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.
A user that you previously warmed about edits with this IP 76.168.205.230 continues to make change to the Villanova Law article. The changes are rarely explained, and some have altered researched and sourced content. Additionally, some changes remove the NPOV nature of the entries. Rather than adding to the informative nature of the entries, the user's edits continue to change the article to provide a certain slant/perspective.
The user has made changes to the entries for other law schools and has been warned about several on his/her talk page. I initially became aware of the changes after the user posted a new entry that contained citations but then proceeded to made several statements that were not supported by/misconstrued the cited material. I am not a regular wikipedia contributor and so I thought that I would mention this to you because you had previously given the user a warning and would probably know what to do. Thank you!
Hey Gamaliel- Looks like you've been around these parts for quite a while so I was wondering if you could help me out with something -- If it's possible, I'd like to change my username from Arbor832466 to just Arbor8 or something else that doesn't involve a long string of numerals. Is name-changing kosher? Is it possible? If I do it will i lose all my history and edits? Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy if it's a clear cut change and no one else is using the new name. Just go over to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. IRRC, your entire edit history moves with the name change. Gamaliel (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At 20:53, 1 March 2011 you reversed a revision I made because, as you wrote, "I don't think we need two more paragraphs of what has already been adequately summarized, esp. if it's only taken from one side of the dispute and not a neutral RS".
I don't think the 'Norman Finkelstein' section on Dershowitz' page is adequate. Finkelstein's accusations went far further than an unacknowledged quotation of Mark Twain. That is why I copied & pasted more from the 'Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair' page: -
"In addition, Finkelstein provided what he claimed is evidence of plagiarism in instances where Dershowitz reproduced the exact errors found in Peters' citation of original sources, and thus argues that Dershowitz did not check the original sources he cited, a claim that Dershowitz adamantly denied.[9]
"Finkelstein noted that in twenty instances that all occur within about as many pages, Dershowitz's used some of the same words from the same sources that Joan Peters used, largely in the same order. Several paragraph-long quotations that the two books share have ellipses in the same position, Finkelstein pointed out; in one instance, he claimed, Dershowitz refers to the same page number as Peters, although he is citing a different (1996) edition of the same source, in which the words appear on a different page.[10]"
Do you follow my reasoning, or do you maintain the Twain accusation is adequate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.71.107 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning. I don't think you get mine. My problem is that I wish to see either a shortened version of your additions or coverage from a third party reliable source. I don't think two paragraphs of allegations from one side of a dispute is fair or appropriately weighted. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that first edit was hasty. The new one is more satisfactory, I hope. It is in fact only a copy & paste of the second paragraph of the related main page, which seems reasonable.
You were right: my first edit was inadequate.
I hope you will agree that my latest edit, the New Version, is much better.
The Old Version (i.e. what I saw before editing) was woefully inadequate: obscurely placed & hard to find; in the wrong section, among 'Views' for some reason; & by no means a decent summary.
The New Version is in a section of its own, near the bottom, & gives a broad outline of the affair & a link to the main page dedicated to the affair. It gives both academics' side of the dispute & mentions Harvard's support of Dershowitz.
As such, I think the Dershowitz page is now improved & a better resource for Wikiepedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.71.107 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
even though i totally agree with the description below the first picture on your user page: i did not attack a "specific editor", i attacked a lowlife vandal. Yes i know it is against site policy, but i am undoubtedly losing it over these "users", don't they have anything better to do?
I have been here for 4 1/2 years, and everytime i have tried to improve on my manners overall, but i just cannot when it comes to vandalism. That said, sorry for any inconvenience and have a nice weekend! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi there,
I think you should not change Inception (film) to Inception, coz when I type up a name of a movie I always put (film) at the end, & that is the one I chose. Haven't watched the movie yet but will very soon. NCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.125.200.229 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should add your comment to the discussion Talk:Inception_(film) as the decision isn't up to me, it will be arrived through that discussion. I should note that if the article is moved, a redirect will take you to the article when you type in "Inception (film)". Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to drop you a line to let you know the article you wrote in the Signpost about Old Man Murray was excellent. Nice work on the research and contacting all the involved parties; I think you hit just the right note with the piece. —Torchiesttalkedits 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It's always good to hear that I've done a good job, all the more since it's my first Signpost piece. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to correct the record, not vandalize. I have never done this before. Please advise me as to how I can properly edit the record; eliminate inaccurate information, information that isn’t true. If I’m not allowed to do this, is a counter point acceptable? With regard to South Florida, lucky win………GO PITT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.93.41 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful if you brought up your concerns on the discussion page. Do you feel the article inaccurately portrays what is found in the sources? Or do you think that the sources themselves are inaccurate? If so, you will need to provide your own sources disputing those articles. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gamaliel. This note was left to you on an article talk page. I'm moving it here, in case you wished to respond to it. It doesn't contain anything about article improvement, so it really doesn't belong on an article discussion page. Do with it what you will:
Gamaliel, I just checked your profile and whoever that other person is, he is right. You have a thing on there that says you support the democratic party of the united states, and its also obvious by your use of "Fox News cliches" attack that you carry a bias around with you. I think what the other anonymous person is trying to say is that the controversies you have been choosing to delete cast a bad light on the liberal philosophy that they, and you, probably hold, yet you left alone the Juan Williams comments that were made on a conservative news organizations channel. This is a double standard. I will be reverting your edits and keeping an eye on this article for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.230.213 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving this. Whenever I remove personal comments like this which clearly belong on a user talk page, I end up getting in a talk revert war in addition to an article revert war. Gamaliel (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.
Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.
Thanks! I thought I had drastically misread it when I checked again yesterday because I jumped up two ranks. Appreciate the note because now I know it wasn't a failure of reading comprehension. Gamaliel (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the patrolling of the Skull & Bones page. I had left that editor a message about the unreliability of the sources he was using, but he never responded, and I hadn't gotten around to revisiting the page. (Having too much fun with images right now.) So many thanks. Cheers, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been meaning to get to it for a while, I have a quixotic dream about taking that page to featured list status. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see you have some experience with Lee Harvey Oswald (mentioned on your page), so you're no stranger to the conspiracy theorists (who abound on the web). The Bones page attracts more than its fair share, as you know. Between the two of us, maybe we can clean it up. I try to keep an eye on individual entries in which I have an interest, especially that of Daniel Coit Gilman, responsible for so much in American graduate school education. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't realize you were a longtime veteran of that page. I guess the last few years of edit-patrolling on there must have rendered me a bit unconscious when it comes to that page! MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd call myself that. Maybe absent veteran. I did a lot of work on it, but I don't think I've edited the S&B page since 2007. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I think my first edit there was probably 2008, but after a few years doing mostly reverts, I have sort of stepped away myself. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I see that you have been working on the entry on me, and I would respectfully ask you to consider enlarging it to include descriptions of my career, and all of my now five books, and if you are going to retain the section on the Mirabella Howard Kurtz episode, it would be more accurate to title it "Controversy."
If you want to describe my politics, I have a much wider set of political views, which can be discerned from the Huffington post writings and elsewhere.
The design of the entry was created by someone calling himself "atheist preachers son" whose bio here indicates he is a pro-life conservative in DC. This person obviously had an agenda in creating an entry on me.
Further, please correct, I am now a contributing editor at Elle Magazine, on the magazine masthead. I am no longer at People. I left People to live in Italy and write about the Amanda Knox case. that book will be published in August and is viewable online at Amazon and elsewhere. The title is The Fatal Gift of Beauty.
Much information is on my website, and in some of the media about me.
Thank you for your help and attention to fixing what has long been an entry designed by someone with a political agenda.
Nina Burleigh—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.128.182 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I'll make the corrections and additions you suggested. I think in particular changing the section heading is a good idea because one 13 year old comment isn't really representative of the whole of someone's politics. Time permitting I'll get to adding more information about your books, which of course should be the primary focus of the article, but fighting the ideologues on Wikipedia is time consuming. If you have any further suggestions or objections about your Wikipedia entry please feel free to contact me again. Gamaliel (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again,
Thanks for that, Kindly when you have time, also look at my website and update the list of articles I have written to include The New Yorker, New Yotk Times, The New Statesman and others. These articles are all on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.128.182 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You threatened to ban me so shouldn't you also ban your admin pal for writing this to me
Hm. You're being deliberately moronic. No one called Jesus a stupid motherfucker or anything. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)--69.14.96.9 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did start it, and the fact that other people are now egging you on is the only reason I haven't blocked you yet. If you prefer, I can warn him and block you. Gamaliel (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following this. So just block, and send me a prose-note. I don't see a personal attack, but if you disagree let me know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 06:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's gone, this was the last straw. Gamaliel (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you had a problem with an IP. This person left this offensive message on my talk page [1]. I left the IP a message requesting they refrain from making such personal attacks. --AnnekeBart (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Gamaliel (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no reason to be rude :) I did make very detailed reasons in each edit, why the templates were added. I'd really suggest that you draft first in sandbox, or at least utilize "Preview", so your articles aren't going live prematurely. I've been around for quite some time myself, under a number of names, but it isn't a competition of who has been here longer.
Be civil with other editors, even those who disagree with you and those who you think are breaking the rules. Civility is a fundamental rule here at Wikipedia. Collaborative editing depends on people who are willing to work with one another and is harmed by those who are rude and combative. If you have come here to combat another political, religious, cultural, ethnic, or other group, please do it on a message board somewhere and not Wikipedia.
It's not about competition, it's about the fact that a new page patroller should be able to tell the difference between a genuine speedy deletion candidate and a new article from an experienced user that you caught between edits. I haven't been rude to you at all. The only message I directed at you was a link to DTTR, which you rudely deleted and responded with another template. I've heard much talk that new page patrollers have frequently alienated new Wikipedia editors. If an experienced editor gets buried in templates and robots, I can't imagine what kind of Kafkaesque experience a new user has. Gamaliel (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I was a bit hasty in adding the template (and I apologize for that), however it does seem that drafting in the sandbox or "previewing" first may be a good idea in the future. Mgross1988 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is exactly what I have been and am doing. I have discussed it and explained it on the discussion page, sought consensus, and requested help on the notice board. Still others editors do not say anything on the discussion page. Do you have any other suggestion? Rodchen (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of E.E. Aiken at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paul Bedson (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gamaliel. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I shall be glad if you can join the discussion of the requested move of the article title of Murray MacLehose, of which you may be interested. --Clithering (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for fixing the citation in the John Hubbard Tweedy article concerning his involvement in the Bone&Skulls Society. Personally the original edit did not added too much to the article. However, I do accept your edit. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you templated a long established editor as the above, especially in the context of a WP:WQA query. I would note that User:McCabe has been in long dispute with Andreasegde - and specifically in regard to the issue where an allusion to a swear word was made. I think you should look at the entirety of that section and particularly Talk:The Beatles#Triangular diplomacy where Andreasegde singlehandedly initiated a diplomatic solution over the "LameFest" that is t/The Beatles - one that a few MoS warriors, including McCabe, have expended much effort in trying to overturn a consensus; the needling remark that drew the refactored remark by Andreasegde being regrettably typical of the input by those parties. I fear that you, and the WQA board, have been successfully trolled in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I saw only two messages on the user's talk page so I thought it was a new user, but somehow missed that archive box. Oops. Of course even the best of us lose our cool, but it is still inappropriate and a warning does no harm. I'll leave this matter alone then and leave it to others more aware of the context. You might want to leave a note on WQA letting users know there's more to this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should of course noted that Andreasegde was wrong to utter such words (and it would not be the first time it has been pointed out to him...) Rather than repeat myself, I would prefer to make a link on the WQA page to this section. Would that be alright with you? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article E. E. Aiken, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that missionary E. E. Aiken was a member of Skull and Bones at Yale in 1881 and the next year wrote a book denouncing such secret societies? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello Gamaliel. I wonder if you would like to comment here Talk:Martin Landau#Birthdate on the references that I found tonight. You did such a good job helping with the situation on the Kim Thomson article that I thought you might be able to help here. If you aren't interested please ignore this. Let me also state for the record that I am not asking you to agree with my post. I trust your research skills and am hoping that the can help here. I am also hoping that we can avoid the "circa" stuff. Sadly, we may have to wait until he passes away (may that not be for many years) for his obits to settle this. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help this weekend with Sam Degelia (talk·contribs), got a 72 hour block for edit warring. But he was back at it yesterday, right after it expired, trying to use this file they uploaded as a source for their fixation with this one guy mentioned on the page. This particular file itself has been deleted twice already, and is up for DR again, but they've had seven deleted so far. User:Kww's protected the page to stop the user from editing with sockpuppets, which almost got them banned last year, but at what point do you think we can ask for an article ban, where they been at this off and on for the better part of three years.--Nkgal (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note on the talk page regarding his behavior. If he doesn't tone it down I'll deal with him. Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your effort to deal with the persistent user. It's been frustrating to try to fix up that page because of him and well-meaning editors that enable him despite his history and probable conflict of interest. The file he's been trying to use as a source is up on deletion review, if you wanted to leave a comment or suggestion.--Nkgal (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made 2 reverts and my 3rd revert was of my own doing. I was asked to put the Palm Beach source on there and I did and she still reverted it, more than twice. Arbor 8 is who you need to warn for edit warring. I'm out of this. Thanks (AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The three RR warning isn't an accusation, it's just a standard notice given to all new users who find themselves in an edit war. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gamaliel. You have new messages at Talk:Allen West (politician). Message added 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have been talking to IP*135, trying to mediate in his discussion on the 'Secession in the US page', but now I see your caution to avoid personal attacks on the Southern Poverty Law Center directed to me on his talk page? I visited the SPLC page once to see if I could find me, and I could not. Was that just a mistaken placement on IP*135's talk page? Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the warning to avoid any further confusion. But in general you shouldn't expect such comments to be directed at you unless they are indented below your comments. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed earlier today that you made a unilateral page move of John Madden (American football) to John Madden to make him the primary topic. Just so you know, there was a prior move discussion back in 2006 that opposed this. And I also know that such a page move like this could only have been made by an admin like you and me, because it involved a deletion to make way for a move.[2] So on its face, it does not look good when an admin unilaterally overturns a prior page move discussion, or any debate like that.
Therefore, if there are any complaints, I am going to forward to you. I'm not interested in doing any reverts/wheel war since I'm neutral in this issue. But still, as I mentioned, it looks very bad on its face when an admin makes a unilateral decision that over turns prior consensus. If you were unaware of this prior move discussion, my suggestion would be to revert your unilateral page move, and then initiate another page move discussion. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the prior discussion. I reviewed it and I didn't think that a five year old discussion involving about six editors should be binding on Wikipedia for all time. I decided to be bold. If there are objections to this, then other editors are welcome to reverse the page moves and we can discuss per WP:BRD. I really don't see the problem here, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you moved Peter Diamond (economist) to Peter Diamond, which is probably how it should be. Can you move the talk page too? Right now if you click on the discussion tab of Peter Diamond (the economist one) you get taken to the discussion page of Peter Diamond the actor. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Thanks for letting me know. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, when you move a page and create a disambiguation page, as you did at Kevin Walsh, please remember to clean up the links as well, so that they don't all point to the disambiguation page (I've cleaned up the Kevin Walsh ones, so don't worry about that). Thank you, Jenks24 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gamaliel. Thanks for your note to User talk:Blackopsmo. Were you alerted to the arbitration request I posted on the matter over at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/noticeboard? I've never had to ask for help with a situation like this before and not sure I even asked in the right place. If you can take a look at the history of the dispute and offer an opinion I'll gladly abide by whatever ruling you make. My goal is simply accuracy and "the truth", warts and all. Its the old journalist in me I guess lol. Thanks again and have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. LOVE the pic at top of your user page. I'm a long-time radio guy and actually used an old desktop mic similar that early in my career.
I don't really think this is a policy matter (not yet, anyway), so I don't think there's a ruling to be made. The best way to bring this to a close is to encourage Blackopsmo to actually identify his objection and then it can be dealt with appropriately. How to do that, I dunno? Just keep reverting him, I guess. Also, I'm jealous, I love those old style mikes. I have no need for a microphone but I'm thinking of buying one on ebay for my desk anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help & feedback. If I can return the favor sometime just give me a shout. Sector001 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Charles Fraser MacLean at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good, you just need to shorten the hook and review that other article we'll be good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted those categories because he pled guilty to statutory rape. I do not know why you would suggest that the courts would disagree with a guilty plea in most cases. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check the talk page archives, there's been ample discussion about why the rapist category is inappropriate. You'd probably have better success simply inserting the statutory rapist category by itself if you wish to peruse this. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the fact that Carl Levin has been the senior senator from Michigan since 1995 should be included in his intro, may I suggest you include that fact about each Senior Senator from each state?
I am trying to develop some consistency across articles. Some Senator's intros include every committee and every office and every little bit of tidbit about the person. I am trying to have some consistency, so they are not 'promotional' but factual. If you think that fact is important, may I suggest you include in other senior senator articles.
Remember what Emerson said about consistency. It's not particularly essential; infoboxes have to be consistent, but the intro can vary depending on the life of the person. I am not a fan of super short, bare bones intros, and WP guidelines don't favor it either. (We even have a template for such articles.) We need more context to sum up the person's life and career beyond "Senator from West South New Whatever". That's not "promotional", that's how we write articles here. Gamaliel (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure of the significance of you deleting my message to you. I did not want to upset you. (If I did, I apologize.) If you could let me know your thoughts, I would appreciate it. I am just trying to develop some continuity on behalf of some articles. Rodchen (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the edit history the only messages you left here are "senior senator" and "unsure of significance". Could you provide an edit history link to this deleted message? I really have no idea what you are referring to. Gamaliel (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a different situation since it involves a university. I've gone into specifics in my reply at User talk:Frank0051, so you might want to have a look there. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I poked around a little and I'm not sure an exemption actually exists for non-propriety information. I went ahead and sent an e-mail to two different addresses the Library website lists there (sadly, one has already bounced back). If I don't hear back in the next couple of days, I'll see if I can make some phone calls - I'm an alumni from UF and I have interacted with the special collection folks before. If there any way we could put a little banner or notice on the Nathan Mayo page to say past content is under review for copyright issues or something like that? Frank0051 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll poke around and see if I can find one. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'm sending you an e-mail through Wikipedia that I received this morning from the gentleman that oversees special collections at the library. Waiting to hear back from some others. Frank0051 (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um. I did state my sources for this edit and if you actually look up Ecoscience you'll see that my claim is accurate.
So, please stop wasting both our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.173.210 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prisonplanet.com is generally not considered a reliable source for use in Wikipedia articles. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policy please let me know. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why my IP address was locked out[edit]
Gamaliel:
I recently tried to correct an error in a Wikipedia post and discovered my IP was locked due to what was termed to abusive language. I have no idea how long it had been locked. The last time I remember making a change on Wikipedia was 4-5 years ago, when I made some minor adjustments to some grammatical errors in an entry. I have never posted obscenities or abuse, and one else in our household would do that. What's more, I could find no way to speak with you about this; every time I tried, I came back to the page that told me I was locked out until the end of May.
Please provide me with a copy of the abusive posting that was purportedly made from my IP address. I trust that my Russian-speaking wife (who never swears and has minimal interest in English-language websites or skills on the computer) isn't doing this, nor is my kid, who is too young. I can only think that: a) wicked people are sneaking into my apartment at night and taunting Wikipedia from my home computer, then departing, snickering among themselves, without stealing anything or doing any other harm to my family; b) I turn into a werewolf at night and post nasty things that I don't remember the next morning, or c) this is a mistake. If it's C, I realize that such things happen, but I would like to understand the specifics of a situation in which I am being implicitly accused of misbehavior.
I realize you deal with thousands of contributors, many of them quite abusive by the sound of it. I'm not one of these. I am an author and journalist and am considering writing something about this. If you wish to correspond via e-mail I can be reached through the website below.
Most internet users do not possess the same IP address for years at a time. Large providers such as AT&T rotate them among their users as needed. So often people end up using an IP address that was previously used to vandalize Wikipedia and find warnings directed at others. I checked the log for your IP address and I see no accusation of vandalism or anything else directed at 76.203.2.227. Possibly you were caught in what we call a "range block", blocking a number of similar IP addresses to block a vandal or stalker who jumps from IP address to IP address from the same internet provider. If this is what happened you can avoid this by creating a free account, as users who are logged in are generally not affected by range blocks. If you have any other questions please let me know, though I should note I don't have any special technical expertise and technical questions should be directed elsewhere. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Machine of Death, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after the science fiction anthology Machine of Death reached No. 1 on the Amazon.com bestseller list instead of his own book, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck denounced it as part of a liberal "culture of death"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks! Editing political articles gets pretty heated sometimes, so I try to inject some levity when I can. Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Maybe someone will finally block you for your behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So this is dropping it? You are a hypocrite. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have acted like this for years. You've insulted me for years. You've engaged in behavior which deserves a permanent block, in my opinion. You expect me to never mention that in any way ever on any page in any context? I said I'd drop it on Talk:Michele Bachmann and I did and I thought we were making good progress in the Michele Bachmann discussion. But I'm not going to pretend the past doesn't exist. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - great to hear from you! I'm glad you're keeping an eye on some articles that have become a magnet for shenanigans. Neutralitytalk 01:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still as much a pain in the ass as it ever was. I'd much rather edit articles on comic strips and obscure 19th century personalities, but there's always another Rex popping up somewhere. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Kathleen Cody (actor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added some suggestions to the DYK page. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a few problems. Could you see my comments at the nomination's entry? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely new abortion proposal and mediation[edit]
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Fay Ajzenberg-Selove at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Number57 21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I've now marked it as good to go. Cheers, Number57 21:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't suddenly redirect pages while people are discussing what to do. It's very rude. Please join the talk page discussion instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised by this reaction. You know that BLP (a policy you created if I am not mistaken) requires immediate enforcement. It's inappropriate to call someone rude for enforcing your own policy. Gamaliel (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of E.E. Aiken at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paul Bedson (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
