User talk:MarkGallagher

Archives

1. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive1 — July–September 2005
2. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive2 — October–December 2005
3. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive3 — January 2006
4. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive4 — February 2006
5. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive5 — March 2006
6. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive6 — April 2006
7. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive7 — May 2006

Your RfA comment

..is really unnecessary and in your own words, "silly".

Nathan's behaviour on this RfA. Given that ILP makes a big deal of how he'll stand by his friends no matter what, I think his friends have a responsibility to get behind him here and not piss people off unnecessarily. That's just silly.

What is your point exactly ? Please get to it, if you have one. I deleted every comment I made that was even remotely attacking/incivil. I made a good faith effort to clean up my mess. Why are we rehashing this over and over?

So what, i objected to a few votes where I should've done in private but you know what? I'm not perfect, and neither are you. Making a mistake doesn't mean "throw it in my face later on".

There is really no point to mentioning this stuff, stuff that has already been fixed. Just let it go. That's what I was trying to do. Mentioning this stuff again only serves to spread negative feelings. This looks really malicious from where I sit, whether you intend to be or not. — Nathan ^(talk) 07:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it. Please come onto the Rfd on G. Patrick Maxwell, if you have a chance. I am exhausted, and really tired of the insults I have been receiving there. Ian said he made a note there and I believe he is trying to help and do the right thing, but I haven't had a chance to look at it. This has gotten way out of control. Midgely and Oliver's comments are, in fact, verging on liable - of both me and Gfwesq.MollyBloom 14:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell RfD and Midgley - HELP Please!!

Please help me on the comment page of Rfd. Midgely falsely accused me of removing his comment, then went on a rant about my alleged bias (as if he and Oliver don't have one). He threatened me, and insulted, and frankly, defamed me. Ian is being very timid in correcting this. HE did say that he moved the comment but that is all. He feels he is too 'involved' to admonish Midgely. If this is allowed to continue, Wikopedia will suffer and Gfwesq and I will continue to b e defamed. Gfwesq has proven to Ian that he and I are not the same person. This is unbelievable and it is worse that it is allowed to continue. PLEASE HELPMollyBloom 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is only a part of what Midgely wrote in his accusation of me, and this is Ian's response: Deletion of comments One of the pathognomic features of advocacy in pursuit of an agenda rather than an effort to write an encyclopaedia of general use seems to be deletion of other people's comments from for instance AFDs. Mollybloom dleted this comment of mine, and therefore affected what subsequent participants might know of the background. [15]

Note: Right, that diff shows it moved down, if you scrool down, you see it reappears, it seems that just a linebreak was added. Unfortunatly, this comment did manage to vanish when I moved a rather big chunk to the discussion page (since it wasn't all directly relevent), unfortunatly, I wrongly took that comment with it. [16] Ian13/talk 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Please may I ask you try and WP:AGF, especially when you are involved in a dispute, it helps keep everyone happier, and prevent disputes getting out of hand. Good luck! Ian13/talk 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Please help with this. This can't be allowed to continue without someone putting a stop to these outrageous insults.MollyBloom He then went on a page long, unbridled screaming rant about me. Is this acceptable in Wikopedia? Would someone please step in and do something?MollyBloom 14:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for explaining your reasons, it was very helpful and I will work on all of those things. But there is one thing I have a quetsion about "His views on AfD suggest a tendency towards vote-counting that I'd like to see well and truly stamped out before he runs for adminship again." I know of no other to decide if an article should be kept or deleted, if you could tell me or show me something that does tell me how to appropriately close one, I would be very thankful. ILovePlankton 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does make a lot of sense. Thank you very much for answering my question. ILovePlankton 14:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Hi. I answered your questions at my RfA. Please comment/vote accordingly. - Richardcavell 00:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Need help with personal attacks

I need help with Midgely. He has been warned by other admins against making personal attacks, I have requested that he stop, yet he continues to do so. He has made false accusations (which an admin set straight) with no apology, and continues to mallign me on the talk pages on the rfD for G. Patrick Maxwell. Will you or another admin please ban him from editing until he can become civil? How many times must he be warned? This is not right. I have also received emails from other users (whom I didn't even know) who told me he has a history of doing this, when he disagrees with what an editor wrote or did. How many warnings are needed before something is done?MollyBloom 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Specific Quotes & Pattern

It is a pattern of harassment.

This is a pattern of misrepresenting what I say or have done, articles i have edited, all in an attempt to discredit and inflame. There are threats. There are untruths. And continued diatribes.

Accusation of being sockpuppet -- Midgley's accusation that Gfwesq and I are the same person (we are not). We are married, but that does not mean we cannot think independently. We are both lawyers, but last time I checked that did not make us the same person, either.

• 1. "Is it clear that Gfwesql and Mollybloom are entirely separate?" Midgley 22:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

After this comment, an administrator (whom Gfwesq gave his bar license to prove we are different people) expalined this to Midgely. Still, Midgely continues to imply that we are sockpuppets.

• 2. "The question I asked was whether we are sure that two of the editors posting overlapping comments, one of them with a very short and restricted list of edits were independent of each other. I see that we are sure of their degree of independence, and it seems to me entirely reasonable that now we are sure of that degree, we can read their remarks in context."

Personal Attacks & False Accusations that have nothing to do with Rfd
1. "A review of Mollybloom's contributions shows a clear agenda - a single-minded approach to anything to do with breast implants and now apparently surgeons who do breast implants. It doesn't appear to me that this suggested deletion has anything to do with producing an encyclopaedia, it does seem to me that it is furthering a personal agenda of presenting a particular view to the world and minimising any other aspects' exposure"

This is untrue. If he reviewed my contributions, he would see that I have weighed in on evolution, criminal, property and constitutional law, connective tissue disease, political articles... This is hardly a single-minded approach to anything with breast implants.

If Midgely would worry more about defending his own position and arguing the merits of keeping this article and less about making personal and irrelevant attacks on me, there would not be this 'brawl'. The brawl he describes as a reason for prematurely closing the Rfd in favor of Keep.

2. False accusation using it as a forum for personal attack
"Deletion of comments One of the pathognomic features of advocacy in pursuit of an agenda rather than an effort to write an encyclopaedia of general use seems to be deletion of other people's comments from for instance AFDs. Mollybloom dleted this comment of mine, and therefore affected what subsequent participants might know of the background. [2]"
SOME OF THIS DIATRIBE WAS DELETED BY AN ADMIN.
And so he posted this comment a second time:
"Comment A review of Mollybloom's contributions shows a clear agenda - a single-minded approach to anything to do with breast implants and now apparently surgeons who do breast implants. It doesn't appear to me that this suggested deletion has anything to do with producing an encyclopaedia, it does seem to me that it is furthering a personal agenda of presenting a particular view to the world and minimising any other aspects' exposure. "

Proof that this was a false accusation:

From the admin: Note: Right, that diff shows it moved down, if you scrool down, you see it reappears, it seems that just a linebreak was added. Unfortunatly, this comment did manage to vanish when I moved a rather big chunk to the discussion page (since it wasn't all directly relevent), unfortunatly, I wrongly took that comment with it. [3] Ian13/talk 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3. MORE False accusations

• "Spreading interest and edits over a range of topics (where breast implants and surgeons who do breast implants are not two different topics) seems to me to improve the quality and balance of the edits tot eh main topic of interest and to improve WP in the other areas as well. I commend that approach. I'm inclined to think that people only showing one interest should be suspected.>Midgley 11:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Editing only breast implants and now this does not help to tune into the WP way and norms, and I suspect several people enjoy their experience less as a result. Which is not good.

Midgely did not sign this, but it is abundantly clear that he wrote it, given the context and similarity with his other insults.

Again, I will note that I have contributed to a number of articles, and am a member of the WikiLaw project. I have edited on articles about law, politics, medicine (I have expanded a section on connective tissue disease, since it is an interest of mine) and soon FLorida since I found out there is a FLorida Wiki project. His accusation here is patently untrue. It is designed to attack and inflame. It is also a clear pattern since he repeats it in every other comment he makes, as a means to discredit me.

4. More attacks and bringing into an Rfd my contribution to a different article, that he didn't like.
"partly becuase this is a clear attempt to subvert WP procedures and norms, partly because to delete one article in furtherance of an agenda would encourage further depredations, and partly because assertions that someone is not notable becuase they are not in the newspapers but in peer-reviewed journals should not be supported.

That is not why I recommended deletion. I am well aware of what peer-reviewed journals are, and the import of them. I never said that this person is not notable because he is not in newspapers. Once again, this is a false and inflammatory accusation.

A personal attack even on his own talk page

"MollyCoddling
(save time - ---> User_talk:Midgley/molly01"

Innuendos and Threats

1. "Some people may hate this, but ...". Midgley

2. "I feel a claim to an interest given I first proposed this article for deletion and have observed and assisted its improvement since is reasonable, and that the reaction from User:Mollybloom is, yet again, entirely unreasonable, and that hte blocking policy relating to alterations to biographies of persons yet living also may apply."
If he feels this way, he should lodge a complaint, and stop the personal attacks.

The fact is that a number of people (including admins) have 'voted' for deletion of the article in this Rfd. IN fact, more people have 'voted' for deletion than for keep.

3. " I suggest that an RFC on MollyBoom's activities related to breast implants and now this afd should be called and that a ban on editing any article related to plastic surgery would be appropriate and improve the quality of the WP"

THIS IS ABSURD. He does not like what I wrote or did, so he wants to ban me? And why is he discussing this on a talk page in the RFd, rather than filing a complaint?

My RfA

I appreciate your explanation of why you won't vote. My RfA has ended regardless.

I ought to say that I agree that what you're saying to me should be how an administrator shall act, but my understanding of the policy is as I have explained. If you can point out why my interpretation of the policy is wrong, I'm glad to hear it. As you know, I'm an inclusionist and I think that AfD tends too strongly towards 'delete'.

I actually have a theory that 'Articles for Deletion' should be retitled 'Articles for Scrutiny' or something like that. The focus for participants would not be simply voting whether to delete the article, but actively trying to improve it while it's listed. Like getting an article to be a featured article candidate, but in this case, making it tolerable. -Richardcavell 05:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE

Midgely turned the Rfd into a forum to attack me. Not one admin is doing anything about it, other than meek warnings. Midgley has made one insult after another, accused me of "only" editing breast implant cases, misrepresented and outright lied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G._Patrick_Maxwell

Is Wikopedia a joke? Can any Rfd or article be turned into a forum to attack an individual?

It appears so.

A user like Mideley is free to turn a Wiki article or Rfd into his own forum for personal attack. He has included a large chart now that shows every edit I have made in the realtively short time I have been on Wikopedia. He implied that a case Lochner v. New York, was somehow related to Breast Implants. Um? Lochner is a wage and hour case from the early 20th century. It is about bakers. He wrote that my edits on connective tissue disease are there because silicone implants are claimed to cause it. My edits on ctd are there because I have been diagnosed with lupus and have done a significant amount of research in this area. Nowhere on the entry on ctd did I even mention breast implants.

Are you and other admins going to allow this to continue? I have received personal emails from people I didn't even know telling me that this is Midgely's style - to badger, harass, bully and intimidate until he forces off Wikopedia those people whose opinion he disagrees with .

If this is Wikopedia, then maybe I will leave.

It is not an encyclopedia. It is a free for all for those who are bitter with time on their hands.MollyBloom 17:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is substantially untrue, and where correct of little importance. Molly interprets advice as attack, disagreement as bullying, RFC as "badger, harass, bully and intimidate" and The Invisible Anon as worth taking advice from[1]. I'm not the only person on the end of a windstorm. WP provides the contributions for a purpose, and the reason for applying arithmetic to Moly's contribution history was simple - I looked at the list and said it showed an overwhelming preponderance relating to Breast implants - maxwell being a surgeon whose bio shows he does them I regard as part of that subject. Molly disputed this, claiming lots of other edits, so I counted. 35 of approx 2250 are not apparently linked to BI. That includes the Lochner case, which I suppose I should have read, rather than inviting people to guess what it was about. Molly like her declared husband tends to assert that I (or others) have said something precise which is not what we said - an example above is that I noted that claims have been made that Silicone from implants causes connective tissue, but didn't suggest that was why the edit was made - 2250 is too many and even 35 is too many to analyse beyond the title, edit summary, and known associations. I classified that edit as other - not related to BI, making the example disingenuous. I have suggested that Molly and the BI article are cause for an RFC. I think they are. Having born the brunt of starting the RFC on "The Invisible Anon" - who declared he had a perfect defence to everything and then ... vanished, and the Whaleto RFC which actually has worked, to I hope everyone's satisfaction, with Whaleto remaining, and with invovlement in an ArbCom case on Ombudsman I regard as one good reason why it should not be me that starts it. You might wish to correspond with Ian13 who is the admin in the midst of the AfD referred to. Midgley 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

An Admin's Point of View

Hello again. When you get an opportunity could you take a look at Talk:Gastric bypass surgery? I need an admin's point of view in the advertisment portion of that talk page. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks

MarkGallagher, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing RFd

I withdrew the Rfd for Maxwell. It has become a free-for- all forum to launch personal attacks, and to discuss everything but the merits of the Rfd. Since no administrator has seen fit to do anything to stop it, I am taking action to protect myself. I have deleted the personal attacks and discussion that has nothing to do with the Rfd. Someone needs to do something to stop it, and nobody will. THis may be the last I ever participate in Wikopedia, because I don't think much of this kind of selective monitoring/administering. This is not personal to you, so please don't take it that way. However, I have received emails from people I don't even know saying that Midgely has a long pattern of bullying and intimidating anyone with whom he disagrees, until people just leave Wikopedia. I do not know if this is true or not, but judging from what I have seen, I would believe it. I am truly astonished that no admininstrator has put a stop to the pages and pages and pages of venom.MollyBloom 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

You deleted the article? I have gone through the vote tally and the majority has voted to keep the article. What is the meaning of this? I created that article in good faith. -- -- User:Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind}13:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

G'day Jason,

thanks for your query. I stated my reasons for closing the debate as I did when I closed it. I can't imagine why you think the vote tally has any relevance to the way I or anyone else closes AfD discussions. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

the matter here is your action of deleting the article when the consensus of the descussion clearly was to keep the article.

Final tally:

Delete -- 4 votes

Keep -- 7 votes

Merge -- 4 votes

I read your reasons. And I read the postings of others there during the past week. You can't imagine why I think the vote tally has any relevance? Well, lets see -- I can not imagine why I shouldn't. Your stated reasons (IMO nonsense, given the past month of discussions) are mentioned in discussion and countered by the others. Discounting my own comments, the others voted to keep the article. So I think a better answer is required.

I correct myself -- I DEMAND A BETTER ANSWER!

I got no response, that was the reasoning for the pillars (it is removed). you say you acted in good faith -- in that, I belive you. Thank you -- User:Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind}

File:HAL icon.jpg

Thank you for the kind reply. When I posted the four pillars it was because I appear to be speaking to a group of people who do not want or are not willing to listen. Over a 2 month period I laid out in discussions fact upon fact. So much fact, that I belive I had effectivly refuted all of the accusations you listed as your reasons for endorsing AfD of the article. I have laid out the facts again in the DR and (with one exception) again fallen on deaf ears. One person even ridiculed the length of my rntry instead of the facts! Again, thank you for your kind reply today. It is appreciated. As for me, the way things are going, even though the action may be right under the letter of policy, I feel (considering all facts I have previously laid down) that is wrong under the spirit of the policy. This user thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best science fiction film ever made. As I said time after time again and again over a 2 month period -- the matter was covered at length. I belive (then and now) that I refuted every single accusation. Check the various related talk pages including the Deletion Review. Are you seriously saying that with all this, I have not refuted the charges which you upheld? Jason Palpatine 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC) speak your mind

Notice is served

I am notifying you that I have listed the article you have deleted on Wikipedia:Deletion review with a formal request that your descision be overturned. -- User:Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Messages from Djing1985

Im new here why was my article deleated? Entitled Mark Bassett i was in the middle of working on it!

I have no idea why i cant seem to msg you, its very strange, please help me im a newby, and i have read through the wikihelp apparently you should be able to help me

Right i think i know what is happening but please help still

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djing1985 (talk • contribs) .

The Humphrey flap

Hi Mark--I actually do know more or less what I'm talking about, but I misread the situation because I didn't connect "Mark Gallagher" with "fuddlemark", sorry. Rather than a known editor and admin undoing an inappropriate speedy, I thought it was just someone removing it because he wanted the article kept. (The copy of it as User:Chadibaggio muddied the water too, I think, and your edit summary didn't exactly clarify things.) Anyway, mea culpa, and no... aggression or high-handedness intended. · rodii · 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your message. Not to belabor this, but: I'm not someone who typically acts on the basis of who is editing, except that some editors make me look a little harder. My natural predisposition would have been to revert your deletion of the tag for a few reasons. One, because it was being discussed at speedy deletions as a hasty removal of a speedy tag (as opposed to appropriate removal of a PROD) with a non-communicative edit summary; two, because of the confusion generated by RHaworth's userfying of the page making the autobio issues unclear. Now in retrospect I can see that the autobio issues weren't really unclear--I should have taken more time to look at the histories instead of just assuming that the person asking about it was correct--but at the time it seemed the better course was to restore the tag and have the discussion as is.

The way in which your identity comes into it was that if I had realized who you were, I would have been less inclined to worry about it, because I trust your judgment as an editor and as an admin. But as it was, there was no obvious way to decide whether this was a bad-faith, vandalistic removal, a mistake by someone who was treating speedy like PROD, or a knowledgable action by someone experienced enough to make it, so it seemed like the prescription was to discuss it more fully. We do ask editors to put {{hangon}} on pages for that very reason. People do remove speedy tags inappropriately all the time, and they do get reverted while discussion is taking place. If your edit summary had said "doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria" instead of just "No." it probably wouldn't have provoked that reaction, but "No" raised the possibility, at least, that someone was just being obstructionist.

All of this is not to accuse you of going outside process or making a "mistake." I'm just trying to explain my motivations and argue that I wasn't making a mistake either (except perhaps in not examining the edit histories sufficiently). So yeah, your message to me in your edit summary was a bit... "crotchety," I think. Just explaining your reasoning rather than telling me I didn't know what I was doing would have done the trick, I think.

Hope this clarifies things somewhat. I'm not fixated on process, if that's the way I am coming across, and I don't mind finding out I was wrong, but I'm less happy being considered clueless. · rodii · 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi can you delete this page? Thanks.

User:Anonymous anonymous/note Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks again. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 12:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely related request

Hello Mark: I have somewhat randomly picked you to request non-urgent admin support. Could you review my interaction w/ User:67.170.224.208? I have been a bit of hardliner on blanking User talk:67.170.224.208 and we've locked horns over it. Note that this anon has made a number of good article contributions and seems aware of some WP policy. -- Paleorthid 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD question

Hi there. Not a big thing, but I've got a curious streak in me and had to ask about the close you did on the Tamara Klisaric AfD discussion today. I've never seen a discussion blanked for privacy reasons before, and looking at the page history I don't see anything that looks different from hundreds of other such closed discussions. Any reason for the 'privacy' issue in that case? Note that I'm not being critical in any way, I'm just a regular AfD follower and user who's steadily expanding his knowledge of how things work, and this move has me baffled, so thought I'd ask. Thanks! Tony Fox 17:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review

I had a bad edit conflict with you editing this. I tried to put all your words back, could you check to see that I did so? Sorry for any inconvenience. Diffs suggest I got them all... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Chronicles of America

I proded the original version of this article, which, if my memory serves, was called Chronicles Of America. At the same time, I proded a related article, Oliver Knox about a character in Chronicles Of America. I did that because I cannot find any trace of the book or the author on Amazon. Now Chronicles Of America has disappeared as nn, so I guess someone else nominated it as a csd. Meanwhile, the original editor removed the prod on Oliver Knox without explanation. Chronicles of America has reappeared, so I nominated it as a csd (for recreating). You turned this down. I'm lost now. I still think these two articles are hoaxes or possibly vanity pages, which ought to be removed. What options are open? Just AfD? TIA, Mr Stephen 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My speedies

Hi. I notice you've removed a couple of my {{db}} tags; I'm a bit of an inclusionist myself, but I'm averse to use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. In the case of Jon Morby, it would appear that anything useful has already been merged, since that was the previous decision of the AfD and the article was then deleted. (I can't see the old version, but you can). You suggest a redirect. Where would a redirect go? To Fidonet or Opus-CBCS, the latter which I've just marked as a copyvio. Of course, all the content is preserved on User:Jon Morby, which I'd say would be the best place for it.

On Re-invention, certainly the article mentions two EPs (doesn't mention any record label, could be self-released), but this is not as I understand it an assertion of notability under the WP:BAND guideline. Double-checking, I can see the same user created a good article about another Brisbane band, but I would suggest skwik or indiepedia are better places to put these. This is the way I look at it: please correct me if I'm overlooking something, and/or should take the pages to AfD. --Cedders^tk 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)