User talk:Gamaliel/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you. Rock on.


Please SProtect Ted Kennedy[edit]

Hi! I'm advocating for an indefinite sprotect on the Ted Kennedy article. The vandalism by anons has been persistent and frankly quite hateful. The article is a magnet for this type of activity - activity that casts the Wiki[edia in a very poor light. I'd also like to note that the George W. Bush article exists in a semi-permanent state of sprotection without causing the end of the world. Would you please sprotect Ted Kennedy? Thanks, amigo! --AStanhope 02:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I dislike the vandalism as well, but I don't think it is frequent enough to justify permanent or semi-permanent sprotection. Gamaliel 02:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Please reconsider. --AStanhope 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --AStanhope 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon sock puppet[edit]

Hi, I noticed you've been tracking a sock puppet from Texas and John Kerry on your "todo" page -- I have copied your list and started adding to it, located at User:Stbalbach/anontexan. -- Stbalbach 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have only one account and when there's contention, I prefer to not log in. Also, from the best I can tell, others do share my IP from time to time, because it's dynamic. Also, I use a privacy software, so my IP does not always show up precisely right away. The privacy filter cannot be disabled - it's company policy - sorry. The best place to talk to me at any time is on the talk page of the article under discussion. Leave a diff link and if it was my edit, I'll reply. Also, Stbalbach is monitoring my edits. He must have nothing better to do. And, when I leave a comment for him on his talk page, he deletes it. The point here is that Stbalbach is making complaints because he disagrees with my edits. Take a look Pat Tillman and see that I worked with others and got resolution - Stbalbach did not. He's just bullying me. 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Why did you change the signature from to Gamaliel 02:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Above anon user modified the IP to make it appear they are coming from, see the page edit history. See also conversation at User talk:Will Beback. Thanks for any help or suggestions on how to deal with this problem. -- Stbalbach 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

John Hinckley Jr.[edit]

Why were the edits of John Hinckley Jr. reverted? I thought this was a place where neutral points of view were tolerated as long as there was ample evidence. Did you bother to look through the documentation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Replied at Talk:John Hinckley, Jr. Gamaliel 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That Kennedy-hating anon...[edit]

...vandalized my User page[1]. I see that you warned him. Please block him now instead. --AStanhope 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... He must be a sockpuppet of someone else. I haven't edited/reverted anything in the Kennedy article for appx. two weeks. Why would he come snipe me out of the blue like that? I dunno! --AStanhope 04:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he just followed you from here. He posted a rant here tonight which I deleted. Gamaliel 04:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right. That's probably it. Thx. --AStanhope 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Robeson page[edit]

I was careful during the entire month of February not to revert anything by the two people monitoring the page who reverted daily nearly everything I added. Each day, I asked for explanations and at certain times, visited their pages asking for explanations. There is a long record of my asking them to document/explain their edits. They did not do so. They even deleted my comments on their pages, comments that were reasoned arguments, not personal attacks. They continued to revert, revert, revert. I concede that your viewpoint is sympathetic to theirs, and that is your right. I have played by the rules and have presented many arguments concerning documentation and have questioned the introduction of false and misleading information into the article. I am surprised that you stood on the sidelines during those requests for explanation of factual issues, and now, the first time I have used the revert tool, you choose to criticize me on the Robeson talk page, without coming to my user page to talk about it or to discuss constructive ways to make it a good article. You are an administrator but not neutral in this matter, Gamaliel. I understand these folks are your friends. Still, I would have hoped that you would have stepped in to stop the reverts when your friends were reverting during February and now into March. Let me ask you this. When people add nothing of substance to an article but erase the work of others, what is that but vandalism? skywriter 05:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: It is noteworthy that Wikipedia community managed to produce a credible article on WEB DuBois but not Robeson and yet there are similarities in the lives of both men. Similar controversies are addressed there in a neutral manner, and not made central as is the insistence of some on the Robeson page. skywriter 05:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My Lord, you have no idea how wrong you are. One of those people you call my "friends" is actually quite far from my pal. Read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2 and you will understand why this idea literally has me laughing right now. You are right, with the exception of rewriting the Feffer section once, I have largely stood on the sidelines, but that is because I am preoccupied with other matters and don't have the time to become more fully involved. You are wrong, however, when you say I am criticizing you for reverting. Revert away! Just stay within the bounds of WP:3RR. I commented politely when you referred to another editor's edit as "vandalism" in the edit summary. For me that is something of a "red flag" and I customarily step in and request civility when I see that, regardless of the article or the editors involved.
I think you have the potential to be an excellent Wikipedia editor and I hope that this Robeson mess does not discourage you. We need more people like you who are willing to get in the trenches and rewrite messy articles like this one, as opposed to people (who shall remain nameless) who use Wikipedia to refight the Cold War. However, you need to calm down. Flying off the handle and making accusations (in this case incredibly wrongheaded accusations) doesn't help you or the article. Be patient. Use RFC to recruit other editors. The historical facts will win out in the end. Gamaliel 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy to provide the laughter. February was my month for patience on the Robeson page. I tracked down and read the source material, and found it both falsified and wildly distorted in the service of a particular viewpoint. I documented this, asked for responses, and was ignored. The distortion and falsification of resources (the Rappaport book and the Rosenberg book and use even of the biography by Duberman) to bludgeon Robeson is dishonest, dealing a death blow to assume good faith. The Rosenberg book does not mention Robeson at all, except as a footnote citing and regurgitating with errors an article in Jewish Currents by Robeson's son, yet the Cold Warriors list the Rosenberg book as a Robeson resource, and for awhile, until I battled them word by word, phrase by phrase and sentence by sentence, it was listed as evidence of Robeson's association with treasonous folks. I wrote to Jewish Currents and obtained the article. The gist of that article is not as claimed in the Rosenberg book or in the Wikipedia article. March is a new month. The long winter of my patience with those who lie about source material is at an end. What I marked as vandalism was a reversal of documented content unexplained in the Edit Summary or Talk page, in other words, vandalism. Why is that incredibly wrongheaded? skywriter 18:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: The individual with whom you tangled very recently introduced a lie onto the Wiki article on A People's History of the United States, saying the author, Zinn, blamed the U.S. for Japan's attack on Pearl, adding the additional false statement that "most" historians have discounted his view. Knowing this was invented, I asked for documentation, waited a week, then deleted it, noting the introduction of the falsehood. Again, these kinds of activities destroy the precept to assume good faith.

Cheers. skywriter 18:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I agree, I just think you should keep a cooler head. It can be frustrating, I know. I had a long and frustrating struggle with TDC over the Pablo Neruda article, where he kept inserting ridiculous claims that Neruda was a KGB operative and editors were not stepping in to assist, despite the fact that the historical facts were clearly on my side. Many editors are reluctant to jump in headfirst into a contentious conflict when they don't have any background in the subject matter, and if you fly off the handle and start calling other editors vandals those neutral editors will think you are just as much of a pov pusher as those people you oppose. Gamaliel 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

JFK and RPJ[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. I will be happy to participate in the RfC on RPJ once it becomes live. My absence is not permanent, however, I just came back from a well needed vacation and will contribute suggestions to improve the articles here on Wiki. Ramsquire 17:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what happened to the RfC on RPJ, he just seems to be getting worse. It's probably getting tiresome for you deleting all the personal attacks. Ramsquire 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind removing the attacks. I actually find it amusing in a perverse way.
The RfC never went "live" and isn't official yet. I've been putting off looking through old talk pages and documenting RPJ's attacks on me. If you feel that we have enough to go on as it, it can be launched now if you want. Gamaliel 01:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added four instances where users have unsuccessfully tried to resolve issues with RPJ, including my last attempt. If that is enough, I think we should go live. Otherwise the edit-wars he is engaged in just won't go away. Ramsquire 01:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How much longer do we need to put up with this...[edit]

This is the latest post from RPJ, in response to my concern over vandalism on the JFK assassination site and a request for protection to stop it. These personal attacks, and smugness need to be handled by wiki.

  • Ramsquire was so overwrought last week he left with a dramatic Edward R Murrow sign off. Now, he is back already asking the page be protected again. What is this going to be: A flurry of changes by Ramsquire and then freeze the page. Another flurry by Ransquire then freeze the page?
  • Ramsquire according to previous posts is an attorney. Is this the procedural game theory that paid advocates and paid PR personnel do for a living?
  • The web site has a few basic rules. Every significant viewpoint be represented. The assertions in the article be supported by references.
  • I have seen one approach where grafitti is put in an article and when the true believers in the Warren Report revert, it is with a notation of "vandalism" and a number of wrongful deletions are also made. Is this going to happen again?

RPJ 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I know there is a RfC on this guy, but this is getting ridiculous and is destroying good faith attempts to create accurate and reliable articles.

Ramsquire 20:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on an NPOV edit on the JFK assassination article, section by section. I plan to submit the sections in a couple of days. Actually it's a pretty easy excercise. I'm removing any statements that are conjectural, speculative, or parrot a conspiracy web page. Most, if not all, of this stuff was added in the past by one particular editor..... cheers
Mytwocents 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup of JFK Assassination page[edit]

Here is a link to my section by section edit of the JFK-A page. I plan to upload it soon. I think it is a solid Neutral edit. I tried to include some mention of doubt about some of the different panels conclusions, to provide balance: but without the blockquotes and citations to

Mytwocents 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


All you did was delete out viewpoints that you don't personaly agree with. That is against a basic web site rule.

The web site rule is that all significant view points are to be included. That is how the website achieves neutrality. The website holds itself out as containing all significant viewpoints and letting the reader make up his or her own mind.

If you don't want to participate in a web site that presents all significant view points you shouldn't

There are web sites you can go to and all you will read will be one viewpoint or two viewpoints. Since viewpoints with which you disagree bother you so much you should go to a one sided presentation.

But those aren't the rules at this web site. Please obey the rules.

RPJ 09:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To what specifically does reader "RPJ" refer? Gamaliel 09:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, why do you think the policy is "all significant viewpoints?" The policy is actually WP:V. Crackpot, unverified theories or theories from disreputable sources are not welcome or policy. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (just figured I'd jump in) --Tbeatty 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty makes a good point. RPJ has a slightly distorted view of what NPOV is meant to acomplish. We are to reach a consensus on what goes in the article, always trying for neutral, even-handed language and content. I'm willing to throw a bone to the conspiracy POV, but not 1/2 of every section of every page re. the JFK Assassination! That's giving too much weight to hearsay and conjecture. Mytwocents 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that JFK conspiracy theories are a separate category. An encyclopedia should cover them but not as the official record of events. It is very significant that so many conspiracy theories exist and has been kept alive for so long. But they don't belong in the factual account of events. The version that goes in the factual accounting is the official version supported by sworn testimony and verified facts. This is WP:V policy. --Tbeatty 18:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
To TBeaty and Gamaliel: Here is the web site policy that you think doesn't exist.

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."

Please read the web site policies. Also, your comment about "crackpot, unverified theories from disreputable sources" must strike most readers as amusing. Most Americans (70%) believe there was a conspiracy to kill the president. The last official panel to review the matter in 1979 came to the conclusion that probably there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Tbeaty needs to catch up on recent history before assuming theories are "crack pot."

RPJ 03:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add your comments to the end of discussions and don't stick them in the middle at random spots. Gamaliel 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I know the policies pretty well. I am also familair with encyclopedias. Your data that "70% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy" is a valid point to put in the encyclopedia. But all the crackpot theories that they believe is not. I am sure that some believe it was Cubans or the Mafia or the Russians or the Republicans or the Democrats or the CIA or LBJ or Hollywood or Space Aliens or <insert crackpot conspiracy theory here>. But the facts are that Oswald killed Kennedy with a rifle that he purchased. He shot him him from the Book Depository. No serious news source or law enforcement group disputes that. That is the basis for a an encyclopedia entry. Fomenting controversy out of flimsy coincidences or even non-existent relationships is not the basis for an encyclopedia entry. --Tbeatty 04:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


"Gamaliel" are you afraid of the information that is placed below? You took this out of the Oswald article and no reason was given?

Have you decided you don't want people to know about this?

Oswald's four months in New Orleans were carefully scrutinized by the HSCA that investigated later. It believed the testimony of witnesses that Oswald was with Dave Ferrie in Clinton La.[2] in late August or early September 1963. The HSCA also noted that, on several occassions, [3]

Oswald was seen up in the office of a man named Guy Bannister, by a secretary, (See, Official Congressional Document at the Link)[4] - Bannister, along with Dave Ferrie, worked in connection with New Orlean's underworld figures and anti-Castro groups, (Official Congressional Document at the Link, Page 145), and was seen in the restaurant downstairs from Bannister's office several times where Ferrie and Guy Bannister used to frequent. Oswald worked nearby, and used the same small building that Bannister used as an address stamped on his Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamphlets. (Official Congressional Document at the Link 145-147) 544 Camp Street was also home to the anti-Castro Cuban Revolutionary Council and some researchers have suggested Oswald used the address to embarrass them. [5] Either way, his work involving the Fair Play for Cuba Committee may have been little more than an effort to impress the Cuban government as a prelude to defecting there. [6]

"Gamaliel" Don't be afraid of information. You will let your own fears trap you into uncomfortable positions. Try to open your mind and read the "prohibited" information that frightens you so much.

Once you do that and confront your fears, Your fears won't control you anymore.

Will your world come to an end if it turns out that Oswald worked for the CIA and they scapegoted him for the murder?

Would your belief system be traumatized to such a degree that you couldn't bear to live?

You should try to explain what drives you to a web site that has a wonderful policy of allowing information on all viewpoints regarding the subject matter and yet you won't abide by the rules and remove any items you don't personally approve.

Since you must know it is wrong, one would have to assume that either: 1)You are a highly compulsive person that can't control his own fears; 2) You want to be noticed, at any price. 3)You are a PR agent for an organization that is fearful of any mention of the JFK matter because of bad publicity to the organization. 4) You get a few buucks once in awhile from someone who has a vested interest.

RPJ 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it so hard for you to comprehend the idea that someone might disagree with you? Why must you resort to farfetched conspiracy theories and ridiculous amateur psychoanalysis? Why must you lash out in such a juvenile manner? Many, many people disagree with you. Are we all part of The Conspiracy? Gamaliel 04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Man... The stuff you have to put up with from some of these folks! --AStanhope 04:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

New userbox![edit]

You might like this one.

USF This user attends or has attended
the University of South Florida.
Go Bulls!

Mike H. That's hot 11:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa -Will Beback 05:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: It appears that this user is also known to you (on your "todo" page) as the "John Kerry sockpuppets". -Will Beback 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More of TDC's "scholarship"[edit]

Heads up: [7] Is there any chance you could get your hands on a copy of the text he cites, The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili), through your library? Viajero | Talk 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be on order at my library, so it will be a while before it shows up. Gamaliel 20:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If you have an account, you can do a book search and a content search in the book if you do not have a copy or cannot find one at the library. I am like so stoked for this! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Epistle to the Romans[edit]

Hey Gamaliel... We haven't crossed paths much but I noticed your comment on Jbull's talk page. You can see some of what's gone on on the Romans page, my talk page (User_talk:Joshuagross) and his talk page (User_talk:Jbull). Other than a faux pas or two, I don't think I've done anything against wikipedia policy (I forgot to sign my name on his talk page the first time). I've gone out of my way to not generate conflict (instead of immediately editing articles I just asked him about it). Since you're an admin and have (seemingly) dealt with him (and presumably much worse), I just wanted to get your opinion on this, and advice on dealing with this sort of thing. Thanks! Joshuagross 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had many dealings with Jbull - I think he's relatively new - but I'll be glad to have a look at the Romans article and see if I can offer any assistance. Gamaliel 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm "relatively" new to editing articles (March 4 I wrote my first) as well (or at least dealing with conflicts about them). That's why I ask for help - I don't want to cause any trouble before I really know what protocol is. Thanks again. Joshuagross 22:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough[edit]

Hi! I've been assigned to help mediate the issues concerning this article, and want to invite you to begin the process by outlining your position on the issues more fully here. Much thanks! Fishhead64 18:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Somethingtoremembermadonna.jpg[edit]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Somethingtoremembermadonna.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 02:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem here? It's an album cover, which is pretty clear cut. Gamaliel 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User blanking page question[edit]

Hi Gamaliel, I am approaching you because I know you are an admin. (The one other person I know of that is an admin is on vacation.)

I am concerned about the page blanking behavior of User and don't know what to do about it. I would like to hear your suggestions. The user page suggests User has been warned. Here's a sampling from the user's history: Today, User (Talk) blanked

User (Talk) blanked the Martin Luther King page on November 8. Revision as of 18:15, 8 November 2005 (Talk) ? Older edit Revision as of 18:41, 8 November 2005 User: (Talk) Newer edit ? Line 11:

On September 29, User (Talk) blanked the article on peacekeeping. Revision as of 17:24, 29 September 2005 (Talk)

On September 16, user inserted racist comments into the article on Tiger Woods Revision as of 16:58, 16 September 2005 (Talk)

Thanks. skywriter 19:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to revert it but it seems like this is more than juvenile vandalism. It is motivated. What are the options, beyond reverting? skywriter 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

These appear to be two different users since the addresses originate from two different countries. They both may have committed racist vandalism, but unfortunately we have no shortage of racist vandals coming to Wikipedia, so they are likely different people. Either way, if they keep at it the only solution is for me to block the IP address. The vandalism is troubling but is not yet severe or frequent enough IMO for a permanent or long term block on either address yet, but I will monitor both for a while. Gamaliel 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. skywriter 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]


This page has apparently been protected since July 2005. I thought that it was policy to only protect pages for as long as they were at serious risk of being repeatedly vandalized... perhaps time to unprotect it? No biggie if you want to keep it protected from editing for whatever reason; I just wanted to subst the templates on it.

Thanks, Hbackman 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it's a protected page that I simply forgot about. I've unprotected it and subst-ed the templates. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! :) Hbackman 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Savage[edit]

I have amassed a large database of audioclips from the The Savage Nation talk show. I would like to offer them to interested parties by posting my e-mail on Wikipedia in the article section.

I have specialized in memorializing Savage's anti-Semitic rhetoric. I would like to post some of the most offensive quotations in the Wikiquote section. Could I send you the audioclips and the transcriptions by e-mail and you can confirm the accuracy of the transcription before posting the transcripts? Is it possible to host the actual audioclips on Wikipedia?


Jeff Silberman

Short audioclips can be posted on Wikipedia. I'm not sure of the process but there should be a page somewhere describing how to do it.
I don't think it would be appropriate for you to post your email address, but perhaps a link to a webpage of your own creation? Gamaliel 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If I sent you the transcriptions and audioclips to confirm the accuracy, you won't post them for me? What is the function of an administrator? I'm sorta of a computer illiterate. Is there anyone out there who knows the process? I spent much time collecting these clips; I am hoping that someone might lend me a hand in posting them! Thanks.

I'm sorry, but posting audio files to Wikipedia is something I have no experience with. You might try the Wikipedia:Help desk. Gamaliel 05:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why isnt it legit to list non-neutral sites for ciriticism of people in the encyclopedia? I can understand not including it in the article.Mrdthree 17:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article must be neutral, but there is no requirement that all links must be neutral as well, only that they be relevant. Gamaliel 19:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR and George W. Bush[edit]

is that your way of saying that you're going to call in another person to make your 4th revert for you? sounds a lot like gaming the system to me--Capitalister 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you are a newer user, I am making sure you are aware of the rules. If other editors agree with me, that's not collusion, that's consensus, which is exactly how wikipedia is supposed to operate. If you feel that this issue needs the attention of other editors who may or may not agree with your position on this matter, I suggest you post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Gamaliel 20:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush talk page[edit]

Hi Gamaliel, just a quick question for you. Re your revert of the George W. Bush talk page to remove trolling, I was under the impression that "Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism." Is this not the case? Thanks in advance, Glen. §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 08:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing trolling, vandalism, personal attacks, and other disruptive material is generally considered acceptable. Gamaliel 08:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess trolling can be subjective though, which may be a point of contention... Regardless thanks for the reply, it is appreciated. §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 08:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it can be subjective, so such removals should only be done when the trolling is pretty obvious, to avoid arguments or edit wars about whether or not something actually is trolling. This case seemed pretty clear cut to me. Gamaliel 08:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A small favor[edit]

I got blocked because of an anon IP complaint of 3RR. I don't think I violated and I think you know I follow the rules. I added content to Union of Concerned scientist. An anon user deleted three times. I considered it vandalism and invited him to discuss on talk page. In any case, I believe it is the fourth revert that causes trouble and I don't think you could call my first edit a "revert" since I didn't remove any information. I don't think the admin even reviewed the edits. tbeatty -- 04:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an exception to the 3RR, but only in cases of simple vandalism. This was not a case of simple and obvious vandalism. It's clear from the nature of the edits and the edit summaries left by the anon that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. The anon should have discussed his changes on the talk page and I understand from experience it is frustrating to have your researched and sourced changes reverted by another editor, but while the anon's behavior was rude, it is also rude of you to describe a content dispute as vandalism. Gamaliel 10:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I only reverted 3 times however. It is the fourth that is the violation and I was putting in a page protection request at the time. I was follwing the rules. tbeatty —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
It appears that you are correct, so I've unblocked you. In the future, if you are unjustly unblocked again, please provide links to the diffs which were incorrectly reported as reverts. Gamaliel 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! You're unblock didn't actually work (the IP was blocked for some reason). The admin who blocked realized the mistake and fixed it. Thanks for your help.--Tbeatty 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot about the autoblocker. When someone's username gets blocked manually the autoblocker kicks in and blocks the IP address too, and you have to unblock that seperately. Sorry about that! Gamaliel 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I think I have my first wikistalker out of it. It's an anon AOL IP. Follows me around, reverts my edits. He left a vague threat on my talk page which I edited out. --Tbeatty 08:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Such vandals are par for the course here. Check out the history of this page for a particularly nasty example. Not much can be done about these sorts of idiots, unfortunately. Gamaliel 08:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That 'vauge threat' is pointing out that he's clearly editing from an unsecured open proxy for some reason, the vandalism that you keep reffering to is my daring to revert him-- 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
See what I mean?--Tbeatty 14:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
See what I mean, registered to the Intel Corporation, an open port, on a privately owned network, being exploited by an anonymizing proxy-- 15:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you feel this is a matter of concern, please bring it up at WP:AN. Gamaliel 19:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Good Morning,

I was wandering if i can put an article up about 'Shibby' which i Have adopted as an alias. I have enough people asking me what Shibby means, and it would be incrediably usefull if i can just say 'Look on Wikipedia'. Anyway, if you would be so kind as to reply to Thanks in Advance,

Ed Shibby

Please see Wikipedia:Notability for our guidelines on whether or not such an article would be appropriate. Gamaliel 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew/Aramaic transliterations and etymologies[edit]

Hey Gamaliel. User:Haldrik is adding transliterations and etymologies of Hebrew/Aramaic words that seem to contradict others I've seen. Since you're an expert in this, I'm hoping you can provide some insight. Would you mind taking a look? You can find them at Jesus#Names and Yeshua. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am? Are you thinking about some other editor? Despite my username, I don't know any Hebrew. Gamaliel 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I was thinking of User:Gilgamesh. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


...for the help on the Jay Kinney article. Another wiki user almost had deleted it before I could even get all the info in there! When I noticed a deficiency in the Wikipedia on the subject of underground cartoonists, I decided to try to build up a "underground cartoonists" category. I'd appreciate your help and/or advice! You can respond on my discussion page if you like.

Thanks Zoinksjeepster

Editing tools?[edit]

Hi! Do you know of any editing tools for wikipedia? Either external linked editor like emacs or form based for things like sources. Something that does wiki formatting/tagging. --Tbeatty 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Some editors use them and there are some WP pages about them that I've seen, but I've never used them. I'm still doing everything manually over here. Gamaliel 01:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


why did you delete my valuable time infused article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnJacobs (talkcontribs)

See Wikipedia:Notability. Gamaliel 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In regard to your distrafuge, i am VERY frustrated with the fact that you deleted my time infused article not once, but TWICE. Is this how you honor and reward the hard work of Users who contribute time and effort to further the expanse of this great resource? Wikipedia should have its rules and should rest on a high standard of truth and honesty. I displayed both of these. My contribution was both factual and equally significant. Its place among the pages of this resource is without a doubt a necesity. My article has not been able to come to fruition all because of you. I would appreciate it if you would step off of my turf and witness what I can do. Im assuming you dont have a damn clue about the person that is Tyler Mullinax, maybe if you got off of Wikipedia and put away this purist crap, I could get on to making my article and you could sit there, read it, take it all in, and discover its true worth and validity. You could discover Tyler Mullinax. I ask you to simply leave me alone and let me go about my work.

with fading respect,

John Jacobs

Tyler Mullinax is barely known to the outside world; therefore, Gamaliel sees no need for Wikipedia to have an article about Tyler Mullinax. If you could demonstrate that Tyler Mullinax should be more widely known, perhaps due to a significant recent event, please do so and Gamaliel may reconsider. Algebra 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

National Security Archive[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on National Security Archive? --Tbeatty 03:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on your user talk page explaining your inappropriate use of copyright material. Gamaliel 04:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't inappropriate. It was a fair use extract, it was cited and it conformed to the web sites use policies. Copyright infringments cannot be fixed by quotes. It is ompossibble to plagiarize facts. Further, your decision to revert 3 separate edits (only one which you had issue) was not justified. Below is the policy. NExt time, please leave a message on the talk page. Also, since you seem to be folowing me around wikipedia for some reason, I would request that you defer rv'ing edits to other administrators as you seem to have taken a personal interest in my edits. I don't mind it on pages where we have both have histories of edits, but it's getting a little ridiculous.

4.3 If you find a copyright infringement It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.

If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.

If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.

In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.

I did leave a message on your talk page explaining to you why your edit was problematic. Why should I have left a second message for you on another page? I have never even heard of the Archive and I have no interest in editing the article or taking issue with your content edits. My problem is with taking a quote and passing it off as original writing. I would object to this from any editor on wikipedia. I don't believe this is an intentional offense, you just seem to be confused about the nature of fair use and how to properly use fair use material. In this case you took word for word three sentences from a copyrighted web page and did not identify them as such. Citing is not sufficient, as all a cite does is identify the source of facts, it does not identify the material as unoriginal, copyrighted work. Even with works that are clearly in the public domain, the source of the material is identified, not with a cite, but with a clear notice saying "Material in this article is taken from ****". See Category:1911 Britannica for articles that have such notices. I'm sorry you feel that I've been giving you a bit too much attention, but you can see from my talk page archives and edit history I have been similarly strict in all such cases I have noticed. And I never would have noticed this had a complaint not been left on your talk page. Gamaliel 06:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not an offense. What you have cited is a "Style Guide", not a requirement (and a "Style guide" only for public domanin encyclopedias). I think you need to review Fair Use, Copyright and Plagiarism. I think you agree it is Fair Use. That means it cannot be a Copyright problem. Attributing the source is adequate for fair use. If it were a copyright issue, putting quotes around it does not fix the copyright (i.e. Fair Use) issue. Putting the "Material in this article is taken from ****". would not fix a copyright violation. Putting that disclaimer would not make something Fair Use if it otherwise weren't. The boilerplate is a courtesy and style guide. Certainly it is not sufficient to rever a page over. Coyright violations are legal issues, not style issue. They cannot be fixed with boilerplates, quote marks or other punctuations.
Secondly, plagiarism does not apply to facts. If what you say is true, then every quote that is lifted from a newspaper would need to be attributed. Newspaper A quoted person B as saying "blah blah blah". That is certainly not the case. IT is adequate enough to duplicate the quote and attribute it. This is the correct way. Facts are not plagiarizable. Please look up Plagiarism. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of facts. It needs to cite the location of facts. Lifting three sentences of undisputed fact is not plagiarism especially when a citation is provided. For example, The Sky is Blue[ref]. If the orginal sentence in the [ref] is "The Sky is Blue", it is not plagiarism. It's cited as fact, not as an idea or expression. If the original phrase is: The sky looked like it was made of marshmellows[ref], then it would need quote marks. Please learn the difference so that you don't revert properly extracted and cited material.

One other interesting case if you are on a plagiarism/copyright kick. Go to here and look at the listPlagiarism#Why_plagiarism_occurs. And then go to [here|] and look at the list of 'Why do students plagiarize' . They are identical except for the last tag at the bottom of the Wiki list (which lends me to believe it was plagiarized). There is no citation at either site for a study. --Tbeatty 17:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I noticed a lot of your latest contributions are to albums. Often the Album page has a track list. These lists are identical to the lists on the Album. It is not plagiarism by my definition as it is attributed. But according to your standard that you have outlined above, all of these albums are lacking quote marks or other notificaiton that they were lifted from the album cover. --Tbeatty 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You just aren't listening. The issue is not with your use of facts. It is with you copying word for word exactly the sentence which conveys these facts.

Your contribution: "The National Security Archive was founded in 1985 by a group of journalists and scholars who had obtained documentation from the U.S. government under the Freedom of Information Act and sought a centralized repository for these materials." [8]

The NSA homepage: "The National Security Archive was founded in 1985 by a group of journalists and scholars who had obtained documentation from the U.S. government under the Freedom of Information Act and sought a centralized repository for these materials." [9]

You could have easily conveyed these same facts in your own words. To not do so and to not identify these words as non-original is plagiarism. Gamaliel 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I heard you fine. Word for word is not plagiarism if it is cited and factual. Look at the definition of plagiarism. You are mistaken. First you said it was copyright which it clearly is not. Now you say it is plagiarism which it clearly is not because a) I cited it and b) it is fact. I never represented it as my own ideas. You need to refresh what plagiarism is and what copyright is because you are clearly confusing the two. From the entry on plagiarism: "The use of mere facts, rather than works of creative expression, does not constitute plagiarism. For the latter, the issue of public domain works versus copyrighted works is irrelevant to the concept of plagiarism." By using a small excerpt, copyright infringement is avoided and by citing and using only facts, plagiarism is avoided. They are two separate issues. Again, I refer you to your latest work of copying play lists from copyrighted album covers. It is "word for word". And a lot times it is unattributed. This is not a violation of either the copyright or plagiarism but if I apply your convoluted and unique interpretation, it would be.
Generally, rewording is a far more graver form plagiarism as it attempts to hide the ideas and expression of someone else as your own. It is a much better practice to copy and attribute than it is to reword.
A citation identifies the source of facts in the sentence, not that the sentence itself is unoriginal. The energy you spend defending your plagiarism you could spend writing original sentences. Gamaliel 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
A sentence of only fact is not plagiarizable. This is fundamental. I am not defending plagiarism at all. I am trying to educate you so that you don't continue to make the same mistake. --Tbeatty 20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Copying a sentence of someone else word for word is plagiarism, whether or not that sentence contains facts, opinions, poetry, or prose. That sentence is not merely plain fact, it is the presentation of fact. You can present those facts in any number of original ways, and you have copied not just those facts, but the exact presentation of those facts. Gamaliel 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please show me the policy or guideline for this "plagiarism of the expression of cited facts" to justify the revert. I am unaware of this policy. I would even appreciate a link that supports your view of plagiarism. --Tbeatty 23:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"My view" of plagiarism? You copied something word for word. Just because that sentence contains facts does not give you license to copy it and stick it in an article as if you wrote it. Gamaliel 04:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I did no such thing. I cited it. I never claimed it as my own. Show me the policy where cited facts cannot be copied word for word. --Tbeatty 16:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you did. That may have not been your intent, but that was the end result. As I have repeatedly explained to you, you have not merely just "cited facts". You could have easily expressed those facts in any number of ways besides copying a sentence word for word. The fact that you copied word for word without putting it in quote marks makes it plagiarism. Gamaliel 20:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, assume you are correct. Cite the plagiarism policy. I doubt you will be able to find one simply because you can't plagiarize facts and that's what Wikipedia is. --Tbeatty 21:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That is because, despite your attempts to frame this as a matter of facts, I am not talking about just facts, but your copying of the exact word for word presentation of those facts. Gamaliel 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Cite the policy that I violated to support the revert. --Tbeatty 22:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources. Unless you have something new to add, I really don't think I should waste any more time explaining to you that plagiarism is against our rules. Gamaliel 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
A) I cited my source and B) it wasn't plagiarism. The fact that I cited my source and you don't dispute that takes us full circle. Your Wikipedia:Citing sources cite means you RV'd my edit for a "Style Guide" interpretation. Please stop accusing me of plagiarism. You have not been able to show how a cited extract of facts constitutes any kind of wikipedia violation. --Tbeatty 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't like it, but all you have to do to avoid plagiarism is to credit your source properly with the use of quotation marks, hardly an onerous task. You can believe that your "just facts" interpretation allows you to copy word for word whatever you want without distinguishing it as unoriginal work, but I will continue to remove from WP articles any plagiarism that I see. Gamaliel 04:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you that if you are caught taking sentences word-for-word, even if it is cited, at most universities then profs would mark that as an honor violation because they consider it plagiarism. In fact, there are style manuals on it. The sad part is if you don't cite it then you're less likely to get caught. In the world of scholarship it's done to create an atmosphere of original thought (or at least the attempt to make an origional thought) where individuals take pre-existing knowledge and add their own interpretations, anaylsis, and thoughts to it rather than just regurgitating what you read somewhere else without using your brain. I wouldn't exactly consider Wiki scholarly but it attempts to be. --Strothra 01:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the exact opposite. Original thought is against policy. Wikipedia want no original thought, interpretation or analysis. This is exactly why there is no policy on plagiarism because it simply can't exist given the restrictions. --Tbeatty 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gamaliel for your support on this issue. Tbeatty's edits are poorly researched and seem to only be the result of very poor interpretations of the NSArchive's website. This is an organization which I have been personally involved with and would appreciate it if you watch the article for a while.--Strothra 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel Brandt[edit]

I notice you closed this MfD as "delete", but you only deleted the legal threats on the userpage. I'm not critising you or anything (in my opinion the quicker we get rid of his threats the better), but if I were you I would delete the whole page to remove the legal threats from the history (and anyway, it's Miscellany for deletion, not for blanking :-P). If you don't want to get involved any more then I'm fine to delete it myself, just let me know. Cheers, FireFoxT [19:08, 5 April 2006]

I'm not sure I see the point of deleting it, but I have no objection if someone else does. Gamaliel 19:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well for starters, as I said, it's "Miscellany for deletion", and secondly it will remove legal threats from the history, and Brandt can easily make a new page if he wishes. If you don't object I'll probably delete it in the next hour or so. FireFoxT [19:50, 5 April 2006]

Stardust (song) recording[edit]

Can you determine which recording of "Stardust" was selected for the national artchive that you've mentioned? --Wetman 17:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I should specify in the article. Thanks for pointing that out. Gamaliel 17:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

You almost never use edit summaries; could you start please? They're a courtesy to other editors.

Incidentally, you've been placing categories in the middle of articles; I'm sure that this is a slip, but could you make sure that they go to the end of the articles? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair characterization. I've been doing a lot of recent editing to albums where most of these edits were minor, adding a link here and there. When you add the same link to 500 articles, you get a little tired of typing in the same thing into the edit summary box. I do try to leave edit summaries on all major edits. Gamaliel 16:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I usually cut and paste when I have a lot of similar/identical edits to make. I know that it's a bit of a pain, but think what it's like for someone like me who sees a list of edits with no descriptions on their Watchlist. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

can you restore Rio Grande Foundation?[edit]

Only one paragraph was copied from there. It was a piece of their mission statement that was merely descriptive. I doubt that would qualify as a copyright violation. However, if it would help, once restored I would adjust it so that the information is cited as a quote from their mission statement. We quote copyrighted material all the time under "fair use". I really think whoever did this was not probably interpreting what a copyright violation is.--Silverback 11:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use allows you to quote that paragraph if you present it as a quote. In this case, the quote was presented as original material with no indication it was a quotation, and the entire article consisted of this non-original material. There is no way that qualifies as fair use no matter how generously you define it. You are welcome to recreate the article with original material. Gamaliel 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess that you didn't notice that the article also included a "see also" and "external links" sections, so it wasn't the "entire article". Can you please restore it. I don't see it in the history. I will rectify it then.--Silverback 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
So what? Fair use does not allow an article composed of 95% unoriginal material either. Gamaliel 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
So what. Restore the article and I will fix it.--Silverback 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No. The url of the RGF is You can get the deleted information there. Gamaliel 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope you are so disrepectful of others wikipedia's in general.--Silverback 21:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm disrepectful because I won't violate Wikipedia and restore a copyright violation? You could easily recreate the article yourself and easily get the lost paragraph from the RGF website. Why do you need a copyright violation to be recreated? Gamaliel 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I bet you could recreate it easier, and you should've given more time for the article to be corrected since the subject was encyclopedic. It is a lot of trouble getting links right. What you did completely removed it from my contributions list. The site was not even copyrighted.--Silverback 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of LIP[edit]

Just want more information on why you red-flagged The Long Island Project and deleted some of my images. There's nothing wrong with the article. EZZIE 17:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:Importance would be a good place to learn more about our policies and standards. Basically, the article has not presented any evidence that it is significant enough for an encyclopedia article. This is not to insult the worthiness of this film, but to note that it may lack significant media coverage or distribution to achieve a level of fame or importance that would justify inclusion here.
I did not delete any of your images. I removed a single image from the Henry Hyde article. The image was not deleted from Wikipedia. I removed the image from that article because it did not provide any source information and because, frankly, it looked like a photoshopped fake. Gamaliel 17:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Understood, Thank you. EZZIE 17:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My accusations of bias is totally founded--I can't believe this place. Besides, you're the one who red-flagged it as an AFD anyway--so of course you'd say that. EZZIE 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have told you that you can prevent this deletion by providing evidence of your films notability, such as media coverage. If you would rather complain about Wikipeida than do that, that is your right, but your article will still be deleted. Gamaliel 20:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Gamaliel did you see the page blanking that EZZIE did to your userpage? ???!!! It made me do a spit take onto my monitor. (well, almost).
Mytwocents 20:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow! And I'm disappointed, he's already been blocked. :( Gamaliel 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dirkhising Edits[edit]

You replaced descriptors in the article which subjective terms. There's no proof that Washington Times is conservative. That's an unprovable accusation. I feel like I'm about to start arguing Tbeatty's line on the National Security Archive POV edits. --Strothra 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Washington Times article: "The Times is politically conservative, particularly on the opinion pages. For example, it almost always supports Republican candidates when making political endorsements. It is often cited along with the Fox News Channel and talk radio as epitomizing the "conservative media"." Gamaliel 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Right the article does say that and I was about to mark that as POV. Also, the use of "conservative" and "liberal" towards media outlets are subjective terms attempting to establish an idea that media outlets have political agendas. This is not proven, only percieved. Further, you did not replace the liberal accusation of the Washington Post...--Strothra 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the WP self-identifies as liberal, while I believe Sullivan and the WT do self-identify as conservative. The MRC article identifies it as conservative in the first graph using quotes and cited facts. If you can find a self-identification of the WP as liberal I will support inserting that description. I'm not interested in taking sides or "accusations", but in accuracy. Gamaliel 21:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I won't deny that Sullivan may self-identify as conservative but that does not neccesarily mean that WT is conservative. I'll do the same if you can find a self-identification from WT, the company, as conservative but internally citing Wiki isn't sufficient to prove conservative leaning. --Strothra 21:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I will look for such a reference for the WT article. Gamaliel 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald discussion on Original Research[edit]

I am the writer responsible for the Soviet part of the article -- I did not exactly "promptly disappear." I have left a response in the discussion to the question of "original research."

ceesharp 13 April 2006

I was going solely by my memory and I'm sorry if I mischaracterized what happened due to remembering it incorrectly. I'll respond to your comments on the article talk page shortly. Gamaliel 04:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

One red paperclip[edit]

The article has been moved to One red paperclip (no more quotes) and evidence of notability has been added. I didn't want to make a unilateral decision and remove the deletion tag, but I feel it is appropriate to do so. Thoughts? KevinPuj 03:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The "prod" tag can be removed by anyone, but due to the CNN coverage I agree that there is enough notability to, at least, remove the proposal for speedy deletion. Gamaliel 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


I read the article "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison its Anti-Elitism" and I really agree that there should be a policy of "respect and deference to expertise". Are there any groups to join in support of something like this? Is there a userbox? KevinPuj 04:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the link to the CIA Oswald article?[edit]

You claim the show is already linked? Has it been mislabeled; where is it? 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The CIA opinion article is part of the Frontline website about the show "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald", which is clearly linked to by the article. Gamaliel 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a different article. Just because Wikipedia links to a web site that links to a third website does not mean the third web site should not have a direct link to Wikipedia. Wake up and look at what you are deleting.
The first program in1993, is a chronology of Lee Harvey Oswald's life with information known in 1993.

In that program FRONTLINE concluded, "What now seems certain is that the CIA is still covering up its contact with Lee Harvey Oswald."

The second article was done ten years later by PBS and says this

It was 1993, the 30th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, when FRONTLINE first aired its documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"

"Now, ten years later, much material has been made available to the American public which sheds light on what the CIA had been hiding for forty years."

It took an Act of Congress to release the damaging documents hidden by the CIA. Here is the information in the second program you keep deleting.

"Arguably, the most startling information so far brought to light by the release of these intelligence records is the CIA cover-up relating to Oswald's visit to Mexico City."

"Oswald was in Mexico City in late September and early October of 1963. During his one-week stay, he tried to obtain visas from the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy. But intelligence documents released in 1999 establish that, after Oswald failed to get the visas, CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin - Valery Kostikov - whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year."

"The news of this impersonation and the link to Kostikov, learned within hours of President Kennedy's assassination, electrified top government and intelligence officials and dominated their discussion in the immediate weeks following the assassination. It also became during the next 40 years one of the CIA's most closely guarded secrets on the Oswald case."

Don't make yourself look like a fool for deleting it again. 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a different article, but we cannot link to every single page on a website. One link to the website is enough. Regarding your last comment, I refer you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel just doesn't get it[edit]

This Gamaliel editor just doesn't get it. He is so afraid that someone might disturb his pet theories on subjects, that he zooms around reverting information with which he doesn't agree. He used to simply call any information with which he doesn't personally agree "nonsense". Now Gamaliel simply reverts, or reverts with cryptic comments that lack any appearance of logic.

For example, Gamaliel is frantic to keep out an external link to a PBS program that was first shown in 2003. It is a ten year update by PBS of an earlier program in 1993 on the relationship between the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald. Over the 10 year period Congress forced the CIA to produce more of its hidden documents on the relationship between it and Oswald.

Why Gamaliel fears the disclosure of this information is unknown. Perhaps he is one of the frustrated CIA wannabe's who turn into CIA butt-snifters on the internet. It is hard to say.

In any event, Gamaliel keeps reverting out an external link to the 2003 PBS show on-line.

Now Gamaliel claims he deletes the "forbidden" link because there is an external link to the PBS article of 1993. His theory is some one could search through the PBS index to see if there are any more articles on Oswald, rather than simply putting in the Wikipedia article on Oswald, a simple external link to the new 2003 update produced by PBS.

Gamaliel claims to be very concerned about using too many resources to provide a one line link.

Here is Wikipedia policy: "[T]here is no reason at all why Wikipedia should not grow into something beyond what could ever possibly be put on paper. Plain text takes up an almost negligible amount of disk space. At seven letters per word, a 100 GB hard drive that costs around $70 US can hold 15 billion words. That's two million words per penny."

Gamaliel, you are starting to look ridiculous.

RPJ 07:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was starting to believe that you were becoming more reasonable and civil. Looks like I was wrong. Gamaliel 07:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam filter[edit]

I am tryinmg to remove blocked user Daniel Brandt's latest anonymous comment from a San Antonio IP at Talk:Daniel Brandt#edirected to wikipediareview and am getting a spam filter message, [10]. SqueakBox 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Crap. I'll make a request on meta to take this stuff off the spam list. Gamaliel 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to misattribute your comment. It might be helpful if other users post to as well. Gamaliel 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done so, SqueakBox 21:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the links are being maliciously used to spam wikipedia, they need to remain on the blacklist. Even if Brandt stops for now, I'd argue that some of these need to stay... although we'd missed it in the past, it's clear that the namebase site is being widely linked from inapproiate places. --Gmaxwell 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The nowiki tag should be sufficient. Gamaliel 01:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Not really, because some clients make everything clickable that looks too much like a URL. --Gmaxwell 05:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Brandt links[edit]

How about the links rather than nowiki mentioning them? Less problems for our users, and no potential for Brandt to continue to change the content out from under us. In any case, it's not really appropriate or reliable to cite a page as a source when the subject of discussion can (and does!) change the page at any time without leaving a record. --Gmaxwell 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why the date of the citation is noted as well. This is standard citation format, and it would be inappropriate not to note the source of our information regardless of how the page may change in the future. I have no problem with using links as long as it's clear what page original material is from. Gamaliel 01:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
But the date of citation is useless on a site without revision control unless you use And it appears that Brandt has asked not to serve up any of his pages. We'd been having some discussions about operating our own historical archive for external links, so perhaps it's time to refresh that idea. --Gmaxwell 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the alternative is; more tech savvy people than I will have to come up with something. But no citation at all is just unacceptable, so we have to have some form of the url there. Gamaliel 05:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dornan[edit]

Please do not revert the article on Bob Dornan again. The quotes and information you've restored are unsourced, and against the NPOV policy. --NEMT 22:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Then add a {{fact}} citation and we will do some research. The material is hardly NPOV. Gamaliel 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
As a wiki admin you should know better than to revert a page which has been edited to remove unsourced and/or biased information. Additionally, wikipedia is not a quote guide, go to wikiquote if you want to throw unreferenced quotes around ad hoc. --NEMT 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice job cleaning up the article otherwise, though. --NEMT 15:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the tactic of removing chunks of articles on the basis that they are unsourced. It's something that is too often abused by people to remove information they dislike. In my opinion people should add the fact tag and help search for the citations themselves. Thanks for the props, though. Gamaliel 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel tries to"ban" editor with whom he disagrees[edit]

Regarding your last post, I now ask that you never post on my talk page again. Gamaliel 05:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And I decline. Gamaliel, you must understand this isn't "your" page, and you can't roam around the web site threatening people and then hide on this particular page when such matters need to brought to your attention and addressed by yourself.

RPJ 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot resist the temptation to post insulting remarks on my user talk page and vandalize it by restoring the insulting remarks of others that I have deleted, then I will have to start dispute resolution procedures against you. Since I am involved party I cannot block you myself for your behavior, but had I been a witness instead of a victim, you would have been blocked long ago. I can't imagine the arbitration committee being any less tolerant of your nonsense. You have until Monday evening to decide. Gamaliel 22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've warned RPJ on his page. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

A "warning" by another editor. But, who polices Blocking? Is it like grafitti? Anyone can do it? Can it be done on a whim? Can someone block another because Gamaliel, with the back of his hand to his forhead, claims harassment? Look before you leap
Here is some examples of "Gamaliel's" editing work. Perhaps Bishonen should block Gamaliel:

2-26-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was "pushing disproved chin nonsense AGAIN"

2-24-2006 Gamaliel said "oh lord not the mauser and the big chin nonsense again"

2-17-2006 Gamaliel said another editor was being "quite obnoxious."

2-16-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was making "an absurd claim."

1-30-2006 Gamaliel said an editor wanted "to insert conspiracy nonsense into the article."

1-24-2006 Gamaliel called an editor's information "rambling, barely coherent rants."

1-19-2006 Gamaliel refered to an editor's position as "your ridiculous objections."

1-12-2006 Gamaliel said he was going to remove "this Mauser nonsense."

1-2-2006 Gamaliel said that a contribution "is nuts."

12-31-2006 Gamaliel decided someone's edits "were a mess."

9-21-2006 Gamaliel accused an editor of "offensive amateur analysis."

RPJ 06:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for trolling and harassment on this page[edit]

RPJ has been blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC).


Hi, I thought you might want to take a look at this. I'd revert, but I've had a bad experience with the other editor involved, so I wish to keep my distance. --BostonMA 15:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored the link. Gamaliel 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Please add nationality to the articles about humans that you create or edit. In an Encyclopedia is not written anywhere that people must be American or English or what. Thanks!!! Attilios 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I try to do that to every biographical article I create, but I may have missed one. Could you please tell me which article you are referring to? Gamaliel 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Harris[edit]

Regarding the fact tag you just added re: "US attorney said"... Please read the article and talk page. I have several times added that tag. In fact, it's in the body of the article right now, you overlooked it. Such is the peril of trying to cram to much into the intro. I'd revert DH's edit which you just tagged. The way I had it "later discovered to be illegal" was better for the intro. Merecat 05:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Burns[edit]

It strikes me that you're bloating the article with irrelevancies like "folksy" and a 1988 veto of Melcher legislation to justify inserting other irrelevancies. Far be it for me to tell you which windmills to tilt at, but, really, why do you care so much whether a Wikipedia article should include a joke that Burns made about drinking or nose rings? Even if you're doing it as a matter of partisan politics (like I noted, I don't see you fighting to include identical remarks made by Hillary Clinton), these non-notable things didn't hurt Burns's campaigns in 1994 and 2000--why are they going to hurt him in 2006?

I personally feel a little discouraged: there was an RFC, I came over as a neutral observer, did some research, did the best job I could to NPOV the article between the extreme positions, and the person who called for the RFC simply disregarded what I did, and doesn't even appear to have read it. That's not good for Wikipedia, but unfortunately the mechanism is such that the system rewards the editors who treat articles like a bone not to be let go of, and the site suffers for it.

You're smart enough to recognize that a Wikipedia article requires more than just compiling everything every major-media source ever said about someone, so I don't know why you're insisting to the contrary. But you win. Fill up the article with cruft. I'm taking it off my watchlist. -- FRCP11 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inserting anything into the article to justify inserting anything else. I've read a few articles and biographical info on Burns and I've been adding to the article. I honestly thought what I've been inserting today was non-controversial material. Every source mentions his folksy manner. Why should I not insert that then? What reason would I have to conclude it was inappropriate? I'm not trying to fill the article up with cruft, just with things I think are interesting and notable from the information I've gatehred, in an effort to expand the article. I'm not playing at anything here, I'm genuinely confused why you have found my edits (those unrelated to the controversial statements of course) today so offputting and offensive. Gamaliel 22:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotations should not contain wikilinks[edit]

To quote something is to copy it exactly as it appears at the source, when you add wikilinks to it you corrupt that. The act of wikilinking might emphasize or de-emphasize the quotation not as the author of the quotation intended, and not as the reader should read it. Choosing what is and what is not wikilinked inside a quotation should be thought of as obvious POV in my interpretation. The addition of wikilinks decreases readability. Comprehension is a two step process, if someone doesn't know the definition of a word or concept they should stop reading the encyclopedia article, go look up the word or subject and gain some understanding of it, then return and pick up where they left off, not try to do it all at once clicking quickly. Excessive wikilinking is akin to impulsive chaos. Only what is directly relevant to an article or what a reader is conceivably likely to want to click on for more information should be wikilinked. If you feel the subjects you want wikilinked inside the quotations really are important enough create a "See also" section or you could even paraphrase what you believe to be missing info just outside the quotation, though some form of the former is preferred. It's very easy to use the search box to find what you don't know. Hollow are the Ori 17:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have to type things from articles into the search box, what is the point of having wikilinks at all? Readability is a concern, but linking one or two thinks in a single quote does not decrease readability any more than such limited and selective linking decreases readability anywhere else in the article. You keep saying such linking also serves to distort the meaning of quotes, but you have yet to identify how it does so. My reason for adding these links is simple, and it is the very reason such links exist: if you read the quote by Strassel about Clear Skies and you want to know what clear skies is, simply click the link. This does not distort the meaning of the quote, it does not decrease readability, it increases the functionality of Wikipedia. Having to use the search box or a see also section decreases the functionality of WP by making such searches more cumbersome, and you haven't demonstrated any particular compelling reason to take these cumbersome steps in this case. Gamaliel 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikilinking relevant information in an article is ok, wikilinking a definition is not, and nothing inside a quotation should be wikilinked. It should be obvious that the act of changing a quotation to add wikilinks changes the quotation, it's common knowledge on wikipedia that wikilinks emphasize things, perhaps illegitimately. You can't say you've actually quoted something properly if you've added wikilinks to it. I agree it might be cumbersome but such is the slow pace of comprehension. Wikilinking "Clear Skies" may indeed taint the meaning of the quote depending on the content of the Clear Skies article which may very well be different than how the author of the quotation uses the phrase. The Clear Skies article can't possibly define or convey an author's intent. Reference to a subject and author's intent are two different things that should be disassociated. Please add Clear Skies to a new See also section since you apparently feel so strongly about having some sort of linkage. Hollow are the Ori 18:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a link to a Wikipedia guideline or policy which states that nothing inside a quotation should be wikilinked. I am unaware of any such policy and do not feel that providing wikilinks distorts the meaning of a quotation. Gamaliel 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought we were actually debating the appropriateness of wikilinking inside a quotation? Merely referencing and hence mindlessly encouraging the enforcement of what I interpret to be an incorrect policy can not be considered a debate on the merits of that policy. Hollow are the Ori 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to change the policy, campaign for a change in the appropriate forums, don't single out one minor biography article and apply different rules to it than to all other Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I consider it obvious that the wikipedia practice of adding wikilinks to quotations corrupts that quotation. Rules and practices should not contradict common sense. Are you debating against my interpretation or are you mindlessly enforcing what has become a de facto rule? Hollow are the Ori 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Both. I do not feel that you should apply a different formatting standard to a single article because of personal preference. I also do not feel that adding wikilinks distorts or corrputs a quote. Gamaliel 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What you choose to wikilink is your personal preference, the point of quoting someone is to convey their intended meaning exactly which means not filtering it through your preferences. Hollow are the Ori 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I chose the wikilinks using standard Wikipedia linking practices. If you wish to dispute the appropriateness of a particular link or feel that I have chosen a particular link with the intent of distorting the meaning of the quote, please bring up the matter on the article talk page and all the editors on the article can discuss the appropriateness of that particular link. Sometimes linking causes an NPOV dispute, but everyday on Wikipedia editors choose thousands of links and the whole thing generally works pretty well. Gamaliel 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The mere act of wikilinking any part of quotation changes it into something that is not a quotation and so should not be allowed in my interpretation. Given that user accounts disagree on what should be wikilinked it should be obvious to see that the act of wikilinking is POV, and POV does not belong inside a quotation. Hollow are the Ori 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If users disagree on what should be linked, they discuss it and arrive at a consensus, just like everything else on Wikipedia. Other people, not to mention wikipedia policies, disagree with your assessment that links change the meaning of a quotation and are inherently POV. Gamaliel 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagreement over wikilinks inside article text is different and should be disassociated from disagreement over wikilinks inside quotations. By definition a quotation means to copy what an author said, the key point in my interpretation being copying it exactly as the author said it which includes the format in which the said it. Any instance were you interpret a need to add a wikilink can be handled by adding that outside of the quotation, I am not saying don't add references to other information, you just have to do that in a way that does not change the quotation. Hollow are the Ori 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If I linked Clear Skies to anti-environmentalist or fiasco, for example, I would be changing the quotation in a significant, POV way. However, as I stated before, I simply do not agree that adding a link to text that is already in the quote distorts or alters the quote in any way whatsoever. The addition of such links is exactly how Wikipedia was designed to operate. Gamaliel 19:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The Clear Skies article itself may be just as POV as anti-environmentalist and fiasco as far as the potential for tainting a quotation is concerned. The content of an article may be very different or even at odds with how the author uses that same word or phrase in their quoted text. To repeat, a wikilinked article can not possibly convey author's intent. The definition of quotation is designed to operate on a 100% accurate copy of the source text without extra formatting and emphasis or de-emphasis on some parts of it. Hollow are the Ori 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Then the solution is to rewrite the Clear Skies article to ensure that it is NPOV, just as every WP article should be. If she is refering to the Clear Skies legislation in her quotation, then nothing about her intent is altered if we link to the Clear Skies legislation article. Once again, I feel that the addition of a link does not alter in any way the meaning or content of the quotation or make it any less than 100% accurate. Policy, most wikipedians, and the very nature of how WP is designed do not concur with your assessment of the addition of links. Gamaliel 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
In my interpretation the proper criteria isn't the NPOVyness of the Clear Skies article its the realization that a wikilinked article can not possible convey all authors' intended meanings and uses of a word or phrase inside a quotation. Even a mere reference to more information corrupts and taints the copy of the quoted text. See Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks for the proposal. Hollow are the Ori 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobel templates deletion[edit]

Hi! Someone has recommended that the templates of Nobel Prize winners be deleted. Will it be ok if you just post your opinion at templates for deletion? Thanks, really appreciate it. =) Joey80 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Infinite bad faithed editing?[edit]

It seems you just suddenly started adding wikilinks, some inside quotations, to articles I created right after I reported the same problem, what I consider to be vandalism, over on the Wikipedia:Requests for investigation page? [11] Please explain your actions? Are you trying to provoke me and/or are you doing everything you can in opposition to the Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks guideline proposal? Hollow are the Ori 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up a number of your articles by adding external links, internal links, and fixing and adding categories. I just left a message on your user page about how you could correct one of these problems yourself. I am not trying to provoke anything, I am just cleaning up some articles. Gamaliel 17:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
And it is considered bad faith and quite rude to accuse other editors of vandalism over a matter of personal style preference. Gamaliel 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that you know about Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks and were even involved in the wikilinking inside quotations dispute over on Kimberley Strassel that precipitated the creation of that guideline proposal you can't claim ignorance now with your recent "clean up" edits, and your timing is certainly extremely coincidental. My accusation has a question mark next to it, if you choose not to respond to my challenge to explain your actions then consider this merely a notice informing you of my most plausible interpretation of your actions. Hollow are the Ori 17:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I already explained my actions. I cleaned up a number of articles in the same category at the same time, specifically focusing on those that were misalphabetized within the category. I made what I thought were edits improving all of those articles. I don't see any reason not to clean up these articles because you edited some of them. Gamaliel 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Please point to where you explained your actions in a logical manner or engaged in debate about the merits of whether quotations should contain wikilinks or not? You made edits at the exact time I was reporting you for investigation of vandalism of edits of the exact same type, very suspicious. On the Kimberley Strassel discussion page I asked you to hold off on wikilinking inside quotations while we resolve the dispute through discussion. But right when I am garnering community input on the Wikipedia:Quoations should not contain guideline you intentionally add links to quotations and excessively wikilink only articles I've created, at the very least it is obvious you have intentionally been stalking my contribution history. Hollow are the Ori 18:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to explain myself to you again. I do not need your permission to clean up articles. I do not check who edited an article previously and do not see a need to refrain from editing an article based on who may have edited it in the past. Please stop posting here unless you wish to engage in productive discussion. Gamaliel 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made a suggestion on the Talk:Kimberley Strassel page, that the quotes be turned into NPOV statements. Then the question of wikilinks is rendered moot.
Mytwocents 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. Nothing says we can't have a sense of humor, after all. DS 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry[edit]

Dear Sir:

I am making my first contributions to wikipedia. "List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry" was my first page. I think you removed bart of what I added. I am not sure if this was confusion while our edits were crossing in cyberspace. I added back my first section. I am attempting to make it look as much like the "List of films preserved in the United States National Film Registry" page as possible. I am not proficient at internal links and leave that up to others. Please reply by email.

User:Mr orto[edit]

i recieved a comment from you saying that i am vandalizing pages. i am not aware of what vandalism you are talking about and i was wanting you to tell me exactly what it is i am accused of doing. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr orto (talkcontribs)

Replied at User talk:Mr orto. Gamaliel 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Savage[edit]

Please explain to me what's wrong with my deletions. The quotes that I've deleted make the neutrality of this article quite disputable. Please tell me what I should do then, because the article as it is now is quite unacceptable. Politician818 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral does not mean the removal of all unflattering information. The information you have deleted has been sourced and is presented in a neutral way. Gamaliel 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel, I'm curious over something. I see quite a few areas that need cleanup and/or citation needed tags on Michael Savage (commentator), but I've already hit the 3RR limit for today. Does that mean I have to refrain from all editing, or just from reversions? Kasreyn 00:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just reversions. In general, I'd be careful to not edit in a way that might be construed as trying to sneak something back into the article in a different way, but other than that you're welcome to edit the article as you would normally. Gamaliel 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I think I'll wait a day, rather than having the possibility that my edit might be misconstrued. Thanks. Kasreyn 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry, I'd just go ahead and do it. Only blatant attempts to circumvent 3RR get a block; an honest mistake wouldn't concern anyone. If someone objects you can always revert yourself and wait until the next day. Gamaliel 01:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

comic strip switcheroo[edit]

Why did you revert my edit to reality check on comic strip switcheroo? It links to a disambiguation page which only provides an external link anyway.

We don't mix in internal and external links in a list like that. Gamaliel 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. No hard feelings.

SFriendly.gif216.37.227.202 23:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Actually travelling is a perfectly acceptable way of spelling in British English. In fact to my mind it looks better. Williamb 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I always have issues when trying to spell that word. It's good to know either way is correct. :) Gamaliel 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Biodiesel Image[edit]

I know that your science is weak in this area, but the image on the top of the biodiesel page is incorrect... the image appears to be the glycerine based waste layer from biodiesel manufacture. Biodiesel should be a bright yellow color, similar to most vegetable oils. I have confirmed this in the lab, and have outside sources that agree (I'll provide them for you later on, as I am away from my home computer). The main query is how do I denote that this is not a correct image on the image page, just as usual on the discussion? BTW isn't it about time for you to archive this page? Always a pain in the , dasnerd from 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just remove the image from the article and explain why you did it on the talk page. You might also want to post a note on the image discussion page too. Gamaliel 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
10-4, I'll do it from my home PC later on tonight, I'll also work on getting an actual photograph over the next week. I have been conducting the research and I know for certain as I have duplicated the experiment with larger samples. dasnerd from 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder + Suggestion...[edit]

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Comment Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones/JJstroker[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry Jones/JJstroker. -> [12] -Will Beback 10:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Loan" article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, your page suggests that you be notified of problems. I think you or another experienced administrator should look asap at Loans. There has been news lately about Wikipedia being comparable to Britannica, but much as I care about Wikipedia, I'm sure Britannica would rarely have an article of this quality. Thanks, Rich Peterson 5/23/06

Oswald Intro NPOV[edit]

You keep reverting my edits to the oswald intro. The changes I am making are mainly just a rearrangment of the sentances to flow better, but are also clarification to a more accurate turn of events. Oswald was identified as the suspect in the assasination and murder. He wasnt convicted, or anything else other than a suspect (I think he did it, but he wasn't convicted, that is a fact - he died first!) The warrent commision determined him to be the lone gunman, also in my edits, and some people disagree. All of this is in both of our versions, but mine is more explicit about the actual events. I don't see how you can claim yours is more NPOV, when it removes facts relevant to the case, and facts which are central to the controversy in this article. I am double posting this comment to the talk page on the oswald article, feel free to respond there or here, or my talk. I am redoing the edits. Note I have totally refrained from any personal attacks, but with your style of editing, I can certainly understand where the other editors frustrations are coming from. The only part that is at all controversial is the last line. Lets work something out.Gaijin42 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my objection on the talk page as you asked. I'm not going to get drawn into another debate about personalities. I've had plenty of those with RPJ. Gamaliel 20:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark[edit]


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting[edit]

Thanks for reverting[edit]

You (and several others) saved me many keystrokes by reverting the most recent round of trivial/POV H1-B spam. All I had left to do was leave a message on a talk page: see Much thanks -- Paleorthid 01:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Almost famous[edit]

Thought you might find this (go to the bottom, html link in case of a revert) interesting. Note the email address.Econrad 21:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page :) WIKIPEEDIO 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-linking from quotes discussion[edit]

Hi there. I've added a comment to the discussion here about Wiki-linking from quotes. As someone who has posted to this discussion, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Paul Robeson:[edit]

You recently protected[13] this page but did not put in a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, article talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Please be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for getting involved in the Paul Robeson atricle issue. Do you have a proposal for moving forward to get consensus on the "Communist" issue?

Thanks again. --JohnFlaherty 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet but I might be able to think of something. BTW, you don't have to use html to format your posts, Wikipedia does it automatically for you. Just skip a space instead of using the p tag. Gamaliel 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

proposed deletion of clickdensity[edit]

Hi. I'm going to try building up the 'clickdensity' article (which you've currently proposed for deletion); I was just wondering if there was anything in particular you objected to about the current text, or whether I could just continue building it up (in a non 'advertisement' sense) to make it comply?

Thanks for your help

Spxdcz 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, it just seemed like an advertisement. The best thing to improve the article would be some kind of non-company source (such an article in Wired, that sort of thing) that shows that this thing is worth writing about. Gamaliel 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've seen lots of this kind of entry around (i.e. for new Web 2.0-ish applications), but I see what you mean... Right, I'll take another shot at it when it's got more press. Thanks again. Spxdcz 12:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mannlicher/Mauser rifle[edit]

I changed the edit, as I was very wrong about Fritz´s handling of the rifle (before the Lab could check it for fingerprints.) Sorry. I also added the fact that Fritz said he wasn´t an expert about the differences between the two.

The "Maggie´s drawers" quote is widely available. It does not mean to say that Oswald was a bad shot; it just means that he didn´t care, at the time...

andreasegde 19:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It still needs a citation. Gamaliel 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

I was just hoping that, as an administrator, you could use your powers to deal with the personal attacks in this vote. Thanks. Love, Bongout 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally we don't edit the historical record of a closed AfD discussion, and in any case, I am currently unable and unwilling to edit anything related to Daniel Brandt due to his blackmail, threats, and stalking. Gamaliel 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Miscellany for deletion comments[edit]

Hi there. I've just got round to reading your comments here. I just wanted to leave a brief message saying thanks for the apology, and I apologise in my turn if I was a bit too sensitive about the whole thing. I totally agree that the content of banned users should be treated with extreme caution, and I have now proposed that the proposal be rejected. The essential bits of the argument will hopefully be integrated elsewhere. Carcharoth 10:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar Reloaded[edit]

Hi, I'm a relatively new user reopening this issue: The following comments are a reply to Morton devonshire, who questioned my notability tag (and I suspect, removed the tag from the Farivar page without either addressing the issue, or knowing the background. Sorry to clog your page quoting my comments in full but I see that Vfd, notability tags and other stuff mysteriously disappear from the Farivar page. Perhaps delete all this later? I think it's important for WKP that this issue be decided and a legitimate majority view be carried:

Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:

decidedly not notable - the subject is not notable in himself, andn greenlighting was not a notable hoax

the count of the last deletion vote (Aug '05) came down firmly on the side of 'delete' - how does this come to mean 'keep'?

mainly based on a trivial subject - a non-event, in fact

a page intended as a self-promotional tool, rather than to be informational

refers almost entirely to itself - no importance in the wider world

a bad precedent

The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance.

Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion.

I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential.

I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion).

Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote

I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error. As I am a new editor, maybe I am missing some procedural convention?

My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed.

Centrepull 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The page cannot be deleted without another AfD discussion, which you are welcome to initiate if you wish. I am aware of Snowspinner's rash comments and I would have opposed his decision (I voted delete myself) had the vote not resulted in a clear keep. AfD's generally require about a 70% consensus to delete, not just a majority vote. I counted the votes myself and this threshold was not met. Gamaliel 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear and helpful response. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about WKP protocol, and having followed this case, I am amazed that the Farivar page has not been deleted. I'm sorry about making those comments on the historical deletion discussion page, I've removed them and I won't make that mistake again.
I firmly believe the case for this page is very weak, disappointingly there seems to be no decisive way of establishing a consensus. I still think that the last consensus was actually to 'delete', as the Afd Wikietiquette (and common sense) would lead one to examine the relative strengths of the arguments, even if one doesn't count the numbers of 'keeps' and 'deletes' on either side. While the arguments for 'keep' seemed poor, NPOV, supposedly a WKP non-negotiable, was not argued, nor notability. Exactly the points the 'delete' editors made.
My proposal is that the biographical material be userfy-ed, which doesn't seem to have been proposed before. On the vote, I note that I have been variously informed that 'there isn't actually a vote-count for proposal for deletion', 'a 2/3 majority is reasonable', and a 'rough consensus' (according to the official administrators' deletion policy page). Reading through the responses for the Aug '05 deletion process, I think that a rough consensus to delete was reached. Surely one should not need to put out a call at the village pump to ensure that a really weak case does not prevail in the deletion process?
Centrepull 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If you feel a case for deletion can be made, then I suggest you propose another deletion. Gamaliel 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Family Groove Company[edit]

Please review my comments regarding the AfD for Family Groove Company at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Groove Company and see if you still wish to have this article deleted. Thank you, Dismas|(talk) 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Gamaliel!

Could you please have a look at the talk page and history of the article on Gibraltar. Over the past few months a number of users, including myself, have been in conflict with user:Gibnews. We feel he has taken over the page as his pet project and has imposed a NPOV pro-Gibraltarian point of view. I feel his attitude and utter refusal to acheive any form of consensus is contrary to the rules of wikipedia. He accuses everyone of Spanish propaganda even on issues which are not directly related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar and reverts pretty much everything which is not written by himself. Although I am not Spanish, I sometimes wonder if I may be slightly biased towards the Spanish perspective. I do not however believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish and I try to remain as neutral as possible. I do not have a problem with Gibnew's views. I simply do not approve of his way of discarding other people's sources, opinions etc... You should perhaps consult other users for their opinions such as user:ecemaml and user:asterion.

That is why I ask you, as an uninterested party, to mediate or atleast give your perspective on this issue.

Please look at the talk page over the past few months. Conflict with user Gibnews seems to go a long way back.

Thankyou very much for your help. We would really appreciate it. There is nothing worse that when articles are hijacked by individuals with political agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talkcontribs)


only works as {{subst:Welcome}}-- 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter[edit]

has become a free-for-all, can you checkuser MrEnforcer to see if it's 84 signing up for an account, and I think he's done about 5 reverts today already. --kizzle 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You will need to block Kizzle for 24 hours due to her 4 reverts at Ann Coulter. Thanks. People are watching to see if you will be consistent in applying the policy.

I don't care for threats or ultimatums. Please identify these four reverts. Gamaliel 20:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have the initial edit (which was not a rv by the way), then 1, 2, and 3 reverts (see history, thus I have not broken any policy. You, on the other hand, have:
Which equals 4 reverts 5 reverts 6 reverts in a period of 24 hours (I could be wrong, Gamaliel check :) ), not to mention if User:MrEnforcer's edit is you as well. --kizzle 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle's 4 reverts of civil rights advocate in the Ann Coulter opening paragraph within 1 hour:

1. 19:35, 26 June 2006
2. 19:43, 26 June 2006
3. 19:57, 26 June 2006
4. 20:23, 26 June 2006 

He needs to be blocked.

Waiting for you to demonstrate you consistency and lack of bias. People are watching.

How can this be a revert when I added information completely original? (and btw that 67 ip is not me, you can checkuser to make sure) --kizzle 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're right, if you simply copy and paste the same revert twice as above to inflate your list:

 3. 19:57, 26 June 2006
 4. 20:23, 26 June 2006

Only then do I violate the 3RR rule. --kizzle 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User, do not post on this page again. If you wish to report a violation of the 3RR, post to WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you do a checkuser on User:DaEnforcer and User:MrEnforcer? Both of them came out of the woodwork conveniently on Ann Coulter. --kizzle 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A request has been submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Gamaliel 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) sorry to clutter up your page with this useless bullshit. --kizzle 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sullivan Brothers[edit]

Gamaliel, what vandalizm are you talking about? I simply added a fact about George's injury during the first attack and reformated the paragraphs for gramatical flow. There was NO vandalism done. Please go back and re-read the edits I made. Your statement, "If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia," would seem to indicate that you confused me with someone else. I only made this one edit to the article. 14:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If I confused you with another IP address or another user with the same IP address, I apologize. Gamaliel 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you kindly remove the warning from the user page? I have had this IP address for well over a year. Thank you 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Your talk page is now freshly scrubbed. Gamaliel 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome[edit]

Gamaliel, thanks for the welcome message on my user page. While an account does make sense, it appears I would lose my history of edits. I have actually already created an account, but don't know of a way to ensure my 18 months of history will be associated with my account. I really don't want to start over re-establishing a history. Is there any way I can retain/transfer my history to my account? 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a method of changing the attribution of edits made with an IP address, but they don't use it anymore. I think you would gain more than you lose if you get an account (less restrictions, less crap from people who mistake you for a vandal if they don't look at your edits closely enough, etc.) and you could post a note on your user page saying that you used to edit as Gamaliel 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You could also work contribs into your signature if you really want to-- 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I will review all of this tonight Arx Fortis 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (

Oswald´s rifle[edit]

Great photo of the letter. andreasegde 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:FL13 109.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FL13 109.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Source provided. Gamaliel 19:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Anonymous Users from the JFK articles[edit]

I wonder if we can block anonymous and new users from editing the JFK articles, namely John F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy Assassination, and Lee Harvey Oswald. It would make sense to do it similarly to how it has been has been done on the George W. Bush article, where those users have to put their edits on the talk page first.

The JFK articles are so controversial and difficult to keep NPOV and factually accurate that it is just a nuisance when anonymous users continue to vandalize them, or when a new user comes on to Wiki to argue a point that had been previously rebutted.

Ramsquire 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to lock the articles as I've been heavily involved in editing them. I suggest a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Gamaliel 01:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've put the requests in.Ramsquire 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User with history of spamming who keeps deleting warnings on his/her talk page[edit]

I've done a few cycles of reverting the deletions of User:wikibase on his/her talk page. wikibase, a short-time user, basically started out by posting a spam link to a bunch of articles; the edits were fairly promptly reversed (by someone else, mostly). And/he she appears to have a sockpuppet as well (cited on talk page), with a similar history. So the question is: at what point can/should I ask for wikibase to be blocked (and, in fact, can he/she be blocked from changing his/her user page)? Is there a protocol/policy here? Thanks. John Broughton 19:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Delete of Article for Phyllis Busansky (Congressional candidate)[edit]

Gamaliel - an admin named BlueValour has taken it upon him/herself to delete an article that was heavily revised to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral voice requirements on Democratic US House candidate Phyllis Busansky. I feel this is an abuse of an admin's powers and may be an act of vandalism. Busansky is a high profile candidate in a nationally watched US House race (FL9). The revision contained only matters of fact and was simple and straightforward. I am requesting your help in getting the article put back online. Please note that her opponent's page is still online. Sincerely, User: JohnTampa.

While I may disagree with the decision to delete this article, the deletion was proper according to Wikipedia policies. Baseless charges of "abuse" and "vandalism" do not help your case any and will encourage people not to take you seriously. This article was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and administrators are empowered to delete articles that are merely recreations of or articles which are substantially similar to articles deleted through that process.
To recreate this article, there are two options. One is to recreate the article yourself with substantial expansion to the information to make it different enough from the previous article to avoid speedy deletion. Two is to submit the article to Wikipedia:Deletion review. In that case, you must show why the deletion was improper according to Wikipedia policies. The best way, in my opinion, would be to submit information showing that Busansky's run is being noticed on a national level. You might also note that the article of a similar candidate, Kathy Castor, was kept and not deleted. However, if you make more baseless charges of abuse and vandalism on Deletion Review, that will pretty much guarantee your submission will be rejected. Gamaliel 13:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack and Delphine[edit]

Sorry, Gamaliel, but I think that saying, "drunken criminal Jack Martin and crazy ranting secretary Delphine Roberts", is going a bit "over the top". If you can find a citation to that effect, I will believe it.

Maybe they were not credible witnesses, but that is no reason to use the words you wrote. It´s a personal attack (and I don´t know if they are both still alive, and I´m not conversant with the Law) but the word Libel comes to mind. D´you know what I mean? andreasegde 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The necessary citations are in the article. Jack Martin died in the 1960s. He had an arrest record that stretched over decades, impersonated doctors and FBI agents, and was institutionalized. Roberts was still alive as of a decade ago, as Posner interviewed her for his book. If she wants to sue me, she is welcome to, but if you want to rant about blacks using racial slurs and claim you are the last person alive to have seen the sacred scrolls in the Ark of the Covenant, then being called nuts comes with that territory. These people are fucking crazy and I don't see any reason not to call them such. Gamaliel 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Warner Brothers´ "Looney Tunes" has a lot to answer for.... Now; what about some claims like Daffy Duck did it (joke) or others, that have NO citations at all? Snippy, snip snip?... andreasegde 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lumbering through[edit]

The reason I originally added links to mailing list archives was to indicate that people were still referring to the Lumber Cartel in their sig blocks.

Just so you know. DS 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi I made the head-fi wiki and I was wondering how I put it under website Notability... its probably the largest forum dedicated specifically for headphones and has been given several awards... I am new to all this and just wondering what I have to do...

sorry for any inconvience and thanks for your time


A good place to start is Wikipedia:Notability (web). Gamaliel 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Major League Aluminum Ball[edit]

Hello, my name is Eric Ritter. About an hour ago I created an article under the name of Major League Aluminum Ball. I had returned to continue my work on the page and found that it had been deleted by you, considered "nonsense." I had yet to finish the page, so the little that was there did indeed look like a bunch of nothing, but upon completion it would have been relevant. It is not nonsense, and is actually quite purposeful for I have had requests to create such a page in the passed. If it is possible, I would appreciate you copy and pasting the deleted text I had already typed in a response so I can continue from where I left off, if not possible, then I'd appreciate it not being deleted while still a work in progress. Thank you.

-Eric Ritter

I've mailed you the text of the deleted article. Articles about fake sports created by high school students generally do not belong in an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability about what sorts of topics are appropriate. Gamaliel 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Warnings[edit]

Bib Fortuna says I'm sorry. I did not know that. Thank you for telling me. I will remember that the next time

"redundant site" lee harvey oswald page[edit]

The reason I referred to it as redundant is that we already have another reference to McAdams' site, here and on other articles. Having two references to the same body of work is unnecessary. Thanks Dubc0724 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you referred to it as redundant. I have been trying to explain to you that this is an independent document which predates the McAdams site and is hosted in many places. If you would prefer to link to a non-mcadams site, find another site that hosts the FAQ and replace the link. Gamaliel 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Dubc0724 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

John Lewis (politician)
Human Events
Claude Allen
Joe Conason
NBC News
Jack Welch
Eleanor Clift
Florida's Natural Growers
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Patna Division
Marketplace (radio program)
Barbara Pariente
Ander Crenshaw
Anna Quindlen
Barbara Lee
James W. Grant
Criminalization of politics
Kendrick Meek
Michigan Women's Hall of Fame
Paula Jones
Paul Rogers
2004 United States presidential election recounts and legal challenges
2004 United States election voting controversies, Florida
List of turnpikes in the United States
Add Sources
Polar Air Cargo
James R. Thompson
Schafik Handal
Shorecrest Preparatory School
Shmuel Tamir
War Powers Act
Foreign worker
Fighting Dems
Toy Biz

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 14:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for removing my edit without giving any explication[edit]

Your profile is very telling, so I understand. Anyway, have a nice day.

Vincent Shooter 23:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me some idea of what the heck you are talking about. Thanks. Gamaliel 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal, but nice[edit]

You´re really good at quoting the rules of Wiki, even though you ignore them. (I collected a list...) Please don´t get angry, because you know what you do, and you´re brilliant at it. If I was in an argument about anything, I would love to have you on my side, but only if the proposition was good. If you´re not a lawyer, then you really should be. This is a compliment, by the way.

I think (POV, of course) that you are wasting your time by holding onto rigid viewpoints, that were probably written before you were born. I have often said that I am neutral (I loved your excellent way of getting out of saying sorry :)) and I agree with RPJ´s way of presenting both points. (Ouch!) What´s the problem here? If this continues it will grow into an edit war. I hope (and believe) that you don´t want that.

The only way that this could be resolved is by having TWO pages; one for the WC, and one for the anti-WC. But, we could work it out, could we not? I sincerely hope so.

P.S. Please reply to me as a friendly person, and not as an enemy. I am the first, and not the latter. andreasegde 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not, despite what RPJ wants to think, about presenting "both points". Most of the information he wants included is already included. The problem with RPJ is not his pro-conspiracy beliefs and his wish that they be represented in the article. The problem is that while he quotes NPOV, he has no idea what it means. He repeatedly inserts conspiracy theories as fact, rewrites the introductions to articles to reflect one particular theory, and inserts large chunks of inappropriate material like a long list of pro-conspiracy bullet points. He doesn't even attempt to include "both points" in his edits. This is above and beyond his appalling and insulting personal conduct towards other editors.
And I'm sorry if you viewed my reply to you as a non-apology, but I did not intent to insult you. You have take personally statments I made that (I thought) clearly referred to the conspiracy press in general. I do not know if you are a conspiracy nut or not, I have no idea what your personal beliefs are on this matter. Gamaliel 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
andreasegde please understand that personal attacks are usually quickly deleted by other users. So the posts you are seeing by your hero are edited versions and does not include some of his nastier comments. Ramsquire 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? It has shocked me. You say about me: "Your hero"?, and "Conspiracy nut"? This is beyond the pale, and I feel affronted by those comments. RPJ has never attacked me (not yet, anyway; but probably because I am neutral) but you both have. Do you not feel that you have gone too far? I will not hold my breath for an apology. andreasegde 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize to you. I didn't insult you. I find it odd that you take offense at things that aren't even directed to you while you ignore the countless insults RPJ has directed at everyone. Gamaliel 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Gamaliel what is this all about? I got the same message from andreasegde on my talk page. He has no problem with RPJ calling us lying frauds but is so offended when a couple of victims of RPJ's attacks try to give him a full picture of who he has tried to defend.Ramsquire
No idea. The only thing that I can think of is that s/he's not familiar with RPJ's past attacks and assumes he's the victim here. Who knows. Gamaliel 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Could YOU swap NAACP for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?[edit]

Since you're an administrator, could you do it? United States of America doesn't redirect to USA, neither does United Kingdom to UK, nor does Ku Klux Klan to KKK. So why should National Association for the Advancement of Colored People redirect to NAACP? It's a common substitute, but so are the others I've listed. So could swap them? Pronoun 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll make the change, but why do you want to delete the redirect from NAACP? Gamaliel 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to delete the redirect, that's what it said on swapping pages. The A article is created again, and C is deleted. Pronoun 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP to National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Is this the move you wanted? If so I will then delete your requested deletion of NAACP and change that to redirect to National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Gamaliel 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Something odd when I click "edit this page" for John Faso article[edit]

Hi, at 6:10pm pst Fri 7/21 when I clicked to edit John Faso, an older version of the article appeared. Might you know what kind of glitch causes that? Thanks.Rich 01:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See also[edit]

I thought it would a nice idea to let people know there was a "Category:John F. Kennedy assassination" article, because I couldn´t find it until someone told me. If that´s not what is wanted then I´m fine with that. Still don´t understand why only one line to a valuable article is not needed, though. Ho-hum. andreasegde 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to the category at the bottom of every article in the category. Gamaliel 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Excuse me? -Bancroftian

I don't understand. -Bancroftian

You're the one vandalizing my talke page, please stop I'm trying to do some constructive edits. It's people like you that bring wikipedia down. -Bancroftian

Oh, please. Stop trolling. You've been warned. Keep it up and you get blocked. Gamaliel 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Kirk - Vandalism[edit]

The article for Mark Kirk has been experiencing vandalism, mainly repeated deletions of sourced information without any discussion on the talk page. It is being done mainly by an anonymous user with an i.p. account. The user (User talk: already warned and given a link to the 3RR. Would you please review this article and possibly block this user and semi-protect the page? I would greatly appreciate your help. Propol 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've left a warning for the user on his talk page. Gamaliel 17:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


I was reading through and noticed your page is getting full. Don't you think it is about time to archive again, or do you need a few more threats... I'll give you a few from the NNs and Mor.s. I've been doing most of my recent edits under a collegiate IP, forgetting to log in as usual. Das Nerd 03:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Savagelove.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Savagelove.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter Roskam[edit]

FYI I wonder if those comments could be removed as personal attacks. — goethean 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Clay Shaw[edit]

I'm asking for an Rfc [14] on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment. Ramsquire 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

trying to avoid an edit war[edit]

could you take a look at the recent edits of Jojouka.

I have a couple of users who feel that the commercial link they placed on several different articles is ethical and should not have been removed. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Rsm99833 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link advertising the CD and I'll be watching the article in case it pops up again. Gamaliel 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note my edit history. They're placing the link on other pages as well. Thanks again.Rsm99833 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Please unblock Gammers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). That is just his last name. Fred Bauder 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Has he provided proof of this? I find it difficult to believe that two days after someone impersonating me on the Joe Scarborough article attempts to restart an edit war there, a Mr. Gammers appears and heads straight for that article (and no others) and makes extremely similar edits. For over a year I've been the victim of a vicious vandal who has attacked me because of my editorial position on this article (see the deleted edits on my user talk page for some examples) and I believe this is the same person attempting to get at me again. Gamaliel 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to have bothered you without researching this more. this edit is good for an indefinite block. Fred Bauder 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Link[edit]

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm on the road (going to Las Vegas) and cannot follow proper protocol. Could you make a call or send this one up for consideration as if it belongs here or not-

Again, sorry for any inconveniences. Have a good weekend. Rsm99833 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Vandalism[edit]

When you take it upon yourself to undo the work of two other editors who negotiated and compromised to include something that is based in reality, and not wikiality, then yes, I call that vandalism. The fact is that conservative bloggers DO use that alternate definition all the time. If you go to Conservative Underground and ask what swiftboating means, you will get that answer repeatedly. EECEE felt that blogs were not a reliable source, so I came up with those other three sources. He picked the t-shirt one to use. I'm not going to continue an edit war, but you have your head stuck up a dark hole if you refuse to believe that "swiftboating" means something other than the definition that you approve of. Crockspot 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your little warning about personal attacks is bogus. I made an equivocal statement, the outcome of which is determined by your ability to discern your own bias from reality. Are you going to address my concerns, or are you just going to play wiki games? Crockspot 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said, that was an equivocal statement that is only true if you are unable to separate bias from reality. I assume that you ARE able to make that distinction, therefore the statement would not be true. You are well known for using the wiki rules to get your way. I hope you are proud of the fact that you have supressed a bit of valid information about a term that is actually used, and done it within the rules of Wikipedia. I would report you for a 3RR violation, but since we both made the same number of edits, I'll let it go. But feel free to continue to post warnings. Crockspot 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well now who is resorting to personal attacks? The fact remains that the alternate definition that I added to the article is widely used among conservative bloggers, and you have supressed it. Your verbal assault on my talk page, as well as your prediction that I will be banned from WP, only confirms to me that you have an agenda to pursue. I have a prediction of my own. The definition that you have called "bullshit" will get back in the article eventually, either through an acceptable publishing, or through a modification of the RS rules. You are not the only one who knows how to work the system around here. I may not have been around as long as you, but I suspect that I am quicker on the uptake. It's been a pleasure getting under your skin. Crockspot

16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So you insult and attack everyone in sight, and when someone responds in a way that can be interpreted as even the slightest bit uncivil, you attempt to take the moral high ground. How typical. If you're going to reinact the troll playbook, please don't waste any more of my time. Gamaliel 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just overexaggerating. If you really have looked over my edit history, you will see that I have a civil working relationship with BenBurch, who is a bitter enemy of mine outside of WP, and also worked out a civil compromise with an editor who could have potentially conflicted with me on the Ava Lowery article. If you go back and examine the first interaction between you and I, you will see that YOUR edit history was the first to use the term "bs". Perhaps you should examine your own attitudes, and how they contribute to the attitudes that you receive back. Namecalling is not a good trait for an admin. Crockspot 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work. You have this tactic down pretty well, so you might actually fool someone. You accuse everyone in sight of bias and vandalism and then you have the chutzpah to attempt to claim the moral high ground. Impressive! Gamaliel 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. (curtsy). Now, can we start getting along? Crockspot 17:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are sincere about this, sure. You can start by refraining from accusing people of vandalism and bias. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Allrighty then. Consider me being haved. Crockspot 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh by the way, please refrain from removing messages posted on MY talk page. That really is poor form. Thank you. Crockspot 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hardly. Reverting the edits of blocked users is standard procedure. Gamaliel 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Of a user's talk page? Please. Your attempt to hide the information from me failed. Crockspot 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. *eyeroll* Give up the conspiracy theory. I could have deleted the edit from the page history with my administrative powers and you never would have known it existed. No one is trying to "hide" anything from you. If you want to follow the dubious advise of a blocked user, go for it, but it won't get you anywhere but blocked yourself. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How does one archive a discussion?[edit]

Looking at the JFK assassination page, I think it is time to do one. But I don't know how. Ramsquire 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect of my User: and User_talk pages[edit]

It's been almost a year. Can you unprotect these now? I promise, I will behave 99% of the time. 01:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


For reverting my user talk page after Tchadienne's edit. I think he has problems and may need help. I doubt that editing Wikipedia is good for him just now. Anyway, thanks for your help. --Guinnog 11:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dagmarlife.jpeg)[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dagmarlife.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kevin 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)