User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 2

September to November 2004

"Asses of Evil" in Parody section of Axis of Evil
Just now, I too have deleted the "asses of evil" image. Whoever restores it again will have an RfC filed against them by me. Rex071404 04:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Your threats don't particularly mean much to me as you've already leveled about 476 other charges against me. But go ahead and cry wolf some more. Gamaliel [[Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not a threat, it is a head's up. As you know, unlike an Arb complaint which is punative and RfC is advisory. Notifying the other involved parties that a wider discussion will result, is a way to allow them pause and reconsider how this will look to others. Rex071404 [[Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier today: See RfC here regarding this.

Element Photos GFDL
Finally got some time to update them. All done now... RTC 03:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Most of the images I have placed on were images taken by me with my digital camera. Most are standard images that anyone could go out and re-take. The one of Paul Cullen is for example in the aisle of St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral in Dublin (I am about five minutes walk away from the 'Pro' right now. I could step in and take another shot of the statue!). I don't know which category suits my situation. I suppose I could be regarded as the copyright holder, in which case I wave all claims on them and grant their ownership to the wikipedia community.

Some are adjusted versions of other people's pictures. I chased up owners and all allowed completely free usage (having had the rules regarding images on wikipedia and the implications of allowing images to be used here explained to them) or said that the images were out of copyright or in a tiny minority of cases were of unknown copyright that due to the age of the image was 99.9% to be out of copyright in any case. To be doubly sure I adjusted and cropped some of the images so that they ceased in any way to be identifiable with the original photographs but became basic generic images. In so far as I could be regarded as the copyright holder of these "new" images I again wave any claim to copyright and grant it to wikipedia and the community in perpetuity. I hope that clarifies matters.

BTW lurv the asses of evil stuff above. Oops I suppose that has bme in trouble with Rex too. Boo hoo! FearÉIREANN 17:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex Not Admin
That was my mistake - I acknowledge it and apologize. 20:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem. No harm done. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Brock
Hi. I am new to this and am not a registered user yet so do not know another way to send you a comment. This is re: the entries on David Brock & The American Spectator. I am 100% positive the quote from the Brock article on Anita Hill in the magazine is "a bit nutty, and a bit slutty" (actual quote is: "So Hill may be a bit nutty, and a bit slutty, but is she an outright liar?") because I checked it in the original magazine article. I believe the quote is the same in the Real Anita Hill book, but I do not have the book on hand to check so I will not argue that at at this time. It is true that the quote has been widely reportered as having "little" in it, but that error spread uncontrollably in the age of Nexis after Andrew Sullivan and others quoted it incorrectly.

Thank you for your edits! User:207.69.137.201

Support
Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. You should get on AIM sometime...we're supposed to have a meetup on Saturday and we haven't even fucking decided on a place. It looks like it's going to be us and Jimbo, which is just fine by me. Mike H 03:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey! Thanks for coming on AIM last night. So I'm talking to Jimbo and everything seems to be a go. This is the generic message I've been posting on other people's talk pages. Enjoy!

Tampa Wikimeet
Pardon the impersonality; I'm pasting this on every Wikiuser's page who lives in eastern Florida. We're scheduling a Wikimeet this Saturday, September 11. Jimbo still has to decide the place but he's looking into Panera Bread locations here in Tampa. Please post on User:Jimbo Wales and tell us if you're interested in coming. Thanks! Mike H 18:38, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that be western Florida? Or do you mean everything east of the panhandle? Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm from Pensacola, dude. Western Florida means the panhandle, and don't you forget it. So, can you pick me up? Mike H 04:57, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Rex at it again?
Gamaliel, Rex just reverted your revert. I was generous and gave him 24 hours to responsd precisely to avoid any claim of his that he didn't have enough time. Now, let's assume he uses that 24 hours and then posts a response. OK, fine. But then you and I feel his argument is weak and without merit. He could then just say, "My argument is not weak and without merit. It is upon you to prove otherwise.  Until then, the langauge stays in."

OK, so then we call in a mediator and go through a big rigamoral to get this resolved in a favor. OK, fine. But it doesn't seem fair to me that he can keep making these kinds of edits and force us to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to prove him wrong.

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. What do you propose we do? --Nysus 18:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, because he pulled this crap in John Kerry, a bunch of us filed this Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 against him, but it took about a month just to get to that point (with the RfC and the argument over mediation, etc.) and he had been acting up a month prior to that. I have no idea when the ArbCom will do anything, if at all, on this matter, though to their infinite credit they did ban Rex from the article until they resolve the matter. I haven't been here all that long myself, and mostly I toiled anonymously and avoided controversial articles until I got drawn into the John Kerry mess, but what I've seen so far of Wiki's conflict resolution methods, I'm not sure I have faith in this site's ability to manage and police trolls like Rex.  I wouldn't suggest that we bother with RfCs, etc. unless you feel like spending a month debating this point.  The best way to counter Rex is strength through consensus.  With a consensus, Rex is outnumbered and can't employ his usual tactic of revert wars effectively.  And of course, patience.  Just laugh him off and don't take him seriously, and remember that any changes he makes can quickly be reversed.  That will have to do until Arb Com finally manages to deal with him.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, I know consensus is definitely the key and have already been working to build it. I guess I'll keep working in that direction.  Thanks.  --Nysus 18:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, after seeing Rex's last few edits, my patience is finally beginning to wear thin. Following up on your suggestion to seek out coalitions, I'd like to formally enter into some kind of pact with you to monitor Rex's behavior and fight against his clearly disruptive editing style. This isn't going to be a pleasant task. I'd much rather be writing articles. But I think for the sake of the integrity of the articles we are collaborating on, we have a duty to try to put a stop to his malicious efforts. And we should reach out to others to join us. Hopefully, if he sees that it's not just one person against him but five or six, he will begin to realize his behavior needs to change. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to attack or "gang up" on Rex. I'm just finally getting tired of trying to reason with him all by myself. As we have seen, the effort leads nowhere. Frankly, if I can't find others to join me, well, I'll probably leave these article behind and starte editing non-controversial stuff like you. But it would be a real shame if I guy like Rex succeeds in putting a stop to our honest attempts to produce good work. --Nysus 01:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see this petition about Rex here: Talk:Texans_for_Truth --Nysus 02:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Killian Memos
Hey, I'm glad to see you and Wolfman intervening to reign in some of the more, uh, enthusiastic contributors at teh Killian memos page. A few days ago, I rather undiplomatically attempted an intervention in the Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy article, which resulted in a great deal of rudeness and my decision not to directly involve myself in this stuff more. But I'm glad to see you trying to keep them honest. john k 22:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It feels like an uphill battle.  I'm sure not all of them have an agenda, but they don't seem to quite grasp NPOV yet. It's like we're being invaded by the right-wing blogosphere. I do what I can, but I don't quite have the energy for getting into fonts and superscripts yet. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 07:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, what is your e-mail or a way outside of WP i can contact you? --kizzle 22:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You can email me this way. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 07:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me
Please do so with a reference to the quoting party (in this case you). I refer to this edit by you, which I have deleted. You have been warned. The next stop is an Arbitration request against you. 02:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Aside from their minor amusement value, your threats have ceased to interest me after the first half dozen or so. So go ahead, I'm sure that Arb Com would love to waste their time investigating me for having the audacity to quote you. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stolen Honor Documentary
The full name of Stolen Honor Documentary is a perfectly valid Wiki link. I do not agree that the short name of Stolen Honor is as informative to the readers in regards to telling tham what the link actually goes to. I did not agree to the "redirect" which the other party imposed in creating the new short name and I'd rather not get in any battles to revert that. Instead, where appropriate, I am going to simply use the longer name. This is one fo those appropriate occassions. 15:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cayetano Garza
I don't understand how I am supposed to make the distiction between his important and unimportant influences. Perhaps some of them don't make sense right now because I have not finished the section on him as a musician (I am still gathering information). I don't see the point of you deleting all of his influences unless you are going to make the decsion on which ones are important and unimporant. If you are not going to do this I think we should revert the list back. I also don't understand why you think that linking to the list of web comics is a invalid see also link. ZaQ 00:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Every artist has many many influences, but there are a few which are far more important than others and are usually easy to spot or frequently mentioned. Frank Cho's obvious debt to Berke Breathed and Garry Trudeau's influence upon Berke Breathed are just two examples. But mentioning that Cho was somehow influenced the Beatles or Trudeau feels a debt to Otis Redding is certainly less significant and notable.  A long laundry list of influences doesn't tell the reader anything of note and just takes up space - note that few wikipedia entries have such lengthy lists of names. How does Hendrix or Blake (for example) specifically influence Garza?  Why are they important enough to be mentioned, as opposed to, say Chopin or Watteau?  All that information came from somewhere, surely your sources must shed some light on this. It should be easy enough to make these distinctions - you already made a start by seperating the list into major and minor.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism in Progress/Stolen Honor
Thanks for the nice note. So he's not supposed to list me there? I saw that he'd been trying to remove that perfectly legitimate text, and he goes and calls me a vandal. But I'm not the type to be swayed that easily. Sahara 01:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, he's not. It's been made clear to him that the page is only for listing vandalism, like blanking the page or filling it with swear words, stuff like that. A clear disupte about what the content of a page should be does not belong there, as he's been told.  Some administrator will take the listing off the page soon, hopefully. He's only trying to intimidate you, just ignore him. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve siding with an obvious sockpuppet. Also, did you even READ the idiotic punctuation that Sahara keeps injecting? Suffice it to say, you are blinded by your own bile and spite - unable to get past your hatred of me enough to even see what's going on. Shame on you! 01:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Go away Rex. You've accused me, wolfman, neutrality, JML, kizzle, and anateus feldspar of sockpuppetry, and you've been wrong on all counts.  And you know you're not supposed to list content disputes on Vandalism in Progress, yet you did it anyway.  And you think I'm supposed to be ashamed?  The only thing more ridiculous than your behavior is the fact that wikipedia hasn't banned you yet for your antics.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uh did you READ the edit history of Sahara? 02:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What about my edit history? I've been browsing around all day, and I saw the censorship you tried on Stolen Honor, and changed it back. You're just trying to censor opinions you don't like! Sahara 02:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have answered you at Stolen Honor talk page. 02:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested
Gamaliel, would you accept mediation with me? I believe, based on your overt hostility, that the issue is now ripe. 02:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, what do you think the point of mediation would be? My issues are with your accusations, insults, and flagrant disregards for the rules and norms of wikipedia.  Are you willing to change your behavior and act like a rational editor? Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My issue is that you are overtly hostile to me, going out of your way to compound difficulties rather than difuse them. Take a cue from Wolfman. He and I differ greatly, but he is not hostile to me (nor me with him). 03:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Obviously we have a very different view of what is going on, as you see yourself as victim and justify your negative behavior on that basis. We can discuss this for years, but nothing will change until the root problem is addressed, and that root problem is your negative behavior. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 07:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Will you agree to mediation with me, yes or no? 23:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Answer my question, then. What do you think the point of mediation would be?  Are you willing to change your behavior permanently?  If you are not, mediation would be as unproductive as every other encounter with you has been. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes or no, will you accept mediation aimed at hashing out our differences / resolving our inter-editor problems? 01:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Your latest in a long string of insults directed towards me was posted a mere half hour before this question. It's clear that you are not sincere about wanting to engage in mediation and have no intention of changing your negative behavior. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unless and until you stop trying to stoke the fires of hostility, I am going to relatiate when and where appropriate. Your cheap shot at the VfD page was a low blow. Until you agree to seek peace, I am not going to unilaterally declare it nor will I let you stomp on me or my edits. I am offering to try to seek peace with you via mediation. If you refuse, any subsequent hostility between us, is 100% your fault. Three strikes and you're out: Yes or no, will you agree to mediation with me? 06:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand that insults like "warped, spiteful minds" are never appropriate. You don't seem to understand that the rules of Wikipedia don't go out the window because you have decided you are the victim and I am the enemy.  You don't seem to understand that the decisions I make are not made to attack you but to participate in making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be.


 * Case in point: You obviously think that my vote to delete "your" article on Votes for Deletion was a personal attack. Why?  Because I disagreed with you?  I voted for delete because I thought the policy Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide applied.  You may disagree, and that is an honest disagreement.  But you should not assume that I did it to spite you.  I also voted on about 6 or 8 other articles today, none of which involve you.  Did I make those decisions to spite other editors?


 * You are making the mistake of taking editorial decisions personally, perhaps because you dislike me, perhaps because you see me as an adversary, perhaps for any number of reasons. This isn't about your feelings.  This isn't about my feelings.  It is not "your" article that I voted to delete.  This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and we make changes not with the feelings of others in mind but with the goal of creating a better encyclopedia.


 * You are an adult. Your behavior is entirely your responsibility, as are your constant violations of Wikipedia policies. The fact that something you do is against the rules will not change if I do not agree to something you demand, nor does your behavior suddenly become my responsibility because I did not accede to your wishes.  You have unleashed a constant stream of invective towards me and other editors for three months, and I don't see why I should engage in a lengthy and tedious mediation process with someone who is so hostile and insulting towards me if they make no indications that their behavior will ever change.  If you want to seek peace with me, all you have to do is stop insulting me.  It's quite simple and easy to understand.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 08:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. it appears that any "hashing out" must occur now, here in this page - so here goes: What about you and your mysterious appearance on pages I am editing? for example Eights and aces? Over a simply typo (Eight instead of Eights), you kept reverting rather than simply fixing the page! Hmmmm....? And why won't you follow the JML precendent which we have all been forced to follow (on other pages such as TfT)? On TfT, you supported the exclusion of links I wanted included, yet on Stolen Honor you turn around and demand the Media Matters link be included, yet it fails the TfT test - in that it's not about the documentary, but about Sherwood himself. And that "moonie" stuff you kept trying to jam in, that's about Carlton Sherwood himself, not about Stolen Honor, the documentary. It's one thing to mention "he also wrote a book about Unification Church" as a snippet of his background on the documentary page, it's entirely something else to try to bring controversy about that onto a page for a topic for which it has no bearing. 15:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have already fully explained my actions regarding "Eights and aces" here:.


 * I have already fully and repeatedly explained my views about Stolen Honor on Talk:Stolen Honor. You wanted to include pro-Sherwood irrelevancies like his Vietnam decorations and his work as an anti-terror webmaster without including relevant anti-Sherwood information which cast doubt on his credibility as a journalist. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 21:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comic Strips
You're stepping on my toes and I don't know why. The name of the stamp series, so far as I know is American Comic-strip Classics and while I'm tediously plodding along trying to enter the information in 20 different articles you change the name of the article I'm working on and referring to. Why is that? I'm pretty informal too, but gee. Ortolan88 02:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changed the name back to the proper name of the stamp series. Unless you can show that the stamp series is named something else, please don't redirect again. Ortolan88 02:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry you're taking the change personally, my intent was not to offend you. That's just not the proper name of the series, at least according to the sheet of the stamps I have. Here's a picture of the sheet for sale on an ebay type site: . Also, here are some references using the proper name:    . I hope this clears the matter up. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but you were still stepping on my toes, a little warning or explanation on a talk page would have been polite. Your jumping in without warning or clarification is why I took it personally. How's about you fix the first ten incorrect references and I'll finish the last ten? Ortolan88 03:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Tnx! Ortolan88 03:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

About Lee Harvey Oswald and Me
Dear Gamaliel:

I do have new information on Lee Oswald. Systematic distortion of my testimony and history does not change that fact, only that you have been led to believe nothing new is added by my testimony. That's not true. But you won;t hear that from the keepers of the Official version, that Lee oswald did it alone.

Please contact me quickly at elect63@xs4all.nl ASAP as that account will soon close. I have very little time, as I'm finishing my dissertation on a topic in British Literature, on a deadline at present, but I believe your work is important and would like to give you first-hand information for your W. article, if you weill be so kind as to consider it.

Sure, I've been attacked, sometimes viciously. The film by Nigel Turner, The Love Affair, was censored off The History Channel after five shows. It was originally scheduled for nine years. Segments seven, eight and nine were secretly purchased and are being with-held from the American public by the LBJ family and friends'coalition. But the fact is, I'm still alive, unlike many other witnesses, and because I have the evidence, and have decided to speak out, the inevitable attacks have occurred that I knew would occur. Had I stated that Lee Oswald was the Lone Gunman, I'd be wined and dined and rich. But because I tell the truth, I'm maligned and lied about. Through contacts with honest investigators, however, the facts ARE coming out.

Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

loved Lee Oswald, an innocent man please disregard any typos, I have eye problems...

Rube Goldberg
You ruined the entire Rube Goldberg page on this website you ignorant lutefisk. What do you think you are doing? You made every single thing a link that there is no link directing to anywhere else. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? NOW I HAVE TO SPEND ALL MY TIME FIXING IT YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!

Dear Anonymous Idiot,

I'm sorry adding those links caused you so much distress. If I had known the effect it would have on you I would have done it sooner. Gamaliel 17:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:FAC
Hi,can you sign your objection to Shakespearean authorship? As they are so close to my own, I'd hate to see them ignored for lack of a name. Filiocht 10:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was pretty tired when I posted that so I guess it slipped my mind. Thanks. Gamaliel 16:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Padraic Colum
Nice picture: do you think there are more Irish writers at the same source? Filiocht 08:29, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bothering you. I did the sensible thing and looked myself. Filiocht 12:27, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Did you find any? I don't think there are any. I think I uploaded pics of all the writers on their occupation index, and I think Colum was the only Irish one. However, that index is sadly incomplete and probably indexes only about a quarter of the people in the collection. Gamaliel 19:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, Gamaliel. Would you accept a nomination for adminship? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:02, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, I decided to mull it over a bit and concluded I would accept. Initially I didn't think I was here long enough, but it has been about eight months or so, and I realized I'm not a newbie anymore. Just give me a day or two to finish reading the admin pages. Thank you!  Gamaliel 09:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Rune Mysteries
I'm sorry if my edit on this VfD overwrote yours (I'm not sure why it did, it's been doing that recently instead of giving me an "edit conflict" message like it should.) our changes were substantially the same, I think, except I kept the "Imp Catcher" and "Romeo & Juliet (quest)" that had been added (essentially the same thing, individual quests from the same MMORPG) and I added a note explaining that 3vruna had added the extra listings himself. (I also replied to a conveniently unsigned top-level post from 3vruna where he effectively cast a second "keep" vote.) In any case, I wish the software *had* told me of the edit conflict as it was supposed to -- am I the only one who's been getting weird results with that? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed anything like that but I'll keep my eyes out. It's better your edit was later as I didn't do anything but cut out the list.  I did however go through all those articles and remove the vfd tags.  I didn't bother with the listings/redirects though, some admin can delete those if they can't just be ignored.  Gamaliel 03:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, geez -- I thought to warn the people who had voted while the altered list was up, but I didn't realize he'd gone and stuck VfD tags on all those articles! ... Boy, this guy really needs to go back to playing RuneScape instead of propagandizing it.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to Castro
Hi there I have made changes to the Opposition to Castro will you reconsider your vote. If you do not think that satisfy the NPOV policy please help me do so. It is hard for me to not have a POV on the matter. I love democracy and the Internet and this great country we live in. Thanks and regards! SilentVoice 23:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you have another look at Opposition to Castro? I'm not sure what it was like when you looked at it (I gather is started out very POV), but at this point it looks to me like the nucleus of a good article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

User:12.220.116.188
"Hamilton," Do stay out of my talk page. I am a newbie here (along with several others) and made a simple mistake when I added a comment about documented evidence fact to the JFK assassination discussion page then tagged an incorrect button, instead of saving my comment to the JFK ass. discussion page. You may now delete this. You are aware that the 80%/20%, 4:1 ratio is against your possibly keeping up with us. (what with all the other 1-6+ hours total you waste per day average on wikipedia 12.220.116.188 23:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who Hamilton is, perhaps you think this is an insult of some sort. Regardless, if your blanking of Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination was a mistake, it was easily corrected, no harm done.  As far as your bluster about numerical superiority, you've sadly missed the point of Wikipedia entirely.  Gamaliel 23:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated
And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Gamaliel 08:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Gamaliel: I agree with your assessment of this article. It seems the main problem is one of presentation - it needs to be tighened a great deal, and better organized - plus there are several facts and principal allegations which are missing. I would be happy to help you with this; however, I believe biases should be revealed first. I assume from your writing that you believe that LHO acted alone in the assassination; I do not. However, I'm willing to work with you and respect your viewpoint if you respect mine. I suspect that we will conclude with something that neither of us is entirely happy with, but it's not necessary that we "solve" the mystery together in this article. If you wish to proceed, perhaps we could trade emails. - Scooter 22:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you're somewhat correct. I do believe that the evidence that Oswald is the assassin is both obvious and overwhelming. The question of whether or not he was part of a greater conspiracy is another matter.  Personally, I don't see anything that particularly excludes it but I also think that no solid evidence for conspiracy has surfaced yet.  I'm saying this because you asked, but I don't think my opinion (or anyone else's) is particularly relevant, because as good editors we put aside our opinions when we work on wiki articles, obviously. I have no problem with an article which presents evidence (if there is any) or theories for conspiracy as long as obviously false items or conjectures are not presented as facts. I don't see any reason why we can't successfully work together on this, and our different povs will I think be valuable and not a hinderance, as we can check each other's excesses.  If you want to email me just click on 'e-mail this user'. Gamaliel 04:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration matter of Rex071404 is closed
Excerpt:

2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.
 * Passed 6 to 0

3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.
 * Passed 6 to 0

4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.
 * Passed 5 to 0 with 1 abstain

5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.
 * Passed 5 to 1

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Requests for arbitration/Rex071404. --mav 05:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the update. Gamaliel 23:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Random thanks
Hey there. Somewhat belated, but I'd intended to thank you for creating articles on most of the Librarians of Congress. A neat little subject that few people know much about. Isomorphic 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison
Hi. I reverted your reversion of Harlan Ellison. This was not done in bad faith. Rather, it was added by a person whom we suspect may have actually been Harlan Ellison. Until the matter is cleared up, please leave the text as is. We are in contact with Mr. Ellison regarding the incident and hope to resolve it soon. Danny 21:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this makes no sense. I don't see why a potential copyvio should be allowed to stand, and even if it is not, it's still a wholesale deletion of the exisiting article in favor of an unformatted press release. And you should be aware that the same editor also deleted material unfavorable to Ellison in Dangerous Visions. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ellison's work, but he should be made to adhere to the same rules as everyone else if he participates here. Gamaliel 21:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but let's just take it slow here. There's time to make the article right, and we're not clear on who inserted that article, etc., etc.  Certainly the "unformatted press release" can't stand.  Jimbo Wales 23:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've learned a bit more about what's going on and I'm sure you'll be able to deal with it. Gamaliel 00:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, Gamaliel!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Congratulations!, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:01, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me, too! I'm especially proud to see one of my sockpuppets promoted.  Or am I your sockpuppet?  I've already forgotten.... JamesMLane 08:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (monty burns voice) exceeeeelent.... my sockpuppet has now gained admin status! ;) congrats. --kizzle 12:31, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * We're doomed! Doomed! &mdash;tregoweth 16:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. My reign of terror will commence shortly. Gamaliel 23:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * LOL! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Article ownership
You might want to take a look at Ownership of articles. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why? Am I trying to "destroy wikipedia" again because I think one picture instead of two of some minor city landmark will suffice? Gamaliel 23:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Because you act like you own Tampa, Florida. You should also note that reverts of non-vandalism are not supposed to be marked minor. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Not agreeing with every edit you make is not the same as acting like I own it. Why does this minor landmark deserve two pictures when others have none?  Why is one picture insufficent?  Wikipedia is not a showcase for your photography. Gamaliel 23:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No, you were acting like you own it because you made a reversion without explaining yourself. The landmark and the sign deserve a picture when others have none because we have a free picture of these and don't have a free picture of the others.  Two pictures is better than one which is better than none.  This isn't my photography.  I didn't take these pictures.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, it looked like they were yours when I glanced at the page on wikicommons. My mistake.  I'm not arguing that there should be no picture at all, and certainly the existence of a free picture is reason enough to add one.  I've slapped more than my share of PD pics into articles here.  But just because it's free and available doesn't mean we are compelled to use it.  At some point, we have to say, no, this is enough, because of aesthetics, space, appropriateness, balance, and any number of a host of other issues.  It's like free cookies: they are fantastic but eventually if you keep stuffing them in your face you will puke. When I added the pic of that Ybor cigar factory, there were dozens to choose from.  Should I have added them all? One cigar factory and one pic of the Mons is more than sufficent. Gamaliel 00:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes_for_deletion/Rosyth_Primary_School
Re:Votes_for_deletion/Rosyth_Primary_School: what makes something encyclopedic if not notablity or verifiability? These are the two main reasons for deleation on VfD. The bellman 09:48, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)


 * It's just some elementary school. There are millions of them.  This is pretty much the definition of non-notable. Gamaliel 20:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Man, I can't believe what a can of worms I've seemed to open. Rosyth Primary School should be deleted for the same reason that almost every primary school should be.  They're all verifiable, if one bothers to, but they are all also almost entirely nonnotable, except to interested parties, namely their faculty, sutdent's parents, perhaps the students themselves, perhaps close relatives of the above, maybe their graduates, but NO ONE ELSE IN WORLD!  This place seems to have no great historicity or famous graduates.  If I would (which, as promised, I won't), I could write an article almost as good on my own primary school, probably even including a link to the guy who was principal back then, and my point is that probably most of us regulars could, but SO WHAT.  Even if the place had famous graduates, almost all of them subseuquently would have attended higher schools of greater general interest.  Well, this isn't the first vote that I've lost (probably not even here at Wikipedia) and it's not likely to be the last, but I won't be putting up any lower schools for deletion anymore.  Thanks for being on the right, if losing, side.  I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia (currently it's probably safe to say that it's my main "hobby" and I hate to see it become hopelessly cluttered with lots of non-notable filler), and this won't dissuade me to feel that it is one of the most important projects currently under way on the internet, but to me this is a shame.  Rlquall 13:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know why people vote to keep every school, even articles that say "this is the only high school in Podunk, Texas" and nothing else. You're right, this is nothing but clutter. I should start writing articles on local grocery stores and street lights, they would be about as notable.  Gamaliel 20:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Songs whose title includes a phone number
Thank your for increasing the number of entries in List of songs whose title includes a phone number by 50%! I was beginning to wonder if my idea for this article was complete nuts. (Now I think it's only mostly nuts.) &#9786; &mdash; Jeff Q 10:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for starting the list in the first place. I think it's a great idea. Gamaliel 20:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)