User talk:Gamaliel/Archive10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:10, 12 February 2007

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 | 3/06-7/06 | 8/06-1/07

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Xanadumoviecover.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Xanadumoviecover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my comments concerning Free Republic

They might have been slightly incivil - but certainly true. The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire

More nuttery from this time period

And even speculated that the US. Gov, not Al Qaeda, bombed The USS Cole : "IMO the Cole bombing, if not another American Reichstag event, is AWFULLY convenient for a lot of Clinton goals.."

Cole bombing - An American Reichstag?

From the Stony Brook Press on Dec 3, 2006:

"Free Republic. HOLY CRAP IN A GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HANDBAG!!! The people of www.freerepublic.com are as psychotic as can possibly be. Now I understand that there are many conservatives that support Bush, the Iraq War, or other Bush Administration policies. But this site, its founders, and its posters take this America-worship to a new level! A new level of psycho has been achieved! Free Republic is another one of these blog sites, a right-wing one, but it’s different from the others, mainly because these people aren’t conservatives, nor are they neoconservatives. They are complete and total fascists. They abhor, though they won’t admit it, every value America was founded on. The moderator and founder, Jim Robinson, deletes any post that contradicts the opinion of himself, his members, and the Bush Administration. If you question any American policies (as long as they are Republican-made ones), you get banned. No questions asked."

More recent criticism of Free Republic See ? Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you need the help

Or would even welcome it from me, but I put in a good word for you. Good luck with this group. I don't envy you getting into the middle of it. - Crockspot 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. They are appreciated. I'm not looking forward to the inevitable shitstorm, but there's nothing I can do about that except put on my boots and hope for the best. Gamaliel 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabelas has reasonably priced chest waders. You'll need 'em!. - Crockspot 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

offsite contact

Love the ready to fuck you up oldschool. Have you a method of offsite contact (messenger, email, etc.)? Thanks. /Blaxthos 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow this to email me. Gamaliel 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semiprotection on Peter Roskam

Why did you sp the article? I see a lot of activity, but I wouldn't call it vandalism, and most of the editing is by established editors, with only one IP lately, and that editor seemed to be adding controversial content, but not vandalism. I added the {{semiprotected}} tag, since you forgot to --rogerd 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruption by a banned user is the reason I semi protected the article. Gamaliel 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roskam/Hinnen

I've had it with this nut and his threats. I am gone from there until he finally gets the community ban he deserves. Let him WP:OWN this thing. I am SO disgusted. --BenBurch 17:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider sticking around. I'm pretty fed up with his behavior to and I was going to smack him with a rolled up newspaper today. Gamaliel 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am on semi-wikibreak, but I will not leave entirely. Now I have a radio network to go run. (BTW, if you want to hear about my several radio projects, just ask!) --BenBurch 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:AN/I Hinnen is self-destructing. Or not. Maybe he'll convince somebody to ban me. At this point I hardly care because he has sucked all the fun out of this activity. --BenBurch 23:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're fed up... a lot of good Republicans in the Sixth Congressional District, which read Wikipedia are fed up with you and your partisan agenda and bureaucratic bullying and partisan little childern. So, grow up and take responsibility for your little fifedom, and truly make the article encyclopedic and neutral in point of view, which should have been done almost a year ago. Your behavior, in that, to allow the Roskam biography to stand for so long in such shabby and partisan tone borders on malfeasance. You don't get it - You're playing in the big leagues with the big boys now.207.67.151.184 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which might mean something if you were not posting from San Diego... http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=207.67.151.184 --BenBurch 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's just baby Joe again. Ignore him. Gamaliel 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the dnsstuff.com thing is accurate. It says I am in New Jersey, but I am in Indiana --rogerd 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNS geo-location is only *mostly* accurate. --BenBurch 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is an anonymous proxy according to a source I just checked; http://www.maxmind.com/app/lookup_city --BenBurch 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert vandal

Hi. You blocked Kione (talk • contribs). I think Neoist (talk • contribs) and NinePoundHammer (talk • contribs) are the same vandal as well; note their contribution histories. I'm not an admin or I'd block them myself. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Neoist has already been blocked by another editor, but I blocked NinePoundHammer. Gamaliel 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Phillips "criticisms" section

Hi. You reverted an edit of mine under the "Criticisms" section of the Kyra Phillips article. I deleted two of the "criticisms" for a good reason: 1) the link referring to the "gay parent" interview does NOT quote Kelly McBride (the person referenced in the Wiki article) as actually "criticizing" Phillips herself; it merely quotes McBride as making a general statement about anchors in general. The link article makes it sound as if McBride is referring to Phillips, but there's no way to ascertain that without a McBride quote directly mentioning Philips' name. As it stands, the gay parent interview criticism in the Phillips Wikipedia article is blatant, off-topic commentary residing in the middle of what should ordinarily be just a simple biography.

2) The included references to the other "criticism" I deleted -- on Phillips' comments during the 2006 French labor protests -- a) don't work (link #8); and b) can't be verified online (link #9).

Unless you can think of a compelling reason to retain the two aforementioned "criticisms" in the Phillips article, they should be deleted. J.R. Hercules 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)It is not "off-topic commentary", it is a reliable mainstream source using a prominent Phillips gaffe as an example of a wider trend.

2)I can't speak to reference number 8, but reference number 9 is a reliable source and I have read the article myself. The fact that it "can't be verified online" is not a valid reason to remove properly sourced information. I will email you a copy of the Financial Times article if you wish. Just contact me via email with your email address. Gamaliel 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty's deletion of my talk comments

Could you possibly ask Tbeatty not to continually delete my talk comments - ones that aren't directed at him with tenuous BLP claims?

I posted the following on the Roskam page regarding the well-documented homophobic breakaway faction of the Episcopal church that Roskam belongs to - and Tbeatty deleted it. He does this on a semi regular basis. tbeatty's deletion

The leader of Roskam's sect, Peter Akinola, supports a Nigerian law that "levies a five-year automatic prison sentence not only on almost every expression of gay identity and sexuality but also on giving advice or support to lesbians or gay men." gay.com This guy is a serious homophobe ! : "UJA, Nigeria, Dec. 20 — The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done." NYTimes Homophobic Bishop No wonder the Roskamites want to downplay his membership in this sect! - User:Fairness And Accuracy For AllFAAFA 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is possibly objectionable is my neologism 'Roskamites' - but he deleted the whole thing. (I posted this on Georgeherbert's page too) Thanks! - FAAFA 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to repost your comments without the phrases "This guy is a serious homophobe" and "NYTimes Homophobic Bishop". If he removes them again after that, I'll have a chat with him. Gamaliel 13:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I've noticed that many believe that some of your actions as a moderator are quite POV. Now, assuming good faith on all sides, might I ask what your opinion is? RW 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions at Peter Roskam

Calton is deleting well-sourced positive material about Peter Roskam: his legislative voting record, including an amendment that he authored on a bill that eventually passed 400-3. I believe that the legislative record should be the centerpiece of a biographical article about a legislator. But I'm been told that if I want to balance all the criticisms that linger in this article from the campaign, I must delete the criticisms. Of course, that would start a dispute with Propol and Goethean. Calton doesn't care to discuss it; he prefers to just delete the material with a less that entirely civil edit summary. Your intervention is respectfully requested. Dino 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:09, 12 February 2007 edit DeanHinnen (talk \| contribs) 2,143 edits →Controversy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:10, 12 February 2007 edit undo DeanHinnen (talk \| contribs) 2,143 edits →Deletions at [[Peter Roskam]] Next edit →
Line 146:		Line 146:
	==Deletions at [[Peter Roskam]]==		==Deletions at [[Peter Roskam]]==

	[[User:Calton\|Calton]] is deleting well-sourced positive material about [[Peter Roskam]]: his legislative voting record, including an amendment that he authored on a bill that eventually passed 400-3. I believe that the legislative record should be the centerpiece of a biographical article about a legislator. But I'm been told that if I want to balance all the criticisms that linger in this article from the campaign, I must delete the criticisms. Of course, that would start a dispute with [[User:Propol\|Propol]] and [[User:Goethean\|Goethean]]. Your intervention is respectfully requested. [[User:DeanHinnen\|Dino]] 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)		[[User:Calton\|Calton]] is deleting well-sourced positive material about [[Peter Roskam]]: his legislative voting record, including an amendment that he authored on a bill that eventually passed 400-3. I believe that the legislative record should be the centerpiece of a biographical article about a legislator. But I'm been told that if I want to balance all the criticisms that linger in this article from the campaign, I must delete the criticisms. Of course, that would start a dispute with [[User:Propol\|Propol]] and [[User:Goethean\|Goethean]]. [[User:Calton\|Calton]] doesn't care to discuss it; he prefers to just delete the material with a less that entirely civil edit summary. Your intervention is respectfully requested. [[User:DeanHinnen\|Dino]] 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)