User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 4

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

WikiThanks.png So here's a Wiki Thanks to Gamaliel!

USF-related article[edit]

Tell me what you think. Mike H 11:54, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


Do you have any idea what is going on with the Killian Documents article? The whole complex just got moved, lock, stock, and barrel, to "CBS Documents" by M. E. Smith. I was under the assumption that last year's name change vote came in against using that title. --Ray Radlein 23:40, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest. I guess Smith just decided to be bold and move it without dropping a note on the talk page first. Guess we've got another edit war on our hands. Gamaliel 23:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This was a plainly inappropriate unilateral move. I've moved it back, with a mention on the talk page about the prior discussion concerning the title. JamesMLane 02:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I need to report to you the user, "Keith-Wigdor". Here is the URL, Classicjupiter2 00:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am already aware of him, thanks. Gamaliel 01:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear Gamaliel, I need to ask if you can take a look at the Feb.17, 2005 user contributions by the suer, "Keith-Wigdor". Here they are,

Wikipedia was already given notice of this impersonator by the artist Keith Wigdor at the artenligne website. User Allyunion even warned the user, "Keith-Wigdor" to stop impersonating the artist. The user contributions that you will see made by this imposter, "Keith-Wigdor" are highly innappropriate.Classicjupiter2 18:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, can you permantely remove the following abuse of Wikipedia by this impersonator at the following page, As you will see the impersonator, user, "Keith-Wigdor" is using the Wikipedia service to commit slander against the artist. Please prevent this person who is commiting this abuse to stop.Classicjupiter2 18:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I need to report abuse. There is a new user, "Nancy-Wigdor"[edit]

Gamaliel, I need to report abuse. There is a new user who is already abusing the Wikipedia servcie and abusing the artist, here take a look,

"Hey everyone, I know that I'm a first-time wiki editor, so I don't feel entitled to vote, but at least I wanted to show some support towards my big brother, Keith. What I wanted to ask the wiki-administrators was whether or not wikipedia has a paid-inclusion program. What I mean is that I'd like to pay you some money in order for Keith to keep his article going. I can understand why people reading this page might think that this just more sock-puppet antics, but if you check my IP address, you'll see that I'm sending this from Boston. KEITH WIGDOR IS THE GREATEST!!!!!! --Nancy-Wigdor 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

Gamaliel, most likely these are prankster friends of the user Bleedy, but I need to let you know that this abuse is now on-going and immediate action should be taken to prevent the abuse of Wikipedia and the artist.Classicjupiter2 19:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bo Bice et al. redirects[edit]

Hi Gamaliel.

You don't have to delete the redirects to edit the articles. There are detailed instructions here on Meta.

Briefly, follow the Bo Bice link. When you're redirected to American Idol, the message "(redirected from Bo Bice)" appears at the top of the American Idol page. Click on the Bo Bice link in that message, and you can then edit the Bo Bice article. Don't ask me if they need articles, though. :) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess I should have been clearer. I know that articles can be created if there's already a redirect there. I listed them because I think they should be redlinks again until an article is created. It just looks odd and confusing to have three blue links in the middle of a list of 12 red links. Gamaliel 01:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ooooooh. My bad. I should have guessed that's what you meant. On the other hand, maybe all of those redlinks should just be redirects; if the only notability of those individuals is due to their AI appearance.... Cheers. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration[edit]

I don't, on reflection, care enough to challenge the deletion of [[:Category:Television programs based on Milestone Comics]], but it would have been nice to have been offered the opportunity. --Paul A 06:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have put a notice on the category. Gamaliel 06:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Katzenjammer Kids[edit]

I'm curious: why did you take out the caption of the picture on the Katzenjammer Kids? It seemed OK to me. - DavidWBrooks 20:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was a stylistic thing; I didn't think it was necessary as it seemed obvious what it was. Feel free to restore it if you want, I don't have any strong feelings either way. Gamaliel 20:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I feel it is more frustrating, in fact, to deal with an administrator on a power trip than it is do deal with vandalism. If you feel I have done something wrong, please cite the wrong and refrain from making threats. Thank you. if i knew how to sign I would....unsigned comment from User:Zach4000

You posted the comment "You asswiping-maggot-who-gets-turned-on-by-termite-queens STOP" to another editor's talk page. I warned you about making such inappropriate comments. Hardly a "power trip". Gamaliel 03:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Haha. That was funny wasn't it? I think it was. Therefore, it was a power trip. Zach4000.

Perhaps in grade school it is funny. Regardless of the humor value of such comments, violate the rules at Wikipedia:No personal attacks again and you'll see how funny getting blocked is. Gamaliel 06:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


What vandalism? Perhaps you have the wrong person? --Dermers Ladder 08:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, buddy. Nicholson Baker and Fantomas are not chefs. Gamaliel 08:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes they are. You better unblock him! -- 09:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm also going to block that IP address. Gamaliel 09:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hooray! Whoever it is told me that "I think my edits are not nonsense. So I will stick by them." (User talk:Alphax#Ahem). BTW, you beat me in adding the {{test}} tags ;) Alphax τεχ 09:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Bruce Cheney[edit]

  • I am currently trying to move Dick Cheney to Richard Bruce Cheney. I have posted a request on the change title request. unsigned comment from User:BrenDJ
    • Please place a notice on Talk:Dick Cheney as well. I suspect your request will be rejected due to the lack of consensus for the move. Gamaliel 21:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stephen T. Chang Post[edit]

Please remove the copyvio. I have permission from both the Forgotten Tao Foundation and Dr. Stephen Chang to use the biography from which is his event website linked to, from his foundation This is the most comprehensive bio for Dr. Chang. Thanks again.

I've left a note about that on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This will be investigated by another party, and it may be useful if you could supply proof of your claim. Gamaliel 06:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I work with the Director of the Forgotten Tao Foundation on a regular basis and I can supply permission via email from both him and possibly Dr. Chang himself. Additionally, I have ftp access to which I can prove very easily right now because I added you username to the bottom of this bio page. If that's not good enough for you please pass that on to the other party.

When will this inaccurate copyvio be removed?

I have inquired on the page about removing the listing. Gamaliel 09:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for having commented at User:JamesMLane/Rexlog, but I'm left unsure of the facts. I want to make sure I get it right to present to the ArbCom. Did you block him once, partly for vandalizing Neutrality's user page and partly for his 3RR violation? Or did you block him for 24 hours for the vandalism, and then, after his return, block him again for another 24 hours for the 3RR? If it's the latter, I'd like to include a link for the first block, if one is available. Feel free to answer here or just by editing the draft complaint, whatever you prefer. Thanks for your help. (BTW, it's only by coming to your user page to leave this comment that I found the Chicago Sun-Times article mentioning Lee Harvey Oswald. Congratulations on the recognition! Of course, now I can't resist the temptation to make a few minor cleanups there. Damn Wikicrack, I had other plans for today....) JamesMLane 16:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They were two different blocks. I forgot to drop a message on Rex's talk page about the vandalism block. (Ooops.) Thanks for mentioning LHO, I'm proud of the work I've done there, even if a lot is left to be done. Gamaliel 18:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've filed the RfAr. Thanks for your help in getting the facts right. JamesMLane 07:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Timeisgoddead.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. -- cohesion 09:38, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Unclear? This clearly needs a {{Magazinecover}} tag, which I've just added. Gamaliel 09:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Your "sandbox" subpage contains a category link to a category I'm cleaning up. If you decide to make this a real page, please change {{music-stub}} to {{album-stub}}. Thanks. --Wahoofive 22:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel 06:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I really screwed up here. I didn't know I was making changes to the server, I thought I was just making local changes to what I was seeing. It won't happen anymore. comment from User:

I didn't have any concept of what Wikipedia was or how it works. I never saw the part that said, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I'm feeling pretty stupid now, but I've signed up for an account under the name Key West. Now that I understand how this works, I think this is the coolest idea I've ever seen, and I really, truly apologize for my unintentional vandalism.

I will endeavor to contribute legitimate information only in the future, starting with a donation. comment from User:Key West

More crap from The Number[edit]

Refusing a polite request for help with the response: "I am not your fucking monkey" is a personal attack. Obsessively following me round Wikipedia and reverting my sensible contribution to the Impotence pages is also an attack - dare I say it, an attack that is planned and slightly worrying. You continue to flout Wikipedia:No personal attacks - even to the point of (wrongly) accusing me of spamming the Sollog page when I in fact posted a very small extract, a link and a quotation from an independent source. Let's face it, you're not the slightest bit interested in me making positive contributions. You just want to hound me from Wiki which given this is (obviously) a pseudonym and I may have several others, means your crusade is against ...what? All rather sad. Naturally you'll delete this as that's the kind of Wikipedia:No personal attacks behaviour you follow. The Number 13:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have already asked you to stop interjecting yourself into unrelated discussions on my talk page to stir up trouble. I am perfectly within my rights to delete your trolling but I moved it to this section in order to address some of the points you made in yet another fruitless effort to reason with you. First of all, my comment to you was in no way a personal attack, nor was it a response to a "polite request" as you well know. It was a frustrated response to your posting an offensive "test of integrity", not a polite request for help. [1] Your "sensible contribution" to Talk:Impotence was posting a tangentally related recipe with no source or attribution, hardly a "positive contribution" in any respect. I am following you around, as you are a known troll and troublemaker and I am monitoring your edits. Not obsessively, just occassionally. Nothing I have done stands in the way of you making those "positive contribtions". Go ahead and make them - we've all been waiting for you to start for months! Gamaliel 17:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You accuse me yet again falsely, of "... posting a tangentally related recipe with no source or attribution". I can give no more than give the page number - I quote from the edit YOU deleted: "The recipe - culled from page 5*3 in the book 'Sex 16 years onwards: Haynes Owners Workshop Manual' by Dr Ian Banks ". And that's not attributing??? That was a positive contribution - and you deleted it!The Number 19:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore you have ignored my rejection of the accusation of spamming and claim not to make Wikipedia:No personal attackswhen the title is 'More crap from The Number'. Not offensive? What happened to being civil? The recipe you deleted was a) relevant b) cheap to prepare c) from an authoritative source and d) could provide help to some. The Number 19:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your contribution was hardly positive and helpful, just some crap you copied out of a book so you could claim on your RfC that you were actually contributing. You were right that you did provide a source, but you also included a personal attack on User:Ashley Pomeroy. If you wish to make further, original contributions, keep trying. I will be the first to praise you once you actually make a positive contribution to this project.
Regarding your rejection of something or other, you'll have to be more specific about your vague accusation before I can answer it. As far as civility goes, I was more than civil on your arrival here, and I took quite a bit of time trying to politely explain our rules and standards to you. Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith require me to do nothing less, but they do not require one to turn the other cheek until the end of time. You have earned my disrespect through your actions, personal attacks, constant accusations against myself and other respected editors, and trolling. Gamaliel 20:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now you have admitted I did produce a source where is your apology for ignoring Wikipedia:Civility and why did you delete the 'source element'? The only reason I can think of is so that later you could (all part of your plan) accuse me of not producing a source! The Number 20:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As you can see [2] I deleted all your comments, not just the "source element". I deleted them because they were pointless and contained a personal attack. Your conspiracy theory makes no sense as anyone can look in the edit history. Gamaliel
That's my point! Why not leave the source? The Number 21:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because the comments were useless in their entirety. Gamaliel 21:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Where is your apology for your constant stream of attacks and trolling? Gamaliel 20:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. The Number 21:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Being specific. I posted a legitimate NPOV point on the Sollog ARTICLE page. Admittedly I modified it to ensure it was NPOV. Naturally it was deleted. The Number 20:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please provide a link. I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to here. Gamaliel 20:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The sensible (deleted) comment [3] The Number 21:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Those additions were deleted by User:Carnildo, not me. Gamaliel 21:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I mixed up the deletions - nevertheless, why delete what you refer to as 'useless' comments (with a source) about aphrodisiacs? The Number 21:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ignore the previous question, Gamaliel it's not the comment you deleted but 'comments-by-the-Number' that you deleted. As I write below, you've become very weird, maybe it's your stressometer (which you have removed - did it explode?) or something in your private life. Nevertheless taking the time to find out where I have posted/edited/added to articles (always in a sensible fashion BTW and then deleting them, ignoring the opportunity to explain 'why' is very weird. It's kinda like against this anonymous identity (i.e. me) you feel the need to 'prove yourself' or to show your macho side....yes, very odd. (Interesting you frequent the Impotence pages)Naturally you'll delete this because as with previous comments I guess I am getting near the truth. The Number 21:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, following questionable users around and monitoring their edits is a normal process for the more advanced editors at Wikipedia. How else do you think loose cannons are contained by the community? You may not know that, because you've never progressed beyond the status of questionable user to the more esteemed status of experienced editor.  — Saxifrage |  22:05, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Again you miss the point. Following me around (or anyone else) is allowable I suppose, if only to permit indulgence BUT when he deletes posts ONLY because of the identity of the Editor instead of reading the posts on their own merits, then that is rather weird - may I even say, 'stalking' - behaviour. But then it is comments like this: "Besides, you don't really need to defend yourself against his accusations: he has no ability to rally support against anyone, let alone an admin." that you made, that show yet again that you are just as (perhaps even more than that) interested in the identity of the Editor as you are the actual Edit which therefore makes it difficult for you to Edit from a NPOV angle. Again, I am afraid, your bias shows through. The Number 22:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I submit for consideration that perhaps your edits are being deleted not because they are made by you, but because they are vacuous, pernicious, polemic, belligerent, insidious, and exhibit a distinct pattern of having ulterior motives. In short, you're being followed around because you're a troll. I agree that I'm biased—my opinion of you and your value to the community is entirely negative, due to my experience with your inability to be a positive component of Wikipedia. We already have you pegged as an insincere troublemaker, so it's understandable that your edits will be judged in light of your identiy as a troll. You have no credibility here, and that's the hard currency of a Wikipedia editor. You can't rally support against anyone because nobody wishes to associate with you.  — Saxifrage |  23:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realise what you're saying; maybe you just don't care. Your list adjectives (to the point of having 'insidious' and 'ulterior motives') points to your lack of competence as an Editor. Editors throughout Wikipedia struggle to maintain a NPOV. One of the aims is to produce and update an online encyclopedia that is free from bias, that is carefully create and maintained. Not one of your rather carelessly chosen descriptions could in any way apply to my posts on the 'Impotence' page and yet.... and yet they were deleted not by a regular Editor there but one of the team of stalkers (Pomeroy) who clearly does not understand how an aphrodoisiac could be of use to someone suffering from impotence. One of my major criticisms of Editors (not in general, just some I have 'met') is that the very aims they aspire to - rationality, accuracy, method - they constantly fall short of because of their emotional responses to anonymous Editors. Interesting too that you refer to me as a troll (you in fact mean [4])in that, as you admit, you and others with the same views, follow me around, Editing/deleting my posts, possibly without even reading (Wyss even sought praise because she hadn't read the Edit she reverted - how's that for rationality!) Calling me a troll makes assumptions about my motives that are impossible to determine. Such an assumption would generally be an example of the fundamental attribution error; i.e. inferring that behaviour results from a person's nature or personality rather than examining behaviour in the context of events surrounding the behaviour. In other words, trolling may have more to do with context than with personality. You raise the topic of credibility. I would not want the type of credibility that would allow me to flout Wikipedia rules; I would not want the type of credibility that seems so necessary for those with Barnstars etc. I Edit as I see fit, for the greater good. You say no-one wishes to associate with me - I strongly suspect that IF someone did (eg Sollogfan) s/he would simply be labelled by the irrational Editors as a troll/sockpuppet etc. Amusingly, when Sollogfan joined the gaggle against me he was then labelled as my sockpuppet! I laughed out loud when I saw that! As is so often the case I have disproved the few clear statements you have made - and again I do that for your own good. You agree you're biased. Bias should play no part in Editing here - deal with the content, not the poster. In short, deal with your own limitations that are becoming increasingly obvious to all except those who, because of bias, do not wish to see. The Number 00:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy on bias. WP:NPOV applies only to articles, not Talk pages and certainly not other editors.
  2. Your edit to Talk:Impotence (not Impotence) qualifies as ulterior motive in my carefully-chosen list of terms for your edits: you made that edit conveniently at a time when you were trying to defend yourself from accusations that you don't contribute anywhere.
  3. "Internet Troll" is a back-formation. "Troll" is the correct term and unambiguous in this case. You are most certainly a troll: the epistemological difficulty of knowing the contents of another mind are not actually a problem, since troll is a behavioural description, not motivational. Besides, you wear your motives on your sleeve.
  4. Sollogfan is a known sockpuppet of yours, and has been known since you created it and used it as a foil in my Talk page. He has only ever interjected when it would help to bolster your argument, and has done so in ways that indicate a strong familiarity with your conflicts, and with a style that matches only you of all other known editors at WP.
  5. We can take this to my Talk page if you like. I'm not comfortable with arguing with you extensively on Gamaliel's page if you're going to create such massive volumes of text to make so few points (didn't you ever learn that concise language is the mark of clear thought?). Fortunately, the dearth of points in your most recent textual diarrhea means I don't need to refute much in this particular edit.  — Saxifrage |  02:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Number[edit]

Gamaliel, though the effort is valiant, it will never be fruitful. As amusing it is for me to watch The Number provide even more reams of damning diffs that I can collect at User:Saxifrage/Userwatch#The Number, I personally think you should take the advice you gave to Wyss and start ignoring him. He has no interest in responding rationally or bringing any conflict to an end. Rather, he only does it to gather material to better mimick the behaviour of esteemed editors and to use against you. Besides, you don't really need to defend yourself against his accusations: he has no ability to rally support against anyone, let alone an admin.  — Saxifrage |  01:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion votes[edit]

  • I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion ~ Achilles 21:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

School voting templates[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dr Zen/keepschools. You may want to subst your recent use of User:Gamaliel/S at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/St. Joseph's Secondary School before it turns into a similar circus. (Or you may want to let someone vfd it, too, and grind your teeth together in frustration as everyone who votes "keep, user space" for Dr Zen's version remains mysteriously silent for yours.) Just letting you know. —Korath (Talk) 15:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll refrain from using the template for the time being - I've only used it about twice so far anyway. If it ends up at the center of a similar mess, I'll just nuke it myself. Gamaliel 17:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was about to say the same :) please consider doing a 'what links here' search, and subst'ing the lot of them. Server load is also somewhat an issue here. Radiant_* 13:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously, I started using the template again, but I will use subst from now on, and I've gone back and added subst to replace the templates. Gamaliel 21:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This new comment was posted in one of my talk page archives and moved here by me:


I took the blue pencil to the Discussion section, in re The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ( because it was obvious that material that was offensive, erroneous and, frankly, libelous continued to appear there, and that search engines could pick it up.

If it's not good enough for the encyclopedia entry, and it's clearly wrong, then it shouldn't find a second life on the "Talk Page."

If I recall, you were the original poster of some of this material, which won't be elaborated here. Perhaps we should ask an administrator to referee this. It seems clear to me, however, that material which is patently offensive, wrong or unlawful should not appear in any Wikipedia publication, including the Discussion page. posted by, 16:21, 18 Apr 2005

First of all, you've been here long enough to learn how to sign your posts properly. Please start doing so immediately. As you've been told repeatedly, all you have to do is type four tildes (~) in a row. On most keyboards the tidle can be found in the upper left corner.

The talk page is preserved as a record of past discussion of the article, including our mistakes. It prevents us from making the same mistakes and covering the same ground over and over again. This is pretty standard Wikipedia practice. I see no reason for an exception in this case, especially since you are blanking much material (including criticism of yourself) which has nothing to do with your stated reason for deletion. If you wish to archive the current contents of the page on an archive page, I will support this decision. I will not support blanking under any circumstances. I have already warned you against blanking and you blanked it a second time anyway. This is considered vandalism on Wikipedia and as I told you already is grounds for blocking. Gamaliel 20:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the "anon" has sent a message to the wikipedia mailing list using the email account of Carl Prine, investigative reporter at the Trib-Review. [5] This is interesting because that editor has variously described himself simply as a "reader" and later, as someone who "works for the competition." He participated in a lengthy discussion of one of Prine's reports, without any indication that he might be the same person, or any admission that he actually works for the paper. And yet he has repeatedly said that we have violated standards that would result in our being fired if we were journalists. Perhaps the "standards" at that paper allow for employees to lie about themselves. Truth is stranger than fiction. Cheers, (my tag-team member), -Willmcw 07:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
See also, User:Willmcw/sandbox, for a selection of comments from the editor, in sequence. -Willmcw 07:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I've posted my side of the story to the list. I can't imagine anything more coming of this, but if it does that list you've compiled will come in handy. Gamaliel 21:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This "story" keeps twisting. According to a new editor, also using the same newspaper's shared IPs, the anon is an intern who is using her Wiki editing experience as the basis of her thesis (!?). [6] Needless to say, the interpretation they have of events is rather skewed. Somehow, I don't think we've heard the end of this yet. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

W.E.B. DuBois[edit]

Thanks for RFC-ing the DuBois article -- it has been beset with so much POV-pushing that I've given up on improving it for the time being, though I'd like to work on it in the future. By the way, as you might also have noticed, User:Dagen may be a sockpuppet of User:TDC (or they might just happen to be interested in pushing the same POV on the exact same articles). Thanks for your effort. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. The only way to end this mess is to get more eyes looking at the articles, or failing that, an RfC to get the ArbCom process rolling. I just noticed Dagen about half an hour ago when he added that Lenin's birthday crap to Earth Day just like TDC was. I can't imagine Dagen being anything but a sockpuppet looking at his contributions list. Gamaliel 07:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I have just created an RfC on TCD: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2 (yes, it is the second; there was an earlier one last year). Unless TDC radically changes his behaviour, I hope it will be but a first step towards an RfA petition. However, it still could use some work, and I was wondering whether you could help out, particularly w.r.t the Du Bois citation issues. Feel free to add/change whatever. Time spent on these chores is time I'd rather spend creating content, but I guess there are times when it is unavoidable. Thanks, -- Viajero 14:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS. Thanks as well for your help with Neruda. -- Viajero 14:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a connection between Dagen (talk · contribs), and the sock puppets UDoN't!wAn* (talk · contribs) and Chunkyhoyo (talk · contribs)? --Viriditas | Talk 01:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if they were all the same person, possibly TDC. Gamaliel 02:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I think the new article Studiotraffic is a big ol' ad, but I'm also aware that I don't pick out ads very well. Could you let me know what you think? Gracias. Joyous 21:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing screams advertisement to me. Gamaliel 21:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. Joyous 22:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Detractor advertisements on conservative personality articles[edit]

This is my first reponse on a talk page, so I hope I'm doing this right. This is in response to the message you sent me earlier.

I have an issue with keeping detractor advertisements for conservatives. Granted, I could dig up 40 detractors for the top dogs of liberalism, but they would be just as propagandistic as what you keep putting on Hannity, Coulter, and Savage's pages. If I'm going to read about Randi Rhoads, I don't care what NewsMax or WorldNetDaily thinks of her. Likewise, If I'm reading about Savage, what FAIR or the Nation thinks about him is equally irrelevant. There's plenty of detraction in their "quotes" section. The US Army website does not contain links to anti-war or anti-military websites. Shouldn't the same standard apply? Is Wikipedia supposed to be a source of information, or propoganda?

Furthermore, on the push poll article, conservatives have accused the media for years of pushing polls in order to report the results they want. The Schaivo issue is just the latest "example" in their eyes. You've accused me of deleting "valid" information, yet the fact that conservatives have made that accusation for years is just that - a fact. It's valid information. Seems to me, sir, that you're forcing your liberal bias on the issues you contribute to.

It's starting to seem to me that accusations by conservatives that Wikipedia has a liberal bias on politcal and historical issues might be somewhat correct.

I've just edited Ann Coulter, where someone used this phrase "detractor ads" in an edit summary, so I'll butt in on your conversation with Gamaliel to give my own view. You ask, "Is Wikipedia supposed to be a source of information, or propoganda?" I answer that Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, including information about propaganda. There's no rule against linking to opinionated sites, although the article is more valuable to the reader if the entry in the "External links" section gives some idea of what to expect from that link. JamesMLane 13:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, then I propose sorting the detractor links from the "pro" links to acheieve that goal. I am not the only that's had a problem with it, although I think I've pushed the issue hardest lately. Everyone agree with what's I've proposed? Equinox137 13:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Re: Push poll: If conservatives have been saying such things for years, you'll have no trouble finding a source substantiating that.
Re: links. Articles are supposed to present all sides of an issue. You may not be interested in hearing from detractors, but others clearly are. Presenting one side only would be closer to the propaganda that you claim our articles are, rather than the other way around. Also, there is generally no need to seperate out links like you suggest, though in some articles such distinctions have been made. Personally, I dislike it because it adds to the impression there are only two sides to a particular issue, as opposed to multiple opinions. Gamaliel 16:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with conservative v. liberal or you personally, but upon reflection, I really really hate the idea of sorting links. It passes judgement on links - including news articles - and sorts them into two camps when there really are a multitude of views on an issue, reinforces the absurd 'us vs. them' paradigm, and tells the reader what to think about a link before they even read it. Gamaliel 16:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Re:Push poll, I'll do some research and get something more concrete on it. Would it be an acceptable addition if I can point to "Rush Limbaugh said 'this' about media push polling on Oct 'whatever' 1998"? It's something common conservatives have been saying about the media for years, so what source is going to be acceptable?
Re:Sorting links, I agree that it might tell the reader what's ahead, but isn't it up to the reader to decide what to think about it after reading it? I think most readers are intelligent enought to decide that for themselves and sorting the links advises the readers that the website they are going to could contain detraction or even propaganda in either direction of the subect or personality.
By the way, I never said all Wikipedia articles were propaganda - I said that a lot of Wikipedia articles in the political and historical realm have a liberal bias as far as I've seen. I'm not by any means the only one that's said that. The first response of wikis to a statement like that is that it's wiki-based and conservatives need to contribute more if they percieve that. I've attempted to, and I've seen what happens.
...he said ominously. Oh, please. People objected to your removal of links from a couple articles and objected to you inserting unsourced information into another. Be honest with yourself: is this the result of an anti-conservative conspiracy or simply how the collaborative editing process works here? Gamaliel 17:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you don't think Wikipedia is incurably infected with left-wing bias, take a look at Killian documents (Talk). It's clear that in many contexts the collaborative process here simply doesn't work. Anonip 18:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why doesn't it work? Because you don't like the result? Gamaliel 19:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. I never made an accusation of "anti-conversative conspiracy", but AnonIP pointed out exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently the "collaborative editing process" consists of liberals like yourself and some others deciding what's proper, what's properly sourced, etc, and decided anything else is "outside the mainstream." (I bet there's no such thing as liberal media bias either, huh?) Some people objected to removing the links, however, it wasn't just me that had a problem with it...quite a few did and quite a few removed them before I ever did. In any case, I think I compromised on the links issue per JamesMLane's suggestion, but apparently it's still not good enough. And as far as the "unsourced" information goes, you still never answered my question. What do you consider acceptable sourcing. Conservatives have accused the media for YEARS of push polling - it's no secret, and it's nothing new. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and others have made the accusation on an almost daily basis on their respective radio shows. Just because you haven't heard it or have never seen it yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've actually asked for your advice on that issue - I'm still waiting to hear it.
By the way, WHO said "ominously?" I don't know what you're talking about there.
If you can't collaborate with people who disagree with you, then collaboration has no meaning. As far as the push poll goes, how about any source at all? You have yet to provide any. Gamaliel 19:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel, Did you look at Killian documents? If you can't see the problem there, you're probably part of it. Anonip 19:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, then sign me up as part of the problem then. *eyeroll* Gamaliel 19:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
QED. Ultimately of course the problem isn't you personally, it's the Wikipedia paradigm. Anarchy doesn't work. The idea that the collective wisdom of the Wikipedia Community will ensure accuracy and neutrality is a utopian fantasy. Articles like Killian documents make this obvious (to those outside the asylum), and will quickly destroy Wikipedia's credibility in the mainstream. Too bad. Anonip 21:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The real fantasy is yours, imagining that you are the person who has the common sense and accuracy the rest of us lack, that everyone is biased but you. The rest of us have this fantasy too sometimes, the difference is that some of us realize that it is a fantasy. Gamaliel 22:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem is not just, or even mainly, bias per se. (Everyone is biased to some degree in some respects.) The problem is bias combined with ignorance, obstinance, arrogance. And it's not that I am the only one capable of constructive contributions on these topics. It just seems that way because the others are quickly driven off. It doesn't take long to figure out how things work around here. Serious contributors just won't waste their time. Anonip 02:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Are the people who are run off so easily truly serious contributors? Or are they determined to see conspiracy wherever they go? Take Equinox, whose first impression was to see bias and conspiracy when I took issue with his edits. Thankfully he was sensible enough to understand the real issue at hand and we can simply disagree like normal adults. Unfortunately many other people are not so sensible, and in fact I believe it is their ignorance, obstinance, arrogance that is the problem, their unwillingness to understand and play by the rules and choosing the easy way out by blaming it on some imaginary liberal Wiki-cabal. Gamaliel 03:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No conspiracy theories are necessary, as it only takes one or a few obstructive editors to prevent productive editing, especially efforts to provide balance. Once a biased article is created, it is very easy to defend by simply reverting any attempted changes. This is typically justified by claiming the existing text is a "consensus" version, and demanding pre-approval by unanimous assent for any changes. Of course both sides can play these games. Why does liberal bias seem to predominate? One possibility is that liberal views tend to be more common among younger people, particularly high school and college students, who are most likely to have time to devote to patrolling Wikipedia. Younger people are also perhaps more likely to feel disempowered in the real world, and to be attracted to the sense of empowerment they derive from assertive editing in Wikipedia. Liberals in general may also be more motivated to assert themselves in Wikipedia out of a sense of frustration and disempowerment due to their recent electoral disappointments. Anonip 05:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course, if you go into things assuming that a liberal bias permiates Wikipedia, then its easy to construct psychological profiles of imagined perpitrators. Your entire view of this website is based on a basic, flawed premise, assumed with no evidence other than pointing at an article and saying "Look! It's obvious!" I could do the same thing. I could point to any number of right-wing POV pushers here and use them as an example to construct an imaginary scenario of a biased GOPedia here. Gamaliel 05:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Did you actually look at the Killian documents article when I suggested it above? Anonip 05:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've read it, yes. It's hardly proof of anything. Gamaliel 05:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In your judgment, it's appropriately accurate and balanced? Anonip
If I agreed that it was not, so what? With little effort, I'm sure I could find plenty of examples of right-skewing articles. Gamaliel 06:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I certainly don't dismiss the possibility that there are articles with obvious right-wing bias. I would be interested if you could point out a few. And to be clear, I think that articles with right-wing bias would be equally damaging to Wikipedia. Anonip 06:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For example, on Pablo Neruda, I'm in an edit war with someone who has insisted on labeling Nerdua a Stalinist in the intro and picture caption and inserting into the article that he was a NKVD operative and he was an organizer in Trotsky's assassination. Gamaliel 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From a quick look I'd say Neruda clearly was a Stalinist, but the extent of his involvement with Soviet intelligence and the Trotsky assassination attempt doesn't appear well established. The wording in the article about his devotion to Stalin seems apologetic. You think there's right-wing bias in the Neruda article as it now reads? Anonip 07:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No one denies Neruda was a communist. I'm talking about the version favored by TDC which pushes the things I mentioned above. It may be the current version depending on when TDC was last online to revert. Gamaliel 16:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"As far as the push poll goes, how about any source at all? You have yet to provide any." As I previously stated, I will research that and get it back when I am able (obviously there's more to life than Wikipedia). It will not be hard, conservatives complain about it on talk radio almost daily, like I've pointed out before.
"Well, then sign me up as part of the problem then. *eyeroll*" That's what I'm getting at - your attitude is that if YOU don't see a bias - there IS no bias. You're not the only one, and it's not a personal dig at you - but Anonip has it nailed, this is a utopian fantasy to think accurary and neutrality is ensured.
Furthermore, neither AnonIP nor myself are claiming to have any more "common sense and accuracy" than anyone else. We are, sir, questioning yours. Equinox137 23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll let that common sense crack go for now, but please point to something which substantiates your claim that my edits are inaccurate due to whatever bias you think I have, or retract that statement. Gamaliel 23:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You told AnonIP he imagined he was "the person who has the common sense and accuracy the rest of us lack, that everyone is biased" but him. What I should have said is that we are questioning your attitude that you're any different (i.e. if YOU don't see bias - there IS no bias). Regarding my last post, I can see where's that easily came off as a crack, so I'll do a "Tom Delay" and not retract, but make a correction. Fair enough?
As far as substantiation, the links is a prime example. I nuked everything except for links to informational sites on those personalities, but by God, they all just HAD to have 25 different sources on the so called "truth" about these people. But just as JamesMLane stated, there's no rule against linking to opinionated sites, so if there's no rule - then I guess the links stay, although it looks pretty unprofessional. As far as accuracy, we don't need to hash over the push polling issue again - although I think a "journalistic push polling" article may be due instead. Equinox137 00:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Back to the left for more room). Equinox, can you please sign all your posts? Thanks. Anyway, as far as the links go, I don't get this "unprofessional" argument. It's not like we were linking to a geocities page called "Ann Coluter Suks d00d". You deleted links to Media Matters which, whatever their political leanings, presents plenty of solid information backed up with links to news reports. That is exactly the sort of informational resource I expect to see in an external links section, and when someone deletes a link like that it seems like an attempt to whitewash the article's subject and hide criticism. In any case, thank you for being so agreeable, most of these political disagreements unfortunately degenerate into nasty shouting matches. Gamaliel 00:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I did sign the last post. You've got a point there wasn't any inapproriate or obscene links, however I thought it was unprofessional to link several detractors as it was. I didn't realize I deleted Media Matters (they can be a good source) of info, so I need to be more careful when editing - for that I take responsibility. In any case, I don't want to degenerate into a shouting match, either - I just want to come to a resolution every can agree on (like sorting links) and yet still have fair content. Cheers! Equinox137 00:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel's talk page probably isn't the best venue for a discussion of the bias charge, but I can't resist tossing in a few comments:
  • Equinox's edit to Ann Coulter consisted of leaving in all the external links that were favorable or written by conservatives and deleting all the others. Reverting such an edit is hardly evidence that some vast left-wing conspiracy is tirelessly working to bias Wikipedia.
  • The Killian documents article goes into mind-numbing detail about a plethora of right-wing attacks that were made on the documents. If there's a conservative blogger somewhere who didn't get quoted in that article, he must be very embarrassed at the slight. The right-wing POV has been fully and fairly reported. The alleged "bias" is that the right-wing POV isn't endorsed.
The experts who determined the documents to be forgeries are not expressing right-wing POV. The question of the authernticity of the documents is not a political issue. Anonip 08:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know the context of the question about Limbaugh, but I personally would regard Limbaugh as a valid source for an opinion ascribed to American conservatives. "Conservatives argue that blah blah blah" followed by a link to something of Limbaugh's -- is that what we're talking about? That would be fine unless it happened to be some subject on which Limbaugh has an idiosyncratic opinion that can't fairly be ascribed to conservatives generally.
  • In the field of solid-waste management, opposition to incineration is generally seen as a liberal position. (The Sierra Club opposes incineration and is criticized by some Republicans as being biased toward the Democratic Party.) Therefore, the manifest pro-incineration bias in the incineration article is an example of right-wing bias. It's one that happens to occur to me because fixing it has been on my to-do list for months, but alas I haven't gotten to it. Also on that list is Conscription#Arguments for and against conscription, which has a libertarian bias (which could be considered broadly right-wing but is of course distinct from traditional conservatism). No, this doesn't mean there are only two right-wing-biased articles in Wikipedia. JamesMLane 07:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

48-hour block of User:TDC for WP:3RR on Pablo Neruda[edit]

Hi, I've been emailed by TDC because you blocked him with the following comment:

18:59, 25 Apr 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (violation of 3RR on Pablo Nerdua?, blocked multiple times for 3RR before)

As you probably know we're supposed to block for a MAXIMUM of 24 hours per instance--there is no consensus for multiplying by 2 for people who repeatedly offend. But that's not why TDC contacted me.

He asked me to look at his last 24-hours worth of edits on that article. I did so and I see (times are UTC):

  • 22:57, 24 Apr 2005 Not an obvious revert (diff with immediately preceding version).
  • 02:42, 25 Apr 2005 A near-revert in which only the phrase "his friend" is left in (diff with near-identical version).
  • 15:07, 25 Apr 2005 A revert which he acknowledges (a diff with the identical version)
  • 16:23, 25 Apr 2005 Reinsertion of Anonip's text inadvertently removed in the course of a preceding revert (diff with immediately preceding version)
  • 18:18, 25 Apr 2005 Another revert which he acknowledges (a diff with the identical version)

This seems to make at most three reverts. Why did you block him? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really, the maximum is supposed to be 24 hours? In fact, I was not aware of that. My mistake.
I admit I'm confused by some of these links you've provided. These are the instances I cited on TDC's talk page: [7] [8] [9] [10].
He's repeatedly restoring the exact same material (factually inaccurate material, but that is another issue entirely of course) that has been removed by myself and several other editors. Gamaliel 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I think I see it. So his reverts are reinsertions of the same block of text that starts "The Soviet Union through its control of the International Comintern used many sympathetic artists and cultural organizations under its control to spread Stalinist ideology around the world."?
Well probably best to reduce his block to what remains of 24 hours, to give him less to complain about. We should try to make him focus on his behavior rather than letting him deflect the focus to the behavior of whatever admin he runs up against. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suppose you are right, I've lowered the block to 24 hours. TDC is the sort who doesn't hesitate to complain as loudly and rudely as possible so I suppose this is for the best. Still, the 3RR is pretty impotent if we just keep slapping the same penalty on people over and over again. Gamaliel 23:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate for an admin to block someone for 3RR in a dispute to which they are a party? Anonip 00:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They either violated the rule or they didn't. There's no subjectivity about counting. I can either do it myself or waste the time of another administrator and post it on the reports page, after which s/he will do exactly what I did. Gamaliel 00:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there's no subjectivity about counting, how is it that Tony counted "at most three reverts" and you counted four? (I'll admit I'm confused about the diff links myself, and I'm not saying you're wrong in this instance. But I do think that counting reverts is different from counting edits, and may involve some judgement as to which edits constitute reverts, which is probably best done by a neutral party.) Anonip 00:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what Tony was looking at. As I said above, I followed his links and was confused about what point he was trying to make with them. And when I presented my links he readily agreed with my assessment. The 3RR is the most unambiguous, clear cut rule imaginable. Three okay, four bad. They could get bots to do this. I understand that in many cases it is inappropriate for an administrator to exercise certain powers in certain situations, such as protecting a page they are currently editing. This is not one of those cases. The 3RR page says nothing about this. The Wikipedia community has trusted me with admin powers because they believed I was reasonable, impartial, and level-headed enough to make certain judgement calls, and that includes distinguishing between three and four. If you feel I have acted inappropriately, feel free to report me, but I stand by my actions. Gamaliel 00:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recognize that the Wikipedia community has trusted you with admin powers because they believed you were reasonable, impartial, and level-headed enough to make certain judgement calls. But I still think that because of your personal involvement in the dispute, it would have been appropriate for you to recuse yourself. The issue is not distiguishing between three or four, but distinguishing qualifying reverts from other edits. I am not saying you erred here in concluding that there was a 3RR violation (although you did apparently err in applying a 48-hour block), I'm just suggesting that it might be a good idea, if only to ensure the appearance of fairness, not to block in disputes where you're personally involved.

Also, would you disagree with my perception that you and TDC are involved in an "edit war" over his attempted additions to the Pablo Neruda page? Is this appropriate? Might it not be more productive to apply dispute resolution? Anonip 02:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand your argument, which you've stated in various forms three times now, and I disagree. I don't think there is anything about "distinguishing" reverts that requires any sort of impartiality. This was an amazingly clear cut case of a repeat 3RR violator with absolutely no ambiguity to it. I refuse to waste another administrator's time doing what I could easily do myself, and I'm a bit mystified that you think this is worth wasting so much time discussing.
Of course I am involved in an edit war with TDC, as are several other editors. Why would this be inappropriate? Unfortunate, certainly, but what would you have me do instead? There is discussion on the article talk page. An RfC has been submitted and certified. TDC is in mediation with Tony Sidaway. What else can be done besides allow TDC to run rampant unchecked? Gamaliel 07:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't want to nitpick about Galamiel's interpretation of WP:3RR but if I were to use it I would hesitate to interpret it so widely. If I encountered what I thought was probably a 3RR in an article that I has edited in recent weeks, especially if it was an editor with whom I was in active dispute, I would list it on WP:AN/3RR. Another administrator would be able to act on it, and the question of whether the rule had been broken in this instance could be decided by discussion.

In practice I don't use the rule at all (with one exception--I employed it in calculating a composite block period for various extreme policy breaches by User:Martin2000 a few weeks ago). I am not convinced that 3RR is of use except as a deterrent against reasonable editors. The more anti-social editors don't seem to care much about being blocked and I think it's possible that their prejudices are confirmed by its use. I would use it with extreme caution, or not at all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that you care, but I thought it was time for myself to chime in on the subject. I fail to see the logic used in your argument that a ban on me was appropriate. Since there were content issues with the article and it is clear that these will not be resolved any time soon, a more appropriate decision would have been to protect it, under anyone’s version, and discuss the proposed changes. You, came into the article and initially began reverting me without any explanation. You, refused to take it to the talk pages and have any kind of debate on the subject other than

  • 1.Since there was some question as to whether or not I was in violation of the 3RR rule, as Anonip noted above, you should have consulted others before placing the ban
  • 2.There was no reason for the 24 hour extension of the ban. If you were following the “letter of the law” on the 3RR you would know that a arbitray extension of it was out of line.
  • 3.Since you were involved personally in the article you should not have been the one enforcing the policy.
  • 4.The only two editors involved in this latest edit war were you and me, other users either agreed with my latest rev, or stopped debating all together.


Admit it, I got under your skin, and you reacted less than calmly. Edit summaries like rv - when come back, bring pie, and rv unsourced nonsense again - where is my pie?, illustrate this rather nicely
  • TDC is the sort who doesn't hesitate to complain as loudly and rudely as possible so I suppose this is for the best.

This also has nothing to do with me complaining loudly and rudely or not. You were out of line for applying the ban, and you were most certainly out of line for doubling it, plain .... and .... simple.TDC 20:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back. It is unfortunate that you chose to violate the three revert rule, but you have no one to blame for that except yourself. I see now that it was a mistake to block you myself, but only because it allows you to view it as some sort of persecution instead of punishment for your own rulebreaking. I admit that blocking you for 48 hours was a mistake according to the letter of the law. I mistakenly thought it was allowed given that we routinely apply escalating blocks for vandals, it seemed logical we would do the same to repeat 3RR violators. Apparently this isn't the case, which is why on the advice of Tony Sidaway I reduced the block to 24 hours about an hour or two after the first block was imposed.
Protecting the article was not an option. Protecting an article I am currently editing is prohibited under the rules.
I don't know how you can say I "refused to take it to the talk pages" since I posted specific issues I have with your version of the article on the talk page, which you have responded to.
Go view past discussions with Rex and the Number and you will see people who actually have gotten under my skin. You will have to work a lot harder to do that, but I have no doubt you will make the attempt. Those edit summaries were merely an attempt to amuse myself given the tediousness of having to repeatedly revert your unsourced, inaccurate assertions.
I have no wish for this to drag on indefinately, but I have made it clear from the beginning what will satisfy me: accurate sources which actually say what you claim they say and an article which reflects what those sources actually say, not one spun into a web of conspiracy from a few passing mentions in articles and web pages. Gamaliel 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Administrator Abilities[edit]

I am wondering, Gamaliel, whether administrators have access to the stored email address for users. Would you happen to know the answer? plain_regular_ham 16:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe they do have such access. Gamaliel 17:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi Gamaliel. Recently you were in contact with --Zoltarak. He's been blocked for "intent to start vandalism." He's contacted me (we share a computer at school) and asked me to come here and try to get you guys to reverse the block. For one, it appears there's been a misunderstanding. Someone on his "talk" page claims he's vandalized the "vfd" which he never did. He was also reverted for stuff he did at the sandbox, which is supposed to not happen, as I understand it. By the way, this is an awesome site! Do you need a valid email address to make an account? I'm at school now and don't have access to my email. Thanks, and please reconsider the block on Zoltarak. unsigned comment from User:

You can see a list of Zoltarak's contributions here. His vandalism was not limited to the sandbox. My block of Zoltarak was temporary and has since expired. After my block expired, he continued to vandalize and was blocked permanently by User:Karada for his vandalism and his announcement on his user page that he intented to start a vandalism campaign. I suggest that Zoltarak personally contact Karada via email and discuss the matter with him if he wishes to return to this site under that name. Gamaliel 17:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Gamaliel, You own this Talk page, so you can edit it as you please. But you didn't delete my earlier comments. Why this one? Anonip 21:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to your previous comments because I believe that there should be as much transparency as possible when it comes to administrative decisions and that users have every right to know the reasoning behind those decisions. However, I feel the time has come when I have to ask you to stop. This has become a near daily occurrence for you and you have now interjected yourself in a potentially tense discussion with the potential to escalate. I ask that you leave this between TDC and myself for the time being. Gamaliel 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
so basically, you want to airbrush out comments critical of your behavior by others you respect. That’s certainly telling. TDC 23:55, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Nice try. I have repeatedly discussed with Anonip his critiques of my behavior, so I can hardly be accused of dodging critical comments, but keep on trollin'. In this case, Anonip is free to critique away after the fact, I just asked him to refrain for the time being for fear that he would escalate our current difficulties. That's exactly what he's done inadvertantly, as you've jumped all over his tangental comment while completely ignoring my response to your original complaint. Gamaliel 00:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I get the message. You won't tolerate any further comments from me here. That's okay. I moved my last comment (the one you just deleted) to my own Talk page. Guess it must've really struck a nerve. Happy dodging! Anonip 02:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have for days discussed with you in depth here and on your own talk page any issue you wished to bring up. I deleted that last comment only after I asked you nicely to refrain from interjecting yourself into my dispute with TDC and noted that if you wished to take this discussion up again I would be willing to after my dispute with TDC was concluded. You responded to my polite request by posting a lengthy recap of the discussion of the last several days, comments available to anyone willing to scroll upwards one or two screens. It's clear from the tone of your last comment that your intent was not to actually have a dialogue. Gamaliel 02:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that my closing remark was misinterpreted. It was meant in the same friendly spirit as your earlier "keep on trollin'". Anonip 03:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I thought I might bring this to your attention: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of people described as Stalinists. Chaplin, GBS, and Redgrave as well as Neruda. Indeed. -- Viajero 22:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel 22:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi again, have you seen this? Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Stalinists In its current form, it isn't half-bad, but it would require constant vigilence to keep it from degerating. As I just stated on the VfD page, better to reference these people in the Stalinism article, in context, where some justification will be needed for inclusion. What do you think? -- Viajero 21:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, as long as there are pov pushers like TDC around this article would be almost impossible to maintain in an accurate and encyclopedic state. Gamaliel 21:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 22:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gamaliel, notifying you about an impersonator that you already gave a warning...[edit]

Gamaliel, there is an impersonator who you already gave a warning to change their user name and they still have not after all these months. If you go here, and click on the user name, user:Keith-Wigdor, you will see that you already have warned them to stop. Please take the proper action in regards to this issue. Thanks.Classicjupiter2 23:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's gone. Gamaliel 01:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)