Jump to content

User talk:Gamaliel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 444: Line 444:
::::I have a feeling this conversation isn't about my hands anymore. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 17:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I have a feeling this conversation isn't about my hands anymore. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 17:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Actually, I have small hands which is one reason why I never got very far learning to play the guitar. I even looked into getting a guitar with a narrower neck so I could use bar chords. I don't find it embarassing, it's just a physical feature like curly hair, long legs or brown eyes. While body parts don't have anything to do with a person's qualification for higher office, I also don't understand why some editors found it offensive. But in BLP debates, it's the consensus view of what is appropriate, not a single editor's views, that matters. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Actually, I have small hands which is one reason why I never got very far learning to play the guitar. I even looked into getting a guitar with a narrower neck so I could use bar chords. I don't find it embarassing, it's just a physical feature like curly hair, long legs or brown eyes. While body parts don't have anything to do with a person's qualification for higher office, I also don't understand why some editors found it offensive. But in BLP debates, it's the consensus view of what is appropriate, not a single editor's views, that matters. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::The consensus view matters when it's a consensus, and when it's a view. It’s not a consensus here: it's a bunch of canvassed Gamergate fans and a few score-settlers. And it's not actually their view, or anyone’s: Trump himself raised the matter on TV, it's been covered in humor magazines from the New York on down, and nobody anywhere is really upset about it. Notice how many of these people watch the Gamergate cluster of pages, and how seldom (if ever) they've deleted or called for oversight when (as still happens regularly) real BLP issues that do real harm to real people. One of Gamaliel's detractors, for example, recently edit-warred to include a misleading quote indicating that one Gamergate target was a pedophile; the matter in question was an old undergraduate essay that observed that Japanese law differs from contemporary US law in matters like age of consent and argues that Japan has the right to maintain its laws and traditions. I cannot recall a single instance where any of these terribly-concerned editors chose to edit to the advantage of any Gamergate target, and as you know I’ve been reading the topic for some time. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


== To settle the record ==
== To settle the record ==

Revision as of 16:19, 8 April 2016


The Magically Get Free Candy and Ponies Award

The Magically Get Free Candy and Ponies Award
Gamaliel, this comment was hilarious !

On a continuing lighter note, thank you for all you do chipping in with your role as co Editor-in-Chief of The Signpost.

The Wikipedia community appreciates your efforts very much!

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that posting the exact same argument on tons of AfDs is not a very good method of debate

Posting the same "Keep Sources indicate that she is a well-established artist" on multiple articles related to the recent Regina Art+Feminism meet-up isn't very helpful. You should try addressing the intricacies of each article, instead of posting the same boilerplate message on every AfD. Thanks. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#WikiCup_report???

Um... what was up with this? It certainly doesn't seem to have affected the published article, nor did Kharkiv07 ever respond to the message I sent him regarding it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was busy with the other sections this week so I wasn't following editing the WikiCup section. Kharkiv07 was in charge of editing that section and I trust his judgement and whatever decisions he made. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object, just think a ball got dropped before any edits got made. He said that, I replied asking if we could include a few more people than his suggested ten, and the article got published unchanged (accidentally?). Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. Perhaps he ran out of time to followup? That happens at the Signpost way more often than we'd like to admit. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I trim it to, say, 20? That way at least my suggested compromise is done. Or shall we say publication stops such changes? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's already published and it looks okay, so maybe we just leave it as is? Thanks for contributing this, by the way. Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Just wanted to run that by you, as, y'know, better to check when that happens. Just hope I didn't screw up the lists and leave someone out again. (I caught one I missed while writing it). The number of people decreases every round, so it should, at least in theory, be more managable each time, although we may want to decide how many people to do for Round 2 in advance. There's theoretically 32 people that pass that round, and I presume you don't want to do all 32. We could do the top 50%, which is roughly what we did this time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, half sounds good. 32 would be overwhelming. If there's time, maybe two parts over two weeks? Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only issue might be if the second round wasn't very competitive, in which case I will need to trim out some of the bottom scorers from illustration if there's nothing relevant (though I could discuss the remainder in text as part of the second week's report, which is probably better than a gallery-only report.) I think from Round 3 (where 16 contestants pass) it should be easy enough to just do everyone who passes (and perhaps a short discussion of any particularly accomplished people who don't pass to the next round, in either text or gallery). Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #200

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Sock

Hi,

Thanks for the recent CU-block. Do you believe a blanket revert as per WP:DENY is justified? I am not very experienced with this sock case. Thanks, GABHello! 19:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we make sure that no vandalism is accidentally restored (I'm guilty of that a couple days ago when reverting another sock) a blanket revert is justified. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biden rule.

The portions I removed were clearly partisan in nature. Politico is a left-wing fringe site and not suitable as a reference. Jose Canyusi (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Politico is a pretty middle of the road, almost generic political publication. Have a look at WP:RS and see what Wikipedia policy says about appropriate references. Gamaliel (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #201

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apoplectic

You used that word (ARCA), which I don't understand, sorry, English is not my first language. I understand, however, that you worded "absent a substantive statement from the editor in question", and have no idea what that means, either. Andy made a substantive statement. To my observation, he is often misunderstood, - is that a reason to restrict him? - There is no infobox war. Look at Bach, Verdi and many operas, these subjects of the case in 2013. All (but one, primary editor's preference respected) have an infobox, achieved in peace, after discussions without Andy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad things have subsided. I am concerned about them starting up again if the Committee takes the wrong step. This doesn't mean I have any specific concerns about particular individuals, it just means I want to be cautious and thorough. I do not feel that a one sentence statement that says basically "I want to be unblocked" is substantive. I'm not looking for any statement in particular, but it should be longer than that. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The case was a misunderstanding, did you know? It was requested because of too many reverts of infoboxes (I counted 59), but the arbitrators didn't look at that problem. A typical discussion of 2013 was The Rite of Spring. Please read it and check for "disruption". Needless to say, the article has an infobox. To still have any restrictions about infoboxes is outdated. - I try to keep things simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why the objection him making a simple statement? Why should we make an exception in this case? The statement is one of the main ways we have to judge the future behavior of an editor. It would be irresponsible of me to consider lifting the sanctions in such a battleground area without this basic step. I'll be honest, people objecting to this basic step is raising a big red flag to me, that there might be more to this case than it appears. If it is really so simple, let's have a statement and be done with it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of statement? Did you read the discussion on The Rite of Spring? How many more times should I try to tell you that there is no battleground area? His suggestion was taken. Tell me one edit in that discussion that you think was disruptive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One that addresses why the sanctions should be lifted and what he would do if they were. This is standard and expected in every case. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over, if I may: we had a talk in 2013. You described the edit correctly, the one and only diff in the infoboces case. It wasn't controversial, it was restoring "my" infobox (which had been reverted in an article I created). All this is past. Start over, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very open to the possibility of amending the restrictions if Andy makes a substantive statement. My feelings about the necessity of a statement have nothing to do with my opinions for or against the underlying issue. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

Impact
Thank you for your impact
in reminding us of
"you've got to be kind"
in memory of a great spirit!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: see also, writing about music in memory of my friend, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: the first cry --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now left a formal dedication, including him, on Requiem (Fauré) which became a GA today. - Waiting for a reply for your DYK nom, btw,

Gerda Arendt Nice work on that article. I haven't forgotten about the DYK, thank you for being patient. My time is being taken up by ridiculous noticeboard drama. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have so little time, you may have missed reading the dedication in full (which mentions the appreciated collaboration with Tim riley, which I have enjoyed for years, beginning with Messiah. We don't agree on infoboxes, but that doesn't matter. Spread the news: it is possible.) - Your ping interrupting me laughing out loud, hope you can, too, although first the first line making me laugh was "and the Arbs in particular are not blessed with any greater insight". - Returning there, - the DYK can wait, and please excuse me for ignoring noticeboards, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i'm pretty neutral on infoboxes. If people want to add them, great, if not, I'm fine with that too. RexxS is absolutely right, we don't have any special insight, we just do the best we can. Please do on ignoring the noticeboards, it really is the most sensible approach to Wikipedia. I try to ignore them entirely when someone isn't complaining about me there. which is more often than I would like. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fdaskyvfgbawrt7i3qyrhgk8sa

Hi, did you mean to disable autoblock on this user? And if you do fix this, can you also revoke their talk page access, thanks! 172.58.33.176 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Submitting a piece for publishing

Hello, Gamaliel. I've completed my WikiProject Report interview and would like to submit it for publishing by The Signpost. I'm pinging Go Phightins! as well. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 3family6. @Razr Nation: could you have a look when you have a chance? Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel:, sure. I'll take a look later today. → Call me Razr Nation 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #202

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Word count limit

In my amendment request about GMOs, it occurs to me that I'm starting to go over the word count limit. That's happening mainly because I'm answering questions from you and from admins whom you've asked to comment there, so I hope that it's OK. If you agree that it's OK, then could you perhaps wave the ArbCom magic wand so that the clerks allow it? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: The wand has been waved. I've let the clerks know that it's okay for you to exceed the limit. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at WP:ARCA

I don't think that we want to rehash the old User:Charles Matthews affair of the Wikipedia-related newspaper attack on me.

Suggestions, how I can reword my contributions. are greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Carl (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue sanctions against this user for whatever they may have allegedly done, I will assist you, but it is unproductive and disruptive to mention it in the context of other discussions. We have a saying on Wikipedia: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please keep that in mind. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It seems unproductive to pursue this further since the user has already been sanctioned. As per your suggestion, I have removed my comments about specific other contributors from here.Carl (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John C. McAdams

Are you possibly able to do a "check user" on Levazquez76 (talk · contribs)? I believe it is probably the same as the creator of this edit as well as a few of the other recent hopped IPs trying to rewrite that article. If I need to fill out a sockpuppet investigation I'll be happy to do so. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm involved in editing the article I don't think the rules allow me to run it myself. (I'm a new checkuser so I'm still learning.) I'd fill out an investigation request so everything is above board. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem it's here in case you want to add anything or look it over. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the big issue is they may actually be meatpuppets sent from McAdams' blog? Should I note that in the SPI page? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has he written about his Wikipedia article and asked people to come here? If so I can't find the post. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to post here? I apologize for the confusion. I can tell you exactly what I've edited and what I haven't. I've only been here on exactly two dates.Levazquez76 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main concern is not who is editing, but the content of the edits. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, however, I was also tagged in an investigation involving my IP address. I'm not sure why.Levazquez76 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is some concern that a single person is editing the article from multiple IP addresses and accounts. It's okay to edit however you want to, logged in or not, but if the same person edits the article in different ways and pretends to be different people, it may unduly influence article content. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand. I only edited on two occasions and was signed in. I apologize for my failure to edit according to policy. I'm trying to figure out how to "request edits" until I can figure out what I'm doing. I do live in the same city as this story, so my use of "per" should have been backed by a link to a news story or the like, instead of what I heard in a live broadcast. Just to be clear, I am not John McAdams. I saw that said somewhere on one of these pages.Levazquez76 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit Talk:John C. McAdams. You can propose, discuss, or object to changes there. We encourage all editors to use talk pages to engage in those kinds of discussions, and everyone is welcome to comment there. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science

Join us!

Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon -
a Year of Science initiative

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This day's This Special Day's article for improvement (day 1, month 4, 2016)

Skvader - Tetrao lepus pseudo-hybridus rarissimus in the wild at Örnsköldsvik
Hello!

The following is WikiProject This Special Day's articles for improvement's daily selection:

Skvader

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Snipe hunt • Jenny Haniver

Get involved with the TSDAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Share this message with other editors

Posted by: w.carter-Talk 20:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC) using New improved MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of WikiProject TSDAFI • [April Fools!][reply]

Editor editing another's user page without discussion

I would appreciate your help in addressing User:LaserBrain editing my user page.

Thanks!Carl (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #203

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost

So I guess The Signpost is one of the best articles on Wikipedia now. GamerPro64 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~ RobTalk 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blatant BLP violation and subsequent protection by involved Admin. Thank you. GABHello! 22:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small hands?

What is the point of User:Gamaliel/Small hands? I have small eyes, but that's not something to be proud of, given that most people view big eyes as more attractive. Usually one uses userboxes to promote positive things about themselves. wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small hands are a blessing. You can play piano, solder tiny parts, run for president... HighInBC 15:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suppose, as are my nearsighted small eyes an asset for doing close-up work, though not really useful for anything to do with Wikipedia editing. Still seems rather pointy, given the timing. wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in the promise of America, where anyone can become president, no matter how small their hands. Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no matter how big their belly button?
no matter how long their hair is?
no matter their religion?
no matter what their (trans)gender is?
Why not simply, "where anyone eligible can become president"? Are you planning on running for president? If so, you've got some work do do. I wouldn't fancy your chances of getting reelected to the Arbitration Committee right now. wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling this conversation isn't about my hands anymore. Gamaliel (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have small hands which is one reason why I never got very far learning to play the guitar. I even looked into getting a guitar with a narrower neck so I could use bar chords. I don't find it embarassing, it's just a physical feature like curly hair, long legs or brown eyes. While body parts don't have anything to do with a person's qualification for higher office, I also don't understand why some editors found it offensive. But in BLP debates, it's the consensus view of what is appropriate, not a single editor's views, that matters. Liz Read! Talk! 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus view matters when it's a consensus, and when it's a view. It’s not a consensus here: it's a bunch of canvassed Gamergate fans and a few score-settlers. And it's not actually their view, or anyone’s: Trump himself raised the matter on TV, it's been covered in humor magazines from the New York on down, and nobody anywhere is really upset about it. Notice how many of these people watch the Gamergate cluster of pages, and how seldom (if ever) they've deleted or called for oversight when (as still happens regularly) real BLP issues that do real harm to real people. One of Gamaliel's detractors, for example, recently edit-warred to include a misleading quote indicating that one Gamergate target was a pedophile; the matter in question was an old undergraduate essay that observed that Japanese law differs from contemporary US law in matters like age of consent and argues that Japan has the right to maintain its laws and traditions. I cannot recall a single instance where any of these terribly-concerned editors chose to edit to the advantage of any Gamergate target, and as you know I’ve been reading the topic for some time. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To settle the record

I didn't return from retirement just to bash you and I haven't suddenly taken a position opposed to you. But I do think you dun fucked up here. Hope we're still friends after this settles.--v/r - TP 23:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to listen. I'd like to be able to discuss a disagreement with a civil editor. It would be a nice change from the last two days. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything you said (so far) about me or this issue on ANI terrible offensive. I do think your snap at Jytdog, whoever they are, was unwarranted, however. Also, welcome back. I saw you editing a day or so ago but I wanted to see if it wasn't a fluke before I said anything. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit pissed at Jytdog for something unrelated. So I'll give them a little heat for a few days before I completely let it go. I'm back off and on. I'm going to hit up a library here this weekend to dredge up whatever I can find on the USS Arizona Memorial and try to get it to GA class.--v/r - TP 23:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Kittens don't care about the size of your hands.

Strongjam (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&oldid=714252300"