by your standard, I could gut the Jeff Gannon article, citing past reliability problems with most of the sources, and require that additional sources be found. I'm not planning to actually do that, just pointing out to you the double standard that you appear to apply when the subject is someone that you have "issues" with. Crockspot 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merely noted Fox's known history of massaging the news as a concern among four concerns that I had, and the fact that it's Fox is the least of them. I find it much more troubling that 1) the article relies on a single source and 2) that source is written in the style of a personal essay 3) by a man who knows one of the participants. I didn't advocate removing the source or say that Fox could never be used. So your problem here is not my supposed "double standard" but the fact that I said something you don't like about Fox. Gamaliel 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot that you have special Jedi powers that allow you to see into my psyche and determine what "my problem" is. If one were able to measure Wikipedia editorial objectivity, based upon an editor's political views, and their ability to set aside those views and be objective when applying editorial policy, I would bet dollars to donuts that you would be a dot in my rearview mirror. You have a lot of qualities that I respect. But being objective about political subjects is not one of them. Crockspot 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not applying policy. I advocated no policy applications specifically towards Fox news. I warned a concerned user to be wary of a source for four distinct reasons. I then expressed support for her edits to the article, including her use of that source. I don't see what the problem is here, and I don't appreciate you jumping all over me accusing me of all manner of things on two different pages for a matter that is completely insignificant. If I advocated a prohibition against using Fox News (and only Fox) in WP articles, you would have a point, but merely warning someone to be wary of Fox News is not a misapplication (or any type of application at all) of policy. Gamaliel 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the abyss between your application of RS policy on some articles (such as Gannon) and your suggestion of needing additional sourcing in this case. If CBS posted an article saying that Gannon was a prostitute, you would likely have no problem inserting that statement into his article based upon that sole source. The inconsistency frustrates the hell out of me. I'm not perfect either, but I try very hard to acknowledge and adjust when my faults are brought to my attention. Crockspot 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all I knew about Gannon was based on one single news article written in personal essay format, you bet I'd be wary of basing the article on that single source. In the Fox case I briefly expressed concerns, then supported the use of the source in the article. Where is the double standard? Where is the inconsistency? Where is the problem? Gamaliel 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sami al-Arian

I recently saw Laura2006's edits to Sami al-Arian. I think this user could use some mentoring, or at least some watching over. I have the page (al-Arian) on my watchlist, but I think it would be good if an administrator paid extra attention to this user until they get fully aquainted with Wikipedia's policies. Regards, DRK 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with an image - photoshop vandalism?

The image in the Mark Souder article was, I believe, a photoshopped version of this jpg: [3], and was designed to make the Congressman appear particularly unattractive, I thought. I've not worked with image uploading (to replace the photoshopped one), and this appears to be a special situation in any case, so any assistance you could provide to fix the situation would be appreciated. John Broughton | Talk 17:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The finer points of image uploads on WP sometimes escapes me, so I nuked the old picture and uploaded a fresh one. I also left MadSeason a vandalism warning. Gamaliel 18:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly. John Broughton | Talk 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Byrd Page

Hey, I've noticed you found your way onto the Byrd page. I have two questions for you, if I put a tag on the top of a page requesting citations, do I need to go through the article to each individual sentence that needs a cite? AND am I correct when I tell users that Wiki policy forbids users from posting unsourced and unattributaed slurs made by other people, on the talk pages. There is a user who wants to refer to one of Byrd's detractors as someone who has been "labelled an 'Uncle Tom' by many". Ramsquire 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to tag each sentence individually, but it might be helpful to tag a few of the worst offending statements. I'll drop a note on the talk page about the second matter. Gamaliel 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News

Why did you delete my edit on Fox News it was factual that CNN recieves the same criticsm from the other side? ````TannimTannim 23:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was about Fox News, not CNN. Gamaliel 00:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FNC Intro

I believe this version (which was there before the weasel editing) is more agreeable to a consensus and a compromise between the two positions: "The channel was created by Australian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes, then President of CNBC and a former Broadway musical producer as its founding CEO. Fox News is seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions, a charge which the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies.". Notice it contains the changes like removing "openly", "widely", and "operative". Seems to be the better choice. What are your thoughts? AuburnPilot ^Talk 06:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Broadway producer" - this was inserted by another editor in an attempt to score a cheap debating point - it's irrelevant and a WP:POINT violation.
"openly" - that can go.
"widely" - I think this should stay to accurately describe how pervasive this perception is
"operative" - I really don't understand why people have a problem with this word. "Campaign worker" implies he passed out flyers. What would you suggest as an appropriate synonym?

This is all pretty minor stuff and with a little effort I think we can all come to a reasonable consensus on this. Gamaliel 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "widely" and "operative" should still be removed. Widely is definitly a weasel word that doesn't add anything to the sentence. Aside from that, the sentence simply sounds better as "seen by critics" rather than "widely seen by critics". Operative may be acceptable by definition, but its connotation implies something more (spy, agent, spook, etc). I believe "political consultant", as his own WikiBio describes him, is more appropriate. AuburnPilot ^Talk 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one other thing; I think the new addition of "and observers of the channel" should be removed as well. AuburnPilot ^Talk 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Consultant" is perfectly fine by me. I added "observers" because of the PEJ survey I added to the intro. Is every single one of those journalists surveyed a "critic" of Fox? Gamaliel 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with observers. I went ahead and changed it to consultant. AuburnPilot ^Talk 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated an RfC on this topic. It would be great if you'd participate rather than continuing to revert; at least until something comes of the RfC. AuburnPilot ^Talk 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made my position clear on the talk page and I'm more than willing to discuss anything new. Gamaliel 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you refuse to participate in the RfC? Is that what I should take from that comment? AuburnPilot ^Talk 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oviously not; I see you left a comment.....AuburnPilot ^Talk 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identify the living person?

You deleted information from a Kennedy article on assassination theories because a living person was mentioned. You were then asked to identify the living person you believe exists. You still have not identified the person except to subsequently say that one exists. Could you please either identify the person who you use as the reason for the deletion or revert your deletion?

Thank you

RPJ 20:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered your question on Talk:Kennedy assassination theories. Thanks. Gamaliel 21:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks

I have never attacked you personally - I have only questioned your opinions. Please do not play the game of accusing me of attacking you, which you know is not true. --andreasegde 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you have a lot of gall to accuse me of gamesmanship when you've perfected the game of insulting people and then acting indignant when they respond. Gamaliel 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are going overboard. Calm down. I have never attacked you. Please give me proof of my so-called attacks before you get so angry. --andreasegde 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think accusing someone of racism isn't an attack? Please. Gamaliel 01:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it was a direct attack, then do something about it. I would prefer arbitration by a Belgian user, if you agree. --andreasegde 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL. Thanks for the laugh. Now I know you aren't serious and you're just trolling. Gamaliel 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are calling me a "troll", which is (according to your own talk page photo) akin to saying that I am a member of the KKK. That is a direct attack. Are you serious? I hope not, but I am worried about your state of mind. --andreasegde 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. RPJ attacks me in the same way, posting messages expressing mock concern for my mental health. You guys swap debate tips at the same conspiracy message board? Gamaliel 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that anyone that disagrees you is "mocking" you, or "attacking" you. This is definitely not so. We disagree, and that's all it is. Can people agree to disagree, without being upset? Life is too short, after all... --andreasegde 18:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that disagrees with me by expressing mock concern for my mental health or accusing me of being racist against Belgians is attacking me. People can disagree with civility. Try it. Next time someone does something radical like trying to edit a conspiracy article to be in line with WP polices, you might try greeting that edit by providing sources or reasonable debate instead of attacks and accusations. I know, it's crazy, but it just might work! Gamaliel 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Protect this Page?

I've adopted The Game (rapper) page to help fight vandalism. However, it is hopeless. This page needs protection pronto. I've listed it on the WP:RFPP page and nothing has happened, apparently there is a backlog. You can check through the page history and see how much times it get's vandalized in a day. Is there anyway you can protect this page? (See this is why I'd like to become an admin, there are so many backlogs and things that need to be checked by admins, but when you go through the RfA, they want to talk about edit summaries and edit counts. Anyway, I'm done venting.) Ramsquire 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected it and I'll leave it like that for a few days. Gamaliel 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Ramsquire 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another PAIN report

I've reported the user who, on the JFK, Oswald, and Assassination theories pages continuously accuses us of being government agents because we have the audacity to ask for reliable sources. I know you have been hesitant to get involved in WP:PAIN procedures with him but I think you should add something since you are the focus of his rants more than I am. Ramsquire 23:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. Comment added. Gamaliel 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Editing the Cindy Sheehan article and neutral point of view

What wasn't neutral in my changes to the CIndy Sheehan article? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Durbinmj (talk • contribs)

Lori Klausutis

Courtesy notice: Lori Klausutis the article you created is up for deletion.--Tbeatty 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Gamaliel 19:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Hi, could you help me convert the references in the "Family" section of Cindy Sheehan that I've just added to footnotes? I can't figure it out. That's something complicated about the Wikipedia code that I think should be simplified. Badagnani 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple once you get the hang of it. Just put everything in <ref> </ref> tags. I'll convert the links you added. Gamaliel 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Another Question

Is it OK if I delete RPJ's attacks on JimWae and ourselves from the talk pages of the relevant articles, considering he's been blocked for them?

Go for it. I've removed his attacks before. If he restores them when he is unblocked, remove them again. Gamaliel 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If it happens again, I'll try to restart that RfC that never got off the ground last time. Ramsquire 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that abortive launch was my fault. The rough draft is still here. Gamaliel 04:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's time

I think we need an RfC on RPJ's behavior. Basically, I've seen that he is continuing to misuse citations, conduct original research, violate NPOV, refuse to use reliable sources, refuse to assume good faith by calling editors "disinformationalists" and insinuating that I am a bigot. I've had enough of this. Since he has shown over the past year and through five blocks, that he does not understand what Wikipedia is, and is just trolling, we should seek third party comment. Ramsquire 17:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock user

It appears the IP address for a computer lab has been blocked do to your blocking of a user called "Madseason777". The user has been identified but cannot unblock her own account, which has caused a disruption to Wikipedia use in the lab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Staley8 (talk • contribs)

The block on the IP address has been removed. However, the user will not be unblocked. Gamaliel 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, you deleted it before I could copy it to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense!

Bigfoot found... surely if anything's BJAODN material it's that. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is if you want it:

In the southern reigion of Canada. Egg Hugger, the man who caught bigfoot, says that it was fairly easy. Egg says"It honestly wasn't that hard. I set up bigfoot traps all around the woods by my house and I would check them each of them about three times per day and I only have about 50 or 60 of them. I bought the traps from a Mexican who said he was selling bear traps in the back of his '67 Chevy real cheap. So I asked him if they could catch Bigfoot too and uhg... actually thats what they are really made for so I told him I would take 60. I look at each trap every day 3 times and I have been doing that for 45 year it's great!!!" Bigfoot was caught and Egg filmed it as he appreached the beast. Unfortunatally Egg died tring to help Bigfoot into the cage he had for him. Egg and is friends have een doing this for many years so they concider themselfs professionals. Bigfoot is now being help in a CIA facility for questioning but the chef of the CIA Ima Eurad says that he will not cooperate with them. Bigfoot has killed 94.77 people so far and can't be trusted. He waslast seen driving down I 55 in Illnois but he now could be anywhere in the southern reigon of New Hampshire. He was also seen in Detroit begging hobo's for coughy. Look out for him/her/it.( the .77 is found because he tore off a mans legs and arms and shaved his head.) STAY ALERT HE COULD BE IN YOUR BACKYARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Enjoy :) Gamaliel 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :)

Joehazelton likely avoiding block

Several IP addresses whose edits and writing style are consistent with those of User:Joehazelton have been editing Peter Roskam lately. They are: 207.67.146.62 (talk · contribs), 207.67.146.232 (talk · contribs), 207.67.146.146 (talk · contribs), 207.67.146.166 (talk · contribs), and 207.67.145.200 (talk · contribs). I know that you have blocked some of them already, but are you willing to do a range block? NatusRoma | Talk 19:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing, but I'll have to try to figure out how to do it. Gamaliel 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw this conversation and thought I'd help out if I can. That is a pretty big range, but I believe the block would be "207.67.145.0/23" to block everything from 207.67.145.0—207.67.146.255 (512 IP addresses). You could block just the 207.67.146.* range with "207.67.146.0/24". See Classless Inter-Domain Routing. -- Renesis (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI Gamaliel, this is the real JoeHazelton, speaking from the blue water internet. Looks like I present a problem. Well, you should try blocking 207.67.146.xxx and 207.67.145.xxx class C addresses... Also, don't read that crap on wiki, it's full of errors, if I were you, boneing up on tcp/ip protocol, I will look at this first about "Cidr" [[4]]. This is more accurate and meaningful, regarding your problem to block me. Also, since you are some kind of librarian, look under “RFC516” as well as under “subnetting” and” bit masking”. BTW. I may not be a writer, but I do have a very good working knowledge of tcp/ip protocol, as will as knowledge of Internet, network engineering.

Now, you can pull the block, and allow me to engage in fair and real discussions about the Roaskam article, which is in clear violation of WP:BLP with undue weight on minor negative minutia and agree to abide to commonly excepted rules of debates, with out the wikilawyering bs, contradictorily Wikipolicy or other WP:OWN gang banging, gaming wikirulz BS or ( you fill in the blank ) on what I may do and what tools I will use? Bye..JOE 207.67.146.52 04:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, The Wikipedia is part of the reason why the internet sux, and you are one of the reasons why it suxs. (Joe Hazelton) To bad, the storm is comming.207.67.145.181 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, this sort of this is exactly why you won't be unblocked. It is very simple, you can be unblocked when you demonstrate to me or another administrator that you can discuss issues without attacking other editors or making threats. Until that time, you will remain blocked. Gamaliel 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name calling is, so typical of the democrat mentality you have. Name calling, loud accusatory statements, and manufacturing character assassinations and, an unwillingness to discuss real issues is your M.O.(I see the love that follows you) As I said, the storm is coming, I'm working very hard, In reallife (which supersedes wikirules and irrelevant WP:POLICY to focus that energy on stopping little bureaucratic tin gods, like you, from having so much power, with out any reliable control or accountability to the rule of law. Wikipedia has far to much visibility, coupled with the lack of reliability and the power to damage and hurt people that I have have been busly laying the ground work for the day It will be held for its hurt which it causes, and you and people like you, will have to answer for that some day. You created me and now Frankenstein is alive.207.67.145.182 03:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namecalling? Pointing out your personal attacks and threats is not namecalling. I'd ask you for specifics, but no doubt you would just ignore the request for examples to back up your accusations as you always have. I'm sorry that you are unhappy with your Wikipedia experience, but there are plenty of means for you to have your concerns addressed, and you chose to ignore them in favor of attacks and insults and threats. It's sad. Now unless you are willing to change this behavior, please find something else to do with your time as otherwise there is no point to this conversation. Gamaliel 04:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that surprise you when you use the heavy and bias hand of blocking and threats of blocking to quash any meaning full discussions as well as to actively protect democratic editors, who can engage in revert wars with impunity, and favor them over those that are republican? This has not gone unnoticed and there will be a time which you will answer for bias and lack of enforcement of even the asinine Wikipolicys, which over lap, and are inconsistent with the most interesting one to be WP:IGNORE which under this little policy, I can point out that you are, basically a jerk for blocking me, and have great malice in what you do. This malice, I see playing out in the exchanges you have with other editors, on this page. Plus the little picture of the church services of the "Church of the Flaming Cross" is a real nice PC touch on your page. I could be black and if I was black, I could be very offended.. But, be that as it may, you are a tin pot prick, which as typical of most democratic bureaucrats, with a little power. So, you do not have dominion over me, because you have banned my with out any means to have may say in the matter as well as I will not kiss your ass. So, I work my efforts to write snail mail letters to have wikipedia answer to "Higher Authority" to people I know and hope that they, at the very least require warning banner be placed on each and every wikipeida page stating the following:

ALL INFORMATION SHOWN HERE IS UNRELIABLE AND SHOULD BE NOT BE CONSIDERED AUTHORITATIVE AND MAY BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH, WEALTH, REPUTATION AND LIBERTY.

joehazelton

Continued vandalism by 207.28.144.2

207.28.144.2 continues to vandlize pages despite your warning [5]. Not one of this user's edits over the past six months appears to have been meritorious. I suggest indefinite blocking, duration to be fixed if and when user appeals. Pop Secret 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've slapped a month long block on them. If the vandalism continues after the block expires, I'll impose a longer one. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about policy re removal of unjustified warning

Hello, I was given a WP:NPA warning by Aaron 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC) on my talk page, because of a comment in an AfD discussion. I do not agree that my comment was a personal attack or that the warning was justified. Am I allowed to remove it and if so when? Is there any penalty if an editor is in the habit of placing a lot of warnings on the talk pages of editors who express opposing views in AfD's? Thanks! Edison 06:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Channel, again

Gamaliel, the same user who opposed the last RfC has opened another one in hopes of continuing the debate on weasel words. I vowed not to participate but have made a couple comments. I thought you might want to take a look since you participated in the last one. AuburnPilot ^Talk 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll wade into the debate after I read the comments that accumulated while I was away this weekend. Gamaliel 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gamaliel, I sort of see the point you are making that the study is so diverse that to just say critics is misleading. But I think we can leave it with just critics since, although the persons contributing weren't all critics, their view that Fox has bias is a criticism, especially of a news operation. Think of it this way, I am not a video game critic, love them actually, but from time to time I'll participate on users survey's saying "X game sucks". So in that instance, it's ok to lump me in with critics. Ramsquire 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see your point, though I still have concerns using that language as I want to resist efforts, intentional or not, to explain away all criticism of Fox as partisan attacks. Gamaliel 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FNC sockpuppetry

After looking at the contributions of Cbuhl79 and Mrmiscellanious, I'm starting to think one is simply a sockpuppet of the other. Not only are they arguing the exact same point on the FNC talk page, look at the time frame of their edits:

06:33, 09 October 2006 Mrmiscellanious completely stops editing after commenting on FNC talk page

01:41, 10 October 2006 Cbuhl79 starts editing after 3 months of silence, just hours after Mrmiscellanious's last edit; first comment is on FNC talk page.

21:21, 28 October 2006 Cbuhl79 stops editing after ArbCom Request is filed on his behavior

02:54, 29 October 2006 Mrmiscellanious begins editing within hours of Cbuhl's last edit; is now arguing same points as Cbuhl

I'm not sure if this is enough for a sockpuppet report on WP:SSP, but I was curious to see what somebody else thought. -- AuburnPilot ^talk 07:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough

Is there something going on with this article I'm not aware of? THREE editors, using what is, on the surface, the most handwavingly bogus of rationales ("the name is not important"), are removing a name from the article. Inclusion of the name like this is a standard piece of information -- for verification and fact-checking, if nothing else -- yet it's being removed. Is there some backstory here? --Calton | Talk 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The portion you are fighting over was removed from another article on the woman in question as a possible WP:BLP violation. Hence having it entirely in another article is still the same possible WP:BLP violation. --Nuclear Zer0 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely inaccurate. Please don't use my talk page to provide other editors with inaccurate information. Thank you. Gamaliel 02:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the woman is dead, then her name is irrelevant to BLP, and removing it while leaving mention of the death achieves nothing. Edison 20:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Morton

I find it odd you lately have been appearing on his talk page to issue warnings and its starting to appear that you have an issue with him and possibly are stalking his edits, I will assume good faith and just take it as a mere alignment of stars that keeps leading you back there. Perhaps you should ask another person to look at your complaints you may have, your constant appearance may soon be taken in a negative light. Thank you. This comment does not need a reply. Just FYI. --Nuclear Zer0 00:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will intervene in matters of Wikipedia policy violations whereever I find them as that is part of my responsibility as a Wikipedia administrator. Thank you for your concern, however. Gamaliel 02:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Living People Patrol exempt from 3RR warnings?

Thanks for your note. Please see my addition to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Living People Patrol. This appears to be a proposal, and it was treated as official policy. Edison 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out when I'm using a blocked IP address

I am a teacher at a high school using IP address 64.150.0.1 You have had to block us from editing because people at the school repeatedly vandalize sites. Today I found some vandalism from us that has survived for 5 months-- since May, 2006. It now has infected about.com and other sites which copy entries from Wikipedia. Here is the article:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&diff=prev&oldid=52505796

My question is: Is there any way to help clean this stuff up--while I am logged in from the same IP? (I couldn't post to this User Talk page because of the block, so I had to post this later, from home.)

Oops, reverted a month ago

The vandalism by 64.150.0.1 to "Quantum Mechanics" has not lasted 5 months--it got reverted Sept 24.

Singing Senators?

The article The Singing Senators does not seem to have any references. The group supposedly operated in 2000, but have no notability I can find. What is the procedure for proposing deletion? Start with a PROD, or somehow start a AfD? I have no experience with either. Or does it seem as important as other bands and singing groups with articles. There are lots of musical groups which get deleted which are probably more notable by any rational criterion.Edison 04:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project:Conspiracy Articles

I'm thinking of setting up a project or guideline, that discusses how editors should edit articles dealing with conspiracies, allowing leeway since many conspiracies require speculation, but still conforming to Wiki policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. The reason of course is RPJ, who appears to now be forum shopping his POV pro-conspiracy edits into various articles, like j. Edgar Hoover and the CIA, in effect ruining good biographical and organizational articles. Any help or guidance, will be appreciated. Ramsquire 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review I don't think a new policy or project is necessary. The things I thought about proposing as policy already exists in the policies above. Perhaps though, we can create templates to remind users who wish to add controversial pro-conspiracy edits to articles, that it can't be their original research and that they must use a reliable source. And of course, everything must comply to NPOV. Ramsquire 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about a JFK project just to police the articles in that category - a lot of them are in bad shape. I do think a template is a good idea and a project may be necessary. However, I worry that if either one is too broad, they may get hijacked by the pack of howling editors that is descending on every article related to 9/11 conspiracies. While I hold the same opinion of 911 conspiracy buffs as I do for JFK conspiracy buffs, obviously I feel that the conspiracy theory phenomena is worth documenting as long as it doesn't creepy into articles on real history. The anti-911 group apparently disagrees with the latter assessment and I worry they might start attacking articles we've been working on (see Talk:Jim Marrs). Gamaliel 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't anything to be done with the AfD warriors but I think they'll have a hard time deleting the Kennedy articles, and the forks, because of their obvious notability. However, at the very least we can come with a guideline that explicity forbids an editor from taking Shaw's voluntary contacts with the CIA and writing that he was later discovered to be an informant or connected with the agency. A template reminding editors that they'll need a reliable source to assert that, may help some of our more conspiracy leaning brethren. Ramsquire 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO

Gamaliel,

I recently started an entry for myself at the suggestion of a friend of mine. It looks like some people think that is vane and some people think that I am not worthy of a place on Wikipedia. I understand that it is not the white pages but I am curious about your thoughts because I thought I followed the right proceedure. I listed under my last name because there was only one listing (and after a recent trip to Poland where I learned it is a very common last name). Two of my ex-employees have gone in and tried to add to my page and although they did not say what I thought they would I thought it was interesting. I guess my question is, was I deleted because I am not well-known enough to support my vanity?

(As a non ego based explanation for my post: while my contributions are not blindingly stellar, I have owned a successful company for 10 years, I do have over 25 patents and I have won several international product design awards including one from business week.)

Please email me at aaron@evodesign.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronsz (talk • contribs)

You can check WP:BIO to see some of the factors that makes one notable. Ramsquire 20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Chuck Munson

I've posted a reply to your request for diffs over at Talk:Chuck Munson re: his continued reverts.

At base, I feel that Chuck is demonstrating total bad faith here -- he denies what was written (in a good faith, NPOV fashion), then when confronted with the evidence either goes around claiming persecution and just goes haywire reverting anything and everything that challenges the image he wants projected on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your patience in this matter, but a stern warning: be prepared to handle Chuck with asbestos mitts. --Daniel 01:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FNC / RfA

Cbuhl79 has opened a Request for Arbitration about the Fox News Channel intro wording. Somehow he forgot to notify you. I am requesting you visit the RfA and add your $0.02. Current RfA Page. Personally, I can't believe how far he's taking this, especially since he is the only objector... anyway, thanks! /Blaxthos 20:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not intend to leave Gamaliel off the notice of the RfA. I did not consider Gamaliel a principal disputant, because his last comment was before the first RfC was closed, and since much of my RfA was specifically not concerning Gamaliel. For some reason, I also forgot Gamaliel when I earlier asked Isarig and Tbeatty to comment on the discussion, but I did mean to include Gamaliel as an "Other editor who has been involved". Cbuhl79 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm aware of it now. Gamaliel 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Turner

141.154.200.178 continues to insert the following language into the introduction. I've explained through edit summaries, and on the anon talk page, what WP:BLP requires when asserting that position. User has failed to listen and wishes to edit war over it. Should I wait for 3RR or is there a process for blocking a user who fails to observe WP:BLP?. Ramsquire 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to block for BLP as the criteria is so vague, and the guy apparently is racist anyway. I dropped a note and a 3RR warning on the anon's talk page. Gamaliel 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't advocating block, should have made that more clear. I just wondered if it was possible, to use the possibility as a warning to get the anon to assume good faith and follow Wiki policy. Ramsquire 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. We can always threaten the guy if he doesn't play nice. Policy does say that blatant BLP violators can be blocked. Gamaliel 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst

Hi there; I came here to chide you for adding {{test}} to an article rather than {{subst:test}}. But as an admin you know that, so I won't. Love the troll photo.--Anthony.bradbury 13:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's too many letters! ;) Gamaliel 14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing question

Hi there,

How do I go about getting my updates approved? I appreciate that I'm new, so I could be adding anything. How do I get some credit?

P.s. I like the "Funny things said about me" section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BZH56 (talk • contribs)

We don't have an approval process, but any editor can remove things added by other editors. Your best bet is to insure that your contributions are neutral and sourced. --Gamaliel 15:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Michael Savage

I don't remember making that edit... I don't even think I have ever been on to that page... I don't know what happened. =( Change it back to the way it was before "I" edited it. CustardToast 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfARB (conduct)

Sorry that this thing won't die -- after the ArbCom rejected cbuhl's request and I asked him to let it die now, he went and slapped a WP:NPA template on my userspace and talkspace! Final straw for me -- I have called for an RfArb regarding his behavior. I listed you as a witness, and I would sincerely appreciate you relaying your experiences and thoughts to the ArbCom. Sorry this has turned into such a dismal situation. Hopefully our next interaction will be under more pleasant circumstances! Thanks. /Blaxthos 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workspace

After some consideration, I've decided to take a very firm position regarding the situation with Cbuhl79. I considered stuff like "be the bigger man" and "not a big deal", "let it slide", etc... but it occured to me that in order to preserve the value and absolute functionality of the wiki system, 'somebody has to stop those who would abuse the project or the editors who make good faith efforts to improve it. It is ironic (or perhaps apropos) that my career goal is to become a U.S. Attorney -- though I'm very aware of avoiding WP:LAWYER. I realize that everyone's time is best spent actually improving wikipedia's content, but I'm requesting that you review (and contribute, if appropriate) to my workspace for the pending case (which I believe will be accepted). You can find the workspace at USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79. Any relevant contributions, collaboration, or advice is absoultely welcome and appreciated. Thanks! /Blaxthos 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

One ArbCom member has voted to reject, and his reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by Cbuhl79's constant rambling about content. The ArbCom needs to realize that i'm calling his behavior into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this. This is my first real experience with any kind of disciplinary actions on wikipedia... do you have any advice or guidance? I now have an advocate to assist with prosecuting the case, assuming it gets accepted. /Blaxthos 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The advocate for this case has suggested I urge any other users who have pertinant information to issue statements as soon as possible, or risk the case not being taken seriously. I also direct your attention to the discussion on the opposing ArbCom member's talkpage. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. /Blaxthos 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

Hey, trust me, I know about real life. If wikipedia was a paying gig it would be much easier to justify making more time. ;-) As far as the RfARB, I can see how the case would appear unnecessary on a cursory glance. It is my hope that the ArbCom will do a little more digging and understand the depth of the incident (and likelihood for future abuses, should it not be addressed). The advocate has suggested that the failure to request mediation may be the silver bullet, however I explained that mediation is just another ineffective step when one party is not acting in good faith. We'll see what happens! Thanks again! /Blaxthos 01:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interviewing Wikipedia contributors

Hi, my name is Brian Hodges and I am a freelance writer researching an article about Wikipedia. As part of the article I am interviewing people who contribute to the site, and I would also like to intereview an Administrator or two as well. So that's where you come in. If you're interested in participating, please contact me at brianrhodges@gmail.com.

Thanks,

Brian

68.39.158.205 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy assassination revert

John F. Kennedy assassination revert was an accident. Just too much cleaning of User:64.88.7.112 vandalisms: [6]

Would you fix them up, please... Andrzej P. Wozniak 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another user already cleaned it up: [7]. Anyway, thanks for the response, no harm done. Gamaliel 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Question About Patience

As I didn't have a way to ask you this question via email or IM, I will ask it here. I have read the Roskam Discussion page with stupified wonder at how you managed to maintain your cool with User: Joehazelton. I truly wish I had your level of patience and calmness, and wonder how to develop that quality better. I might have jettisoned him after the third occurence as someone with issues unresolvable outside of intense therapy.

Another question, it seems inappropriate for the commentary heading and dialogue resulting in the diatribe on the Peter Roskam page entitled 'Looking at the editing Histories of Goethena/Propol.' As it seemed to be essentially a ranting edit war, its continued presence within the discussion area is rather off-putting. It certainly gave me pause before contributing; if that sort of personal attack (mostly by the aformentioned Joehazelton) awaited edits made in good faith, why bother at all?

I can see that that the editor is no longer a member of the community (or is he? He did have multiple dopplegånger accounts...duh duh duhhhh!), so why are we keeping his flame wars on the page? They serve no purpose other than to illustrate how not to respond to edits. Maybe we can put that sad chapter behind us, archive it, and move on.

Again, you have my respect (and a wee bit of awe) for your patience and reserve in handling the matter. Good on ya!Arcayne 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. It's not often you get compliments around here, it seems like just an endless series of gripes, accusations, and insults. I wish I could say I had that level of patience during all my interactions on Wikipedia, but unfortunately I have not. Perhaps Joe's behavior was so outrageous that it was easy to keep level headed?

Feel free to remove that section. We've been removing Joe's attacks and I guess we missed some. Gamaliel 03:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I just added this to RPJ's talk page. Am I going too far? If not, any support will be appreciated. I've had enough of this. Ramsquire 00:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not far enough, perhaps. We should have dealt with him a long time ago. If he responds with a sneer or with his usual "Please provide examples of your cryptic remarks blah blah blah" then we should consider going ahead with an RFC. Gamaliel 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the RfC page, I'd need a warning from another user in addition to the one I just made, unless I can count the other numerous warnings throughout his talk page, as well as his block log. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that, but I am not hopeful. On a lighter note, since the anniversary of JFK's assassination is coming up, I think it would be a great time to start that Wiki Project you had mentioned earlier. I'm willing to help, just point me in the right direction. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I image the many, many warnings he's gotten would suffice, but I just added a warning in case someone wants to quibble about the letter of the policy. I've got to run soon, but I'll have more time to respond in full later. Gamaliel 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Protect Pages

I would like to request that the articles Peter_Roskam and Tammy_Duckworth be protected. I would ask that other articles regarding political candidates currently running for office be protected, but this might be something addressed on a larger scale through policy change inthe future. Considering the potential for unscupulous persons looking for an 11th hour propoganda tool or muzzle might alter, vandalize or add material from IP addresses and other ill-meaning users. The sharp rise in vandalism in these two pages makes it clear that his pattern will only increase this last week before the election.Arcayne 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not going to protect them now, but I've protected them in the past because of vandalism and if the vandalism escalates, I'll protect them again. Gamaliel 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, as in Rabban Gamaliel? Darkyoshi 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was simply concerned. Maybe my worry is for naught. (See> I used the word naught in a modern sentence. I is edumikated!)Arcayne 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I've initiated the RfC on RPJ. I hope I did it correctly. Feel free to make any comments. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, T Gholson

T Gholson (talk · contribs), without comment. JBKramer 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JH(?)

[8] — goethean ॐ 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kerry

The vietnam campaign theme issue was there for almost 6 months, backed up w/proper sources and you suddenly decide it's not neutral?? --Bairdso66 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had I noticed it six months ago I would have acted upon it then. Gamaliel 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time For Mediation

Apparantly the RfC has not worked and the user will continue to downgrade articles, and will not relent. I think we need to go to mediation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mediation is currently having a severe backlog, I took the case to the Mediation Cabal.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, what do you mean by "pov pushing" "rv pov"?

Lately you have been appearing in articles and deleting information that is well referenced to reliable sources. When you erase such valuable information from the articles you will type in "pov pushing" or simply "rv pov."

I know this web site encourages all significant points of view be included in an article. This is the basic website Policy. This is how a "neutral point of view" is achieved. Editors don't try to argue that one point of view on a subject is the better point of view.

As a logical extension of this neutrality rule of including all significant viewpoints, Wikipedia prohibits an editor from deleting viewpoints, and facts that support viewpoints, based on the editor's own beliefs that the viewpoint is wrong.

I believe I am correct on these rules. Do you disagree?

If I am correct and this is the Wikipedia policy to include all significant points of view (pov), what does it mean when you write "pov pushing" or simply "pov" when you delete information?

I have seen you delete information time and again with these remarks. It is as if you are deleting information on viewpoints that you think are wrong and don't want the reader to be, shall I say, contaminated, by the viewpoints of which you disapprove.

I'm sure it would be helpful to me and certainly to the many editors that you revert, to explain what you mean by "pov pushing."

Also. can everyone else do this?

Thank you in advance for providing everyone with your definition of what this means when you delete significant viewpoints and facts from the articles. RPJ 09:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your pleading ignorance is quite tiresome as this has been explained to you over and over again. NPOV does not solely mean, as you would like to believe, that all points of view must be represented. It also deals with how you present the information and how much weight you give to each component. You take a small detail and present it in the most loaded way possible, emphasized with long unnecessary block quotes, designed to push your conspiratorial pov. It has repeatedly been explained to you that this is inappropriate and a violation of NPOV, but you have ignored that and continued to repeat your mantra of "the basic rule of this website" and pretended that all other components of the NPOV rule do not exist. Gamaliel 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Harrington

Dunno if this is an AWB problem or what, but you just added Category:Living people and Category:Year of birth unknown to the article, and Harrington is dead and his birthyear is in the article. I've fixed it, but thought you might want to know in case something is off with AWB. Gamaliel 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I was confused by the subst'ed {{:tl:lifetime}}, out of which AWB pulled the categories. I had meant to go back to the article. Proabaly best not to subst that template though. Rich Farmbrough, 10:01 15 November 2006 (GMT).

Robert Prechter bio

Hello Gamaliel. You recently gave direction/encouragement to me about citations on the Prechter bio. That page could use your attention once again. An editor has placed text in the lead section and cited it as a quotation from the Wall Street Journal; I checked, and the WSJ did run a piece on Prechter on the date in the citation. Problem is, the "quote" now on Prechter's bio is not in the WSJ article, a copy of which I have before me. The real article was basically negative, and what this editor did was write a summary that's more negative still. Bottom line, he put his words in the mouth of the WSJ. Unfortunately, this is not a newbie mistake to be gently corrected. I'm in an editing dispute with this editor regarding a different page, which is now in mediation. This editor had not made contributions to Prechter's bio before our dispute, and this latest "contribution" fits an obvious pattern. As I understand Wikipedia guidelines, NPOV and the accuracy of bios of living persons is a serious matter, thus my comment here. I'm open to any thoughts or guidance you have, thanks. Rgfolsom 17:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting dilemma here. I just looked up this article in the Proquest database and what the other editor has quoted - accurately - is the abstract/summary of the article. While the editor obviously acted in good faith, the text s/he included, as you note, is not in the original article. So I think that probably the best thing to do is for you to suggest to the other editor that s/he quote some other part of the article or summarize it in a neutral way. Gamaliel 18:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. Rgfolsom 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried your advice (as you'll see on the talk page), but if you look on the Prechter bio you'll also see that I didn't get very far. I acknowledge that my other dispute may cloud my judgement, but think it's painfully clear that what this editor is doing to Prechter's bio goes beyond POV and is close to slander. It's everything that Wikipedia's policy talks about in avoiding biased or malicious content. Please give me your evaluation.

Rgfolsom 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is to step back a little bit. Go read assume good faith. I think you are leaping to the conclusion that this editor is disruptive and intent on disparaging Prechter. Most likely the editor merely feels that the negative opinions about Prechter should be documented in the article. Gamaliel 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort to keep the peace -- last I replied to your similar comment on Talk:Robert Prechter, I trust you'll be able to reply to what I said. Thank you. Rgfolsom 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do check the Talk:Robert Prechter again. User:Rgfolsom seems to have disappeared since it was revealed that Robert Folsom is a long-time employee of the Socionomics Institute and other Prechter organizations. Since Folsom seems to have a financial interest in advertising for Prechter, I don't believe that he should be editing these articles. The citations that I had put in the Prechter article are from the best sources in business journalism, they are typical of what is written about him, and they are completely accurate. I'd like to put them in again, but the page is still protected. How do I get this situation changed? Smallbones 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion

Hey. When you're undeleting pages like Cornell University will 3000 edits, how do you have all the checkboxes checked without having to go down the list and press the mouse button three thousand times? Thx. - crz crztalk 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Watcheditlist/Check_all. Couldn't live without it. Gamaliel 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

With the growing consensus on the RfC being that I should forego the mediation process and take this case to ArbCom now, I think I may pull back the Cabal request and take it ArbCom. I would like this situation handled as soon as possible, but I also don't want to have this thing kicked out because I didn't first seek mediation.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)}

I'm inclined to take their advice and head to arbcom and note in the request that the consensus on the RFC recommended this course of action. If it gets rejected, we can always go for mediation and try arbcom again when that fails. Gamaliel 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to see this. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! He's much more clear and coherent than he usually is, and he left out all the personal attacks. (Which of course he's never made in the past. *eyeroll*) Gamaliel 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do all these editors get paid for being in your cult, or is it just your personality that allows you to develop such a following? These accusations are truly amazing. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely love this line: "Great deference is shown to him by his group that has been acquired by Gamaliel through some process I am unable to understand." I only wish this cult would follow me to help me with edit wars in other articles! Gamaliel 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Arb has the four net votes necessary for acceptance right now. I guess we'll be hearing from the Committee soon. BTW-- I guess the process that he fails to understand is being a productive editor and assuming good faith. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I salute you, oh Gamaliel, whose honored name I am unfit to pronounce, and abase myself before your mystical powers! Bishonen | talk 22:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion tag

Hi there. I have reverted this edit you made, adding a speedy deletion tag with a reason of "pdf file". May I ask why you added this, seeing as being a PDF is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion? --TheParanoidOne 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you upload viewable pdf files as WP images? Because all I see there is the adobe logo and not the file RPJ intended to upload. Gamaliel 23:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDFs are not viewable inline, like images. If you click on the PDF logo, the document will open. See Wikipedia:Media for other types of media that can be uploaded and handled. --TheParanoidOne 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that and got an error message, so I assumed that the upload was improper. Gamaliel 23:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Extra-special thanks for having nominated me in the first place!

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Israeli conflict

According to this talk page (and you personal log) on 18:50, 15 November 2006 you have deleted article to clean up the mess. Do you mind restoring it? 'cause to my opinion we have seen smth. more appropriate than what is there now. --132.73.80.117 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've restored the article and explained what happened on the talk page. Gamaliel 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Warnings

Hi Gamaliel, I placed a warning tag on getaway (talk · contribs)'s talk page for stating "instead of a series of election-inspiried charges by overzealous Democrats out to completely destroy a black man that dares to get off of the Democratic Plantation???" In which he was in clear violation of the policy. I've noticed that he has changed the text of two of my warnings on his talk page (see [9] and [10].) Is he allowed to alter warning tags like that - isn't that considered vandalism in itself? I'm not sure. --Strothra 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a note on his talk page asking him not to alter the text of warnings posted there. Gamaliel 23:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that he did it again, and it's a little annoying that he's stating that they were put there inappropriately when they were not. --Strothra 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive?

I am abusive because I express disagreement with you? I did not attack your personally; nor did I use ugly language. You did not address anything what I wrote, so you turn the matter to something else: me.

You disagree with me, so you use your power to silence me. OMG!

You seem like a smart person, I urge you to reconsider, and examine what I say. Don't make Wikipedia a tyranny.

Thanks.

Jon White, NYC

You have accused me of "bias", of "bigotry", of having an "agenda", of "censorship", and now of advocating turning Wikipedia into a "tyranny". These are attacks and are violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. You can express disagreement without making such accusations and attacks. Gamaliel 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the end of the Talk concerning Michael Savage, commentator. There, readers can see, this thread continues. Thanks. 70.107.119.221 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Weller

[11] [12] [13] [14] — goethean ॐ 22:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've passed this info on to Danny in case it becomes an issue. Gamaliel 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turkeyday.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Turkeyday.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. ——An gr 11:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeted offender

Randroide 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 66.114.0.3. You blocked him/her one month ago.[reply]

Multiple (check complete history) vandalism at [15].

Good pictures in your page. Cheers.

Steve Buyer Article

Another admin is trying to keep negitive sorced fact off the page because they do not view it as signifigent. Would you please look at the talk page and let me know what you think. This is the same article that someone deleted everything and put up the congressmans bio. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.171.61 (talk • contribs)

Neither you nor Cryptic have responded to my concerns. Am I wrong to take a lack of responce as the go ahead to place to newly sorced facts back into the article?

TOCleft in Nancy Pelosi

Why did you remove this template? Using explicit placement of the TOC makes the text flow correctly, and without it there is a huge empty space left. --Dgies 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tocleft because it crammed the text of the first section into a tiny narrow column between the TOC and the infobox. Gamaliel 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your resolution I guess. At 1600x1200 it looks pretty bad without {{TOCleft}}. --Dgies 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badcock Article

Gamaliel - I am trying to load information about Badcock similar to any other company profile on Wikipedia. I work for the coporation and am unsure what information I am posting that is not allowed. Please give me some direction so that the information we post about the corporation will stay posted. Badcock Home Furniture .... user name Badcockandmore ... 21:10, 29 November 2006

See WP:CORP for the notability guidelines when writing an article about a company. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Are you an admin? Someone has vandalised my page [16]. Will you tell him/her to stop please? Wiki eZach| talk 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I got this message from you:

User talk:141.151.81.212 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Gamaliel 19:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gdo01 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I certainly wasn't trying to vandalize anything. I don't even know what page you believe I vandalized.

The message was for the person previously assigned to that IP address by your service provider. Gamaliel 14:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Eyre

I've been replacing fair use book covers with free ones when possible; see the link in my sig. Image:Janeeyrepenguin.jpg is now orphaned; just wanted to give you a heads up. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stepped on a landmine

While reading an interesting article about early console gaming, I ran across an article about Video game crash of 1983. Very interesting, but seemed to be a lot of conjecture and content analysis. I looked on the talk page and found a bunch of discussion about how the article was unsourced, sometimes contradictory, and full of original research. I posted a note on the talk page about my concerns, and suggested it would need a lot of work to be brought within spec. To put a sense of urgency, I noted that such noncompliance is criteria for deletion. Several contributors to the video game project have become hell bent on attacking my credibility and my "ignorance" of the subject matter (as opposed to answering what I believe are valid concerns). I'm not sure how to proceed -- any advice? You can find the reading here. If you read the whole talk page, it reads like a group effort in conducting said OR. /Blaxthos 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Second Thought

I received this today from RPJ's sidekick. I took it as a blatant attempt to bait me into something. So I dangled the line, the and got this as a response, which sort of proved my original thesis. I'm thinking of adding it to the Workshop page of the Arbitration, but wanted a second or third opinion before doing so. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 02:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sheehan Mess

Gamaliel, would you take a look at Cindy Sheehan and suggest what can be done to clean up this mess? Thanks! Pgc512 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about what the mess is so I know what to look for? Thanks. Gamaliel 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is becoming cluttered with so many "neutrality questioned" flag and notes, etc. that it is not very readable. It is long. It is being vandalized repeatedly so that any of us who care about it spend our time reverting and so on. I don't have much time myself. The guy who put the POV flags at the beginning has left. There is weaseling to accomodate both sides of every little thing. Someone needs to put a stop to the trolls, and to stop the flagging of everything. Let me know if you need more info. Thanks. Pgc512 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if you look at the last change , you see it is link to a satire of Sheehan without indicating that it is satire. Pgc512 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I know you were just doing routine vandal patrol. Still, I want to offer a humble and appreciative thank you. You and other vandal patrol members keep me and others contributors to WIKI from getting discouraged and giving up. Thank you so very much.TonyCrew 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry

You are one of several people who was instrumental in cleaning up my List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry page. This page was the first page I created and still remains the page that I have made the most edits to on wikipedia (95 edits). Thank you for your assistance. Since this page received so much more cleanup assistance than most of my other pages I am wondering if it was a focus article of a WikiProject Group. Do you know of any such designation? It would be helpful because I will be self nominating for admin tomorrow or Tuesday. Please reply at my userpage with any info you may have. TonyTheTiger 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson article

I do not want to get in the middle of that humongous discussion about Robeson. I do think this information could be added to the article. Wales had a "Paul Robeson Civil Rights Day" on 21 October 2006. According to BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6072908.stm, it was to mark the 30th anniversary of Robeson's death -- which was January 23, 1976. (I think it's more likely that it was to mark the 40th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster.) Anyway, it was an all-day event, http://www.cynefinywerin.org.uk/index.php?docid=243, including a concert that evening. What i can't figure out is if this is an annual civil rights day or if it was a one-time reaction to the civil rights changes in the U.K.

Michael Savage Article

Thanks for weighing in on the Savage article. I have to admit, defending Savage leaves a bad taste in my mouth...(or should I say keyboard...oh well I never was good with metaphors)...but the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think WP:BLP is good ground to stand on.--WilliamThweatt 05:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it's not Michael Savage that's being defended, it's the Wikipedia standards. I feel better now.--WilliamThweatt 14:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. But I still feel dirty. Gamaliel 17:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our dear friend, EnglishEfternamn, has decided to revert my "vandalism" again. As a new user, I'm a little unsure of how to go about fixing this problem. I reverted his revert, but of course that is only a temporary solution. Any suggestions for a newbie? Mbc362 04:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reasoning with him. If he's a hardcore POV pusher I can always block him if he persists, but nothing is lost if we keep trying to explain to him how things work around here. He's fairly new as well. Gamaliel 04:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, I have nothing but the utmost patience, especially when new users are concerned, but I think it is now obvious that EnglishEfternamn is just being obstinate. I have attempted to explain WP:BLP, WP:V, etc and provided links to appropriate policies and guidelines (and even direct links to Jimbo's quotes about BLP) but he refuses to discuss or even acknowledge policy. Today he has violated WP:3RR. I warned him on his user page. I haven't reverted back even though, if I understand BLP correctly, edits made in order to comply with BLP are not subject to the 3RR. I don't believe in edit wars, I'd rather work it out mutually or, failing that, escalate to an admin such as yourself. Please take a look at the discussion page and the article's edit history and take whatever action you deem appropriate.--WilliamThweatt 05:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

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

RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner.
Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rutherfordcoatofarms.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rutherfordcoatofarms.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I just had a quick question that i need to be answered. Why on Aug 11, 2006 did you erase a pharagraph describing how William Greer killed JFk on Nov.22 1963. This is an important peice of evidence in showing how the United States government is controlled totally by a world wide force able to conceal major events in history and keeping the human race ignorant to the problems that face earth today. I am in no way trying to personaly attack you or anyhing like that, I am just wondering if you can explaine why you did this? Thanks so much.

The paragraph was completely unsourced and additions of such a nature require reliable sources. Gamaliel 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Gamaliel, may the new year bring you peace, happiness, love, and hope for all things you wish for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Happy New Year! Happy New Year! Happy New Year! may this match your LJ wishes!!! Das Nerd 07:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Gamaliel 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings preserved in the National Recording Registry

You have contributed as an editor to the List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry. It is undergoing an overhaul according to the recent peer review that generated the following feedback. In addition to the changes there, it is undergoing stylistic changes that prevail at lists that have been selected as featured lists. Conversion to wikitable format began with 2002 today because most articles that reach featured list status are in this format. Feel free to convert additional years, add more columns, or add further details. Hopefully many of the editors who have helped edit this page to its pre review state will help improve it to a featured list quality level. I may not return to make further edits until next week. TonyTheTiger 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klan Photo

Hi Gamaliel,

A fellow African-American user recently expressed some discomfort with the image on this talk page; basically, it left him confused and concerned that you might be... a "not very nice" person, to euphemize. I reassured him that you were a great guy, and that you only intended to deride wiki-trolls (and, really, who doesn't love deriding trolls? :) Still, I thought you might want to know, in case you could think of a way to modify the image or the caption to make your point even more clear. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention and a special thanks for taking the time to explain the intent of my photo, which I (apparently erroneously) thought was pretty obvious. I made a minor modification to make my intent clearer and while I won't be removing the picture immediately, I think this is a good a reason as any to prompt me to upgrade my userspace, replace all the pics, etc. Gamaliel 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

goethean

Rather than reverting his talk page, why can't you look into the allegations of abuse posted by that person. As you can see, I am not alone in thinking he has abused his privileges as an editor, you should also look at the same poster, who spoke to LarryV, another adminstrator. ForrestLane42 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

These "allegations" are more of the same crap posted by an abusive banned user. I suggest you don't put any stock in them. Gamaliel 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realized that this user was banned. The banned user was making light of some accurate insights into goethean's editing style which I see as tyrannical at times. Goethean and I have been in a long protracted edit war. I will admit that I have allowed him to bait me on occassions, but I think if you take the time to look at goethean, you will surely find abusive, arrogant attitude towards me and fellow editors.ForrestLane42 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

The snipings of random anonymous users or sockpuppets of banned users will accomplish nothing. I suggest you put together an RFC as the first step in dispute resolution. Gamaliel 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I am coming to you, LarryV has not responded. With goethean its impossible to set up a RFC because he has powerful friends as administrators. I honestly am not sophicated in Wikipedia language in bring up RFC, its all greek to me. ForrestLane42 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

No administrator, powerful or not, can keep someone from opening an RFC, though one can be closed or deleted if it is used to merely attack or heap abuse on an editor. An RFC is a "requests for comment" where the community is asked for input regarding an issue or an individual. See WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. You can use an RFC to present your side of an issue with evidence and links. Gamaliel 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess goethean, can have his way, like I said I am not wikipedia-savvy to begin with, just been abused and thrown around too much anyway, just come to the conclusion that wikipedia does not abode well for newcomers ForrestLane42 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

I'm sorry that you find our dispute resolutions too onerous, but we do have them, and we also have other places where you can request intervention, such as the personal attack noticeboard. We do our best to accomodate newcomers, but you have to request help and you have to be specific about what is going on. That isn't unreasonable. Gamaliel 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the link you sent says the board is gone....I have request help to you, to LarryV, I left a message on some RTC board, nothing....as I said there are so many wikipedia concepts to learn how to write to get noticed...so the stack is historically against the newcomer ForrestLane42 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

I apologize for sending you to a board that no longer functions. I've reduced my participation in Wikipedia during December and January and thus missed the unfortunate closing of the board. Regardless, there are plenty of avenues for you to pursue this matter. In any endeavor, there is a learning barrier to overcome for newcomers; Wikipedia is no different. You say you have requested help from me and then complain that you have received no help. But I gave you several avenues to pursue, you pursued none. I told you to be specific, as it would be impossible to act upon a matter with no specific information, but I have heard nothing but vague complaints. What do you want Wikipedia to do? It cannot read your mind. A bot cannot discover your problem act upon your vague complaints. Start an RFC. Make a specific complaint to me or another administrator or on the admin noticeboard. Do something. Gamaliel 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Jim Webb

How was my last change vandalism? It is really what someone said online and it did not defame the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.234.134 (talk • contribs)

Please don't add random crap from the web about werewolves to articles about politicians. Gamaliel 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting pages

I noticed that you caught Spnst3's work pretty quickly. After seeing the chop job done on one of my contributions, I checked the rest of this user's work, and found you were already there a week ahead of me.

It's great to know that good people like you are helping keep this site healthy! (Long Live Librarians!!! :^) - KellyLogan 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. While abuse is frequent, unfortunately praise is often in short supply, so it's always good to hear. :) Gamaliel 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting Molly Ivins! treyjp 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need for protected page or something

Again, I will bring this to your attention, since you are an adminstrator, can you do something protect this page, mediate a continuingly hostile page and I will not say that I am an angel in all this because I let others goat me at times. Here is the part of the talk page for Ken Wilber as an example of a hostile edit war/reverting. not to mention the fact that I have a hunch to believe gadrane is a sockpupet of goethean but thats besides the point. Here is: {long excerpt of Talk:Ken_Wilber#Wilber.27s_work_unverifiable.3F removed} ForrestLane42

Keep in mind that, as someone new to this dispute and someone completely unfamiliar with Ken Wilbur, I can't completely grasp what's going on. It seems User:Gadrane is asking for a citation for your assertion that "his work can't be verified by traditional scientific methods". Is that correct? That seems a pretty reasonable request. What exactly is going on? You seem at wits end but from the large amount of text you posted here I can't parse out exactly why. Is the request that onerous? Gamaliel 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, how can it be reasonable request for citation - when in the article it already establishes the fact that his work is ignored by academia, by the scientific community, anyone who knows anything about science can easily see that Wilber's work has nothing in come with the scientific method. And if its a reasonable request, then my counterrequest that he proves his claim that Wilber's work is scientifically sound, can be verified by traditional scientific methods, is equally what he is required to do. By the way the Meditation committee, asked for request for mediation, are u in charge of this? ForrestLane42 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

If the article already establishes this, then it should be a simple matter to cite the sentence in dispute with the same sources used to establish this later in the article, no?
Articles about science should be also written for people who don't know anything about science, like myself.
Anyone wishing to insert a claim into the article must provide a source.
I don't have anything to do with the mediation committee. Gamaliel 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to mediation committee but I don't think I can get a fair hearing. As for what you said about yes, u would think its easy to cite the sentence above as citing but they dont want that. So if anyone must insert a claim must provide a source, so they should be required to cite a source as to why it should be there, not to tag "unsubsantiated claims". ForrestLane42 00:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

Why do you feel you will not get a fair hearing? Why do you feel the Mediation Committee will be biased or unfair? Has anyone on the Committee given you any indication that they would act in such a manner?

As I said, claims must be sourced. Gamaliel 05:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]