User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 3

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

November 2004 to February 2004



Re:Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Rosyth_Primary_School: what makes something encyclopedic if not notablity or verifiability? These are the two main reasons for deleation on VfD. The bellman 09:48, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

It's just some elementary school. There are millions of them. This is pretty much the definition of non-notable. Gamaliel 20:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Man, I can't believe what a can of worms I've seemed to open. Rosyth Primary School should be deleted for the same reason that almost every primary school should be. They're all verifiable, if one bothers to, but they are all also almost entirely nonnotable, except to interested parties, namely their faculty, sutdent's parents, perhaps the students themselves, perhaps close relatives of the above, maybe their graduates, but NO ONE ELSE IN WORLD! This place seems to have no great historicity or famous graduates. If I would (which, as promised, I won't), I could write an article almost as good on my own primary school, probably even including a link to the guy who was principal back then, and my point is that probably most of us regulars could, but SO WHAT. Even if the place had famous graduates, almost all of them subseuquently would have attended higher schools of greater general interest. Well, this isn't the first vote that I've lost (probably not even here at Wikipedia) and it's not likely to be the last, but I won't be putting up any lower schools for deletion anymore. Thanks for being on the right, if losing, side. I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia (currently it's probably safe to say that it's my main "hobby" and I hate to see it become hopelessly cluttered with lots of non-notable filler), and this won't dissuade me to feel that it is one of the most important projects currently under way on the internet, but to me this is a shame. Rlquall 13:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know why people vote to keep every school, even articles that say "this is the only high school in Podunk, Texas" and nothing else. You're right, this is nothing but clutter. I should start writing articles on local grocery stores and street lights, they would be about as notable. Gamaliel 20:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Songs whose title includes a phone number

Thank your for increasing the number of entries in List of songs whose title includes a phone number by 50%! I was beginning to wonder if my idea for this article was complete nuts. (Now I think it's only mostly nuts.) ☺ — Jeff Q 10:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for starting the list in the first place. I think it's a great idea. Gamaliel 20:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Why did you block Helixblue for vandalism? I can't find any vandalism in his/her contributions history. Unblocked for now. silsor 00:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

He repeatedly replaced Image:George W. Bush.jpeg with a photoshop fake of Osama and W. engaged in sexual activity. Gamaliel 00:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, that doesn't show up in the contributions. I will reblock. silsor 00:04, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Are you implying that the appropriate replacement would be a real image of Osama & W? Mikeage 12:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Wyss

Hey Gamaliel, I've edited wiki pages successfully many times... but re the JFK assasination talk page, twice in the past twelve hours, after adding some remarks, the pagecame back completely blank. Argh! I'm sure I did nothing wrong- I suspect some glitch between my browser (Opera6), the very long page, and Wiki's software. Maybe rebooting my machine will help, when I get around to that <grin>. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't experimenting or actually clueless... and was suitably appalled when the problem happened, twice!

Re the page content itself (the edit wars with conspiracy buffs etc)- sigh. Wyss 09:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem, accidents happen and are easily fixed. Gamaliel 08:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


If you insist on linking to an article that states Sollog and his family are pornographers you will be sued. I'll be happy to have the papers filed Monday morning if you insist on a link to a false and slanderous article. You are showing your bias by having such information after you've been warned. Sollog and his family have never operated a porn business. Also, the article is nothing but an attack article and the case was later overturned and dismissed.

  • I was merely replacing a link to a perfectly valid news article and I simply asked you to provide a reason for said deletion. You have been temporarily blocked for violating the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you continue such nonsense the ban will be permanent. Gamaliel 08:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I assume nothing's happened? The Number 23:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Guess what, I'm general counsel for TOH, if you insist on spreading slander wiki will be sued, that isn't a threat it is a fact. You've been warned and if you insist on linking to slander you will be sued for spreading it. You think linking to two slander articles by altman is fair and balanced? It isn't. Anyway, anyone promoting that bs about porno will be sued.

  • Yawn. Bring it on. Gamaliel 08:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Nothing again? The Number 23:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You need to be removed from your job, insisting on linking to lies shows you are not capable of being a mod.

Why don't you email what he thinks.

[Unsigned comments from User: Still waiting on that lawsuit.]

    • Has JWales ever said anything about this? The Number 23:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hayah is up for Vfd; your comments appreciated! -- Hoary 04:08, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

On the Talk Page I see another attempt by someone to say he is a Sollog Fan - and be believed. (Of course it doesn't help - does it? - that his 'name' is 'fuckyou' spelled backwards) This brings me to criteria. What is the criteria when dealing with 'supporters' for accepting what someone says, to be true i.e. for them to 'be' a Sollogfan? It's one thing to allow/not stop someone repeatedly posting that 'Sollog has no fans' but surely another to disavow anyone posting who says they 'are' a Sollogfan.

It's the same when I was boringly and repeatedly accused of lying when I said I was in the UK. When I finally thought of a way to offer incontrovertible post was deleted.

So - what's the criteria for acceptance or at least not deleting, posts from person/persons claiming to be 'Sollogfans'?

I am not a Sollogfan BTW.

The Number 21:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stevenson High Deletion Comment

Sure there are millions of them, but this one is really notable. [Unsigned comment from]

Movers is another NEW AD page.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:58, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Patricia Heaton

I suggest you check your facts before tossing out accusations. I merely have been reverting the unnecessary edits of User:Violetriga, who persists in switching the location of photos accompanying the article because they "look better" that way. I am fed up with users who have nothing creative to add to an entry that I have diligently researched and enhanced vandalizing it with unnecessary changes - such as a photo switch! This has nothing to do with standard formatting, so I don't know what your objection is. User:Violetriga is the culprit here, not I. And if you have any problems with my work, just say so and I will remove all my enhancements and revert the entry back to the little bit of nothing it was before I worked on it. Thank you. TOM 20:09, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

If Violetriga violates the Three Revert Rule, I will block her as well. I don't have any particular opinion about the photo, but I also notice that there is no discussion by you about the photograph in your edit summaries or on Talk:Patricia Heaton. If you feel that the photo should be placed in a particular way, please make your case on that page. I don't have any problems with your work, and your contribitions to Wikipedia are valued, of course. What I do have a problem with is your violation of the Three Revert Rule, you apparent refusal to adhere to the Manual of Style, and your constant reverting of changes by those users who attempt to format the article properly. If this is merely about photo placement, why do you keep making those other changes as well? Gamaliel 20:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why wasn't your response placed on MY talk page??? I never would have seen it had I not returned here to add a postscript. First of all, I am totally unaware of any "Three Revert Rule," so I didn't intentionally break it. If you check the history for Patricia Heaton, you can see clearly that Violetriga edited as often as I did, probably more so. I wasn't making "other changes," I merely was copying an old version. In any event, I have reverted the entry to what it was before I ever enhanced it, as I am no longer allowing Wikipedia to use my contributions to the article. Cater to the morons with too much free time on their hands - like Violetriga, whose insistence on repositioning a photo was senseless (why shouldn't they be staggered instead of on top of each other for a better appearance?) - if you will, but plan on losing creative minds in the process. TOM 20:32, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
As noted at the top of this page, it is my personal preference to post replies on this page as I find it useful to have a single discussion all on the same page.
The Three Revert Rule applies to three reverts (not just edits) in a 24 hour period. This rule applies to everyone and I will block whoever breaks this rule. If you feel that Violetriga broke this rule, please point out a specific breach of this rule and I will deal with it.
I understand that conflicts between users here can be very frustrating, especially when you are new to Wikipedia. But please do not overreact to this situation. There is nothing here that can't be solved with a little simple discussion, that's why we have these talk pages. Gamaliel 20:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not that I want to prolong any arguments here but I must react to you saying that I've "vandalised" the Patricia Heaton article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. When you add something you cannot just expect that your opinion is the only correct one and that you can stop other people editing the pages. My changes improved the article, simple as that, and you were simply defending something which, admittedly, you've worked hard on. Sorry that you've felt it necessary to remove all your additions but you must understand that I was just trying to make the page look better for all the people that view it - as explained on my talk page not everybody has the same setup as yourself.
One problem is the lack of discussion - instead of reverting somebody's edits you could simply ask them why, especially if it's going to start an edit war.
Gamaliel - sorry for coming here and arguing with somebody on your talk page. violet/riga (t) 20:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:29, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.


This is where you use the word "Irony." Just as the Wikipedia article was being deleted for not being "notable" enough, an article and illustration on Universism takes up about half of the Sunday New York Times Op-Ed. I think the Sunday NY Times is the most read paper in the world, second to something in India no doubt. I have my suspicions based on the amount of email today. When an article about Universism starts again, just tell BM not to let his opinion bleed through and everything will be A-OK. He can probably get away with a critical quote or two from Mr. Horgan. --Deist 21:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's with the attacks on BM? Really, you need to let that go, it's inappropirate. And the NYT article is hardly about Universism, it's a brief but flattering mention in two paragraphs of a longer article. Gamaliel 21:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD on Lost and found (band)

Would you mind reconsidering your vote on this article? Capitalistroadster has accepted that his research came to the wrong conclusion and your vote was based on his research. Dr Zen 01:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the article. Gamaliel 07:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Ah, synchronicity. As you were typing your request to me, I was typing my answer. See Talk:Sollog#Be careful. JamesMLane 00:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis' latest version of the article is now the protected one... Wyss 03:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll unprotect it fairly soon, in an hour or two most likely. Gamaliel 04:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
... and of course it's gone and been abused again... I'm thinking that until things die down we should somehow find a way to either:
  • Restrict edits to logged in users
  • Have "changes to be made" put on the talk page and the administrators will edit the page to make the appropriate adjustments
I don't think the second should be a major issue since I can't imagine there being a whole lot more constructive information to be added to the page, other than trying to very carefully tune the NPOV of the article. Just my $0.02, carry on as you please :) --Kyrin\talk 18:04, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
Why not just block and revert you-know-who whenever he shows up? I can make a strong case that he's already banned by community consensus, a la Mr. Treason. Pakaran (ark a pan) 22:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On another note, Sollog has as good a case to be banned from WP as anyone ever has. And debating him on the article talk page is not a reasont to keep him around. Unfortunately we'll have to be careful with POV on that article since we all will now share a PoV Pakaran (ark a pan) 22:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's even possible to restrict the article in the ways you suggest. I guess we'll have to cope with it for a while and whack Sollog whenever he pops up. Gamaliel 22:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Time covers

Hi, I noticed you've been adding a few images of Time magazine covers under fair use- I'm interested because there are some I'd like to use myself. I haven't done so yet because using e.g. their picture of Yevtushenko to illustrate an article on him seems rather different from using a book cover to illustrate an article on that book. Is there a specific justification for the former? Mark1 02:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not really, I just thought that covers of books, mags, albums were fair game. Granted, we do stretch the definition of fair use too far on this website, grabbing pretty much photos of anything with the justification of "I want it". But in this case I think I'm in safe territory, however IANAL of course. Gamaliel 02:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thanks! I hope I'll be a good Arbitrator. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:27, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Patricia Heaton

Hello! May I ask you to please intercede by going to the talk page for Patricia Heaton and getting involved with Violetriga's repetitive vandalism of the article. She persists in removing pertinent data and describing Feminists for Life in a less-than-accurate way and refuses to allow the entry to remain as it was. She claims she's an adminstrator - if so, she's certainly not behaving like one. How can she possibly believe she's "enhancing" the entry with her deletions? Thank you for your assistance. 17:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've come into this discussion rather late in the game, and perhaps as a newcomer to Wikipedia it's not my place to get involved, but it appears to me that Violetriga does in fact have some very serious control issues when it comes to this article. Earlier, I made some comments about the ongoing situation on the discussion page, and then later returned to add a new heading - "A solution?" - under which I put my suggested version of the entry, which was signed with a date and time stamp. Shortly after, my watchlist alerted me to the fact that someone had been to the page. On going back to it, I discovered that it had been edited to remove my suggested version not only from the discussion page, but apparently from the history, as well, and I made note of that. Shortly after, it was reverted to the page (and to history), but without my signature and the date and time stamp. Is an administrator capable of deleting history? If so, it appears Violetriga did just that. In any event, if you objectively read all her comments, I can't see how you can't agree that she's determined to keep this article as she wrote it. Do you find anything wrong with my version, any reason why it's not a viable solution to the problem? Why is Violetriga obsessed with removing all traces of the original, well-written version and replacing it with her (in my opinion) poorly-written and weak-on-facts entry? Am I missing something? Aren't we supposed to enhance articles instead of subtract from them? Is she truly behaving as an administrator should? As I said, I'm new, so I apologize in advance if I'm out of line here, but if you look at all of Violetriga's reactions from the start to the latest, she clearly refuses to bend in any way whatsoever. (I've put this message here since I assume she wouldn't alter your talk page, I hope that's not a breach of etiquette!) Thank you. The FinalWord 21:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why does it appear that she did anything at all? Why do you leap to that conclusion? What most likely happened is that there was a database hiccup or an edit conflict. Run of the mill administrators like violetriga and I simply don't have the kind of database access that such an act would require, even if it were possible. And why would she do such a thing instead of a simple revert? I understand that editing disputes can be frustrating, especially if those you disagree with appear stubborn and unyielding, but I urge you not to personalize this discussion or resort to personal attacks. Gamaliel 00:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cartoon Vandal / Mascot Guy

I need some assistance, friend with admin powers. An anonymous contributor, dubbed the Cartoon Vandal by RickK and MascotGuy by me, makes repeated edits to various articles related to cartoons, mascots, advertising characters, etc. I usually follow him around and clean up or revert his changes, as they tend toward the incoherent.

Recently, I moved List of advertising characters, one of his favorite articles, to List of American advertising characters, after someone pointed out on the talk page that all the characters were American. CartoonGuy doesn't like this. He has twice re-created the article by cutting and pasting, and changed redirects to point to his re-creation of the old article.

Trying to communicate with this user is pointless; he absolutely refuses to communicate or respond to any requests; he just reverts or re-edits articles his way, or makes endless pointless tweaks. (And he deleted some of my comments on a talk page once, which is why Postdlf blocked him a few weeks ago.)

So: Can you block for a week or so? (Postdlf's on vacation, which is why I'm bugging you. :) ) Thanks. —tregoweth 18:41, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. He's been blocked for most of the rest of the year. Initially I was hesitant to do this but I read his talk page and he's obviously been given clear and repeated warnings about pulling stuff like this so I laid the smack down. Gamaliel 21:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hooray, a Christmas miracle! :) —tregoweth 01:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

He's back: Special:Contributions/ Here are the two edits he made to List of advertising characters after my last revert: [1]. He's being slightly less destructive, but is still clueless and unable to string together a coherent English sentence. —tregoweth 18:17, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, some actual serious stuff from

Thanks. —tregoweth 07:02, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course I'd like to be an admin, but I can't remember if I have any threats or questionable things in my edit history. :) Hopefully CartoonGuy won't turn out to be another DMan for me (shudder)... —tregoweth 00:33, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring

I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saud Abdul Aziz Algosaibi

What copyright violation? Doesn't appear to be one... Libertas

This version is the copyvio. Gamaliel 03:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is significantly revised (by me) with no material breaching copyright. So can you change it over now? Libertas

  • I don't see the copyvio but it's quite academic now is it not?
  • Please respond on my Talk page so I know you've responded.
  • Please explain why you are making such a big deal about this and how the copyright matter is resolved. I think I am missing something. I just want the article I've written put up where it should be and you are using your admin powers to prevent this, which seems rather strange. Libertas

An article is listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the notice is not removed until the problem is dealt with. There's a bit of a backlog - I just deleted a copyvio originally listed in October and replaced it with the new article from the temp page. This is what will eventually happen with this article, you will simply have to be patient. I am not trying to "prevent" anything, this is simply how the system works. Gamaliel 03:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No I don't accept that explanation. Just remove the copyvio material and replace with the new material. Simple isn't it? If not please explain why it is relevant to have a copyvio adjudicated when it was a stub article anyway. And please respond on my Talk page so I can see you've responded. Libertas

A copyvio is a copyvio, stub or not.

It is quite simple in theory, not so simple when you have a backlog of two months. Gamaliel 03:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I propose the following:

  • Delete the violating material
  • Replace with new article
  • Move violating material to the Temp page, if you like

Why is this not a good idea? Again I ask you to respond on my Talk page so I can respond in a timely fashion. Libertas

As I have been attempting to explain to you, this is exactly what will happen, but it may not happen as quickly as you would like. Gamaliel 18:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again I ask you to respond on my talk page, why is this is so difficult?

My question is why not just do this now? If you don't I'll ask someone else to do it so I'd rather just be direct and ask you. Libertas

I have a slow connection and I don't see the need to post in two places to reply to one message. I'm sorry if you find this rude or annoying, but it's just not going to happen, especially when you could easily use your watchlist.
There is a vote going on which would make this discussion moot as it would allow administrators to immediately delete copyvios without going through the hassle of the current procedure. Unless that vote passes, however, we are left with the current methods and guidelines. You have written a very good article but you haven't presented a compelling need for me to ignore the guidelines. The current guidelines suggest that articles remain listed for about two weeks, a time period which hasn't elapsed. Also, there is a backlog of two months, and you haven't presented a single reason why I should ignore that backlog and all the editors who haven't had a problem working with temp articles and the current procedures and deal with your article immediately. Gamaliel 20:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

YOu have a slow connection? Oh please. I won't trouble you and will take the issue elsewhere, I notice you upload lots of images, including those of arguable copyright status. Your slow connection holds up to your uploading very well. Cya. Libertas

Yes, I do upload lots of images, and I believe every single one of them to be public domain or a legitimate fair use (i.e. bookcovers). If you actually think that any of them are being improperly used here, please bring them to my attention or list them on a copyvio page. More likely, you are simply lashing out because you didn't get your way. Regardless, yes I do upload frequently, and yes it is slow as I'm on dialup. It usually is reliable but it can sometimes take minutes to load a page. I'm not going to go through that because you can't be bothered to use a watchlist. Gamaliel 21:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Dear contributor, first I would like to say a big thank you for your time, care, and enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope you find it just as much fun as I do.

I have just a small suggestion. I would like to ask you, if possible, to put an edit summary every time you make changes to an article (or when you start a new one). And it would be good if that is indeed, every single time. Even for small changes.

None of us like arbitrary rules. So I would like to shortly explain why this particular rule is so important. You see, every time you change an article, it is not only the article which is modified. A record of that change propagates to every single person who has that article on the watchlist. And most people have an article on their watchlist because they do care a lot about it, so they would like to be informed about what is going on with it. This is why your edit summary, which will take you maybe 15 seconds, is a great act of candor to the other people interested in the same article as you.

There are other, very convincing reasons for putting an edit summary. More information is available at Wikipedia:Edit summary. If at any point you have any questions about this rule (or anything else for that matter), please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and happy editing! Hyacinth 02:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry you had to clean up the mess I accidentally made in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, which was due to either a browser hiccup or just plain old fashioned incompetence on my part, but I'm already familiar with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Gamaliel 08:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your advice on this subject, I'm still a bit shakey on my new Wiki-legs. My ill-advised speedy-delete request on President George W. Bushs user page was prompted by my concern about public perception of Wikipedia. I understand that our protocols are quite adequate in dealing with these matters and that they should not be short-cut. hydnjo talk 22:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The ip which you have previously dealt with recently vandalized the featured article of the day, so I thought I'd let you know. You know more than I do about IP banning policy and given the history of the user, it seems relevant. Oh yeah, you should also probably archive your talk page. Matthewcieplak 00:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The vandal was quickly blocked by another administrator. Gamaliel 01:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

an odd deletion

I am curious. Why did you delete this:

"::You don't know jack, read his autobiography cretin, he lived in the UK, his second wife was a model from a famous UK family, his first wife was from a major mafia family and was also a model. Her cousin was Gia the model that died of aids from being a junkie. So you know nothing about Sollog, you're just like the towlah here saying lies. Sollogisgod"

If true it offers factual info on Sollog? Some say Sollog is also JPESsene. You may find this [3] interesting The Number 04:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was a personal attack. The factual information is meaningless unless a source is provided. Gamaliel 04:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. I notice last night about 5 am or so Wyss said to me 'goodnight Ennis' which is just yet another personal attack - unpunished (of course). Anyway I followed your advice and have taken the 'challenge' to [4]

I am not asking you to comment - I know you have to/want to/feel the need to 'keep in' with other Wikis and I am just an anonymous Brit (or worse - Sollog Arrrgh!) I am just bringing the challenge to your attention as I suspect Wyss will avoid it and the post will be reverted - and his £2000 (or equivalent) will not go to help the bereaved. Remember - no comment required. The Number 16:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't know anything about what I want, need, or feel. Wyss' behavior is as frustrating to me as yours is, however I don't see calling someone "ennis" as a bannable offense under the rules. If you disagree, feel free to find another administrator who will agree with your interpretation.

I have no interest in your absurd tsunami challenge. Spamming Wyss' talk page with chunks of text from the article that you know he has already read is just another example of your needlessly provocative behavior, and ludicrously saying you are merely following my advice is a transparent attempt to shift the blame for your own actions.

Frankly, I don't think you are Ennis, but either way I don't care. What I do care about is your behavior. Why are you here? If you have interest in participating in article editing, then why don't you do that instead of trolling? Gamaliel 16:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why you think it's absurd to a) try and raise funds for those harmed by a natural disaster and b) to prove once and for all that these repetitive - almost chanting - claims I am Ennis are false. If the 'Number is Ennis' dichotomy was removed the Talk Pages would be near empty! I wonder why you condemn my attempts to bring honesty to these pages.

But, that's rhetorical - as I said, there must be certain camaraderie among Wiki people and I doubt if you’d want to jeopardise that even if your quest was integrity.

Now you have asked me a sensible question, so I'll answer.

For some time I watched these pages and saw that posts from people in the UK/claiming they were in the UK were summarily dismissed. Worse, posters were automatically accused of being Ennis.

One reason given was that the posts were anonymous.

So I thought, as I know more about Ennis than others from the UK posting here (IMO) I'd try to add to these pages. However, even with an identity, I got exactly the same treatment. In fact Cardinal Chunder also got the same treatment even though he has an anti-Sollog website and is well known in Google groups for arguing with sollog(ites).

So it became clear that it would be impossible to add anything constructive unless either the accusations 'You're a sock puppet! You’re Ennis!' were either suppressed or disproved.

I therefore asked what the criteria would be to 'prove' I was not Ennis - and presumably this criteria would apply to others.

I tried to prove I was not in America (I thought these days all IPs were traceable but perhaps the 'proxy argument' holds sway - though quite how 'proxies work' is beyond me) I quoted extracts from a newspaper that was not on the net.

This was dismissed.

Someone else even went to a pub in Lyndhurst and posted what was next to where he was sitting.

That too was dismissed.

So it became obvious that no proof I (or anyone else) was not Ennis would ever be accepted.

Therefore the only other option if I felt I had something to contribute would be to suppress the hyena-like accusations (never backed up BTW)

In vain did I quote Wiki Official Policy. Plainly it is not obeyed by Editors/Administrators vis a vis the treatment of contributors.

So what is left? I cannot invoke Wiki policy. I cannot 'prove' I am here, in England sitting quietly in front of a PC.

Two choices.

Stop posting completely

Try and 'challenge' the main accuser so once and for all this behaviour would stop. The only challenge worth it would be one where I did not personally gain (Of course I would win because I am not Ennis) and where proof involving a third party held in esteem (e.g. Ashley) acted as 'witness'.

Hence the challenge.

I fear that will be deleted; I'll be castigated a usual and that's that. It really is just hopeless.

I have started deleting all my posts and if the challenge is reverted I’ll know there simply is no hope and I'll delete all my posts if I can find them.

You see, unless people accept I am not Ennis everything I or anyone else writes who is similarly accused will simply be dismissed. I'd prefer it if people read the post without looking at the poster - but they don't.

I have other interests - I posted on the Yoga page but it's quiet and I am interested in politics etc etc.

So we'll see what happens. Like I said, my view is that it's just hopeless trying to treat others as adults as all some want to do is - and they admit this - bait, bait and bait and if you do rise to it you're banned and if you don't it shows your inability. Truly a page that brings out the juvenile in what I assume are adults.

So there you are. I have answered your question fully and honestly and we'll just see what happens. It will answer the question - at least for these Sollog pages - as to whether Wiki should be taken seriously or not.

Finally if, as expected, the post is reverted it will provide a fitting end to the article I am writing (I am a freelance writer and no, I’m not going to prove it) before I send it off to newspapers. If it is accepted though I shall return just the once, to link to the article! The Number 16:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you truly wished to raise money for tsunami relief, you would find a more efficient means than attempting to badger an anonymous person in another country out of a month's salary.

Your choices are not limited to the two you suggest. Instead of challenging your foe like this is a game of King of the Hill, you could instead attempt to become a valuable contributor who follows the rules. I understand that you claim you feel that the rules are enforced unfairly, but I'm sorry, I don't see where in the rules it says I can block someone for calling them "Ennis". "Buffoon" is pretty clear cut, however, and when and if Wyss calls you a "buffoon" I will block him just as I blocked you. I have been attempting to reason and discuss this with both of you, but this is not helped by your silly challenges and self-righteous complaints and deliberate provoking. You can take the third option and become a valuable contributor if you wish, or you can simply deny the option exists and blame it all on the shadowy Wiki-cabal just like every other person who can't handle simple rules of normal civil behavior here. Gamaliel 17:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When you have someone who a) has the power to revert and b) boasts about the reversion, your claim that there is athird option is meanignless. You trot out the 'simple rules of normal behaviour' but of course continually calling someone 'transparent' and 'deceptive' (both offensive terms) and by a name of someone reviled (and thus offensive) and continually flouts Wiki policy of respect to contributors then the carrot of being a 'serious contributor' is in fact a mirage. The Number 18:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Gamaliel

I see Wyss has now deleted all my recent posts on his page - without (he claims) even reading them. One of the posts was asking him to explain where the Sollog prophecies were wrong (I linked to them). This he deleted without reading it.

It's pointless - I give up.

Please could you tell me where I complain to and also perhaps you'd do it if you can do it easily, please delete every single post I have ever made on the Talk Sollog pages as it's pointless trying to do anything there. I'd be better off elsewhere.

Wiki is not 'out of control' - it's 'too much in control' and the accusations of Wiki Cult certainly have some bearing.

The Number 17:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss is under no obligation to respond to or even read messages left on his talk page. In this case, since the message was largely chunks of text pasted from Talk:Sollog, I can't say I blame him. Gamaliel

As I said, the Wiki policy of politeness towards contributors is selective. There were three elements to the post. One was asking about prophecies. Never before posted by me. One was the challenge, reverted from TalkPage and advised to go on his page. The third was about Wiki policy, also reverted.
So his boasting of not even reading them proves beyond all doubt that he just behaves how he wishes and you lot all follow along. I will investigate the conflict resolution as his behaviour is and continues to be totally against Wiki policy and, against a backdrop of 'You're Ennis! You're a spammer! You're a vandal!' you lot meekly follow on.
It should - but it probably doesn't - bother people why 5 at least! UK people seem to have stopped posting on these pages. It is impossible to post anything if people scream about a) quoting or b) linking and just chant 'You're Ennis. You're Ennis.' It is exactly this sort of violent, mindless behaviour, this admitted baiting which is writ large at Abu GhraibThe Number 17:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is it rude to ignore talk page messages? In most cases, yes, but we simply can't enforce a policy of making everyone read and respond every message they receive. Do you read and answer every piece of postal and e-mail you receive? It could also be seen as rude to post large chunks of talk page dialogue to someone's personal talk page, especially since you know they already read it on the original talk page. Gamaliel 17:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We do have conflict resolution methods in place here. I was hoping that you would be willing to stop provoking him before it got to that point, just as I was attempting to get him to stop provoking you. If you wish, you can initiate a formal conflict resolution process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Gamaliel 17:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you knew this, perhaps you didn't. I cannot submit Wyss's conduct to the Conflict resolution process owing to: "For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem"

I notice also how you haven't answered my request about deleting. The Number 17:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete all your posts, that's simply not how things work around here, sorry. As far as RfC, I'm sorry, I did forget about that requirement. Perhaps mediation if you are sincerely interested in ending this dispute, as opposed to punishing Wyss. Gamaliel 18:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss totally ignored - he boasted about not reading - my previously unposted request to him (I used 'please') to explain/disprove any/all of Sollog's prophecies. But no-one else cares so I'll just disappear as have the other UK people. I get 100+ emails a day and I answer all of them if they are not Nigerian spam etc etc. But I do read all of them and Talk pages cannot be compared to emails anyway as emailers can buy lists for spam and spamming requires no effort. I repeat I asked a polite question and Wyss couldn't even be bothered to read it. Worse he boasts how he flouts Wiki policies - Wyss: beyond all criticism, all censure.The Number 17:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how valid my analogy was, there simply is no rule or requirement that one read and respond to all talk page messages. Wyss is beyond censure on this particular issue because there is no rule to be broken here. Gamaliel 18:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I politely disagree. The rule broken is 'respect'. Yes you can ignore. Yes you can delete. But 'no' - to boast about not even reading is disrespectful. Oh yes, I deleted my own posts from Talk Sollog but Wyss reverted my deletions. Resolve a dispute? I have - I withdraw never to post on that Talk page again. I'm not interested in 'punishing' You Wikis won't do it- you therefore 'accept' that Wikis can flout policies. Fine. Now we know. I am posting here because we're talking about Wiki Policy rather than 'You're Ennis! yes you are! You're a pornographer! You're transparent!' and other 'comments'. Interesting I do not even have the right to delete (and leave deleted) my own posts. I only asked about deletion in case it could be done with just one keystroke but anyway Wyss would have reverted them. A stalker is born. The Number 18:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not ignoring what Wyss did, I am simply telling you I can do nothing about it because there is no rule against deleting messages on your own talk page. In fact, you have right to do whatever what you wish (short of forging messages from others) with your own talk page. I cannot block Wyss for doing what he has the right to do. If you do not believe me, please feel free to consult other administrators on this matter. Gamaliel 18:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush article

I changed the controversy article, fully cited, but left out the comments that didn't show a NPOV. Looking at the image that you have on this page, you may not choose to believe these facts, but because they are indeed fact, they should stay on the page. First Lensman 23:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for the snide remark. Gamaliel 23:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Davenbelle reverts constantly every edit I make. He supplies no reason. In this case, it is a very clear example of POV pushing on his part "rousing applause" etc. is not what I'd expect in an encyclopedia. He should be blocked for this misconduct, and I wonder whether you've made that point or whether your just like to troll me. If you haven't I suggest keeping your advice to yourself. Ollieplatt 01:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you have a conflict with another user, start at Wikipedia:Request for comments, but keep your threats to yourself. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility. If you choose to continue to be obnoxious to other editors, keep in mind while you can only threaten to block people, I can actually block you. Gamaliel 01:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am curious. When someone is blocked is it the IP or the name? and are they blocked from that particular page or the whole Wiki site? Also can 'anyone' revert pages? and if so isn't that likely to lead to 'revert wars' i.e. 'you deleted me so I'll delete you'? Finally, can 'anyone' revert User's own page or does the User have 'territorial rights' over his own page. Thank you. The Number 02:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Both the IP address and the name are blocked, though the IP address is often unblocked when it potentially may be used by other editors, such as an AOL IP address.
Anyone can revert. Revert wars are common, unfortunately. This is why Wikipedia instituted Wikipedia:Three revert rule.
Anyone can edit anyone else's user page, though the page is considered the "property" of the user in almost every case. Incidentally, I don't think the 3RR applies to your own user page and user talk page. Gamaliel 05:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Killian documents

Gamaliel, If you look carefully I believe you'll see that I've used slightly different wording in my edits so that technically I haven't violated the three-revert rule. But I have to agree that it's clear no progress can be made in improving this article due to the attitude of you and other editors. Since you refuse to respond to my request to justify your reverts, a resolution of the dispute by reasoned discussion seems impossible. I have initiated a Request For Comment, but I do not expect a productive outcome. Unfortunately, as Larry Sanger has observed [5], current Wikipedia practice makes it effectively impossible to overcome the obstruction of obstinate editors. 05:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Slightly different wording" is not enough for it not to count as a 3RR violation. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to block someone in a case like this unless the difference in wording was very substantial, and I don't think you would get much in the way of sympathy from other administrators if you tried to plead that case to get out of a block.
I have repeatedly responded to your talk page comments, I just have not provided you with a comment that you have found satisfactory. This is far different than a refusal to respond.
I welcome the RfC and the input of other editors, but you'll note from the archive that we've dealt with this issue in the past.
I'm sure you realize that Sanger's comments could easily apply to you as well. Gamaliel 06:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have now attempted a more substantial reworking of the issue that I hope will circumvent your objections.

While you repeatedly replied to my talk page comments, your replies were unresponsive. You simply ignored my requests that you justify your reverts based on your claim that my edit was factually incorrect by naming just one expert who disputes the expert typographical analysis I cited which proves the documents are forgeries.

No, I do not see how Sanger's comments could apply to me. Please explain. 07:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, everyone here is an obstinate editor except you. Gamaliel 19:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I woud appreciate a serious response. I am not obstructing progress. I am trying to make a constructive contribution. And I am quite willing to discuss objections that are based on informed opinion and supported by reasonable evidence and argument. 19:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I used to post on the Sollog/Ennis page, originally I had no account. I was repeatedly and severely chastised by various editors for just being 'a number'. In vain did I argue against it. I notice no such chastisement here. My role is not to chastise but just to offer friendly advice to to open an account. The Number 19:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Chastisement accepted. Anonip 22:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) (aka
By the way, while I haven't had a chance to look over your revised "Authenticity" section very closely at all (my extremely tentative zero-point-fifth impression is that it mostly duplicates other parts of the article, and possibly should be located elsewhere in the article if retained, but, like I said, that's based on only the briefest of glances a mere moment ago), I would like to quickly mention that I think your latest rewrite of the opening paragraph is pretty good. Introducing "experts" into that sentence like you did might require a minor streamlining of the next sentence (where the word was originally introduced) for purposes of readability, nut that's a pretty minor quibble. --Ray Radlein 11:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pitts. Tribune & Heinz

While the anonymous user may well be a Scaife flunky, and is certainly not following Wiki norms, it would nonetheless be helpful to have a source for the Trib's attacks on Heinz. They certainly have attacked her for contributing to the Tides Foundation, which they claim donates money to lesbian causes. Is there a reference we can use? Anyway, thanks for all your many contributions to Wiki. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I finally dug up a source - unfortunately it's in a pay only archive but you can easily google up old copies of the article floating around the net. I posted the reference on the talk page. Even better would be the original PTR article, but I haven't the slightest idea how to dig that up with such a flimsy reference. Gamaliel 23:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. The anonymous user is hard to work with as he sprinkles his comments around with no signature or time-stamps, plus having two IPs that I assume are the same user. Anyway, I've taken the liberty of re-writing the sentence to match the available references and relate it back to the "shove it" anecdote. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gee, with all this back and forth the article may end up quite a bit better. This is a case where the exact facts are more interesting than the 2nd-hand account. The fact that the anti-Tides op-ed piece was (essentially) paid for by Scaife, for example. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to "feed the troll", nor do I want to attack the person or the editor. But the editing process has not been smooth with that one editor (I assume both IPs are one editor). Perhaps silence is better than arguing. Maybe I'll give that a try. Anyway, if you have any suggestions for bringing this to a resolution (if it needs one) then let me know. Thanks for your contributions to Wiki. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at him for a while. Tag team troll fighting. :) Gamaliel 04:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I only just saw this week-old request for mediation today: I think the Anon may be confusing the two of us, as he also refers to an "admin". I wrote a short note of explanation, mentioning your prior involvement, and added that mediation could be very helpful. I saw signs that the Mediation Committee may re-activate, otherwise this is moot. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

University of South Florida

I added pictures of the Sun Dome and Beta Hall. Don't be a stranger; IM me at my new AIM SN, Days of Our Vent. Mike H 03:15, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm hardly on AIM these days, but I'll drop you a line next time I am. Gamaliel 04:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks

Given your behaviour on the VFD for List of Early Music Ensembles I'm surprised to find that you're an administrator. Please read the policy on removing personal attacksbefore editing comments posted by myself and others; it is not a personal attack to make a general observation about the behaviour of unspecified individuals in the context of a discussion. It is a personal attack to make specific accusations against a named individual. Your comment clearly constitutes a full-blown personal attack on me. My observation does not constitite an "attack" on anyone. You would do well to learn the difference. --Centauri 22:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pointing out that comments on vfd by you and others have been quite rude is a personal attack? Gamaliel 22:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Attacking me personally in a full-on abusive manner because you don't like the "tone" of my comments constitutes a personal attack. That's what the words "personal" and "attack" mean. You can dislike my opinions if you choose, but it is not acceptable to attack me personally for holding them. While I may have strong opinions on some subjects, I don't attack others for holding views with which I disagree, and I expect the same level of respect from others. That said, I do think the whole matter has probably been blown way out of proportion, so we should both probably just give it a rest. --Centauri 22:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in any sort of feud, but you have been rude to people in this and other vfd discussions, and pointing that out is hardly a personal attack, and much more innocuous than, say, throwing around the phrase "sandpit for the ignorant". Gamaliel 23:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"personal attacks"

Interesting how some people's interpretation of "personal attacks" is far wider than others. Look at the discussion I got into with Uncle G about the same issue -- he seemed to think that just stating that the VfD entry should not have been made was in itself a personal attack. In the case of your most recent back and forth in the early music fuss, I bet you could have avoided it by just changing "It would be a far better idea for people like you to stop rudely hounding valuable contributors for making simple mistakes" by removing the "like you". Or maybe not; I wonder if Uncle G and Centauri are engaging in a bit of disruption to make a point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I could have left those two words out, but I'm really not sure that would have made a difference. I've got no problem with saying something shouldn't have been listed on vfd, but the way people have been saying it is getting out of hand. Gamaliel 22:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Al Capp

I was under the impression that Al Capp was both the writer and artist for Abbie and Slats. I was obviously wrong, sorry. -- FirstPrinciples 07:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, it was easily fixed. Gamaliel 07:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but,

You've given me a {{test1}} message, can I ask why? If it's just a mistake ignore and delete this message. Wikipedian231 17:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because of the article The weather in London, which I speedy deleted. Gamaliel 17:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A "test" of "integrity"

I notice that you have not responded to the 'discussion' element of my Talk Page but have had time to tell me off about my edit summary. Now comes a real test of your integrity. Not so long ago you banned me for 24 hours as I referred to Wyss's post on MY Talkpage calling ME Sollog as 'crass stupidity'. You didn't like me using that description. You saw it as a personal attack. I draw your attention to this:

You're a documented deathporn dealer and liar. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss? Wyss 23:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I think it's helpful that people are reminded now and then that you use the Internet to lie, harass, vandalize, impersonate and scam for the purpose of mining traffic for your deathporn and other Internet sites. Wyss 23:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC

On the Talk Page of Sollog.

I shall await your reaction, seeking signs of consistency, before I think about what I will (or may not) post in response. The Number 01:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the last month, you've racked up over 200 edits, but not a single one to an article itself, just talk pages. Are you here to collaborate on an encyclopedia or to provoke others? You provoke Wyss, and when he responds, you rush over here, not to complain about being victimized but to devise a "test of integrity". If you want to avoid being nothing more than a troll, then perhaps you should examine why you are here and what you wish to accomplish. We are not here to pass tests of integrity, we are here to create an encyclopedia. Whatever your personal mission here, there are 400 or so other administrators you can complain to when something like this happens, so do not contact me again as I am not interested in passing your tests. I am not your fucking monkey. Gamaliel 08:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I did not provoke Wyss. He posted on TalkPages (as did Saxifrage) without any provocation from me. I understand your need to be so aggressive towards me because, after all, I asked you a serious question about Editing and conflict etc but you then ignored it choosing instead to berate me for the 'hitler' post. I know exactly why I am here and were I here for other reasons then I'd seek extra positions such as Administrator. I contacted you as you have specifically made time to ban me when 400 other Administrators could have done so. You made time to ban me for "crass stupidity" but clearly don't like being caught when someone else 'sins' far worse and I bring this to your attention. No-one likes being exposed in this way, I guess, hence your use of foul language. Violence is the death rattle of reason in your voice, I see. I guess you've answered my implied question about consistency and integrity though. If you have time could you answer my question about Editing please? Maybe everyone needs a 'fucking conscience'? The Number 16:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ask some other administrator your editing questions, as I have no further wish to be "exposed" to your nonsense. Gamaliel 16:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So I should ask another Administrator about a comment YOU made? That's really treating other posters with courtesy. OK I will and I am a little surprised that you see my question about Editing Conflicts a 'nonsense'. I notice you tempered your post to Wyss with 'Cheers' and I also notice how he wants the 'warning' removed. I guess by your refusal to be constructive re edits is a clear message. OK I'll ask someone else. The Number 16:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you were truly interested in "treating other posters with courtesy", you wouldn't have attacked my integrity and implied that I was a liar. Every loaded question from you is an attack. Gamaliel 17:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Interesting that you said 'ask another Administrator'. I did exactly that:

An Administrator posted a comment on my Talk Page and now has flatly refused to answer my question. Please would you go to the Discussion section and answer the question there? Thanks in advance. The Number 16:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The response? My request immediately deleted without even the courtesy of a reason. Maybe you have a lot of influence. Maybe the Administrator just couldn't be bothered and decided to treat me with disrespect. I chose the Administrator entirely at random, BTW. This is the second time I have followed your procedural advice and this is the second time it hasn't worked. I notice on your page here 'bias' is under discussion. I notice too that your scolding of Wyss was ended with 'Cheers'; you then discussed it with him and now your scolding has been removed. Very interesting indeed. You use foul language to one person....The Number 21:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If only I had the kind of influence on this site that you imagine I have! Then you would be quickly and permanently blocked. What you describe above is not me pulling the strings like a mighty Wiki puppet master. It is merely two unrelated people removing comments from their own talk pages for their own reasons. Whatever their reasons are, I have no knowledge of them. I wish you luck in accomplishing whatever it is you wish to accomplish here, but I do not wish to be part of your interactions on this website. Please do not contact me again in any manner. Gamaliel 23:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Byrne

Why was the section about John Byrne's exposure to deleted? While it may seem irrelevant, this was a major event in Mr. Byrne's life, as well as a portrayl of fan reaction to his Chapter One series. unsigned comment from

Are you seriously suggesting that seeing some nasty picture on the internet was a major event in Byrne's life? What nonsense. Gamaliel 07:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, it was a major event in his life, as it influenced his outlook and his later work. Secondly, it makes a good demonstration as to just how much Spider-Man fans despised Spider-Man: Chapter One.

Please show that you are not biased.

Hi Gamaliel, I have to admit that I have been angered of late and I may have stepped out of line and been uncivil, so instead of getting angry and answering R. fiend back atWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Diane Mela and Robin Gabrielli I am writing to suggest that you give the same prouncement to him as you did to me about "no personal attacks," for he implies at the end of his remark that I need medication, I assume because I am paranoid. That is a personal attack. Plank 19:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do I have to show I am not biased? What evidence do you have that I am biased? As you can see above, I do not respond well to demands that are coupled with accusations or attacks on my integrity. Gamaliel 19:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To be biased is to single out one person to critize over others and by not warning R. fiend, you are, I am sorry to say, showing your bias. Plank 20:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you have a complaint or concern you wish me to address, please do so in a manner which does not question my integrity. If you can not manage to do so, please bring your concerns to a different administrator. Gamaliel 20:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I already addressed my concern and you took it as an assault on your integrity which it was not. From your response it is assumed that you will not intervene in the situation which in my view does not reflect well on you as an administrator. Thank you for your time. Plank 21:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How is the statement "please show that you are not biased" anything but an implication that I am biased? If it is not, why say it at all? If it wasn't an attack on my integrity, what exactly was it? Gamaliel 21:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)