User talk:Gamaliel/Archive11

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.

Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07

FNC
Why not join the discussion to which an RFC has been started before coming in and giving a judgement. Arzel (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What difference does it make whether my comment was in an edit summary or on the talk page? The point still stands. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon further consideration, I have decided to add a comment to the talk page and join the conversation there. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review troll threatening you
I thought you might want to see this thread Raul654 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm not surprised, as I blocked one of his many, many, many socks yesterday.  I don't know why he posts at WR, even those guys don't take him seriously.  To their credit, they even removed his post. Alas, I never got to see what he had in store for me in some back alley somewhere. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley
Hi there. Sorry about removing the slate.com link; I didn't think they were talking about a magazine because I've never heard of Slate magazine. My appologies. Happyme22 (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, it was easily fixed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not a threat
Look carefully at the page history. There was nothing in it that resembles your simplistic, absurd version before I started improving the page a little bit. I was the first one to suggest a common-sense rule of Wikipedia etiquette - the discussion page. Your refusal to even open a discussion there is, in my view, a clear indication of your biased, unwholesome intentions on this matter to begin with. warshy (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly willing to engage in discussion if you are willing to stop being so rude. And your contention that there was nothing in the article history that resembles my version is contracted by that very page history. Your preferred version didn't exist until December 2007. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR
I have blocked Warshy for 3RR violations on Marina Oswald Porter‎. I must point out that you are only one revert behind and that you are in danger of violating 3RR yourself if you continue. The discussion page for that article has not even been used. 1 != 2 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the rule, thanks. You'll note that I cautioned Warshy about it. As I told him repeatedly, I am perfectly willing to discuss proposed edits with Warshy once he stops being so rude. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

user name change
Hello, I am interested to change my username from Uu610 to david55. Could you help me? Uu610 (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your High Handed Attitude
It is clear from your history of arguments that you use your "status" to bully other users. I haven't abused you and I have not vandalised pages. I can't see what possible justification you have to threaten me in the way you have. You are clearly drunk with the power you apparently think you have. You really have no place here on Wp and I shall see what possible remedies I have to make a complaint against you. Albatross2147 (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I noted before, you are welcome to complain on the administrator's noticeboard about my reign of terror. Gamaliel (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well for a start you should revert or at least strike out the insulting "Welcome" message you inserted on my talk page. I have been editing here longer than you for starters and even though you have "achieved" the status of acting unpaid "thief taker" or perhaps night watchman you are merely a servant rather than a superior and you would do well to remember that. Your use of first person plural in the welcome shows how weak and pompous you appear to have become. Albatross2147 (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you have been here so long then you are certainly aware of the no personal attacks policy. Your grievance does not give you license to insult me indefinitely.  Please do not do so again. Gamaliel (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it was you that started with the vandalism etc accusations I would say this is a case of pot, kettle, black. I can't see how using the analogy of thief taker for the role that an admin carries out could be regarded as an insult given your use of the demi-mode image on your home page.  I notice that as with the discussion on your reversions of my edits you do not address the real issues ie. you just do what you want to do and ride roughshod over a contrary view. Albatross2147 (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm just out to crush all opposing opinions. Ignorance is strength and all that.  Now take it to the noticeboard or go away. Gamaliel (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Game, set and match I think. Thank you linesmen. Thank you ball boys. Albatross2147 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for your victory at Calvinball. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just FTR, I like your High Handed can-do attitude, Gamaliel. Keep up the good work. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm glad someone around here appreciates crushing the opposition beneath your boot heel. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of CovertAction Quarterly
An editor has nominated CovertAction Quarterly, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

blumenthal's dwi
Hi. I agree that it's not significant enough for a seperate section, but doesn't a subsection mean it's part of a parent section? the dwi shouldn't be part of his career. Is there another way of minimizing the significance of the dwi? best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It happened during his post-Clinton career, so that's sufficient to justify putting it there I think. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm overlawyering, but a dwi isn't part of career. But whatever. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In that sense, no, it certainly isn't part of his employment nor did it happen on his job. But I am sure most people understand that in a chronological biographical article, a section covering a career will include personal items that happened during that time frame. An alternative is perhaps a separate section discussing his personal life, where you could place the dwi information as well as other personal information removed from other sections. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. :-). -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Harkin
There are now multiple sources for the statement, and I hope that’s enough to dissuade you from reverting it again. DJ Creamity Oh Yeah! 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an improvement, thank you. However, the section still has neutrality issues which need work. Frankly, under WP:BLP it should still be removed, but since you seem willing to work on it now, I will refrain from removing it as long as we are continuing to steer it towards WP:NPOV. Gamaliel (talk)

John Gibson page
You claim criticisms (partisan opinions) of John Gibson are worthy of inclusion in his biography.

So can I now edit the bio page of every Democratic politician and liberal media personality ever criticized by Rush Limbaugh, so that those pages include Limbaugh's criticisms? Of course not! That would be idiotic. It's even more idiotic to include Olbermann's criticisms of Gibson because Olbermann doesn't even have a fraction of the audience Limbaugh has.

Furthermore, Olbermann is a competitor of Gibson. That, coupled with their opposing political leanings, make Olbermann about as unreliable a source as you can get.

It's an insignificant fact, unworthy of inclusion, that blatantly partisan personalities criticize their political opponents.

The Gibson bio is nothing more than a Media Matters talking point sheet amounting to a hit piece. And Media Matters is nothing more than an OPINION BLOG (which Hillary Clinton admitted to being a founder of).

I'm sorry liberals cannot find a legitimate news source to smear Gibson as a racist. I'm sorry that you have to resort to elevating opinion blogs to the status of CBS, Fox News, The New York Times, or any other REAL NEWS SOURCE.

Go ahead...turn Wikipedia into a blog if you must. You'll just hurt its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.240.6 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Stripped free of contrary opinion, the page would be nothing more then a glorified press release for Gibson, which is what would really hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. The readers of Wikipedia expect a well-rounded article with opinions both pro and con, and WP:NPOV demands this. Gamaliel (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stalintime2.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stalintime2.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:GabrielVelasquez
In the bottom section of the above user's talk page, he has specifically requested your intervention, along with that of User:Gabbe and someone named User:Jimbo Wales. I am sending a similar note to the second named person. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time I was blocked for 24 hours and I was looking for comment from what I thought might be unbiased, non-sockpuppet editors, and trustworthy administrators, almost at random. Now that some time has passed the evidence seems to be creeping in, but I would still like to know more administrators that I can say I don't distrust. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Skidooposter.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Skidooposter.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC Bot
I'm not entirely sure why my RfC on the trial of Clay shaw isn't being listed on the RfC list. Any help would be appreciated. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * These RFC templates are new to me, but I'll try to fiddle around with it and see if I can get it to work. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The instructions on the tag-placing Wiki are not very clear. I've complained about this before and even tried to fix it. More work needed, I guess. The people who make up tags seem to think every user already knows how a tag works, and what it will do if you construct it a certain way. But are you supposed to create the new header? Does the tag go in the article TALK space you're making the request about (yes). Do you have to repeat the reason for your request twice, once in the tag template, and once below it, for the benefit of the parent page (apparently yes). All computer geeks believe their geek instructions are (or should be) perfectly clear to anybody with IQ over 70. S  B Harris 04:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Phil McGraw address removal
Greetings,

I apologize for my ignorance regarding the policy on contact information. Ward3001 explained why the street address was removed:

I know you made the edit in good faith, but WP:BLP states that "articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information." I personally don't see a problem with including square footage, number of bedrooms, etc., although Gamaliel removed that also. Ward3001 Ward3001 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why the square footage, number of bedrooms, etc. was removed along with the address? Wikeye (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I felt it was trivial and didn't feel it was encyclopedic, relevant, or of any importance. There probably isn't any prohibition against including such information, but if you wish to include it, I would pose these questions:


 * Why is this information encyclopedic?
 * What purpose does including this information serve?
 * Do other similar Wikipedia articles include similar information?


 * I hope this answers your question. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why encyclopedic? Well, to me, "encyclopedic" commonly means "comprehensive", so I suppose some details of a home make the article more comprehensive or encyclopedic.


 * The purpose of including square footage and bedrooms is simple: to provide accurate, verifiable, interesting material to the reader. Saying that a house is worth $10 million can be misleading if the house is in Beverly Hills and the reader is in Peoria.  A Peoria reader might think that the $10 million house is some kind of palace with 25 bedrooms or so, which is about what $10 million would get you in Peoria.  So, the additional information puts everything in proper perspective.


 * Similar articles/similar information? Hmmm, the Oprah Winfrey article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah#Homes gives the number of square meters in her main estate, so I feel that's comparable to the number of square feet in McGraw's main residence. Also, the Shaquille O'Neal article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaquille_o%27neal#Personal_life goes into even greater detail, giving detailed layout of a movie theater in O'Neal's residence.


 * Finally, this information "does no harm" and is pretty interesting, not to mention accurate and verifiable.
 * Wikeye (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Does no harm" is not a compelling reason for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, and such trivia like the square footage of a person's home does not lead to a comprehensive encyclopedia, in my view. Apparently others disagree and I guess this kind of trivia tends to make its way into articles on prominent pop culture figures, though I think it should be removed unless there is something particularly noteworthy about some random celebrity's house.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Wikipedia guideline that you cited, an indiscriminate collection of information includes the following:


 * 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions
 * 2. Plot summaries
 * 3. Lyrics databases
 * 4. Statistics (long and sprawling lists)
 * 5. News reports


 * Now I admit that square footage and number of rooms may be considered statistics, but they do not constitute long and sprawling lists. Also, I've tried to explain that including this information is not necessarily trivial but gives the reader useful perspective on the house mentioned in the article.  Apparently, we disagree on what constitutes trivia vs. comprehensive (i.e. encyclopedic) information. Wikeye (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Page editing - Year of the Mouse
Hey,

I was trying to edit the pages that mention about Year of the Rat, which really should be Year of the Mouse. But my edits got reverted or removed, and I received a warning: “This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Chinese astrology, you will be blocked from editing. Wexcan Talk  01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC) .”

I was just trying to let people know that the translation was inaccurate, it is really the Year of the Mouse, not Rat. This is the first time that I edited a Wiki page and I didn’t see your previous messages till this last one.

Is there any way that my edit can be saved?

Thanks a lot.

John F. Kennedy assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have reviewed John F. Kennedy assassination and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Past CNN employee
Former CNN correspondent Taylor Henry (1986-1992), now News Director at KNOE-TV, Monroe, Louisiana, just won an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award for his investigative series on National Guard troops who looted stores they were deployed to protect during Katrina.

Please add his name to the list of "past" CNN personnel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasertote (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what article you are referring to here. Perhaps you could add the name to the list yourself? Gamaliel (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm talking about the CNN article. For some reason, the page won't let me add the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasertote (talk • contribs) 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, it appears I protected the article from editing and neglected to remove that protection. I've fixed the error and you should be able to edit the article now. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Gamaliel, I still can't access the page! Is it still locked?Tasertote (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasertote (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Timecapablanca.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Timecapablanca.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Timemastersjohnson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Timemastersjohnson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Timeyevtushenko.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Timeyevtushenko.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack Larson
Just to keep you in the loop: There seemed to be no response from others on the Biographies of Living Persons Notice Board, so I asked for input over at the No Original Research Board WP:NORN, and there's been some conversation there you should be aware of and part of. Regards. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know there was a No Original Research Noticeboard! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll comment on the matter there tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN page still locked
Yo, Gamaliel. The page is still locked. How can we unlock it to make the edit? Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasertote (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having some technical difficulties, I'll have to consult some other admins to figure out what's going on. Sorry about the delay but we should have this fixed soon. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, you should be able to edit the article now. Gamaliel (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
Looks like you've got some fans... noticed this thread in which you're being trashed. Why am I not surprised it's tied to Arzel? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just harmless venting from Chairman Meow, who doesn't seem to understand that the 3RR is a Wikipedia policy and not a liberal tool of oppression. Arzel doesn't have anything to do with it I suspect, as types like CM - quick to both dish out and take offense, sees political conspiracies everywhere - tend to seek out and (usually fruitlessly) attempt to recruit those they imagine are like-minded folks as allies for their cause. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If like-minded is his goal, I'd say he's well on target. I wasn't sure what the actual situation was, but I figured you'd want to know when your name is used in vain.  ;-)  How's the new year treating ya?  Haven't seen you around the usual haunts lately... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha. lame guys, lame. Having a little powwow are we? I think both of you are in violation of WP:NPA. Seeing that you're claiming that I'm an idiot and that my position has no water. I really would appreciate it if you applied the same standards to yourselves as to me.Chairman Meow (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither one of us has called you an "idiot" or indulged in any sort of namecalling. If you feel that you have been the victim of a personal attack you may file a report at Wikiquette alerts or another relevant noticeboard, but you do not have license to indulge in namecalling yourself. I'm sorry that you find our comments unflattering, but your conduct towards other users has been far from exemplary.  Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the News
Please respect the consensus on WP:ITN/C regarding the wording for the Pakistani elections as well as the inclusion of Wikileaks. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be significant opposition to the inclusion of Wikileaks. I have no objection to changing the wording for the Pakistani item. Gamaliel (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I count 5 support - 2 oppose - 1 neutral. Let's let the strong opposes and supports cancel, it's still 4-1-1. I'm note saying it's a vote, but several of these supports are regular and respected contributors. Also as noted on WP:ITN/C re: Google News, Sydney Herald, Register, Guardian, USA Today, CNET are all covering this. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Including Talk:Main_Page (2 oppose 1 support keeping) and Wikipedia_talk:ITN (2 oppose 1 support, and me who also opposed at ITNC) you get 7 support, 6 oppose, one neutral (note: I didn't look for double votes which weren't my own). Charles Stewart (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mad Props to you. Few people really look at ITN/C unless they want to propose something. But when something awful makes the main page, people will complain everywhere. That's what happened here. Charles Stewart (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sue Coe
I am removing your tag (advertisement/speedy deletion) that you put on Sue Coe. The article needs citations, I agree, but it is not a blatant advertisement, just in need of a rewrite for wiki-format.Annlanding (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Annlanding


 * It is in need of a rewrite because it reads like a press release or promotional biography, and is probably copied from one. I strongly disagree, but I'm not going to edit war over some tag. Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the material is copied from http://web.archive.org/web/20061030011850/http://www.valleynewsonline.com/News/2002/0302/Entertainment-Arts/009.html. Gamaliel (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good. I don't think this has the machinations for an edit war- but the random rewrite does not address the issue of citations missing from the piece. I'll see what else I can pull out on her that will bring the piece up to speed- quotes from her retrospective at the Hirschorn Gallery in Washington, D.C., etc...Annlanding (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Annlanding


 * Since I've removed the copyvios and the puffery, I'm pretty content with the article. It needs improvement, of course, but now it's just a standard WP article in need of beefing up instead of some piece of resumecruft.  I look forward to seeing what you do with it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Orville Schell
uh, don't know what your problem is re: orville schell, the link works fine, and i'm just fixing false outdated information. if you prefer it wrong, fine with me. if you'd care to explain nicely what i've done wrong i'm happy to fix it, but taking a tone and being a prissy internet police guy, esp when you're wrong, seems a little silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhgrrl (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

uh, don't know what your problem is re: orville schell, the link works fine, and i'm just fixing false outdated information. if you prefer it wrong, fine with me. if you'd care to explain nicely what i've done wrong i'm happy to fix it, but taking a tone and being a prissy internet police guy, esp when you're wrong, seems a little silly. Nhgrrl (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just look at your edits and you will see that you, purposely or not, altered the urls multiple times. I stated this clearly and politely to you multiple times.  There's no need for your attitude. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for editing help
Knowing that you sometimes descend into the cesspool of politician articles, I wonder if you'd have time to take a look at Dean A. Hrbacek. The bio subject is a Republican candidate in Texas. The article is being relentless edited by a user who removes sourced negative information about Hrbacek, adds negative information about people who've opposed Hrbacek, and removes "citation needed" tags for passages touting Hrbacek's accomplishments in glowing terms. You probably won't be surprised to learn that the user never discusses his/her changes on the talk page, although I've asked (see User talk:Jbgtx). It might help if someone else weighed in. Also, although I've made some other improvements besides reverting the problem user, I'm worried about breaking the spirit or the letter of 3RR if I have to keep patrolling the article solo. Thanks for any help you can give! JamesMLane t c 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've glanced at the article and when I have a chance I'll have a word with some of the newbies. Do you think they are socks or do they act independently? Gamaliel (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! As for the newbies, my guess is that they're separate people but both active in the Hrbacek campaign. JamesMLane t c 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you could take a look at it. You're right that the discussion of the photoshop controversy is more than a little cryptic.  That's because the original version, which actually explained it, was deleted, in favor of language less damning of Hrbacek.  I'll try to restore the context.


 * Also eliminated, and still not restored, was the section on "Hrbacek's charges against Olson" as found in this version. It seems to me to be properly sourced and worth inclusion, but I'd value your opinion. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This nonsense is neverending. There are people with a personal axe to grind against this individual & continually try to vandalize this page. It's a neverending saga that is old. The comment above also relates to 1/10th of a story that people with an agenda try to push. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qp10io1011 (talk • contribs)


 * Once again I must remind you that it is inappropriate to make unwarranted accusations against other editors. This is a collaborative project and such combative behavior is out of line. If you feel that the article contains inappropriate content, you can discuss it on the talk page in a calm and respectful manner with other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Langmuirtime.jpeg
Thank you for uploading Image:Langmuirtime.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Helped you out
Was just looking at the recent changes page and when i saw writing in capital letters you almost know its a vandal. This is what the person wrote I think you should give him a warning, its the first edit. Looking at your page, you seem to make a lot of people angry like the above comments, are you sure your using NPOV? As long as your doing that and since your an admin, i trust you:) Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tally-ho!
Good to see you back in the trenches! You'd think after so many years I'd cease being astonished when they dart out from under their bridges... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's tiresome to fight the same fights over and over again, but I guess someone has to do it. You'd think that I would have developed a thicker skin for these kinds of trollish attacks by now.  Oh, well.  Maybe we should take a vacation and find a peaceful, non-contentious article to collaborate on.  If there is such a thing on Wikipedia... Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Honestly, I'm glad you've returned... for a while I felt like the only sane editor who still dares fight the good fight there.  I'm all ears should you have a suggestion for peaceful collaboration.  Glad to see the RFCU/SSP worked out, though I have a feeling this is a long way from over.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arzel and RealClearPolitics
Can you help me out with some intervention in RealClearPolitics with User:Arzel? He's unjustifiably been accusing me of POV-pushing and constantly removing a quote using whatever bogus reasoning he can think of, as well as being extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with. I tried to hold out as long as I could but I no longer feel I can reason with him. --Ubiq (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK...I need a brief refresher on the FNC page
So I come back from a nice two week vacation, and I see a request for comment on my talk page from a user Jsn. Before commenting I decide to skim the discussion and I notice a section title similar to the type our old pal RPJ used to use. So I edit it and put a general comment explaining it as uncivil and such. It turns out that it was in response to a title by Blaxthos that I didn't see--clearly my mistake. So I'm accused of having a POV and playing favorites. In response, I explain the mistake and simply state that instead of accusing me of stuff he could have asked what the deal was. It appears that that message has been lost in translation or something, becuase he's deleting the section to "spare my credibility" and apologizing for causing me angst, which just seems way overboard. You seemed to have some history with this user so I'm wondering is it me, him, or am I in bizarro world or something. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Germane comments here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of term "Christian Terrorist" in Joe Scarborough article
Hi, I hope you can help with this issue. I was referred upward to an admin for this issue. Here it is:

In the Joe Scarborough article there is a reference to a man that Joe offered to defend. This man has been tried and convicted of murdering an abortion doctor. I had been reading the Christian terrorism article and it seemed to me that this man fit the description.

I inserted the link for Christian terrorist before the man's name as descriptor. I would find it missing (without comment) and I would replace it. But then yesterday it was labeled vandalism and I was warned twice; again without comment. I tried from yesterday until today to get an explanation. It was as I suspected a liability issue (as my 'special comment' on the Discussion page of the Scarborough article states).

My question is this: Wikipedia has an excellent article on Christian terrorism. If this man is not one - who is? Does Wikipedia describe ANYONE as a Christian terrorist? Or does the truth suffer due to fear of liability. Wikipedia should know that truth is a defense for libel.

The editor I was dealing with conceded finally that this was not vandalism. Could these warnings be removed from my record?

I thank you for any assistance you can offer or any perspective you can bring to this. Thank you very much. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input on this issue. The conversation has begun. I appreciate your assistance in getting the ball rolling. (Not every comment on the talk page is helpful but nonetheless.) If things progrss, I just may get up the courage to re-insert the reference.  72.92.4.157 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The conversation continues. If you have the time, kindly return to the Joe Scarborough talk page and feel free to contribute to the discussion.  There was a brief edit war and things have slowed down again.  I have an account now but am the same IP user as in the previous two postings. Kek15 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Frwlpenguin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Frwlpenguin.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Diamondsareforeverpenguin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Diamondsareforeverpenguin.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my user page
I have it set up the way I like it. Quit erasing personal information and inserting your own material. Its rude and illegal. You wouldn't like someone doing that to your user page. You really need to spend your time more constructively. Leave my page alone.71.100.167.23 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not vandalizing your page. I am restoring user warnings directed at your IP. It is not, actually, "your page". If you wish a user page to display personal information, then sign up for a free Wikipedia account.  I can assist you in this or answer any questions you might have about it. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Please take a moment to comment here, if you're comfortable. Time sensitive. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding this summary, thanks for always trying to take the edge off. ;-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help. You've taken an ungodly amount of abuse from this guy; I'm not sure how you put up with it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're the one vandalizing
I'm sure you think its real funny to post "rickrolling" vids in the discussion, but its against Wiki rules. You are also doing so to ridicule a user. You have already locked the article so no one who disagrees with you can change it, then you post gloating, insulting language and links in the discussion to attempt to what, rub it in? I'm merely removing illegal material. YOu can't with a straight face defend posting those links and the accompying insults. I have no idea what you are talking about accusing me of insulting people, I have insulted no one. I'm trying to clean up the page. You're trying to force the inclusion of your mocking, irrelevant material, then try to blackmail me by threatening to block me for removing it. UPDATE: heh, reading the recent comment by 68.75.52.64 seems I'm not alone in my opinions of you, although I don't express it in those terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.7.134 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please point me to the rule you claim is being broken here. You are not removing any "illegal material", you are merely removing comments from editors you disagree with while not removing any of your own insults. If you want, we can compromise: you remove your insulting comments towards other users, and I will remove the material you find objectionable.


 * The comments from 68.75.52.64 are those of the banned User:Joehazelton, who was permanently banned from editing because of months of constant offensive behavior, including calling other editors "assholes" and posting ascii art of himself giving the middle finger. If you find this person an accurate barometer of what is really going on at Wikipedia, good luck to you.


 * Your behavior on the Feith article has been very poor, but hardly of the caliber of Joehazelton yet. You can still show that you are willing to be a productive editor rather than a troll, so start by removing your insults, and we shall remove the material that irks you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You enforce a patently unfair article full of biased sources, lock the page against the wishes for a number of users who _try_ to use debate and discussion, then you mock them and gloat about your perfidy. Nice behaviour for an admin. Not only that, you block and lock to keep anyone from removing your mocking and ridiculing other users with mislabeled links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.236 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have insulted no one. You delete and redo whatever you feel like, then lock, ban, otherwise use admin powers in a dictatorial fashion, so why don't you remove wahtever you want, add whatever you want, etc. as you usually do? What's with the charade of trying to force me to move something you deem insulting. I personally can't comply because I've typed nothing out of bounds. You've managed to stifle debate, mock other users, refuse compromise on any fashion. Congrats. You're reinforcing everything people hate and ridicule about WIkipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.236 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your conduct on the Feith article was insulting and combative, but you seem to think you have done nothing wrong, yet at the same time you scream at the top of your lungs about a joking link to you tube which was hardly a personal attack but merely an attempt to break the tension caused by your offensive behavior. While I could just block you and be done with it, I have offered two compromises here - to remove the offensive posts or to leave the whole think unseen in the archive - but you reject them, loudly demanding Your Way while refusing to see anything wrong with your behavior. You clearly do not have the temperament to work with other editors in a collaborative manner, and until you show even a small sign of being able to do so, we have nothing more to say. Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Its combative because of the TOTAL refusal to compromise one inch, change one single word or line from AbeFroman's preferred slander. I'm hardly the only person who has complained about that article with well-reasoned points, only to be refused out of hand on any point. That page is so far out of BLP guidelines, it would never stand if it were about anyone but a hated "neoconservative". And are you typing this with a straight face? "While I could just block you and be done with it," Wow, your restraint is amazing. Thanks a million for never having blocked me, ever.

No, I won't be treated like a child and forced to remove _valid_ debating points in a trade off for you to magnanimously remove ILLEGAL links and what you call an attempt to break the tension. That's baloney. The discussion page isn't there for your amusement, and the links and comments by you and your fellow travelers are certainly there to mock and gloat about the fact you have once again scored one for the left by smearing a member of the Bush Admin with links that would not stand. Why do you think so many people are trying to FAIRLY balance that page. The point made about "coat-racking" is eminently apt on this page. Its nothing but a hanging post for every negative article and rumor ever written about Feith. Its against BLP. All it takes is you and few of your allies to keep it like that. You remove and add whatever you like. Why should I bother to play your game? Its fixed, the discussion page is small potatoes. You control the article, which fair-minded people will read trying to find out honest information about one "Douglas Feith" and read how an anonymous person, reported by a partisan newletter, claims Condi Rice called him out for being in the bag for the Jooz. This is just the first in many smears. You win, good for you, bad for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.236 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in removing "valid debating points". You can make your points without indulging in offensive behavior.  The fact that AbeFroman disagrees with you is no excuse.  If this is a BLP violation, as you insist, then you could bring in uninvolved editors from the BLP noticeboard.  You could post an RFC. You can't libel and insult everyone in sight and then complain when someone makes a little joke to break the tension. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't, because I don't have a ban button or a lock button. You, however, can make up rules to suit yourself, you can decide what is valid and what is insulting and what is merely gentle joshing. A number of people tried to complain, I did post on BLP, it was deleted soon after. Since your allies control the BLP noticeboard, it does no good to complain there. It also shouldn't take that to removed ANONYMOUSLY sourced quotes from a bio page. But your arbitrary protection of any and all contributions by AbeFroman leave people no recourse but frustration. That's why the system is SUPPOSED to work by consensus. You're trumping the opinion of anyone who disagrees by locking, undoing, blocking etc. There is no fair discussion there. How many people have protested the simple "neocon" lable. Its biased, I don't care how many liberal periodicals you link to calling him that, it doesn't belong in his basic description. How many conservative periodicals have named Hillary Satan incarnate? That is hardly encyclopedic. Where is a parallel notation as Obama as a "liberal Senator"? None, because its prejudicial and unfair labeling.

The entire "criticism" section is coatracking and unencyclopedic. It does not add to the informative value of the article. Its merely a nest of liberal attacks on Feith, by invested third parties, quoting well-known figures to give them weight. Its a classic put up job. The criticism section is bigger than the rest of the article put together. As you have a lock and ban button and you are not disposed to be fair minded, is it any wonder users stoop to surreptitiously changing articles when they can. You force this kind of behaviour because your abuse of power breaks down the system. For all purposes, 3 leftists appear to be in charge of the Douglas Feith page, and will brook NO EDITING of their work in any way shape of form. Good, keep it locked, enshrine your unfairness. Actually, the poor sourcing and biased nature of the article stand as an easily linkable source for bloggers, writers, anyone wishing to point out the true nature of Wikipedia. "Doug Feith is the dumbest motherfucker on the planet" good. Good good good. You can easily find more such quotes, if you look. There's only about four that bait him as part of the Jewish lobby controlling the US government. I'm sure there are more if Abe cares to look. Your pose as being fairminded is rebutted by a growing number of users, I notice. I could barely edit this page for people railing against you upon it.


 * re: removing all dissent on Feith page

Beautiful. First, post irrelevant, mocking and gloating fake joke links in a serious policy discussion. Second, refuse to remove them, ban users who attempt to delete them and lock the page. Third, archive the entire page, while blaming it on said user, who wants only serious discussion of the matter at hand. Verdict: a completely virgin page with no trace that there was any dissent about the very biased and thinly sourced attacks against Feith, giving completely legitimacy and an appearance of consensus and agreement with everything written there. Users may wonder why such an uncontroversial article was locked, but unless they make the extra step to unearth the archives, (suggesting no ongoing discussion or disagreement about the content of the article) they will have to wonder on. All the well-reasoned debate and effort to broaden and neutralize the article are conveniently expunged.

You're good at what you do, but you are bad for fairness, neutrality, honestly and quality in Wikipedia articles. I can see why you sought Wiki admin powers, and you wield them to strategically marginalize those who would disagree with your "protected" articles and to "disappear" dissent and dissenters. If you are referring to me as "our friend", no, I'm not satisfied. I sought to remove the "rickroll" links because I felt they mocked and demeaned the very serious reservations several users, especially Bueller, very articulately expressed about the biased sources and the overall slanted tone of the entire Feith article. To read it, you'd think the guy was a traitor to America and an unindicted criminal instead of a well-respected civil servant. Many of the criticisms are no more than rumors or leftwing blogger trumped up unsubstantiated charges. Not one of them adds to the basic informative value of the article, unless you are looking for specious material with which to smear Feith. Is it merely a coincidence that the many critics of your "work" accuse you of left wing bias, or do you, in fact, attempt to slant as many wikipedia articles in a leftist fashion as possible? There seems to be a great deal of evidence that you do, and that you abuse your powers to ban users and lock articles to maintain that bias, contributed by you and other users, all the while accusing anyone who disagrees with your "high handedness" (see above) of personal attacks, trolling, vandalism, etc. You are successful in that, but kindly don't pretend to be a fairminded arbiter. I protest strongly at the de facto expunging of Bueller and other's very cogent arguments for changing many elements of the Feith article. I also note your hand in many other political articles, in similar disagreements, with similar slants and results: you ban the user who tries to edit or correct an article, you lock said article, you make disparaging remarks in the discussion, you protect the discussion and the remarks so that the article and the discussion meet your specifications. Grossly unfair, biased and a disservice to encylopaedic aggregation. 71.100.13.236 (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification
I have decided to go ahead and implement the remedy as outlined at ANI concerning Jsn9333. Assuming Jsn9333 chooses not to comment further concerning this dispute,, I expect that other involved parties also let the issues/hard feelings go, specifically by not making any other comments. I am serious about the "poking" issues, and I want to re-iterate that everyone is cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor. I hope this will close the book on the current dispute at the FNC talk page. Please go the extra mile to treat each other with respect. Thank-you, R. Baley (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Racism article
I am sorry to tell you but if you can't even understand why both positive and negative treatment of different races isn't racism, how can you argue that being racist through affirmative actions are not a neutral point of view? Lord Metroid (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you or I do or do not understand. Affirmative action is not widely accepted as being racism and thus Wikipedia should not declare it to be so. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Widely acceptation does not matter for facts. The empirical outcome of what is being done is none-the less the same result as racism. Your argument holds no water. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing the merits of your case; I have no interest in them. The fact remains that the world does not accept that affirmative action = racism and the encyclopedia should not declare it to be so. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are the person with the immense knowledge of what the whole world holds as their viewpoint regarding affirmative actions to be racism or not. Isn't that quite a preposterous point of view to hold? This argument does not hold any water either if you can't reference that the world holds the view that affirmative actions to not be racism. At which point I gladly recede and accept that one person can speak for the whole world. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the snark to yourself, please. Considering that you wish a Wikipedia article to declare as a matter of fact that affirmative action = racism, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that "the whole world" regards this to be the case. Gamaliel (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You do know that neutral point of view doesn't mean to have the view that the whole world holds or that is widely accepted, right? It means to present both sides if there is a conflict of view. As the experienced and highly honorable editor of wikipedia that you are, I am sure that you are aware that the remedy for NPOV issues is to create a section for the other POV. As I see it, you can either accept this little interwiki link or there can be a whole new section in the article of racism discussing affirmative actions as one form of racism. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The whole world" is your phrasing, not mine. You are welcome to add source material presenting arguments to any article. You are not welcome to make Wikipedia articles declare facts that are not widely accepted as such. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "unencyclopedic quote cleanup" was reverted
FYI - IP 69.123.126.247 undid your removal of the crufty quote boxes from the Jazz related albums. In case you hadn't noticed the edit histories of those albums, that IP reverts anyone who tries to cleanup either the quotes... or the copy/paste copyvio "Overview" Sections that appear in many of those album pages. That IP avoids 3RR warnings by also editing under the username User:Dan56. Both the IP and the account have a history of blocks pertaining to those jazz album articles. The quote boxes are not just popping up in the few articles that you cleaned up earlier today. They are quite abundant in many jazz album pages. Especially, as you can probably guess, the pages that Dan56/IP 69.123.126.247 has taken ownership of. That user has also edited under the name Tp243 and a few others. Most of these accounts were originally created to upload copyvio images scanned from the album covers/booklets but I see that most of these images seem to have been swept away as most were falsely tagged or improperly sourced. Any/all albums related to Miles Davis, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Prince, Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, Marvin Gaye and a few others have been saturated with similar styled edits from Dan56/69.123.126.247 and a host of other temporary user accounts all trying to turn those articles from information/encyclopedia pages into fanpage/praise/cruft pages. I gave up trying to do any sort of constructive cleanup on these articles because of the constant reverting from Dan56/69.123.126.247. A few other editors have also tried and failed to remove the fluff from those pages. Now that you know some background perhaps you could lend some assistance. Thanks and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to have wandered into something I wasn't expecting, but I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. I found one copyvio already, but I have been unable to locate the sources of other material which appears to be copyvio stuff as well. If you know which ones are copyvio, please let me know what the original source is and I'll immediately purge the offending material. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the edit summaries and reverts of previous editors I believe the "overview" sections were actually text copied from the liner notes of the reissued versions of these albums. I can't verify that straight away because I do not have the reissued versions of these albums myself. But they shouldn't be too hard to find. Everything and anything is available via P2Ps and other internet sources. BTW Dan56 re-added the crufting quote boxes after you removed them today. I myself have used cited quotes in articles before. But it was in prose form with the quote source clearly marked/named And they were used only to add a "cold" detail about the article subject. Never used to peacock fluff the subject up. There are so many of these liner notes/stolen text 'overview' sections kicking around it is hard to keep track of them all. Give me time to dig something up. The more I read these articles the more I see "many editors but only one set of typing fingers" happening. IP 69.123.X/Dan56 is a fan of these albums. And definitely edits like a "fan". One face, one set of hands - but many accounts/IPs. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Puffery - That's just the wiki-word I was looking for. Dan56's "fan" edits are hard to keep track of. But I know there are dozens and dozens of them. He's received enough messages about fanboyism one would think he would've stopped by now. But whenever he gets a talk page note he just reverts to the IP address and stays the course. Frustrating. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep an eye on his as best I can, but he seems to have a terrible amount of free time. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are a vandal??? That's leaning on WP:OWN now I would think? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just realized I may have stepped into something here. Anyway, the itunes quotes are clearly unencyclopedic.  I'll try to keep an eye on his edits myself.  I gave him a 3rr warning for the Porgy and Bess article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim Gibbons (Gov NV) page
Alrighty, I've completely rewritten the text now. Although it might be a bit long, it's certainly alot more neutral. Upon further investigation, it would seem that Gibbons' spokesperson was "testing the water" or was misrepresented by the Las Vegas Review-Journa. They seem to lampoon Gibbons alot, but I must admit that wouldn't be too hard. heh. Hope you approve of the new edits. :-) Wernhervonbraun (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan56
The Brown Sugar (album) page has the same content as the Let's Stay Together (album) page did. I assumed the ratings and quotes in the critical reception section is appropriate. For the Porgy and Bess (Miles Davis album), can I place a qoute from All Music Guide's review of the album onto the page?


 * Sorry for the late reply, but I did not notice your message until now. It is customary on Wikipedia to add new messages to the bottom of the talk page.


 * It is generally preferable to have information about critical reception integrated into original paragraphs instead of having merely a bullet list of quotes. Gamaliel (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz
Per your advice, I am alerting you to continuing problems there, most recently the deleting of a quote from the book (reliably sourced) on the odd explanation of "please keep anti-Polish propaganda shots out this article" see here and here. Thanks again for your attention. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * and here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Very odd. For now I suggest hashing it out with the other editors on the talk page and see what their reasoning is. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus has also filed a bogus 3RR complaint as well here. (odd that as an admin he seems not to understand what 3RR entails). Piotrus has been blatently abusing his admin authority to harass me a number of times with respect to this article (threats of blocking, bogus 3RR complaints). What is my recourse? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Earlier threat by Pitrus here (for my having removed the BLP issue). Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this article, the more problems I see. I would post a response to the 3RR complaint in a calm tone, without references to "censorship", etc.  If Piotrus takes any further action against you, let me know and I will look into it.  Since s/he is involved with you in editing the article, s/he is generally prohibited from taking administrative action against you since that is considered an improper use of administrative tools in a content dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As an administrator with few years of experience I judge Greg's one time violation on a forsaken talk page much less troubling than behavior of a user whose primary activities include POV-pushing in the mainspace and harassment in discussion space (including the old trick of "he did something bad, ooooh how evil is he, and how do you dare to tell me I did something wrong when he is SO evil"). Bottom line is that Greg did one mistake, and Bloodlesthecat is piling them up by a truckload. Compare their talk pages, warnings on them, their edits, and so on, and decide yourself who is the problem here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of the edit history of either Bloodlesthecat or Greg park avenue. I have no interest in assigning blame to either party, nor do I have any interest in punishing Greg park avenue for the BLP violation.  This may be his only mistake ever, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the violation and threaten those who act properly by deleting the offending remarks. Honestly, your behavior in the matter was much worse than Greg park avenue, who is only guilty of a heated remark. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you'd care to look at the issue in more detail, you'd note I have refactored Greg's comment to be inoffensive. Boodlesthecat however insisted on removing his comments entirely, and personally attacking him. I cannot phantom how you can endorse such a combination of censorship and personal attacks. I warned Bloodleshecat that his continuing harassment of Greg will not be tolerated (which does not mean I endorse all of Greg's comments); however it seems you are doing a good job telling Bloodleshecat that his behavior is acceptable (whether it is or it is not your intention, it is obviously his conclusion).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I "endorse censorship and personal attacks"? Seriously?  This is how you work with other administrators?


 * According to the edit history, you restored the offending comment. Perhaps you'd care to explain how this is inoffensive instead of engaging in hostilities. Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, do u have a diff of me "harassing" Greg? Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite a few posts of yours at that page violate Harassment with regards to Greg. And as much as I am looking at BLP, I cannot find the part which allows you to treat him like this. Two wrongs don't make a right. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The question was "do u have a diff of me "harassing" Greg?" If you are going to rpeatedly accuse me of "harassing" him, please supply a diff. Otherwise, it would appear that you are harassing me with threats based on false claims. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Accusations of antisemitism (repeated) are pretty severe:

 
 * Accusing somebody of "Jew bashing trolling" is certainly not all right.
 * Constantly criticizing other editors for rambling, ranting, policy violations, disruption, and so on sums up to harassment ( and other posts). Are 5 diffs enough? The page contains quite a few more, including ones from the recent hours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, I totally endorse your approach to the article involved, and I have supported it at the talk page. If you feel the need to block anyone to prevent further violations of NPA, I endorse you there also. DGG (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I suspect this is one of those pockets of nationalist fervor that plagues Wikipedia, and once people from the greater community like us shine some light on the issue, people will start acting more sensibly, or at least more in line with policy. We'll see. Now if I could only get some assistance from the noticeboard at Kevin James (broadcaster)‎. :D Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the book quote
At what point is it reasonable to restore the quote? I don't see any objections to restoring it based on WP policies or guidelines (just a handful of personal objections by editors based apparently on their own personal dislike of the book). Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest trying to hash it out on talk as much as possible. There are a number of previously uninvolved editors posting there, so it looks like the issue could be settled there without too much unpleasantness. Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's getting out of control again. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, with you breaking 3RR three times today (I count 9 reverts in 22h), I'd say you are right. Something - or somebody - is getting out of control on that page. Again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Jim Garrison Series
I'm thinking of listing the articles on Ferrie, Bannister, and Russo on Articles for Deletion. It seems that the only notabality these people have is the claims made by Garrison and Jim Marrs, many of which have been debunked. But before I list, I wanted your thoughts on the matter. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, yes, they have no notability outside the trial, and assembling mountains of information about each, even if they are properly sourced and neutral and rebut conspiracy, amplifies their notability and makes people think "if there is all this info, they must be important and involved." And the more conspiracy articles there are, the harder it is to keep track of them, and the harder it is to keep the likes of Mtracy9 from whittling away at them, slowly carving them into nests on innuendo.


 * On the other hand, they are terribly important and notable in terms of the sub-issue of JFK conspiracy theories, and could easily pass muster in an AFD.


 * So an alternative idea: consolidation. A lot of these articles contain duplicate and extraneous data.  (Do we really need to know so much about, say, Ferrie's career at Eastern Airlines?) We could skip deletion and the AFD fights altogether and just start combining and redirecting articles.  Something like "Figures related to the Jim Garrison trial" or "Dealey Plaza witnesses".  (The witnesses are something I've long thought we have to much useless information on, and are a breeding ground for kookery. I've never acted on this idea because I only have so much energy for kookery at any one time, and most of that has been devoted to fighting the likes of RPJ and Mtracy.)


 * Thoughts? Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you know I think RPJ and Mtracy are the same person. But that's neither here nor there.  I think the consolidation idea is a good one.  I have a good deal of information on figures related to the Garrison trial so I could really help in getting that article up to snuff. I'll see if there is any opposition to doing that on the talk pages of the articles mentioned and if not move in that direction. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit clinches it for me. RPJ has returned in the form of Mtracy9.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Contested protection
You may want to voice your opinion at [|ANI]. I believe your protection is unnecessary (no revert warring will continue) and improper (you are as involved there as I am).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin James and Hardball Appearance
I really am chagrined for going down the road of casting inappropriate aspersions to all. Your brief "calm down everyone" was what the doctor ordered. On a sidelight, I think the current two paragraphs on the Kevin James interview on Hardball is a good example of quality collaborative editing. It's nice and tight, describes and documents what happened, and lets the facts speak for themselves. I was loathe to place the "two dozen times" question back (and glad you did), but do consider it to be a critical feature of the entire incident. I will aspire to be as calm as you are!


 * Everybody gets frustrated now and then, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I lose my temper plenty of times on WP. Thanks for the barnstar. :D Gamaliel (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for your neutral input
Despite our disagreements, I believe you strive for neutrality just as I do. Could you take a look at a (relatively short ATM) neutrality dispute (about one sentence) here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Little Help with Kevin James please.
An editor "Docku" is inserting comments into the talk page assuming I have [no good faith]. I removed once, but perhaps you could drop him a note that this kind of behavior is not beneficial to the WP project. Thanks. Arzel (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann fired by Rupert Murdoch
Both parties involved have stated this fact.

Murdoch said in a recent interview that he fired Olbermann five years ago. 

Olbermann complained that Murdoch fired him from Fox Sports. 


 * I have no problem with the fact in the article provided you add the sources of the information. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Sorry for not doing so earlier. This was my first post. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch401 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Let me know if you have any questions about Wikipedia. We tend to be a little cautious when it comes to articles about living people. Gamaliel (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Answer
Yes he asked me about revert and I gave him my answer - this isn't him business, because...he don't know (similar as you), history of polish, so why you're reverting my editions, which are true. I know what I'm speaking because I am from Poland and I live i Poland and in oppossite to you - I know Polish history. For me somebody, who don't know about polish history and writting about it is lies, so I'm sorry that I will call you..lie about polish history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alden Jones (talk • contribs) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, first of all, you don't get to choose which editors can and can't work on articles. You have to work with all editors, regardless of what you think of them.


 * Second of all, Wikipedia policy requires that you treat other editors with respect, which judging from your conduct in this exchange, you have failed to do. See Civility.


 * These are non negotiable, and are not trumped by your claimed expertise in any particular subject matter. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sollog and Philadelphia City Paper
I am interested to know why you reverted me when I tried to remove highly contentious information from the biography of Sollog. The source for this contentious info was the Philadelphia City Paper, a low-quality news source. Every article that newspaper wrote about Sollog contained contentious info, but you would not allow it to be removed. Why? Some of the info is even libellous according to Sollog. For example, the newspaper has accused Sollog of once working at a family-owned pornographic establishment in Arizona. Sollog has vehemently denied this and has even threatened court action against the paper. Clearly allowing such information in a biography of a living person is against Reliable Sources and would violate BLP policy as well. What do you have to say about your actions? Arnold1 (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Philadelphia City Paper is a perfectly acceptable source. Gamaliel (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From wiki's Avoiding Harm: "Unsourced, poorly sourced, or dubious content, especially if potentially libelous, should simply be removed on sight from biographies of living persons. Editors who repeatedly reinsert unsourced or poorly sourced material about a living person are subject to a block from editing, and edits which remove such content are exempt from the three-revert rule."Arnold1 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am aware of this rule. You should be aware that this rule does not apply to this case since the article is properly sourced, and you are subject to the restrictions of the 3RR. Gamaliel (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Philadelphia City paper is a free local newspaper. It is not a high quality news source. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. Examples of high quality news sources are The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press.Arnold1 (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Philadelphia City Paper is a perfectly acceptable and reliable source, and is probably more reliable and high-quality regarding events in Philadelphia than the New York Times or the Times of London. Simply repeating "Philadelphia City Paper sucks" won't make it an unusable source, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you back up your claims that Philadelphia City Paper is a reliable source for a BLP by showing your evidence? Can you show your evidence as to why the articles about Sollog from that newspaper are non-contentious? If you can't back up your claims with evidence then the newspaper has to be removed from Sollog's biography.Arnold1 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop wasting my time. The article is going to be deleted anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Some people will do anything to avoid answering a question, eh? I gather that's one of the few reasons for editing a talk page that way. I'm glad you stepped in before I saw it. :-) --Doug Weller (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Should have added I'm a native Floridian, Miami. A while ago. Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Whyh did you endorse a dishonest AFD nomination?
At the deletion discussion for Featherproof books, you endorsed the nominator's demonstrably false accusation that the publisher was a "vanity press." I am curious as to why a responsible person would do such a thing. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln Kennedy coincidences
I see you created the article Lincoln Kennedy coincidences. In case you hadn't noticed, there is another article, Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend, which contains much of the same information, so perhaps a merge is in order. Just wanted to let you know. Zagalejo^^^ 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Would appreciate your input/thoughts at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)