Jump to content

User talk:Gamaliel/Archive16: 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
new section
Line 285: Line 285:
==Would you like to comment==
==Would you like to comment==
Hello Gamaliel. I wonder if you would like to comment here [[Talk:Martin Landau#Birthdate]] on the references that I found tonight. You did such a good job helping with the situation on the Kim Thomson article that I thought you might be able to help here. If you aren't interested please ignore this. Let me also state for the record that I am not asking you to agree with my post. I trust your research skills and am hoping that the can help here. I am also hoping that we can avoid the "circa" stuff. Sadly, we may have to wait until he passes away (may that not be for many years) for his obits to settle this. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel. I wonder if you would like to comment here [[Talk:Martin Landau#Birthdate]] on the references that I found tonight. You did such a good job helping with the situation on the Kim Thomson article that I thought you might be able to help here. If you aren't interested please ignore this. Let me also state for the record that I am not asking you to agree with my post. I trust your research skills and am hoping that the can help here. I am also hoping that we can avoid the "circa" stuff. Sadly, we may have to wait until he passes away (may that not be for many years) for his obits to settle this. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

==Just Telling the truth==

Sorry if the truth is uncomfortable.[[Special:Contributions/74.192.7.135|74.192.7.135]] ([[User talk:74.192.7.135|talk]]) 22:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:08, 24 April 2011

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.

Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user and remember the most important rule on Wikipedia.

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 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11

Help with possible user vandalism/NPOV

A user that you previously warmed about edits with this IP 76.168.205.230 continues to make change to the Villanova Law article. The changes are rarely explained, and some have altered researched and sourced content. Additionally, some changes remove the NPOV nature of the entries. Rather than adding to the informative nature of the entries, the user's edits continue to change the article to provide a certain slant/perspective.

The user has made changes to the entries for other law schools and has been warned about several on his/her talk page. I initially became aware of the changes after the user posted a new entry that contained citations but then proceeded to made several statements that were not supported by/misconstrued the cited material. I am not a regular wikipedia contributor and so I thought that I would mention this to you because you had previously given the user a warning and would probably know what to do. Thank you!

108.16.139.97 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the editor's talk page and I'll keep an eye on him or her. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Name change?

Hey Gamaliel- Looks like you've been around these parts for quite a while so I was wondering if you could help me out with something -- If it's possible, I'd like to change my username from Arbor832466 to just Arbor8 or something else that doesn't involve a long string of numerals. Is name-changing kosher? Is it possible? If I do it will i lose all my history and edits? Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty easy if it's a clear cut change and no one else is using the new name. Just go over to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. IRRC, your entire edit history moves with the name change. Gamaliel (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dershowitz

At 20:53, 1 March 2011 you reversed a revision I made because, as you wrote, "I don't think we need two more paragraphs of what has already been adequately summarized, esp. if it's only taken from one side of the dispute and not a neutral RS".

I don't think the 'Norman Finkelstein' section on Dershowitz' page is adequate. Finkelstein's accusations went far further than an unacknowledged quotation of Mark Twain. That is why I copied & pasted more from the 'Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair' page: -

"In addition, Finkelstein provided what he claimed is evidence of plagiarism in instances where Dershowitz reproduced the exact errors found in Peters' citation of original sources, and thus argues that Dershowitz did not check the original sources he cited, a claim that Dershowitz adamantly denied.[9]

"Finkelstein noted that in twenty instances that all occur within about as many pages, Dershowitz's used some of the same words from the same sources that Joan Peters used, largely in the same order. Several paragraph-long quotations that the two books share have ellipses in the same position, Finkelstein pointed out; in one instance, he claimed, Dershowitz refers to the same page number as Peters, although he is citing a different (1996) edition of the same source, in which the words appear on a different page.[10]"

Do you follow my reasoning, or do you maintain the Twain accusation is adequate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.71.107 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning. I don't think you get mine. My problem is that I wish to see either a shortened version of your additions or coverage from a third party reliable source. I don't think two paragraphs of allegations from one side of a dispute is fair or appropriately weighted. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that first edit was hasty. The new one is more satisfactory, I hope. It is in fact only a copy & paste of the second paragraph of the related main page, which seems reasonable.


You were right: my first edit was inadequate.

I hope you will agree that my latest edit, the New Version, is much better.

The Old Version (i.e. what I saw before editing) was woefully inadequate: obscurely placed & hard to find; in the wrong section, among 'Views' for some reason; & by no means a decent summary.

The New Version is in a section of its own, near the bottom, & gives a broad outline of the affair & a link to the main page dedicated to the affair. It gives both academics' side of the dispute & mentions Harvard's support of Dershowitz.

As such, I think the Dershowitz page is now improved & a better resource for Wikiepedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.71.107 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good to me. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility - Reply

Hi there GAMALIEL, VASCO from Portugal here,

even though i totally agree with the description below the first picture on your user page: i did not attack a "specific editor", i attacked a lowlife vandal. Yes i know it is against site policy, but i am undoubtedly losing it over these "users", don't they have anything better to do?

I have been here for 4 1/2 years, and everytime i have tried to improve on my manners overall, but i just cannot when it comes to vandalism. That said, sorry for any inconvenience and have a nice weekend! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Lieberman

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Lieberman. Robofish (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inception (film) or Inception.......

Hi there, I think you should not change Inception (film) to Inception, coz when I type up a name of a movie I always put (film) at the end, & that is the one I chose. Haven't watched the movie yet but will very soon. NCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.125.200.229 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should add your comment to the discussion Talk:Inception_(film) as the decision isn't up to me, it will be arrived through that discussion. I should note that if the article is moved, a redirect will take you to the article when you type in "Inception (film)". Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Old Man Murray piece

Hey, just wanted to drop you a line to let you know the article you wrote in the Signpost about Old Man Murray was excellent. Nice work on the research and contacting all the involved parties; I think you hit just the right note with the piece. —Torchiest talkedits 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's always good to hear that I've done a good job, all the more since it's my first Signpost piece. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Martin (American Politician)

I was trying to correct the record, not vandalize. I have never done this before. Please advise me as to how I can properly edit the record; eliminate inaccurate information, information that isn’t true. If I’m not allowed to do this, is a counter point acceptable? With regard to South Florida, lucky win………GO PITT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.93.41 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if you brought up your concerns on the discussion page. Do you feel the article inaccurately portrays what is found in the sources? Or do you think that the sources themselves are inaccurate? If so, you will need to provide your own sources disputing those articles. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper venues

Hi Gamaliel. This note was left to you on an article talk page. I'm moving it here, in case you wished to respond to it. It doesn't contain anything about article improvement, so it really doesn't belong on an article discussion page. Do with it what you will:

Gamaliel, I just checked your profile and whoever that other person is, he is right. You have a thing on there that says you support the democratic party of the united states, and its also obvious by your use of "Fox News cliches" attack that you carry a bias around with you. I think what the other anonymous person is trying to say is that the controversies you have been choosing to delete cast a bad light on the liberal philosophy that they, and you, probably hold, yet you left alone the Juan Williams comments that were made on a conservative news organizations channel. This is a double standard. I will be reverting your edits and keeping an eye on this article for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.230.213 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving this. Whenever I remove personal comments like this which clearly belong on a user talk page, I end up getting in a talk revert war in addition to an article revert war. Gamaliel (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought I had drastically misread it when I checked again yesterday because I jumped up two ranks. Appreciate the note because now I know it wasn't a failure of reading comprehension. Gamaliel (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Bones

Thanks for the patrolling of the Skull & Bones page. I had left that editor a message about the unreliability of the sources he was using, but he never responded, and I hadn't gotten around to revisiting the page. (Having too much fun with images right now.) So many thanks. Cheers, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been meaning to get to it for a while, I have a quixotic dream about taking that page to featured list status. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see you have some experience with Lee Harvey Oswald (mentioned on your page), so you're no stranger to the conspiracy theorists (who abound on the web). The Bones page attracts more than its fair share, as you know. Between the two of us, maybe we can clean it up. I try to keep an eye on individual entries in which I have an interest, especially that of Daniel Coit Gilman, responsible for so much in American graduate school education. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't realize you were a longtime veteran of that page. I guess the last few years of edit-patrolling on there must have rendered me a bit unconscious when it comes to that page! MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd call myself that. Maybe absent veteran. I did a lot of work on it, but I don't think I've edited the S&B page since 2007. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I think my first edit there was probably 2008, but after a few years doing mostly reverts, I have sort of stepped away myself. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

my bio

Hello, I see that you have been working on the entry on me, and I would respectfully ask you to consider enlarging it to include descriptions of my career, and all of my now five books, and if you are going to retain the section on the Mirabella Howard Kurtz episode, it would be more accurate to title it "Controversy." If you want to describe my politics, I have a much wider set of political views, which can be discerned from the Huffington post writings and elsewhere. The design of the entry was created by someone calling himself "atheist preachers son" whose bio here indicates he is a pro-life conservative in DC. This person obviously had an agenda in creating an entry on me. Further, please correct, I am now a contributing editor at Elle Magazine, on the magazine masthead. I am no longer at People. I left People to live in Italy and write about the Amanda Knox case. that book will be published in August and is viewable online at Amazon and elsewhere. The title is The Fatal Gift of Beauty. Much information is on my website, and in some of the media about me. Thank you for your help and attention to fixing what has long been an entry designed by someone with a political agenda. Nina Burleigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.128.182 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'll make the corrections and additions you suggested. I think in particular changing the section heading is a good idea because one 13 year old comment isn't really representative of the whole of someone's politics. Time permitting I'll get to adding more information about your books, which of course should be the primary focus of the article, but fighting the ideologues on Wikipedia is time consuming. If you have any further suggestions or objections about your Wikipedia entry please feel free to contact me again. Gamaliel (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Thanks for that, Kindly when you have time, also look at my website and update the list of articles I have written to include The New Yorker, New Yotk Times, The New Statesman and others. These articles are all on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.128.182 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is fair is fair

You threatened to ban me so shouldn't you also ban your admin pal for writing this to me

Hm. You're being deliberately moronic. No one called Jesus a stupid motherfucker or anything. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)--69.14.96.9 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did start it, and the fact that other people are now egging you on is the only reason I haven't blocked you yet. If you prefer, I can warn him and block you. Gamaliel (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following this. So just block, and send me a prose-note. I don't see a personal attack, but if you disagree let me know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's gone, this was the last straw. Gamaliel (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
naw, that was someone else... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was! Juggling a bunch of IP issues, I must have confused them. I'll sort it out. Gamaliel (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with IP

I noticed you had a problem with an IP. This person left this offensive message on my talk page [1]. I left the IP a message requesting they refrain from making such personal attacks. --AnnekeBart (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Gamaliel (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

There's really no reason to be rude :) I did make very detailed reasons in each edit, why the templates were added. I'd really suggest that you draft first in sandbox, or at least utilize "Preview", so your articles aren't going live prematurely. I've been around for quite some time myself, under a number of names, but it isn't a competition of who has been here longer.

Be civil with other editors, even those who disagree with you and those who you think are breaking the rules. Civility is a fundamental rule here at Wikipedia. Collaborative editing depends on people who are willing to work with one another and is harmed by those who are rude and combative. If you have come here to combat another political, religious, cultural, ethnic, or other group, please do it on a message board somewhere and not Wikipedia.

Mgross1988 (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

It's not about competition, it's about the fact that a new page patroller should be able to tell the difference between a genuine speedy deletion candidate and a new article from an experienced user that you caught between edits. I haven't been rude to you at all. The only message I directed at you was a link to DTTR, which you rudely deleted and responded with another template. I've heard much talk that new page patrollers have frequently alienated new Wikipedia editors. If an experienced editor gets buried in templates and robots, I can't imagine what kind of Kafkaesque experience a new user has. Gamaliel (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I was a bit hasty in adding the template (and I apologize for that), however it does seem that drafting in the sandbox or "previewing" first may be a good idea in the future. Mgross1988 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Boxer

Your suggestion is exactly what I have been and am doing. I have discussed it and explained it on the discussion page, sought consensus, and requested help on the notice board. Still others editors do not say anything on the discussion page. Do you have any other suggestion? Rodchen (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made such a suggestion on Talk:Barbara Boxer. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

DYK nomination of E.E. Aiken

Hello! Your submission of E.E. Aiken at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paul Bedson (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U Corbridge

Hi Gamaliel. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch

Hi. I shall be glad if you can join the discussion of the requested move of the article title of Murray MacLehose, of which you may be interested. --Clithering (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hubbard Tweedy

Many thanks for fixing the citation in the John Hubbard Tweedy article concerning his involvement in the Bone&Skulls Society. Personally the original edit did not added too much to the article. However, I do accept your edit. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for Including Jim Marrs’ Book “Crossfire” as a Reliable Source

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trial_of_Clay_Shaw

BrandonTR (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Andreasegde

I am surprised that you templated a long established editor as the above, especially in the context of a WP:WQA query. I would note that User:McCabe has been in long dispute with Andreasegde - and specifically in regard to the issue where an allusion to a swear word was made. I think you should look at the entirety of that section and particularly Talk:The Beatles#Triangular diplomacy where Andreasegde singlehandedly initiated a diplomatic solution over the "LameFest" that is t/The Beatles - one that a few MoS warriors, including McCabe, have expended much effort in trying to overturn a consensus; the needling remark that drew the refactored remark by Andreasegde being regrettably typical of the input by those parties. I fear that you, and the WQA board, have been successfully trolled in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I saw only two messages on the user's talk page so I thought it was a new user, but somehow missed that archive box. Oops. Of course even the best of us lose our cool, but it is still inappropriate and a warning does no harm. I'll leave this matter alone then and leave it to others more aware of the context. You might want to leave a note on WQA letting users know there's more to this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should of course noted that Andreasegde was wrong to utter such words (and it would not be the first time it has been pointed out to him...) Rather than repeat myself, I would prefer to make a link on the WQA page to this section. Would that be alright with you? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for E. E. Aiken

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Would you like to comment

Hello Gamaliel. I wonder if you would like to comment here Talk:Martin Landau#Birthdate on the references that I found tonight. You did such a good job helping with the situation on the Kim Thomson article that I thought you might be able to help here. If you aren't interested please ignore this. Let me also state for the record that I am not asking you to agree with my post. I trust your research skills and am hoping that the can help here. I am also hoping that we can avoid the "circa" stuff. Sadly, we may have to wait until he passes away (may that not be for many years) for his obits to settle this. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Telling the truth

Sorry if the truth is uncomfortable.74.192.7.135 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive16&oldid=425728155"