# User talk:Gamaliel/Archive12

## Thanks

Some people will do anything to avoid answering a question, eh? I gather that's one of the few reasons for editing a talk page that way. I'm glad you stepped in before I saw it. :-) --Doug Weller (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Should have added I'm a native Floridian, Miami. A while ago. Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help. Let me know if he keeps it up. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## Whyh did you endorse a dishonest AFD nomination?

At the deletion discussion for Featherproof books, you endorsed the nominator's demonstrably false accusation that the publisher was a "vanity press." I am curious as to why a responsible person would do such a thing. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

## Lincoln Kennedy coincidences

I see you created the article Lincoln Kennedy coincidences. In case you hadn't noticed, there is another article, Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend, which contains much of the same information, so perhaps a merge is in order. Just wanted to let you know. Zagalejo^^^ 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. Thanks for the heads up. A merge is the best solution. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## Hello

Would appreciate your input/thoughts at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

## Sorry

I'm sorry for my stupid messages, which I wrote for you. Very sorry, because this messages were as you wrote "trolling", so I think that my block was OK. Very sorry Alden or talk with Alden 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

## Bogus

I appreciate you jumping in, but is it your contention that my 3RR report was "bogus"? I stand behind it. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't conceding that point to him, but I agree that my wording was unfortunately ambiguous. I'll try to correct. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
When people take petty bitches to ANI, I'm never sure if it's wisest to respond or let it ride. One the one hand, engaging in back and forth (on ANI at least) probably gives the impression that it's just two kids in a sandbox trying to throw sand in the eyes of the other. On the other hand, I'm hard pressed to allow Arzel to try and trash my name with innuendo and misstatements simply because he got caught with hands in the cookie jar. I also find the SPA comments pretty dubious; I'd bet major odds that it's either Arzel or Jsn9333... anyway, thanks for trying to help. Looks like most people are wise enough to avoid getting entangled, regardless of who is right or wrong (which I'm sure Arzel counts on). Cheers. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right, it looks exactly like what it is (especially the ridiculous and obvious sock/meat puppet) and I wouldn't worry about it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as we are talking about other editors on Fox News, have you run into User:Trilemma before? Now he seems to be diving into my edit history and insisting AIM is a valid source. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will try to turn this into accusations of a cabal or other such nonsense... I have a little experience with him surrounding the Scott McClellan / What Happened articles. Though I wouldn't say he is agenda free (who among us doesn't have some personal beliefs?), he does seem open to productive discourse in my experience. As always, I assume good faith, though we both know AIM is clearly not a reliable source. Regarding that programming question you asked about... just email me and I'll forward the solution to you. Let me know if you can't find my email addy, or if you get no response (my spamfilter might grab your email). ;-) /Blaxthos ( t /c ) 16:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he seems to be a reasonable sort so far, I overreacted. AGF and all that. I should take my own advice more often. Gamaliel (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
He and I seem to have a serious difference of opinion over at Talk:What Happened, but hat's what keeps us honest.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

## Mtracy9 and Edit Warring

I thought you should be made aware of this. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone responded yet? Gamaliel (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it's been there for a couple days now. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

## COI complaint against me

Are you aware of this complaint by User:Arnold1 [1]? Doug Weller (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would completely ignore it, beyond what you've already said. It's clear that Arnold is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, likely John Ennis himself. Someone will probably block him eventually. Gamaliel (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
And the focus of the argument is now deleted. I think he may have helped. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

## Double standards

So you have problems with such language, but when Boody accused others of antisemtitism and trolling, that was perfectly acceptable and did not merit a single word of criticism? Could you be so kind and explain the difference to me? PS. I don't endorse Poeticbent style there and I support your warning there, I just wonder why you have warned him and not Boody.-- 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a point of noting that I have no intention of issuing warnings or apportioning blame for past comments. I've certainly noted that Boody in the past has crossed the line of civility, but most of the people on that article have as well in the past. I thought it was clear that I was only concerned with current behavior. If Boody has made some new inappropriate comments, I haven't noticed them, and I can only plead lack of omniscience. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I should also add that I have cautioned Boody to be more civil in general terms and to avoid comments such as those. Gamaliel (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 23 2 June 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

## Removing footnotes

You left the following message on my talk page.

When you remove text with a footnoted reference, please ensure that other parts of the text that you have not removed do not depend on that reference. See Wikipedia:Footnotes or ask me if you have any questions. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know which specific editorial change that you are referring to...—Preceding unsigned comment added by C08040804 (talkcontribs)

This one. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

## Flora-bama Article Deletion

Greetings,

I just checked the Flora-bama article and saw that it was up for deletion and that you had suggested it be deleted. While I agree that it does not have any references, it is a very notable bar. By far, I can easily say that it is one of the most renown bars of the Gulf South. I added the link to the bar.

Regards,

Joshua Melder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.34.33 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the proposed deletion... I know firsthand that reliable articles exist, and the subject is notable. I'll try to dig up some references soon. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I look forward to it. Gamaliel (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

## Judicial Watch

Yes, you restored a citation, but it is a citation to the Nation, a publication that does not have a neutral point of view and has a record of hostility to Judicial Watch. What you did was restore the introductory sentence of this article offering the Nation's description of Judicial Watch. If I changed the introductory sentence of the ACLU article to offer the National Review's description of the ACLU and then cited to a National Review article, you'd be all over me for non-neutral point of view. Your claim of a copyright problem, which you do not describe (there is no problem) is also a non-starter. Rather than have a continual battle, why don't we agree to put the introductory paragraph of Judicial Watch on the same playing field as the ACLU--that is, just as the intro paragraph of the ACLU describes the ACLU in accordance with the ACLU's web page, so to the Judicial Watch's introductory paragraph should describe Judicial Watch in accordance with the Judicial Watch's webpage. As for the positions, I will leave them as is and then put in a separate section afterwards explaining criticisms of the ACLU's positions (the same could be done for Judicial Watch--a section on Judicial Watch's positions, followed by criticisms). Please advise. In the interests of editorial harmony, I will wait till tomorrow evening to hear from you before making any further revisions to either article. C08040804 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Judicial Watch, where this message is duplicated. Gamaliel (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

## New picture

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I always liked that saying, but I never knew it was Twain. BTW, thanks for the hand at Judicial Watch, arguing with that guy was getting tedious. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

## Swiftboating, Macaca (slur), & Macacawitz

These subjects are related and should be linked. Thanks for your contributions and interest and help in expanding understanding of these subjects and maintaining a NPOV. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If they are related, then you should have no problem producing a reliable source demonstrating this. Until then, we should refrain from making connections between unrelated subjects. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

## Olbermann stuff

I'm a pretty sporadic contributor, so I won't try and fight you too hard on this, but I don't think you're making a very convincing case to rm the tax section. "Importance" and "Encyclopedic notability" are fairly vague, but I certainly think a Yahoo News article on the subject meets Wiki's criteria for notability. Frankly I'm concerned that NPOV is being compromised here. --Kangaru99 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How is NPOV "being compromised"? One yahoo news article doesn't make an issue encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability does not apply to content. It's funny that you mention WP:NPOV, as I fail to see the encyclopedic value in pointing out a miniscule corporate tax issue that was resolved before the issue was published. Removed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

## RCP - Joel

He has been making other contributions, plus it appears he is creating another account. If he really feels that strongly about the NPOV then someone should be making some comments to what the problem is. Arzel (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he should make comments. No harm in giving him a couple of days to get around to it. If he doesn't, I will support your removal of the tag. Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 24 9 June 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

## Hey

Are you sure your ID shouldn't be "Gangsta"? :) :) :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

## keith olberman

i am kind of confused why i need to source something that is an obvious fact? based on your wiki page it appears you are a democrat. is it not obvious to you or anyone else for that matter that olberman is a liberal commentator? i assume you don't think of him as a straight down the line host? Willcoop (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not an "obvious fact". Sure, he doesn't like Bush, but that doesn't make him a liberal, any more than the fact that he doesn't like Hillary Clinton makes him a conservative. Read the article; it quotes him as saying "I am not a liberal". In any case, it doesn't matter what we think, what is required by Wikipedia policies are neutral and reliable sources for that claim if you want it to go in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. Try to find a source that explicitly states that "water is wet"...It's harder than you think. An obvious fact, is just that, obvious AND a fact. It is OBVIOUS to anyone w/o an agenda that Kieth Olberman is a liberal (not the least of which is that FACT that 95% of his worst people are conservatives). If something is obvious, demanding a source is just a way of censoring a viewpoint that you don't agree with. Please stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.3.14 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Your inability to find a source for your suppositions does not make me a censor. Sorry to burst your bubble. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Way to hide behind the red tape. You didn't even defend against the assertion of the obvious fact. And, uh, yes..by hiding behind bureaucracy to keep facts from coming out IS censorship...kind of like our former President engaged in. Please don't be like him. 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.3.14 (talk)
I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm not preventing facts from coming out because you don't have any facts, just your own opinion. Just because you believe it doesn't make it obvious, or even true. Wikipedia is built upon verifiable facts, not unprovable suppositions. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe water is wet and the sky is blue, but try to find sources stating that. It's not a belief when it is obviously true. I was hoping the alleged "Liberal Bias" on Wikipedia was untrue, but you're sadly proving it true. Please don't do so. 72.66.3.14 (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You could easily find sources stating those things, because they are facts. Using a google search I quickly found an encyclopedia article from Oxford University Press that substantiated the fact that the sky was blue. You can't find a similar source for you supposition because it is exactly that - a supposition. The problem is that you can't or won't see that, so from your perspective the problem isn't with you, the problem is "liberal bias", the luminiferous aether of modern American politics. As that well known political philosopher Stephen Colbert noted, "Reality has a liberal bias". This is fun and all, but what is the point? After all, you aren't going to convince me that your opinions are facts and I doubt I will convince you that this secret agenda you imagine doesn't exist, so please quickly find a point to this conversation besides insulting me. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the article saying that water is wet? You conveniently used a selective article to substantiate a point you wanted to make. My guess is that had you been able to find BOTH assertions substantiated by an article in Oxford University Press, then you would have used it. However, you were probably unable to find that water it wet; so, instead, you use the "sky is blue" opinion as a straw man. Doing a google search, I found no good source substantiating that "water is wet" (the UK Guardian is a conglomeration of opinions submitted by people who write in...hardly a source that wikipedia (or you) would accept). And I never made any supposition, I merely supported the supposition of the previous poster. The reason I did this is because no political commentator will EVER say they are a liberal or a conservative (note, I attack both sides). The reason they don't do this is because they realize that it will ruin any credibility they have as a commentator. K/O is clearly liberal, just as O'Rielly is clearly conservative, just as Colbert is clearly liberal. I don't need to convince you of anything, that's the unfortunate position that both sides are on here. You're never going to consider the position that sometimes things are so obvious that they ARE facts (note, I didn't say "opinions" I said "obvious"). Likewise, you'll never convince the other side that you don't have an agenda. It's just unfortunate and partisan; but the one issue that is more likely to be proven true is the former, that obvious things can be facts. After all, if water wasn't wet, why would you need a towel to dry yourself? 72.66.3.14 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. I googled one and only one because I thought that would be sufficient to prove my point and because I didn't want to waste any more time on this argument than I already have. Instead you take that as "evidence" that I'm supposedly covering up my inability to make my point. Everything that disproves your point actually proves your point. I have no wish to further indulge your conspiratorial mindset. If you have something to discuss that doesn't involve your imaginings, please do so. If not, it's been fun, but I have no wish to prolong a pointless argument. As the saying goes, I bid you good day. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

## Email List

Mtracy9 is seeking to have his block repealed. Although his initial request was declined, I was concerned by this response. If he does pursue this email list avenue, would we have an opportunity to state our case as to why we believe he is RPJ, how he has edit warred, and how immediately after the block he created two sockpuppets to avoid the ban before seeking unblock. I'd have no problem if another admin, after reviewing all the evidence reduced or repealed the block. But I would want an opportunity to state my case or at least review the process before it happens. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

## FYI

Guess who may be back for the next presidential election (here's a hint: ). Shem(talk) 05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

## Continuing struggle with User Dan56

Hi Gamaliel. We've discussed the problematic editic habits of Dan56 before. And, unfortunately, the user still continues to be a bit of a rogue when it comes to music related pages. Perhaps, if you have time, you could provide Mr 56 with some more advice as to how music articles should be edited. Thanks, cheers and take care. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow-up. Dan56 is still struggling with adding cut/paste copyvio into articles. He also struggles with the WP:ALBUM guidelines regarding reviews and what constitutes "professional" which, for him, equates to a lot of amateur spam additions. The review field in the album infobox was never intended to be used as a link factory for every single review ever done on any album subject. I have found a few a Dan56's regular haunts where he has added as many as 12 links. The WP:ALBUM project page a a list of acceptable professional review sources that can be used. Dan56 seems to think every single website hosting a review even though many of these sites are not the true authors of the original review. This is falling under the WP:EL rule about "do not knowingly add links to websites that may have copyright violations." Any assistance would be great. Dan56 has several Jazz album articles in his watchlist that are extremely long. But when you read deep into those articles you can see that the entire page is simply cut/paste text from other sites/sources. Troubling. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There may be some misunderstanding. I see from this edit that you removed a blockquote using the edit summary "(rm cut/paste copyvio)". A quote such as this is not a copyright violation as it is clearly identified as a quote and it is clearly sourced. Such a quote may be removed on grounds of encyclopedic style or appropriateness, but there is no violation there in terms of copyright. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just tried a wp:quote clean but got reverted yet again. Articles shouldn't be written by pasting text word for word from external sources should they? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. I know that Dan56 has done that before. But to be able to deal with him we can't lump together non-violations with policy violations. If you can identify legitimate copyright violations, I will act upon them. Gamaliel (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He has been known to upload album covers as "self work" which isn't copyvio I know but still a blatant lie and one knowingly done too. I haven't checked his image uploads in a while but they are worth investigating due to his past history. I am at 3 strikes on the LL Cool J album article and quoting the quote essay about what makes for a bad article doesn't seem to make any difference. When an editor sees "fanboy page" as better than "encyclopedia page" then its hard to sway them toward quality no matter how many policies, guidelines or style essays are mentioned. Speaking of policy though, Dan56 has been blocked for 3RR in the past and now it looks like he has veered that line again without care. He has a tendency to blank any warnings he is ever given almost as quick as he receives them so any editor who stumble on to his regular haunts will never get any sort of pre-warning about dealing with him unless they review his talk page history. I know deleting is the same as acknowledgment but still I think for all the 3RR warnings and similar that Dan, or anyone has received, they should have to stick for 30 days before the user can blank them. Dan56 has violated WP:3RR countless times against countless editors, including you, to try and keep all his copy/paste quote content into the articles that he ignores WP:OWN on. Very troublesome edit habits. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If he violates copyright, I can deal with him, but I can't exactly block him over stylistic differences. You can report him for violating the 3RR at WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, 3RR reports are the most painful thing ever invented on Wikipedia. :-) I'd rather just pretend he didn't exist for a day or two and try and focus on the more productive WP:MUSICIAN/WP:GUITAR project 'to-do' lists. He'll take a powder for a while. (we can hope) and trying to follow him is tough (since he also edits as an IP as well to skip around the 3RR policy) I appreciate your efforts and your advice. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. All bad editing will eventually be replaced with quality some day. Maybe even by a reformed Dan56 eh? Who knows. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree they can be a pain, but they are effective, and after enough blocks even the most stubborn edit warrior gets the message. Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

## Image question

Hi Gamaliel - I wonder if I could seek a bit of advice from you concerning fair use of an image. This is in response to an ongoing discussion on the Al Gore talk page which you can read here about updating the infobox photo. You can read the entire discussion there, but essentially I am arguing that photos in infoboxes for former presidents and vps should be professional, official, portraits in order to maintain quality WP articles. Besides the free image currently in use in the article's infobox, there is another professional portrait online but it is WP:NONFREE. I find the rules concerning images and copyright a bit overwhelming, so I was wondering if you could take a look? Is there a way it can be used? Is permission needed?

Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the rules is limited, but in this case I believe that we almost certainly could not use it because a free substitute is available. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. Is there a way to ask for permission to use it? To contact the photographer etc? -Classicfilms (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not an issue of permission. On Wikipedia the preference is always for the freely usable image, so even if you had permission, the free image would still take priority. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

## Davis

Please hangon - I will open a discussion on talk. I think the reference I cite is pretty clear. Thanks --Justallofthem (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear that the material is acceptable when used properly, as it is in the article in question. Gamaliel (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmmkay :) --Justallofthem (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely serious. It's a legitimate, award-winning publication, and the use of it in the article adheres to the guidelines in the policy you cited. What is the problem? Gamaliel (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Other than that it is a non-notable, one-sided, and derogatory opinion by someone that is extremely biased against Scientology and Scientologists and some of us here (not you) feel the need to trumpet that non-notable opinion in a WP:BLP article? No problem, I guess. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is a different matter entirely than saying it is prohibited by that policy.
I would say that it is in fact notable, since he is the editor-in-chief of a major publication and it speaks directly the specific action taking place and sheds light on what critics think of the work of the subject of the article. One-sided, biased, and derogatory are irrelevant, as it is clearly labeled as his opinion and it's pretty clear that he's a critic. NPOV requires that we present both sides and hear from these critics. Gamaliel (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the letter and spirit of BLP argues against its inclusion. And I argue that that is only underscored by the RS reference I cite. Gotta run, let's see if anyone else chimes in on the talk page. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll take the discussion there then. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

## Edits to Talk:Fred Phelps

I quote from my recent e-mail:

I would like to report a flaw in the bot HelloAnnyong. Recently, I have been defending a user's post on a talk page. The bot in question appears to be reverting my edits without considerable discretion. As a talk page consists and exists primarily for the purpose of discussion and attaining a general consensus on an issue, I believe that the bot is either a) malfunctioning (acting on falsified coding), or obsolete (reverting edits of previously scrupulous origin, which have since its inception proven encyclopedic). I can cite reverts to the talk page for Fred Phelps (excuse my failure to link to said article). The talk page has served as an arena for discussion of encyclopedic inclusion or exclusion. And, until recently, the page was open to influential and academic interpretation. I conclude that the bot HelloAnnyong is overstepping the very guidelines that make Wikipedia free and inclusive.

As you will note, my edits do not constitute violation of any existing policy. Please acknowledge this before proceeding with any further incriminations.

Thank you, John

Please familiarize yourself with the policies at Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. They prohibit defamatory material from being posted anywhere on Wikipedia. The material you keep restoring is clearly defamatory, and thus prohibited. Please do not restore it again. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 25 23 June 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 26 26 June 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

## I like your style dude.

You're totally right about Real Clear Politics. I was reading some of the articles on that site when I said to myself "this seems pretty conservative." So I came to Wikipedia to see what it said and found your comments on the talk page. Right on! It's as fair and balanced as Fox News, or a baseball umpire who tries to keep the game tied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenFehling (talkcontribs) 15:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

## you may

You might want to have a look at User talk:Swamilive‎ and see if you think a reduction in block time is in order. - Nunh-huh 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How this is vandlism, and these 1 and 2 are not?

Your own quote on my talk page regarding this.

"The crux of the issue is that you are pretty free with the word "vandalism". To another user, especially a new user, adding the word "right-wing" to the article of a Fox anchor is logical and not vandalism."

Arzel (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:TWINKLE? I use it regularly. The program creates that edit summary. However if you look at the user talk page of the anon I reverted I clearly noted that the problem was "adding content without citing a reliable source". Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that or many of the other automated tools, I haven't had much time to really qork with them. I did see your edit, I also saw that he recieved a warning after his second edit. The anon in my situation made far more edits before I warned, and made sunsequently many more edits. It just seems like you are more apt to remove accusations of a liberal nature and allow those which are against those you view as conservative. Case in point with John Aravosis. His was not as much of a story as Clark's but it was not difficult to find several reports. 1 23 4 5 67 If I was the conservative agenda person that You and Blaxthos think that I am, I certainly would not have hesitated to add this back into his article. Arzel (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to think you have figured out some kind of imaginary agenda on my part, but once again you have leveled false accusations regarding my motives. I have no problem with you adding that to the article if it is properly sourced and written in an NPOV manner. The offending material failed on both counts. Also, you'll note that while I thought it was a pretty clear cut case I only reverted three times, then brought the matter to the BLP noticeboard for other editors to act upon the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think your previous history speaks for itself. Try a Google News Search Perhaps you should follow your own advice like I have. BTW, your EL to KO criticism to "balance" the article is still gone, as it has been for several weeks now. It was pretty sneaky I must say. Arzel (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sneaky? Yeah, I hacked into newsbusters and broke the link. I'm tired of your trolling and your constant accusations and your paranoid, delusional fantasies. Go away, preferably in a manner which WP:NPA prohibits me from describing in detail. Do not post here again. Gamaliel (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 27 30 June 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, haven't communicated with you in a long time. I need advice as to whether it is ever acceptable to summarize a primary source? I think it is if you don't draw an inference from it at all, but another editor disputes that and I don't want to dig in my heels on it and be wrong. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the summary is done in an NPOV manner, I don't see the harm. What article are you working on? Gamaliel (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Violet Blue (author) Where there is just a lot of problems now. I would invite you to step in and help Orange Mike who has already done some things there, and help keep order. And if you think I am being wrong there, I am as happy to be told that as anything. Its a real mess!!! --BenBurch (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I've only had time to skim the talk page, but if I grasp the situation correctly, you want to summarize the tone of comments made to a post, while the other editor objects on grounds of WP:OR. Perhaps you could skirt the issue by citing a secondary source. I know that there is a Wired article about this mess and I'm sure they probably made some comment about the objections of readers. Gamaliel (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Good enough. I removed it until a secondary source can be found. If you do have the time, please keep an eye there. Major dishonest crap happening there. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

## Rube Goldberg

I'm glad that 4 years later the Rube Goldberg page has finally been restored to what I tried to restore it to way back then with your ridiculous Mike and Ike, Foolish Questions, Lala Palooza, The Weekly Meeting of the Tuesday Women's Club, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and other links all removed. Your "immediate to do list" must still be quite long given those never made the cut in this long timespan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium (talkcontribs) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank yot for bringing this to my attention. I immediately restored the links so it would cause you another four years of discomfort. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

## Thanks!

I was off-wiki for the holiday weekend, so I appreciate your coming to my defense on the Talk:Fox News Channel page. The whole thing surprised me, because I thought my comment was quite unexceptional; on re-reading it, I saw nothing that I'd change or apologize for. Ramsquire has apologized on my talk page. Presumably we can concentrate on trying to improve the article. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

## Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 28 7 July 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

## Archiving talk page threads at Talk:Racism

Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{resolved}} and {{stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

## Ayers election controversy AFD

Hi - one of the editors over at Talk:Barack Obama pointed out[2] that your user name is similar to the Gamaliel Foundtion, for whom Barack Obama worked as a consultant and instructor. I don't know if you would have any obligations to disclose this, or whether it would be a WP:COI even if you were, but because the concern has been raised you might want to clear up whether or not you have a stake in the issue. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the Gamaliel Foundation. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

## 68.75.0.0/16

Just looking into an unblock request at User talk:68.75.172.216, which is unfortunately difficult since I have no idea why the block on is in place. If you don't mind, could you/we/someone change the block reason to something which doesn't apparently accuse a large number of AT&T customers of harassment? From personal experience blocking ISPs and fielding unblock requests, a decent number of people will be offended after they (unfortunately) assume the block reason accuses them of doing such things. {{anonblock}} might be another option, with a <!-- commented --> note if needed. – 07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still Joe Hazelton, and this is the only thing that keeps him muzzled. I'll change the blocking reason. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, that's a name I'm more familiar with. Thanks! – 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need to block 'abusers of the service' but putting a brick wall up for all AT&T users is extreme (to use a polite word) - can you not be more selective ? - you're being personally associated with some very offensive behavior right now.....there has to be some way to act as a censor without being draconian to all users in a subnet. – Paul (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRichm (talkcontribs)

If you have any alternative suggestions on how to prevent this user's daily dose of vicious bile against myself and a number of other Wikipedias, I am eager to hear it, seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

## WB74

I don't know if you are aware, but WorkerBee74 has mentioned you on WP:AN/I (see subsection Article probation). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've added my contribution to the discussion there. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
There have been several ANI discussions and in one of them, after proposing several individual sanctions against multiple editors, it took sometime before they were one-by-one enacted in some way or another. My view is that to resolve issues more quickly and effectively, the area of conflict should be subject to the terms of article probation I've proposed in the link above. However, I'd appreciate if you could state whether you support or oppose that measure being enacted by the community. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk)
Thanks. I've added my two cents there. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just noticed that you are currently engaged in a talk page argument discussion with WorkerBee74. This is an utterly fruitless exercise and I urge you to just ignore him. He will not see reason, he will not back down, and his provocations and repetition of the indefensible will be relentless. For your own sanity, I recommend de-watchlisting his talk page. It's like trying to argue your case with an unholy alliance of Terminator and Borg drone. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that might be the sensible thing, but I've got plenty of things up my sleeve. Such as a dish-drying rack and a comfy chair. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Mike and Ike (They Look Alike)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mike and Ike (They Look Alike), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the `{{dated prod}}` notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

## Richard Wright (author)

Hi, I'm wondering why you moved RW(author) to RW. When I typed Richard Wright into the search box on Wiki, I was looking for information about the Pink Floyd keyboard player, and in fact had never even heard of the american author of the same name. Why does the author merit having the main namespace? all the best Jcuk (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because he's one of the most important American authors of the 20th century. Gamaliel (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Equally you could say he's one of the most important English keyboard players of the 20th century, I still dont see your logic, sorry. Americans are no more notable than other nationalities and authors are no more notable than other professions....so that doesn't really explain why he (the American author) merits the main namespace. all the best. Jcuk (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I see your point but encyclopedias simply don't treat all countries and occupations equally. In any case, take a look in some other encyclopedias and standard reference works and you'll see plenty of evidence for my assessment of Wright's importance. Gamaliel (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 29 14 July 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 30 21 July 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

## Arbitration Committee report

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfert the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

## Greer

Why are you reverting Greer's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.238.189 (talkcontribs)

Please see WP:FRINGE. Gamaliel (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

## 15 minutes

Check this out. At least they spelled my name right... yours was only mentioned en passant, and the spelling error was in the original comment by the flaming anon. Should you care, I'm getting flamed pretty hard by the same anon (appears to have at least 2 IP's)... not sure who it is, but it's obviously a bitter person (most likely someone who got busted for sock and/or troll violations). Anyway, hope all is well. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gameamial? I'm constantly baffled by how many different ways there are to spell my username. Wow, this is the second time recently that I've been dragged into something I played no role in. First, Barack Obama, now this. Is there a message board somewhere where these right-wingers swap Wikipedia war stories? Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, it appears that User:128.118.230.17 really doesn't like us. Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A third point. S/he seems to think you are an admin. Perhaps it is time for you to pick up a mop and join the oppressors. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm finding that people often make that mistake. Maybe so... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

### Blast from past

*

It's Jsn9333. You should recognize him by his accusations, his POV-warriorism, as well as the geographical location of his IP's. I consider all of the following suspect:

This, of course, is a complete violation of the terms of his ANI sanctions. Not sure how to handle it... Suggestions? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would bring it up at ANI and let someone with checkuser play whackamole. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

## :-)

Do you think it is OK to say dont be a dick to a newbie? Bonobonobo (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I do?
So what is shameful about removing personal attacks? How is it being a dick to a supposed newbie (a newbie who already has an enemies list!) to remove his/her attacks as per policy? Gamaliel (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You removed very mild comments in their entiety by a newbie (not me) who was responding to an admin who just called him a dick! Yet those you did not remove.
Up to your same old game I see. You probably didn't even notice b/c you were just hitting on an IRC request link of something. Put the comments back, and simply remove the few words that you think are offensive, don't delete te whole paragraph cos it is just gonna end up in gawker tomorrow (wiki admin censors mild criticism of self, blah blah) Try and think how dumb this whole episode makes wikipedia look and the type of right wing loon who is going to start crusading here a a result of this totally pointless and apparently partisan censoriship. Bonobonobo (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Old game? What game would that be? Personal attacks are prohibited. Removing personal attacks is standard practice. There's nothing complicated or sinister about it despite your attempts to obfuscate the issue. Perhaps your sympathy for the poor oppressed n00b card (please don't pay attention to the enemies list or the obvious sockpuppetry!) will play elsewhere, but not here.
Welcome back, whoever you are. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I wasn't me who left those comments, I am a old hard not a noob. Do a checkuser if you want to make accusations. [namecalling removed] Bonobonobo (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that I think you are User:128.118.230.17‎. I do not. He/she is solely responsible for those personal attacks, not you. But you have made some new ones all your own, so consider this a reminder of WP:NPA and a warning against breaking that policy again. Gamaliel (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh pull yourself toethter, life is too short for this. Bonobonobo (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You are right, life is too short for this. So why don't you stop insulting people and we can get on with the business of editing articles? Gamaliel (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There you go, no hard feelings man. You are a good guy relly. I hope we can get along in future. :-) Bonobonobo (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

## Edwards talk page BLP problem

Do you think it would be OK to delete that portion of Talk:John Edwards#New NE charges: \$15,000 / mo.; baby's name is Frances that repeats the newest allegations from the National Enquirer. Isn't this covered under:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Let alone the balance of this are personal attacks directed at Tvoz. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove the personal attacks, without question. As for the rest, I'd hesitate to remove honest discussion about the NE's story. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I was unclear, sorry. The newest post (just today) says that John Edwards is paying his "mistress" \$15,000 a month. The only source for this charge is the National Enquirer. This is a totally different issue than the previous (and still unproven but echoed in the MSM) allegations. Since no MSM have yet echoed these newest allegations, isn't this a poorly sourced contentious addition to the talk page? The ensuring discussion in this section are reactions to the personal attacks and not debate, honest or otherwise, on the merits of the allegations. Thoughts? 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

## Quit HARASSING me because I'm not a liberal

I know...I know...your job on Wikipedia is to PREVENT any unseemly news about a DEMOCRATIC presidential/vice presidential candidate being given the light of day.

But, why don't you focus on actually, you know, NOT censoring information and QUIT HARASSING editors just because they're conservatives. You can always claim plausbile deniability by saying you were just enforcing the rules. But all you're doing is gaming the system which is against Wik policies. Unless you're a liberal, I guess. lol 204.38.4.80 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy prevents the use of talk pages as a host for your rants. Keep the discussion to article content and not baseless accusations against other editors and your posts won't be removed. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

## Helen Thomas

Ok, it may have not been totally correct. But it was funny as hell, was it not? (Or have you not seen the movie?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.189.219 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep the jokes on the sandbox please. Gamaliel (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

## Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

## Oswald

Explain why you reverted. Dapi89 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have answered on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald, which is where this discussion belongs. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Have we made up sufficiently to tackle this new round together? ;)Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know we were on bad terms. Sorry! Now back to the neverending grind. :D Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
OK.. good, I wasn't sure. Let's do this then. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

## Anna Borkowska

You wrote
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Anna Borkowska. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry... this is happening so fast. I'm in the process of copyediting this article as we speak. I'm sure you'd understand that there's always a starting point somewhere for every new article. Perhaps I should have used a sandbox first I know, but with a couple more edits (before you delete this page again), all traces of possible violations will be gone for sure. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't write articles by rewriting the work of others. We only accept strictly original work here. I'm afraid the policies are clear and require me to be strict. I suggest you start from scratch with your own, original work and that way there cannot be any possible copyright violation. Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You could not possibly have gone over my copyedit which took me over an hour and a half, before you deleted the article again. So you don't even know what I did in the interim. In fact, I was working on it long before I attempted to save my previous edit. Only then did I notice that the page was gone. What am I supposed to do now, when in fact the article was already rewritten from scratch? Do you have any idea how it feels to be treated like this? --Poeticbent talk 03:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I did examine your edit and found many of the same violations I found in the version I initially deleted. I'm sorry if you feel you have been treated unfairly. You are welcome to ask for assistance at the administrator's noticeboard if you feel my actions were inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please, give me a break. Your immediate, second deletion happened in just a few seconds after my recreation of the article. So please, don't tell me that you read what I wrote because even I couldn’t read my own writing that fast. Why couldn’t you be a little kinder and rather than ruining my day place a copyvio tag for me to deal with while I was slowly working on the copy. I'm an experienced writer with extensive knowledge of what constitutes a copyright violation. You know very well that I'm a good contributor. So, why are you trying to teach me such a bitter lesson this time? Do you have a problem with the subject of this article perhaps, which I’m not aware of? --Poeticbent talk 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel slighted, but your accusations are baseless and inappropriate. I have never heard of the subject of the article, but a copyright violation is a copyright violation. You posted an article with multiple exact sentences and near exact sentences copied from two sources. That is a clear cut copyright violation, and since you are an experienced writer, you should know what you were doing was inappropriate. You feel slighted now, but how would you feel if someone stole your own work like that? Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you mistook my unfortunate musings for possible accusations, because they were not meant that way. I will rewrite the article as you suggest, using my own words in an hour or so, and hope that you won't be so trigger-happy next time. However, when dealing with a legal deposition like the one provided by Yad Vashem, changing the carefully chosen words of an official document can be risky, since they (the words used) originate from witnesses to a remarkable chain of events, and can be easily misinterpreted. Not always the new wording provide an answer in a legal environment. It's like trying to say differently that the rain has fallen, or object to saying anything at all. --Poeticbent talk 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: I can only hope you're aware of the fact that my main source, used for this article, is in fact a court document and not somebody's own work in a literary sense (as in original storyline). The actual testimonies of the two involved parties are supplied together with the Yad Vashem deposition. They are on the same website. You can read what one of the witness wrote in 1987 at this address and what Borkowska wrote in response printed here. There's only so much anyone can do in such an instance. --Poeticbent talk 04:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

## Anna Borkowska, Part 2

I would like permission to rewrite this article. I can do it without citing the Yad Vashem source, too. Please let me know if this can be arranged. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

## Deletion review for Anna Borkowska

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anna Borkowska. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Poeticbent talk 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this discussion. However, undeleting the article would be inappropriate. I am also reluctant to unprotect the page to allow you to post a new article since you don't seem to understand why I deleted it in the first place. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A new article on the subject is now online: Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda). There is also Anna Borkowska (actress), so you may want to disambiguate the Annas. Problem solved? Ecoleetage (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I will unprotect Anna Borkowska and create a disambiguation page there. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad to have this subject back online. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm not really sure exactly what I'd be volunteering for there. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

## TfD nomination of Template:Nobel icon

Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Utternutter (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

## Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism‎

I was mistaken, it wasn’t a notice board. It was Docku's agreement with Niteshift36 that the inclusion of the David Adkisson information was a violation of BLP.[3] That would mean that out of 5 or 6 editors who have weighed in on this, you are the only one who thinks it belongs in the article. Now you not only have policy working against you but the talk page consensus as well. Please consider this before you add the information again. CENSEI (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't aware of a discussion on an unrelated talk page, but I will read it and perhaps add my thoughts there. Gamaliel (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I've read the comment and it's hardly agreement, and also a far thing from consensus or agreement on a noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just meant if there are more support for its inclusion. I am going to support it too. DockuHi 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Docku agreed that he did not have a strong position, and if you look at the article's history, he has not edited it since then. That combined with the majority of users on the talk page arguing against inclusion, and it would seem that consensus is not on your side. As far as the Pickler‎ article goes, I have been editing a bit too aggressively. I wont undo again, but I will put this up on the BLP board. CENSEI (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
All I see are you and Niteshift36 on the talk page. As far as Pickler goes, elimination of criticism is not an option, but I agree that we could word it more succinctly. Do you have any suggestions? Gamaliel (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
And Azrel and Bedford. On Pickler, I disagree, deletion is an option, and I will argue that on the noticeboard. CENSEI (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking in the wrong section, apparently. I abandoned the discussion in that section after the distasteful conduct of you and Niteshift36. Perhaps I will start a new section if all parties are prepared to act in a civil manner. If you would, please provide a link to whatever discussion you start on Pickler. It is difficult to keep up with relevant discussion when it is scattered about different pages. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Funny that the only conduct you find distasteful is those who disagree with you. In any case, why is the ruling by 2 admins on the AN not good enough for you? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Really? You are familiar with all the conduct I find distasteful? And I've been asking for a link to this discussion, but between the two of you no one is able to provide one. Gamaliel (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with all the conduct you felt you needed to mention by name in this discussion. Considering that you were talking about me before I was even involved in this one, you can't blame it on including me just because I was there. And I have provided you with the link on the talk page. I re-phrased since you want to concentrate on semantics and take issue with the word "ruling". But the link and quote are the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I blame you only for your conduct in the previous discussion. In regards to the current discussion, all I can do is take issue with the wording because I can't respond to the content of a discussion I have not read and did not participate in Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said, you only laid blame on those who disagreed with you. Don't you think it would be prudent to read the discussion at the AN BEFORE taking issue with anything I've said about that discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Was there poor conduct on the part of people who agreed with me? If so, feel free to point it out and I will deal with it in the appropriate manner. As far as your poor conduct goes, I was speaking of the prior discussion on that article's talk page. Obviously I have no comment about your conduct in a discussion I did not read. Gamaliel (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was, but that has been dealt with already. And you have commented on the discussion when you started making a semantics issue out of the word "ruling". Niteshift36 (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason I can't take issue with your interpretation of Wikipedia policy in general before reading that discussion. The administrator noticeboards don't issue "rulings" - there are a thousand administrators and they often disagree with one another. You are oddly deferential to administrative opinion when the "ruling" concurs with your opinion, but you were outright defiant when another administrator took issue with your clear cut violations of policy. Gamaliel (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Start a new section if you want, but I dont think it will change anyones mind. CENSEI (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As long as people are civil, that's fine with me. Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he doesnt realise Gamaliel is an administrator. DockuHi
Perhaps. Maybe I should have cleared that up by not talking about myself in the third person in my last comment. :D Gamaliel (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of using any administrative powers in this discussion, and even if I wanted to, it is strictly prohibited to use administrative tools to win a content dispute. I only want to discuss the issue as just another editor. The only reason my adminship is an issue is because I pointed out you are treating the comments of one admin who agrees with you as holy writ while you seem to be offended by the very notion of this particular administrator disagreeing with you. Admins differ on in their interpretations of policy, and there are over a thousand of them, that is why we generally don't accept the pronouncements of any single one of them as binding. Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I can accept that. Believe it or not, I'm not unreasonable. Thus far, however, you really haven't discussed the issue on the merits of my contention that the inclusion of the materials conflicts with WP:BLP. So far, the case for inclusion, for the most part, has seemed to be based on the undisputed fact that the book was at the Adkisson home. Nobody has really made much of an attempt to justify the relevence. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said, once I read the comments on AN I will be able to respond to those arguments. It might take me a couple days, but I have my hands full with other articles and discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

## Inappropriate, unexplained changes to The Magus

You have replaced movie reviews in an article which is about the book. (And, high-handedly, given no reason.) The reviews, as I explained, are not about the book, they are about the movie, and belong in that article, only. If there was a comic book "The Magus", a beer drinking song, would you also want to include reviews about them in the book article? 67.169.127.241 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it was inappropriate at all. The fact that the film version of the novel earned extraordinarily poor reviews is certainly worthy of a brief mention. Gamaliel (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gamaliel, this is quite standard on articles about books to include some information about adaptations. Please see some WP:Featured articles like To Kill a Mockingbird, The Lord of the Rings or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for some examples. A film adaptation of a novel is a fairly big deal and it's completely reasonable to include up to two or three paragraphs summarizing the film (WP:SUMMARY if a guideline is needed). --JayHenry (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
JayHenry, thanks for the examples. There are substantial differences to what Gamaliel is doing. The reviews in To Kill a Mockingbird, etc., are simply laudatory comments that continue the laudatory tone of the article in a way that fans of the work are unlikely to scrutinize. Gamaliel is doing something quite different -- he's presenting unfair negative criticism of a novel that's judged to be one of the best of the 20th century. And using as support what might just be a passing comment, or...given Woody Allen, entirely a joke. Your mention of WP:SUMMARY is apt, in particular the section "Avoidance of POV forks". The Woody Allen quote is already made in The Magus (film). That's the appropriate place for it (if anywhere).
1) You have contributed nothing substantial to the article, except to create it, and to add the opinion of someone who was neither involved with the movie, nor is a conventional source for book reviews.
2) The support for your editorial comments suggests you are not acting from a neutral point of view, but a biased and unsupported personal opinion. You said: "Who better to comment than one of the best living film directors?" This is disingenuous reasoning. Who says he's best? Best at what? Film reviews? Self-marketing? Who says being best makes one qualified to judge others? As for "who better", a professional film reviewer -- one with commonly accepted standards. I.e., your justification is wrong in more ways than one.
3) You reverted another edit -- that used a different rational -- that also removed the Woody Allen quotation, without any comment. You aren't citing Wiki policy or guidelines, even though you have been asked to do so. Apparently, you are patrolling your edits, within a few hours of the deletion of "your" quote, you have reverted it. Continuing to make changes without proper justification constitutes vandalism.
4) You haven't answered my comments directly. If there was review about a comic book about "The Magus" would that bear mentioning? A baseball card? Why anyone should treat Woody Allen's comment seriously? His statement is a joke -- or the worst thing that happened to him in his life was watching the movie? Does he return to this subject and explain in detail his reasoning? Not that I'm aware. There's no evidence this comment should be treated as a reliable source.
67.180.49.64 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
1) So what? That's how Wikipedia works. You contribute a little to this article, a lot to another.
2) Allen is considered one of the best living filmmakers. Not my opinion, it's critical consensus. And who better to comment on film than a person considered to be one of film's leading creators. The idea that only professional reviewers can be quoted regarding film is ludicrous. By what standard is Woody Allen less of an authority on film than Michael Medved? Would we strip Wikipedia articles of quotes from the brilliant Hitchcock/Truffaut because both men were film directors instead of reviewers from some local newspaper?
3)You can cry vandalism all you want, but no one will listen because it clearly is not vandalism. I am perfectly willing to discuss my edits, as I am doing now.
4)See the answer to #2 - that's why we should take it seriously.
I find your comment to JayHenry quite telling "he's presenting unfair negative criticism of a novel that's judged to be one of the best of the 20th century". It appears that you feel defensive and protective about this novel, which is understandable. It is one of the best of the century and one of my personal favorites. That someone said something negative about a film adaptation of the novel does not lessen or cheapen the novel's achievement in any way. We're just documenting the facts, good, bad, ugly, whatever they look like. Gamaliel (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've actually read some of the scholarship on this topic, and the film's critical failure (not just Woody Allen) was something upsetting to Fowles. The Woody Allen quote is actually somewhat famous, and it's thus very acceptable to include it. A bad film adaptation does not reflect poorly on the book. Along the lines of what Gamaliel says about good, bad, ugly, whatever. The different tone with To Kill a Mockingbird reflects the fact that the TKaM film is very highly regarded. Lots of great books, however, have been adapted into bad films. It doesn't diminish the book and it's perfectly encyclopedic to note as such when this is the case. --JayHenry (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

## I moved the question about Media Matters from Talk:The Obama Nation to my talk page

... per Wikidemo's request there. My redacting that question may make your answer look confusing, so you may want to remove it from that page as well. Wikidemo had a good point about focusing on edits and focusing on the subject on that page. I appreciate the response. Noroton (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a good idea to move the discussion. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Gamaliel, in your most recent exchange with me at Talk:Barack Obama, you were the one who was being disruptive. Even after I had stopped mentioning other editors and was entirely focused on content content content, you were still snarling and throwing your weight around. If you insist on seeing diffs, I would be more than happy to present them to a neutral admin and let him be the judge.
You need to direct your attentions to Wikilost on that page, if you are truly engaged without bias as an admin. The POV pushing on that page must be stopped. Curious bystander made an excellent point yesterday. Compare the article to any other WP article about a book. The article is a left-wing hatchet job on Corsi. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My comments to keep the discussion limited to content was directed at Noroton, not you, so there was no need for your disparaging response. You have been disruptive on that page and on other pages, and given that these articles are on probation and you have a history of disruption, I suggest you stay well in the bounds of civility and appropriate behavior. If you feel you are currently doing so, great, keep up the good work. If you feel others have been disruptive, posts diffs here and I will look at them. I will not and cannot be an arbiter on content in this article, only behavior. If you feel the content is inappropriate and civil discussion has been ineffective, you can request more editorial eyes at WP:RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

## JasonDeanBrock

I am new here. Apparently CommodoreSloat has been doing this for some time. I was not familiar with the 3R rules. I am not clear of any rules. What I am clear of is CommodoreSloat has an ideological bend that has motivated him to edit my text. I have offered only either new citations or information that clarifies what is evidently misleading. What may appear to have been covered is not really covered if you re-read my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonDeanBrock (talkcontribs) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you are new here let me inform you about some rules we have here: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. That means you don't accuse other editors of having an "ideological bend" or anything else. Other editors are your collaborators, listen to them and discuss problems with them. Your edits have a number of problems which violate Wikipedia policy, and I'm sure CommodoreSloat will be willing to discuss that with you in a civil manner provided you stop accusing him of things. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

## 3RR on Helen Thomas

I would ask that you undo your last edit on Helen Thomas, as it put you over the revert limit. CENSEI (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My last edit was not a revert as I added entirely new material and did not remove the section. Also, reverts of vandalism do not count towards the 3RR. You are welcome to report me, but you'd just be wasting your time. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yor removed/undid portions of my last contribution, so it was a partial revert and the "vandalism" was not vandalism, please refresh yourself with Whats not considered vandalism. One last time, please undo your edit or you will be reported. CENSEI (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if you interpret my last edit as a "revert", I still have not violated the 3RR. Reverting the deliberate introduction of a factual error and a slur on her parentage here is reverting vandalism. Please stop wasting my time. Gamaliel (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, dont say I didnt give you a shot to correct yourself. CENSEI (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

## Obama Nation

Would you please have a word with the user here[4]. My comment, highlighted at the bottom of the diff is in response to the offending post. I am reluctant to template myself, as this might provoke. This behavior should not be acceptable, IMHO; however, I would welcome an outside opinion.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have much time for Wikipedia today and I wasn't able to get over there before the whole thing spiraled out of control. Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 31 28 July 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 32 9 August 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 33 11 August 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 34 18 August 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

## Article regarding Frank Marshall Davis

Hi,

May I ask why you reverted the Frank Marshall Davis edit after I made some minor edits to the Autobiography section? There are certain stylistic errors like [The Daily Telegraph]] (sic) which you undid.

MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.20.65 (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with such allegations, it is best to tread very carefully, and I thought my edits were more in line with WP policy in these matters. Gamaliel (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok Dude. It seems like "The Daily Telegraph" is the only mainstream publication featuring the link between Frank Marshall Davis and the book. Hopefully it will pull off another "National Enquirer" :) As of now I will make minor edits to the sectionm (the Daily Telegraph links). MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.20.65 (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I notice your caution to me regarding the Davis article. If you remember I discussed this matter with you above and we came to an agreement. However I do not see you similarly cautioning Flatterworld and Orangemike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.20.65 (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Generally, we issue warnings only to new users to inform them of Wikipedia policies. Established users are expected to be aware of them already. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

## FoxNews Article

You are correct in stating that I did not source my remark that Fox identifies the political leanings of it's commentators and guests, but I believe you are mistaken when you say this information is irrelevent. The previous sentance is speaking of perceived bias at Fox News, and it is important to note that unlike all other cable news channels (yes, I watch all of them) Fox actually gives you the personal background of the person speaking so you can take that information into account when they are giving an opinion. Hence their ability to state "We report, you decide." CNN often will have a guest on from an organization with an onocuous sounding name and not mention that this organization recieves all of it's funding from well-known liberal or conservative backers. I will search for a source to back up my assertions, but I don't believe that they are at all "irrelevent". FSF-Rapier (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be a nice thing to mention in the body of the article, but I don't see how that is important enough for the introduction or what it has to do with perceptions of Fox's conservative bias. If you feel that it is important enough for the introduction, you should probably make your case on the article talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I have removed the assertation that other channels do not do this, as it is virtually impossible to give an accurate ratio without examining hundreds of hours of footage, and even then "original research" is not allowed. I have moved the fact that FOXNews does, in fact, identify the background and bias of it's guests and commentators to the "bias" section rather than the introduction.FSF-Rapier (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

## em..

Opps ! never thought of that! I'll get right on it. --BLP-vio-remover (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being understanding about this. I hope you enjoy Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
no problem (it is I, new and improved). --Procutus (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

## Bethany Joy Galeotti pages

Hello,

I just needed help with keeping the pages in regards to Bethany Joy Galeotti's music up. I've decided to make pages concerning her albums and music and have assured that the proper templates were utilized in doing so. I'm not sure if I should make a couple of the pages stubs but I'm just confused as to why these pages have been nominated for speedy deletion. If you could assist me in improving these pages that would be wonderful!

-Thank you HushSound —Preceding unsigned comment added by HushSound (talkcontribs) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

## Nancy Pelosi vandalism & related vandalism

Hi there, I saw your warning on user 152.97.217.92's talk page, and just wanted to ask you what happens next in the warning process? I've sometimes seen vandalism, and then seen the "final warning" on the vandal's page, but don't know what to do next, if anything. Thanks! Eeblet (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If the user continues to vandalize, then ideally an administrator will block them. If an admin isn't handy you can request one at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Gamaliel (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Eeblet (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## Joe Hazelton back again and threatening people...

See my talk for his latest IP. --BenBurch (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe isn't back. He never left. I'll check it out. Gamaliel (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reminded how a toothache sometimes seems to go away. --BenBurch (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
An excellent analogy. I've range blocked him again, which, while not perfect, at least makes it harder for him to get here. Gamaliel (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! He is at least amusing when he isn't scaring the newbies. --BenBurch (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

## Tit for Tat

Is this in response to this? Some might see this as petty and small. CENSEI (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As per your rant, you have been consistently determined to see the worst motives in the actions of other users while you expect others to ignore the fact that you do the very same things yourself. I've tried reasoning with you, but you insist on continuing to be obnoxious, contentious, and uncivil. So I don't particularly care what you think at this point, but feel free to contact me again when you decide to act within the norms of Wikipedia behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So, it was just happenstance that you came to that AFD? Fascinating, I think I’ll go play the lottery tonight. CENSEI (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. I never said anything different. You are a contentious and problematic user who is determined to strip bad things from articles about your ideological compatriots and insert negative things into articles about your ideological enemies. It's my responsibility as a Wikipedian and an administrator to keep an eye on you. You obviously have no qualms about following me around and inserting yourself into edit wars solely because I am involved, why should you deny anyone else that fun? Gamaliel (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Gamaliel, you are a contentious and problematic user who is determined to strip bad things from articles about your ideological compatriots and insert negative things into articles about your ideological enemies. It's my responsibility as a Wikipedian to keep an eye on you. You obviously have no qualms about following me and other editors around and inserting yourself into edit wars solely because we are involved, why should you deny anyone else that fun? CENSEI (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So you've resorted to I'm rubber you're glue? Impressive. Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Did it hit too close to home? CENSEI (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow. If you have anything besides childish taunts, feel free to post it here. If not, please stay in your own sandbox, thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

## RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

## Is SIXTEEN fact tags harrassment?

I did a bit of expansion on an article, all fully and well sourced, and look at the reponse I get from Piotrus. Seems a bit, uh, excessive? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

## It's a G thing?

So is "Gamaliel" too close to "Guettarda"? Or are polysyllabic usernames starting with "G" the same to some people?[5] Hmmmm... Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just the G. I used to have a hell of a time telling apart all the users whose names started with J. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 35 25 August 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 36 8 September 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

## How?

Ok, I have been around a bit here on Wikipedia and have really gained an interest in the philosophy behind it. I have seen several edits from you and a couple other users who seem to "frequent" similar entries/pages/etc. of interest to mine. I know that I haven't maintained a perfect record here, but I'm learning. I do have a couple of questions for you that I would really appreciate some feedback on. Keep in mind, if I didn't think you were capable, I wouldn't waste my time writing this...!
1) It seems new users are "trumped" by administrators, and never given the opportunity to contribute, unless the material echoes the administrators POVs. (I'm using the more controversial articles)
2) Why does it seem practice of administrators to cite "WikiRules," yet they violate or enfore them when they see fit?
3) Why is liberal a bad word here?
4) Why does it seem common practice to label something "vandalism" if it doesn't conform to the current subject or article? I thought this was a community project..
I could go on, but I want to see where this gets me. Thanks again, I appreciate it.Wikiport (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with your premises at all, sorry. These seem to be very loaded questions which assume widespread malfeasance on the part of administrators. There are, of course, instances of administrative abuse, but most complaints of "abuse" are, in my experience, from users who are unable to get their way on articles and can't or don't want to conform to policy and consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Premises aren't questions. I think a Phil101 class at your local community college may provide you with the "If X=Y, then Y=X" deductive argument you are looking for. But thanks anyway! Wikiport (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Your questions are clearly based upon premises with which I disagree. Apparently that notion offends you in some way as you've chosen to lash out at me for pointing that out. Sorry for any distress I may have caused you. Gamaliel (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

## Criticism of false assertion by Soledad O'Brien

You recently undid my edit (found below) of the Soledad O'Brien article, assumably in good faith.

O'Brien drew criticism from FactCheck.org on September 8, 2008, for making a false assertion during an interview with a McCain campaign spokesperson, claiming that vice presidential candidate Palin, as the governor in Alaska, had slashed the special education budget by 62%,[1] when, in fact, she had increased it.[2]

I agree with you that, as you say, "everything on factcheck doesn't deserve a subsection in an encyclopedia article", but this information is relevant to the article since O'Brien is the host of a investigative documentary program and should therefore be expected to have a firm foundation for any claims made while in that role, especially when it comes to negative assertions about the records of prominent political figures. In this case she passed something on to her viewers as fact that was in reality a false rumor being spread online as part of a smear campaign, much like the false claims that have been circulating online about Dem. Pres. candidate Obama.

If you don't think such verifiable lack of professionalism should be included in a Wikipedia article, that's fine with me, but it's my view that it should be. Sarnalios (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference what we think of it; what matters is what secondary sources think of the it. If only one source (like factcheck) takes note, it is not encyclopedic. If many do, h it may be worth including at that point. Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
O'Brien's claim was picked up by several secondary sources. These are now referenced in the article. Assuming good faith, you will surely no longer oppose the inclusion of this information in the article, now that your objection has been remedied. Sarnalios (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

## User page vandalism

Thank you for sorting that mess out for me. Whoever it was continues to send me "hate" mail from the IP 165.24.246.245, but I just delete it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you could send email via Wikipedia if you aren't logged in. Gamaliel (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The mail was coming through a form on my personal website - the hazards of publishing personal data, I suppose. Anyway, I see the same IP address just vandalized my user page again. Thank you for watchlisting it and blocking the user. Evidently, they are using their IP to get around the block or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. It happens a lot around here unfortunately. We just have to play wack-a-mole for a while until they get bored and go play with some string. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

## My RfA

 Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

## bothersome IP

Hi, the IP you just reverted keeps on adding the same info. Just thought I will bring it to your attention. DockuHi 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess the IP was blocked later on. DockuHi 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free media (Image:Timehenryford.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Timehenryford.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

## [Sad and impotent vandalism deleted]

[racial slurs and vandalism deleted]

A sock puppet of 165.24.246.245 and 00frodo, I'll wager. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 37 15 September 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

## Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

## NZ climate science

Thanks for the compliment! I've no real interest in the subject, and was just fleshing out a red link I stumbled across, but it didn't take long to google a few things (and I wasn't in the slightest offended by your NPOV tag!) Plenty more info out there if anyone ever cared to expand it, but I shall return to my usual haunts (milhist, & refdesk)... :) Gwinva (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

## Levin's Page

I invite you to discuss the Lithwick review of "Men in Black" on the discussion page, as I'm not looking to engage in an edit war. Keep in mind there is a direct link to Lithwick's review in the "Other websites" section, meaning your inclusion is redundant (either that, or renders the link at the bottom of the page redundant).

I feel your attempt to maintain fairness by giving a positive review might come across as disingenuous. You provide a two-word quote (and a source that cannot be directly viewed) in support, and provide two more lengthy and detailed criticisms against. Not to mention, I still feel opinions about Levin's book have little to do with Levin himself, which is what the page in question is about.

At minimum, I hope you address the redundancy of duplicate citations of Lithwick's interview and decide which, if either, should remain. Thanks. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We have devoted far too much time to this very simple issue. A full biographical article regarding an author will discuss reactions to the work of that author. There are thousands of examples of this in Wikipedia and in print encyclopedias and standard reference works. If you don't like the reviews I selected to supplement Lithwick's, feel free to substitute others. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pnjlogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pnjlogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

## pardon the interruption

Hi! Thank you for noting the sudden vandalism of the formerly stable Prescott Bush article. I think a number of the vandals/ drive-by editors are connected with my presence in Talk:Sarah Palin, including the IPs, "Wayfinder", a "Davey Collect" blocked account, and possible Writegeist who placed a comment on Talk: Prescott Bush without making any edits in the article, but which referred quite specifically to my presence in Sarah Palin. It appears that trying to be absolutely NPOV makes one a game target. Thank you very much! Collect (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

## RE: edit at Douglas Feith

RE: your edit here. Yes, journalists use anonymous sources. No, they don't use it "all the time", and try to avoid it at all costs. Anonymous sources for information (especially for something as contentious and liable to mistakes as an exact quotation in this case), rarely ever rise to meet WP:RS. I'd urge to reconsider your edit. BuddingJournalist 14:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"All the time" was quite obviously not meant to be taken literally, but your statement that they "try to avoid it at all costs" is not true, and entire works (e.g., Bob Woodward's books) are based upon the work of anonymous sources. This does not disqualify those works from being unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Please reconsider this approach, because I don't think it is consistent with how journalism works or with Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you're avoiding this specific issue. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. In this case, a direct quotation (and a controversial one at that) is attributed to the Secretary of State, verified only by an anonymous source. BuddingJournalist 15:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not avoiding anything, I addressed the points you made. When a reliable source quotes an anonymous source, as is done quite frequently and is routine in the profession, then the professional journalist has made a judgment about the accuracy and reliability of that source and has concluded that this information is worth passing on. Why should we - without the same access to the knowledge of the source and the expertise of the journalist - decide differently? What basis to we have to make that decision? Gamaliel (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

## Why is my IP blocked?

Hello, I tried to edit a page and realized that my IP was blocked. However, I was able to register and edit the page. But I am interested in knowing why my IP was blocked in the first place. The reason given was personal attack/harassment. Since I don't remember doing that, I would like my memory to be refreshed. Thanks! (Neutronstar2007 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Without knowing your IP address I cannot say for sure, but it is likely that your IP address was previously used by another person who shares the same service provider, and that other person committed acts of harassment. In such cases we block that IP address and we generally do so in such a way to allow other innocent users such as yourself to register for an account to avoid the block. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

## Template Substitution

Hi there. When you add a 3rr template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

## User talk:Franciscod

Damn, I had the firefox tabs opened I didn't see your remark. I have blocked Franciscod for a week (that's often what I do for obvious sockpuppetry) way after your message. What do you think? Either way is good with me :). -- lucasbfr talk 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Blocking confirmed socks is one thing, but I thought it improper to directly block Franciscod since I am involved in editing the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

## Obama article probation

You closed the discussion and they ignored you and promptly reposted. Can something be done about this? Tvoz/talk 19:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to close it again since the new discussion is more specific and is actually discussing particular sources, etc. I will keep my eye on things though. If you ever need an article, I have Lexis/Nexis access so I can get it for you without you having to spend money. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I was so annoyed I just went ahead and paid the damn 3 bucks. But thanks. And yeah, now the "discussion" is a little bit more - I agree. I posted this note when not even five minutes passed and they had ignored the close. Seven more days of this nonsense. Tvoz/talk 21:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

## Taking you up on your offer

Hi - could you get me a copy of this article from Lexis/Nexis - Philadelphia Inquirer, February 24, 1989, p.5A, "Iran: West to blame Islam for forthcoming terrorism". Need it for verification of a quote in Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. Some night last night, eh? Thanks Tvoz/talk 04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

## Very Patronizing

I have been using Wikipedia for two years now and would not being greeted with a patronizing "Welcome to Wikipedia" message every time an admin or editor disagrees with me. Show some respect, please. Syntacticus (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. WP:DTTR. On the other hand, a two year veteran shouldn't be indulging in namecalling. Give respect and you get it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

## TfD nomination of Template:Sollog

Template:Sollog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

## Credit for ITN.

Thanks for posting the Moon Impact Probe news. Just wanted to check if you award me a souvenir like this for my collection as per this. --GPPande talk! 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost
 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 (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

## AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

## Template:RS500 put up for deletion

Hi Gamaliel, I just wanted to let you know that I put Template:RS500, which you started, up for deletion based on the comments on its talk page. Here's a link to the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:RS500. Cheers! —Pie4all88 T C 10:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia's Liberal Bias [sic]

I really don't know how you can have such a liberal bias and still claim to be a credible source. I put in a section on the Newsweek article claiming that Newsweek had credible claims against it, saying that it had a liberal bias, and it was removed. The article on Fox News has an entire section on it devoted to its percieved conservative bias, and I thought that it would be fair if other, liberal news outlets were called out on their political bias. Please get back to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talkcontribs) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone back and edited my section on Newsweek's political bias, and I have made it comparable to the Fox News article section on Fox News' percieved conservative bias. I am sure you will approve of that, as the editor in chief of Newsweek himself admitted in his last editorial that many people consider Newsweek to have a liberal bias. I can get the link to that editorial if you want. And, in the face of wanting to be a credible source of information, I am sure you encourage equality in information, as all fans of the scientific method do. Let me know what you think. CaptainNicodemus (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

## More crap from Joe

[blah blah blah] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.172.103 (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That IP is the indefinitely blocked USER:Orangejumpsuit,[6] back to spread peace and love.... if you don't feel comfortable blocking the IP, protecting his user page, etc., I would be happy to bring the matter to AN/I. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Then this Orangejumpsuit is certainly a sock of longtime puppeter User:Joehazelton. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
HAPPY XMAS I HOPE SANTA GIVES YOU A JAIL CELL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.182.230 (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope that this Christmas some help for whatever you are suffering from finds its way into your life. Best wishes. Gamaliel (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
[hate filled screed deleted]
I'm sorry that you feel wronged, but it is your own doing, insofar as you were never able to address people in a civil manner like other adults. Plenty of people have issues with Wikipedia and are able to get them addressed. Some go on anti-Wikipedia vandalism and harassment sprees, but the reason they do so is not Wikipedia, but their own character flaws. I doubt you will ever be able to understand this, but perhaps one day you will. Treat people as you wish to be treated. Give respect and you will get it more often than not. If you can get past your anger and realize this, perhaps we can one day be collaborators here. Best wishes.Gamaliel (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

## Fair use rationale for File:Alleyoop.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Alleyoop.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

## Thank you

As a new wiki contributor, I want to thank you for educating me regarding some of the ethics of the community. Your comments were clear, concise and valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar001 (talkcontribs) 14:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

## Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost
 Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost
 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

## BLP Donald Luskin edit war

I am writing to you here in good faith to discuss the edit war on the BLP "Donald Luskin." Consistently, your edits have been in a direction to either diminish or discredit Mr. Luskin, by removing facts that make him look good and by adding facts that make him look bad. Mr. Luskin is a well-known conservative, and the large picture of Barack Obama on your Talk page makes it clear where you stand. It is shameful that you would use your privileges at Wiki to carry out a political agenda.

The recent edit war concerns the extensive citation of Mr. Luskin's quotation about the ecnonomy from a September Washington Post article. Mr. Luskin is correctly quoted, and the other facts are in order. However, that does not make inclusion of the material fair or reasonable. To create a section called "Predictions," and then to include just a single prediction, is deceptive on the face of it. Also, you are relying entirely on the source's framing of the prediction, without any regard to the context in which the prediction was made. The source, and you by uncritically quoting him, have pulled a single sentence out of a 1500-word article, designed to make Mr. Luskin appear flatly wrong, when in fact the article was not even primarily concerned with predictions at all, but rather with the way predictions are used for political purposes. Further, the way the section is written, undue evidence is given to the apparent pedigree of the source, as though his position at Yale is supposed to make it irrefutable that this judgment upon Mr. Luskin cannnot possibly be questioned.

The reality is that like all economists, Mr. Luskin has made many predictions, some right, some wrong. There are various sources on the web that such things, and Mr. Luskin scores well above average as a predictor -- and it's a very tough thing to get right. For instance, see: http://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/. So for this section to spend so much time focusing on one source's version of a particular prediction is a fairly obvious attempt to isolate a single, out of context item that can be spuriously called "factual" for what can only be the purpose of harming Mr. Luskin.

I am not a Wiki power user. I can't spend all day messing around with this like apparently you can. I have to tell you I find this whole process shockingly unfair and mean-spirited, and disappointingly alien to the spirit that would seem to inform the Wiki endeavor in general. It is unfair that you get to make your edits at will, and wheh I make counter-edits, you lock the page or ban me, or demand that I justify myself. You apparently never need to justify yourself or worry about anyone intervening beyond your control. That kind of asymmetry is wrong.

I am attempting through this message to reach out to you on this issue. If I cannot get your agreement to eliminate that section and stop abusing your authority to discredit Mr. Luskin, and to prevent others from balancing what you do, then I will have to escalate this issue to higher levels as necessary and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.237.110 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a hint. If you are attempting to reach out to someone in good faith, do not start your message by accusing them of a political agenda. Despite this, I will attempt to respond to your message in good faith. You may have some good points to make in regards to the presentation of issues regarding Luskin, but your have thus far not attempted to make changes to the material in line with those points. Your approach is to delete the material wholesale, then edit war with and attack those who object to the removal. By now it should be clear that this material will not be removed, but there is no reason it can't be edited to make changes that could make the presentation more satisfactory from your perspective. My suggestion to you is to simply make those changes, and you will likely find that the editors who disagree with wholesale deletion will perhaps agree with some of your changes. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

## Barack the Magic Negro mention

In regards to the Barack the Magic Negro song, it should not be inserted into Michael Steele according to the wiki guidelines. If you look it up, hundred of Republican and Democrats made comments, but it doesn't merit a mention in their article, because its irrelevant to everyone but the guy that made the song. Rockyobody (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you specify which guideline prohibits its inclusion? It is certainly relevant to Steele since it is the major controversy of the race and he is a candidate in that race. We can't pretend it has no bearing at all on him. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I was talking to one of the administrators, and he said it should only be included if we source how it affects him in the race. The fact that so many people have made comments on the song, and none of them have it in their article, it should not be in Steele's. Rockyobody (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I am also an administrator, and I believe that this is directly relevant. Administrators are not arbiters of article content unless that content violates a core policy like NPOV or BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The only way I'll agree it is relevant is how it affects him. Rockyobody (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It affects him because it is his statement on the major controversy of the race in which he is participating. Gamaliel (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

## Donald Luskin

I've protected this page for a week to encourage discussion before further changes are made. I'll be monitoring there to ensure things don't get too unwound. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps the other user will finally use the talk page now. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost
 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

## Even-handed Keith

I've heard Sean Hannity criticize right-wing people and organizations but I would never write in the lead of his article that he simply criticizes politicians in general. Except for a few passing references to left-wing extremism over the years, all of Olbermann's attacks on political figures and rival commentators have come from the left (including his attacks on Hillary Clinton, by the way). The copy as I left it reads better and is more in line with the sources that are cited in this section. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost
 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

## Lead of The New York Times

Hi! I've been trying to improve the lead of The New York Times by summarizing one of the article's sections. You removed my summary on the grounds of it being both "inappropriate and inaccurate". Could you elaborate on that?

BTW: Originally my attention was caught by a discussion on a fellow editors talk page. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

## Alphabetization and collation

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

## Racial Scrubbing at Steele

I see that you've already had an earlier phase of this problem turn up on your talk page in the "Magic Negro" heading above. However, there's been a new development here on the Michael S. Steele article you commented on earlier this month. Not only is the racial context being erased, but now, the erasures are disguised as "m" (minor) edits. I don't know what to do next to prevent what seems to be well-meant but has the same effect as vandalism. I am not an administrator. Help! —LisaSmall T/C 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

## Please Don't Remove My Work On Robeson

Listen I put sixty hours into that article ok? Itw as amess when I got there. Horwitz is an ass but you can't prove he's an ass if he's not quoted. Just leave the article alone unless you want these right wing idiots to win or you really, really know Robeson. Thanks Catherine Huebscher

I've put plenty of time in on both that article and fighting "right wing idiots". The solution isn't to quote unreliable cranks like Horowitz, and such sources are prohibited by Wikipedia policy anyway (WP:RS). Gamaliel (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

Weekly Delivery

 Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
 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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
From the editorA new leaf
Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting
WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games
Approved this week
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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

## LIVING THINGS

Hi There..This is Living Things Management contacting You to request that you stop altering the Living Things wikipedia, we have posted an official Bio on the band signed off by the band and their publicist Bryn Bridenthal. Thank You .Best Regards.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Healer313. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

## Living Things

The problem is you are posing the wrong information..so kindly can u please refraim, from posting the wrong information and i will have someone work on cleaning it up to fit wiki guidlines...best reagrds..healer 313 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 (talkcontribs) 16:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you could specify which information is incorrect I will insure that it is corrected, or you could correct it yourself. However, we simply can't let the version your prefer remain as the current version of the article. So what I will do is simply reduce the article to a bare minimum and you can insert the correct information at your leisure. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

## Living Things

Hi There.. yes i understand about the changes...What we are aiming to create is an accurate informative posting and right now and in the past it has not been accurate or informative.. How can we now working with you get the accurate information posted? let me know..best regards

## Living Things

Hi There.. yes i understand about the changes...What we are aiming to create is an accurate informative posting and right now and in the past it has not been accurate or informative.. How can we now working with you get the accurate information posted? let me know..best regards

## LIVING THINGS

Hi there..can we begin a dialogue on how to improve Living Things wikipedia page and make it more accurate..please write back soon..thank u

## Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

## Roz Chast

Hi, I believe you created the page for New Yorker cartoonist Roz Chast. I think I'm going to do one for Hilton Als, a writer, also at the New Yorker. Do you have any advice? This my first wikipedia attempt. I can read the FAQ section for technical stuff too, but if there are any notes you can give, I appreciate it.

Thank you,

David

1. ^ CNN transcript from September 4, 2008
2. ^ FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin, September 8, 2008