User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 7

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

• March to August 2004: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 1
• September to November 2004: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 2
• November 2004 to February 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 3
• February 2005 to April 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 4
• May 2005 to July 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 5
• August 2005 to October 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 6

Vandalism.....

Did you happpen to notice that the other 2 users reverted career album templates that I inserted along with the infobox revert? That is a form vandalism (because no reason was given), and I will continue to cite it as such, especially as their issue with infobox 2 is more out of power control rather than over the box itself. The consensus was 19 votes to 19 and it was never deleted. Thus, it's fair game. And the other two users who keep erasing it are editing in bad faith. And they accuse me of vandalism whenever I rightly revert my valid work. Have you bothered to point the same thing out to them? BGC 01:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that someone else has acted inappropriately, please bring the specific matter to my attention, the attention of another administrator, or post at WP:AN/I. I understand that you feel that you are the wronged party in this template dispute, but this does not allow you to violate Wikipedia policy, namely Wikipedia:Edit summaries.

My interest in this edit war, so far, is to keep it from escalating. Changing a template is not vandalism, on your part or on the part of those who disagree with you, and I feel your inappropriate use of edit summaries will only serve to escalate and expand this war. Note that I consider the inappropriate use of edit summaries in this manner an act of disruption as defined by Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Gamaliel 01:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, but look at recent Byrds album articles for proof that uncontested and helpful band templates (found at the bottom of the page) are being reverted without regard for the additional work being added, apart from the infobox issue. Take your pick: Younger Than Yesterday, The Notorious Byrd Brothers, The Byrds' Greatest Hits. Do you see my point? BGC 01:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

User BGC is simply not telling the truth here. If you examine the pages in question, you will see that the band template was not removed. He makes accusations like this regularly, and, apparently, without regard for accuracy or veracity. Far more serious than his spurious "vandalism" allegations is his regular use of deliberately deceptive edit summaries. If you review the Byrds album page histories, you will see that last night, on each of the nearly 20 pages involved, under an edit summary reading simply "adding template," he not only added the template, but inserted the disputed infobox in place of the existing one, and made substantive changes to the text of virtually every page, often reverting (without appropriate notice) to older texts which do not comply with NPOV, NOR, and related policies/guidelines. Under his previous user name, PetSounds, he was warned about these practices by other editors and admins -- check out this version of his older talk page, for example [1] This is a long-running course of disruptive behavior. I would also note that his reversions today have removed various undisputed textual spelling/grammar corrections, as well as changes conforming the timing styles and, inexplicably, repeatedly removed the songwriting credit of Oh! Susannah to Stephen Foster. Monicasdude 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Pure invention and manipulation of facts, as usual. If you check his user contributions page, you will see he has long stalked my work (and others') and reverts everything. His RfC exists partially for that reason, and I was not the one who instigated it. Just making you aware, Gamaliel. BGC 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This has passed all limits of reasonable civility. User:BGC is simply lying. Monicasdude 03:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The proof speaks for itself and is there in abundance. I can't fake his own work and present it as his, can I? BGC 11:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Monicasdude isn't the only one who is forsaking my album chronology box when reverting. Mel Etitis (an admin, believe it or not) is repeatedly doing the same on various Beach Boys articles, starting with Love You and onwards for the next 8 or 9 or so album articles. Verify yourself. Very un-admin-like behavior, if you ask me. BGC 16:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply point out to him that he's removed the infobox and ask him to stop? Gamaliel 17:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't care, that's why. BGC 23:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

So you didn't try? Even if all your differences are insurmountable, please make a good faith effort to resolve at least some of them. I think that particular dialogue would be a good place to start instead of adding yet another gripe to a long list of complaints. Gamaliel 00:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No I didn't, because he's proven himself impossible to collaborate with, being extremely obstinate and narrowminded, aside from his long history of stalking my works and reverting them. His RfC bears witness - in additional accounts - to this unproductive behavior. I gave up a while ago trying to reason with him. As have many. This is why I have asked you to look that page over to get a better understanding of the situation and why it persists. BGC 01:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's make two points clear here. BGC isn't telling the truth when he says I've been deleting his (not terribly useful) band template; if you check the 3 pages where he claimed I did this, you'll see I didn't. As I said earlier, I may not do a perfect job, but I'm trying. Second, the main reason other editors so regularly use simple reverts on BGC's contested edits is his habitual use of deceptive edit summaries and "poison pills," mixing minor legitimate changes in with more significant illegitimate changes, mentioning only the legitimate ones in the edit summaries (if there's even an edit summary of substance). And, for all his complaining, BGC regularly engages in the abusive editing practice he accuses others of committing. See, for example, [2] (BGC removes songwriting credit on "Oh! Susannah to Stephen Foster); [3] (BGC removes standardized timing); [4] (BGC removes standardized timing and usage error); [5] (BGC restores non-encyclopedic prose and clear NPOV violations).

These apparent "reversions" by myself were unintentional in the attempts to restoring earlier - and more expansive and informational - texts. Monicasdude's RfC page elaborates quite nicely on his way of working. I don't need to provide proof when it's all there to read. BGC 23:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You're not telling the truth, as is so often your practice. It's not that you don't need to provide proof, it's that you can't, since you can't prove a false statement. And your comments about "restoring" earlier texts simply demonstrate the truth of my statement, which you denied earlier, that you deliberately used falsified edit summaries -- making substantive changes while claiming you were simply adding a band template. Monicasdude 23:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A quick at Monicasdude's contributions history should tell Gamaliel what he needs to know. And here's the RfC link: [6] BGC 23:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in personalities or grudges. I only wish to solve this tempalte dispute. Gamaliel 00:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The template was voted down for deletion. If it does, in fact, get deleted, I will gladly help change the articles back. Until - or if - that happens, there is no real basis for not using it, and I shall continue do so. BGC 01:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it was not deleted is not an affirmative stamp of approval for the template. The very real basis for not using it, as I've tried to explain to you previously, is the fact that the WP guidelines prefer the original template. The fact is that you are prolonging an edit war over this issue in opposition to existing guidelines, you are making little to no effort to build any consensus for your preferred version, and you have flat out refused to take the simple step of attempting dialogue on an easily resolved tangental issue (namely the beach boys infobox). You are going to explain to me, right now, why I should allow you to keep doing what you are doing, without reference to power trips and personalities and past grudges. Gamaliel 03:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If there was a clear consensus that the template was breaking some sort of law (which it is not) and was deleted, then I would stop using it. It has not been. Therefore, I will use it. Plain and simple. I'm not at fault here. If the majority felt it should be deleted, then it would be. But clearly the majority don't feel that way. If something is considered out of Wiki bounds, why is it allowed to remain to be used? BGC 11:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the infobox involves the non-fair-use of fair use images. I've recently brought this up at W:AN/I, and Kelly Martin confirmed that it is indeed not fair use. Unfortunately no-one seems to much care; as an admin, however, I take seriously my commitment to keeping Wikipedia within copyright law. The attempt to delete the template was foiled by a number of editors who had no interest in copyright status but thought that the pictures looked pretty... A TfD vote doesn't override copyright law, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to be precise (I do that a lot, I'm afraid) and didn't specify which infobox I was referrring to in my last statement. I meant for him to ask you to stop removing the beach boys info box at the bottom, not album infobox template 2. I thought that's what he was complaining about, not the preexisiting conflict over the latter. I do understand the nature of the dispute in regards to the latter template. Gamaliel 20:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the other infobox has nothing to do with me. He's back to labelling my removal of the images as "vandalism"; I didn't think that it could last. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not? The edit history shows you removed the Beach Boys infobox. Gamaliel 08:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. At first I took care to make sure that I simply replaced the template, and didn't revert any other edit made by BGC; after a while of his simply reverting me, I was less careful. I didn't intend to remove the second template, he never mentioned to me that I'd done so, and so this is the first time I've realised what was happening. I'll be more careful from now on.

With regard to consensus, we don't wait for consensus before blanking copyvio articles (because the stakes are too high); moreover, my impression is that there is indeed consensus that they're not fair use (not unanimous, but nevertheless clear). I've raised this, not only at the TfD, but at W:AN/I and at Talk:PUI, so my estimate of consensus involves a combination of those. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, just to make the situation clear: BGC himself has always reverted wholesale. For example, when I removed the images from the articles on albums by the Byrds I did a lot of other tifdying (correcting Wikilinks, titles, etc., in line with the MoS and general guidelines; his response was to revert everything, with any edit summaries. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That is what I'm complaining about. And true to form, Mel has gone and reverted it ALL again. Furthermore, I don't consider the arguments for fair use to be convincing enough, and it is worth pointing out that there is no consensus on that either. This is simply another example of power control by another user, as attested to on Mel's on RfC page. BGC 22:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane for admin

I have created this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesMLane, but and not sure if I've posted it right.

Please look. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

AOL range block

If you are an AOL customer, can you contact their customer support and get them to drop this vandal as their customer? There really isn't going to be a lasting solution until this is done. I doubt they would listen to outsiders, but if you tell them you're a customer and another customer is affecting your access to the Internet, they ought to listen. -- Curps 07:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I would say. At the very least I'd need a list of addresses and times of vandalism. Gamaliel 17:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

your input requested

See Talk:John_Kerry#Kate_.2F_Rex_dailog.2C_re:_edits

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

stop your tag-team reverts

I never said it was a rule, only a fact. You are tag-teaming that that's not kosher. Cut the crap - what you are doing is out of line for an admin.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? I have a right to my input as well as you do. I get three reverts just like anyone else. If I support Derex's changes and not yours, why should I not revert? This "tag-team" crap is just some arbitrary rule you made up. When editors agree, it is in fact "kosher". It's called consensus. Gamaliel 04:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You know darn well you are tag-team reverting. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So I'm breaking some rule you made up for yourself. So what? Gamaliel 05:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbComm

Warning: If you persist, I intend to draw up a complaint. In my view, what you are doing is simply atrocious. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What, precisely, have I done? I have simply agreed with the changes of another editor and disagreed with yours. Gamaliel 05:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your complete deletion of my meticulously cited and NPOV accounting of the Kerry/Irish issue is utterly indefensible and does not comport with all your previous harping about no wholesale deletions. For the record, this (as follows) is is not "pov" and you are simply out of line for removing it: {lengthy section of article text removed}

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to cut and paste large sections of text like this. It is completely unnecessary and takes up a lot of talk page space for no reason. Please provide a link instead. I am going to remove this text from Talk:John Kerry also. Gamaliel 05:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Slick move Gammy. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gold farmer repeated reverts

Hey there, I made the most recent major revision of the gold farmer article and it's being repetitively changed to remove the reference to Mexico and put a higher emphasis on Chinese gold farmers than I feel is appropriate. I noticed you reverted the changes the first times, so I was wondering if you could recommend what the appropriate further steps to take would be (since I just made the 5th revert in the last week or so).

Edit war....

Then you'd better issue similar warnings to the other parties regarding their reverts. If they stop reverting, I will. Plain and simple. I won't be the scapegoat for something they've done LOADS to foster. In addition, have you seen them inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABGC&diff=22357003&oldid=22314696stigate a proper discussion? Never. Had I been approached respectfully, instead of having my efforts rudely thwarted (which is how I became acquainted with MD & Mel), then I'd be more open to discussion. BGC 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My warning is not conditional. There are several problems specifically with your behavior and I hope you will address them. Gamaliel 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I got this after my post at Template talk:Album infobox 2 trying to resolve the issue. While I respect Qirex' judgement, I think it might actually belong to you. Jkelly 02:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight: BGC's first encounter with me was when I approached him about blanking the User and Talk pages for user:PetSounds; he ignored me and deleted my messages from his Talk page. I subsequently found out (from another editor, and then from one of his edit summaries) that he had been PetSounds, but his aggressive behaviour and caused him so many problems that he'd opened a new account to try to put the past behind him.

My next encounter was when (at the end of August) I up-dated the infobox for M.I.U. Album in line with the albums Wikiproject; he reverted my changes (what he describes as "having my efforts rudely thwarted"?). I explained what I was doing (e.g., here), but his response was (omitting the rudeness) that I should either up-date every album article or none. His attempt to rewrite history is pointless when it's all there in the History of the different pages. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

could you pls help me move

Hello, Gamaliel. Could you pls help move the current Liu Boming to Liu Buoming (astronaut), and revert the the article Liu Boming back to the version 22:55, 14 May 2005 Joy Stovall (sorted stub) ? seems my ID to new to do it. Thanks. Liu Boming is a historical and influential educator and scholar in China and his ideas still inspire todays's Chinese education and academy (see Chinese wikipedia zh:刘伯明 ). --Cculture 04:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think an article (even a short one) with references and links should be moved out in favor of a one sentence article with no references at all. Gamaliel 04:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

George P. Bush

Please do not remove actual factual content. e.g. UltraVox

Please provide sources for your information. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Gamaliel 04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok... I got it from a newpaper article that interviewed his classmates from Rice. I'll add the reference to the article. Is that ok, or is that a copyright problem? for example "A Flock of Seagulls"

It is not a copyright problem unless you copy sentences or passages directly from the text without enclosing them in quote marks. Gamaliel 18:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Kerry 1996 $$

I'd like something about that in the article. Will you help me write it? Or are you opposed to any mention? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 04:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know that Daniel Brandt has you on a list and is compiling personal information about you [7]? TDC 19:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed it about an hour ago. It's pretty odd, all I did was add some stuff from a 1968 New York Times article about him burning his draft card in front of TV cameras, an article and event he himself mentioned on the talk page! How this is an "invasion of privacy" utterly baffles me, but Brandt seems pretty determined to be unreasonable about this whole matter. Last week I was considering contacting Brandt to try to reason with him, but this issue has been going for something like a month before I even noticed the article and it's gone well past the point of no return. I don't want to give him any more ammo for his hit list, so I'm just going to shrug and move on. Gamaliel 20:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:John Kerry

Please read this. Thank you.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyrights

Gamaliel, if you can find the discussion showing how using the entirety of a creatively derived list is not a violation of copyright, I'd love to see it because the case law is very clear on extending copyright protection to lists like the "Best of ... ", whenever such a list is the result of the creative judgments of some editor or author. This does not generally apply to the results of polling or other factually based achievements. Is it possible you are conflating a case of the later with the former? Dragons flight 03:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No. I don't know where the discussion was, but I do recall that there were two duplicate articles, perhaps the discussion was about the one which was deleted. I do recall the discussion involved Feist v. Rural. In any case, IANAL, so a protracted legal discussion here would be pointless. If you are correct about your interpretation, then this is an issue that should be discussed in a more visible forum, such as wikien-l or a WP poll and not in a case by case basis on WP:CP. Either way, I really don't see how reporting who was listed on a tv program or in a magazine article or wherever can possibly be a copyright violation. Gamaliel 04:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's your discussion. Dragons flight 06:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Mermelstein page

Gamaliel, why do you keep vandalizing Mermelstein entry? If you feel there is something wrong with the facts (which are supported by the sources), you can always edit the article. But reverting the article without any reason to the old version, which is chock-full of falsehoods, is hardly the proper way.

--85.140.12.235 10:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Start by citing your sources and stopping the inappropriate and disruptive use of edit summaries which contain accusations of "vandalism". Gamaliel 13:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The sources are cited throughout the article. In fact, it is mostly based on the documents contained as appendices to Mel's own book. Vandalism is destroying correct and factual content, by replacing it with inaccurate or nonsensical one (or simply deleting it). The content in the present article is correct and can be easily checked. It is understandable why people not acquainted with the Mermelstein case in some detail might "dislike" the current article, as it goes against several common misconceptions about the Mermelstein case - such people probably think that the article is tilted toward Holocaust deniers' position or something like that. But, for example, that no tunnel led to Krema V is a well-known fact, and can be verified, for example, in Pressac's book or in "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp". That Mermelstein at first claimed to have seen the actual gassings and later in his deposition stated that he only saw people marching to the gas chamber follows from his own book. That there was a settlement (and thus no trial) follows from many sources, e.g. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/embattled-bigots/introduction.html Etc., etc., etc.

--194.154.71.22 13:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

A legitimate dispute about content is not considered vandalism, and the inaccurate and inappropriate use of edit summaries to accuse other users of vandalism is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Gamaliel 18:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404

From my talk page:

This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Mr. Tibbs, Kizzle, Derex, Jtdirl, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane 08:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Lil Abner

Have you checked what the template says?:

This image is of a United States postage stamp produced in 1978 or later. The copyright for it is owned by the United States Postal Service. It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to the subject of the stamp) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information.

Note it says it is not acceptable to use it to illustrate the subject of the stamp. It's best if you give your thoughts on that, rather than we just engage in a revert war. User:Steve block talk 19:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I hadn't read the template before. Is there a page which describes our policies on stamps? There are certainly a lot of unanswered questions here, for me anyway. Why are pre-1978 stamps acceptable but not post-1978 stamps? Why are stamps less acceptable than book covers? Why can't the fact that the article mentions the stamp be an excuse for fair use, or using the stamp to illustrate the social significance of a subject be fair use? In any case, I'm not sure what a discussion between only two people will accomplish, because if what this template says should be binding WP policy, then there are a lot of editors and articles which will be affected. Gamaliel 20:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The template was probably written by Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Our fair use policies are slowly being tightened due to legal advice, as best as I can understand it. As to other articles, I can't really speak on them, only that we've been discussing this article and image at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and have inclined towards removing it. Note technically the image has no source and can be listed for speedy deletion anyway. User:Steve block talk 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the 1978 thing, I believe copyright laws in the United States changed in that year, although I am not American so I am not 100% positive on that. I actually do agree with you that since the article mentions the stamp it constitutes fair use but the consensus leant the other way. I'm happy to leave well enough alone for now. User:Steve block talk 20:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Edwards

Hi,

This is a morbid question to ask, maybe, but I noticed that you started his stub five days before he died. Out of curiosity, was that coincidence, or did you have news of an illness? If the former, be careful, as you might have "the keyboard of death" at your fingertips! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it was a complete (and very creepy) coincidence. I think I should restrict myself to articles about already deceased people. :( Gamaliel 21:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You and I have been in an edit war

or anyway when I pressed the "submit" button here, I found myself prevented from adding my comment by you. (No big deal!) Erm, I'm not sure that Wyss will help you: if you haven't done so already, take a good look at recent additions to Wyss's page and user page. (And sorry, but for what little worth my help is worth, I'm sure I won't help you, as I'm gradually reducing my WP commitments till I rebound in January or February.) -- Hoary 04:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I spoke too quickly. She's back, and fighting. Yay! -- Hoary 04:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup:Tampa

I'm writing to let you know that the Tampa meetup has officially been announced -- Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa2 →Raul654 04:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Crap, unfortunately I'll be leaving for Gainesville that morning. Gamaliel 05:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete La Shawn Barber

The La Shawn Barber page is vanity, and La Shawn herself wants deleted. A bunch of anonymous vandals are posting repeated keeps and we need an administrator to restore order and delete the worthless article. --YHoshua 19:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The last vfd discussion was overrun with sockpuppets and vandals, but right now all the votes (with the exception of the person claiming to be Barber herself) appear to be from legitimate, established Wikipedians. Gamaliel 19:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

List of dictators

Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a admin on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. Yours,

jucifer 23:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This page only has one edit, and is a redirect to dictator. There is no evidence of blanking or any other edits in the history, which consists of that single edit. There is no evidence that this page was ever deleted, either. I simply don't understand your complaint. Gamaliel 23:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Freindly Chat

Hi Gamaliel, how are you? I know, I was that ignorant jerk who gave you a hard time before but, no more! I have a question and I need your advice. The first question is, why can't we keep the titles of the poems written by Salvador Agron in his bio? My second question isn't related with Agron. Let's say that I'm doing research on a certain person and that person has "publicly stated" in their webpage that he/she studied medicine at Oxford. I do some research in Oxford's webpage and I find that they do give that type of medical course. Do I accept that what the person has stated was in good faith and include it in the article, even if it cannot be completely verified? My question arises because I believe that are many claims, maybe hundreds, that cannot be 100% verified and I think that we have to, in some cases, accept the subjects personal claim based on good faith. I really would like your input on this. Tony the Marine 18:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see how the article is served by including the titles of three random poems. I also deleted them because the way you worded it initially, it seemed like they were book titles. If you want to put them back in, however, I don't have any particular objection beyond that, as long as it's clear they are poem titles. Gamaliel 22:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I took your advice and changed the wording on Agron. Now, what is your input on my second question? Tony the Marine 01:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess most of the time we have to accept these claims on good faith if they are "published" elsewhere, like their own webpage. However, I wonder if this person is not notable enough for this information to be published somewhere other than their own web page, are they notable enough for an encyclopedia article? Is there a specific article or articles you have in mind? Gamaliel 02:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the case, last October 2004, someone posted Mylo Carbia's name in the "List of Puerto Ricans" without writing an article on her. When I looked up her webpage bio (which no longer exsists), IMDB and other websites that included press releases, I was impressed and believed in the good faith of the information. However, the subject came up in her talk page and now I have my doubts, see here. The reason that I have my doubts is because according to Mylo, she has accomplished quite alot and has publicly stated so, but what if she over did it and fabricated some stuff and as a consecuence that info has been infiltrated to many other sites? How can we determine what is fact and what is fiction? I hope that I'm making sense because I value your opinion. Tony the Marine 04:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This definately looks suspicious, you're right to be concerned. I think that we should try to dig up some independent sources for this. Gamaliel 05:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo

• Regarding your comment concerning my case (Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo): I find it quite perplexing that you have attempted to defame my name by pointing out something obvious, namely that MARQUI's Who's Who (of any category) does send out queries, and does ask such details, but only to later verify them before publication. The fact that you do not seem to know this seems to show that you are either less professional than you would have us believe or not entirely absent of malice. Furthermore, to compare me to Naked Cowboy as opposed to Socrates is definitely defamatory. I happen to be very involved in the American Jewish world, as a Jew myself, and I may yet have you investigated for any prejudices you might harbor against any persons, ethnicities or other, in case I may have to seek legal remedies. I take this whole matter very seriously and I sincerely hope that you have made a serious mistake and intend to reconsider matters. Besides, I see that you do not appreciate my views on the social ramifications of contemplating the infinite, or so it would seem. It was not more than two years ago that I had to leave Hungary because of rising anti-semitism in Europe and threats against me in particular by the extreme right-wing in Hungary (for speaking out openly against prejudice towards the Roma community in Hungary and for helping topple, via my statements in the media, on TV, the virulently anti-Semitic, zenophobic, anti-Arab government of Viktor Orban and FIDESZ. Anyway, I find your seemingly reactionary manners suspicious to say the least. My advice to you sir is: be more scientific and cautious in your assertions and statements, for in the end your very reputation at Wikipedia could be at stake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.73.93 (talk • contribs)

Replied to these threats at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo]. Gamaliel 21:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Threats? Warning is more like it. Look here; in the International Directory of Diplomatic Protocol it clearly states that when someone first attacks you and threatens your character (reputation) or person then warning them is a perfectly legitimate form of defense. In other words, the logic of it all is quite simple: a) your country was never threatened by my country, b) your country, for whatever sinister reasons, threatens my country, c) I warn your country not to continue to pose a threat, d) you complain at the U.N. Security Council that I am threatening your country, e) but the Security Council, after a bried investigation, concludes that my country was well within its rights to warn your country and that such a warning is not the same as a threat... You could easily have scored points had you avoided the insulting comparisons and the unfounded accusations. But, then again, maybe that was your point all along. Whoever you really are, I would not want to be in your shoes. You seem quite insecure if the best you can do is defame people you have never even met! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.73.93 (talk • contribs)

I remind you again about Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is your second warning. Gamaliel 19:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!?! Seriously Gemaliel: the very fact that Wikipedians, yourself included, have made an issue of the veracity of all that is mentioned in my Wikipedia listing is, and has been, a PERSONAL ATTACK! To quote my favorite song-writer/musician Billy Joel: "We Didn't Start The Fire". A PERSONAL ATTACK because the facts will, even perhaps after the deletion, come to light and prove that I was honest about myself all along; that people, citing the op-ed words of persons who have been my enemies from the moment I became famous in Budapest, were not being sufficiently cautious and scientific about this process of identifying sources. By the way, has it ever occurred to you that it is strange that so many people have been attacking my credibility???(I'm trying very hard to assume that you are not what I have feared you might be.). Besides, you have plenty of info. on me, some that is accurate and some that is way off the mark, but WHO ARE YOU? What have you to hide??? I think it is high time that Wikipedia have a revision of some of its policies and that it require all Wikipedians to prove their true identity!!! After all, the power of editing the most commonly used source of information on Earth should not be in the hands of anonymous persons whose credibility and responsibility can never be doubted, criticized or addressed. 68.48.73.93 23:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Questioning the validity of sources is not a personal attack. Gamaliel 23:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• WOW! I wonder why the following (explain this to me Gemaliel):

User:Wyss From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search

Because Wikipedia's applied sourcing methodologies are not at academic levels across its content I will no longer be participating in this project. I have also pondered the thought that Wikipedia's internal group dynamics more resemble those of a charismatic religious (or political activist) organisation rather than a scholarly team writing an encyclopedia. Wyss 15:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Update: A Wiki-friend was kind enough to observe the following: People are going to react "WtF?" or "Is he" (as everybody assumes you're he) "so thick that it's taken him a year and thousands of edits before realizing this?" How about something like: Because those people who formulate and enforce Wikipedia policies show a cavalier lack of concern for academic standards in sourcing. Yes, she said, yes. Wyss 14:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia is a Meta Culture Blog Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wyss

Why don't you ask the author of those words? Why ask me? Gamaliel 23:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

REPLY: If I could get in touch with the author I would... But Gemaliel, let's be frank: it's kind of strange that you have no real extended comment in defense of Wikipedia's current situation! Again, WHO ARE YOU? I know, more or less, who Trovatore is, who MikeTwo is, but YOU Sir??!? Clearly something is very much amiss here.68.48.73.93 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

#1 Award

I award you the very rare "No.1" Medal for your excellent work in Wikipedia Tony the Marine 01:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you accept this award on my behalf because you have taught me to think before I act and I believe that is a valuable lesson to apply not only to Wikipedia but also in our daily lives. Tony the Marine 01:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Gamaliel 19:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

To make sure you notice

I think you may have missed -- I edited your userpage just a tad. The Oswald external link was broken, so I figured you'd notice if I put in a minor edit to it (adding "FYI: broken link"). This msg is just to make sure you don't miss that (or find it later and think I was trying to vandalize your page or something). Cheers. --Michael ^(talk) 17:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to find an updated link. Gamaliel 20:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits

I am trying to add William Consuegra to the Trinity University, San Antonio (TX), Montville (NJ) and other pages. I can send you information on him that will let you know that my edits are legit.

Thanks.

robert_huang_phd@yahoo.com

Why don't you use that information to create an article on this person so we know who he is first? That way everyone can see whether or not he is a notable person and is worth including in all those other articles. We typically do not list every famous or semi-famous person who has ever attended an elementary school in a particular town in the article for that town. Gamaliel 07:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I checked up on this guy, it seems the most notable things he has done have beem a) been international students representative to the managment of Trinity College and b) host an occasional college radio show.

He has 27 google hits - some of which are someone else. If there was an AfD vote on him (he would lose) - that vote would soon be his top google result! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.77.87 (talk • contribs)

Unformatted "Gale" reference

If you're going to refer folks to your User:Gamaliel/Gale page, could you format it please? The nowiki tags turn it into a stream-of-consciousness text. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually this is probably only the second time I've referred to the page. I don't know if it's worth the effort to format the thing. Sorry. Gamaliel 09:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks on Vince Colletta!

I couldn't find a date of birth anywhere. It's always great to see such constructive edits on my articles! Anything you can add to Billy Graham (comics) or anything else on the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenebrae is more than welcome! Thanks again.... Tenebrae 06:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lil Abner

Do you mind if I copy across our discussion on the stamp at Lil Abner to the talk page? It would allow the full discussion to be seen. Steve block talk 10:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Gamaliel 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Hiyas, Gamaliel. I just reverted a confusing revert of yours... and added a sarcasm tag that I mistakenly thought was unnecessary. I'm curious as to why you consider that a personal attack, when that whole section appears to be personal attacks (most especially, the link to TDCs very valid personal threat that you attempted to revert away). Misunderstanding? 209.86.4.114 08:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your first edit to Wikipedia is to accuse (or sarcastically accuse, or whatever) an editor of being a government agent. We don't need that crap around here. I'm more aware than you realize of the kind of antics TDC has pulled in the past, but the answer is not more of the same. If you feel TDC has done something inappropriate, please report it here: WP:AN/I. Gamaliel 08:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My first edit? BTW, COINTELPRO hasn't existed as a program since the early 70s. If you'd like to delete the whole section on that discussion page, great, but until you do so, I will exercise my right to comment on it along with everyone else. In deference to your sensibilities, however, I'll omit anything that you could misconstrue as "accusation" crap. 209.86.4.114 08:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

According to this, it was your first edit. If you have previously edited under another name or IP address, I have no way of knowing that. All it looks like is someone stirring up trouble as soon as they arrive, a frequent problem on Wikipedia. With that said, I have no problem with your new comment on that page. Once again, if you feel any comments by TDC or anyone else are inappropriate, please do not respond in kind and instead report them in the appropriate manner. Gamaliel 08:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick vprotect

Hi there. I was surprised to see you re-vprotect Seigenthaler after a single vandal edit. Any particular reason? The IPs are from completely different places. -Splash^talk 06:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's been a semi-constant stream of vandalism over the last couple hours. Thought it was for the best. If you wish to edit the article, I'll remove it now. Gamaliel 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I wasn't looking for an edit personally, just observing a quick move to vprotect. I'll leave it to your judgement, but we shouldn't be scared of fark.com -Splash^talk 07:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Woo!

Thanks for getting User:69.175.36.174. I was half-way to carpal tunnel reverting him. Tom Lillis 07:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could save you from a disabling condition. :) Gamaliel 07:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting Twist

Hi Gamaliel, it seems as if Mylo Carbia herself, decided to join the conversaion on the talk page here, to give her point of view. If what is stated is true, I feel that her accomplishments, outside of the educational ones, aren't enough to consider her notable. What do you think? Tony the Marine 18:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think this message has changed anything, we still lack verifiable legitimate sources. Gamaliel 18:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As usual the rules only apply to conservatives....

Ideology has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion of communism. Menchu is clearly a communist, at the most charitable she's a fifth columnist. Naturally, the many subjects under the penumbra of Communism and the Cold War are going to come up.

I notice that attacks upon me were left sitting on the dicussion pages for months. Pro-communist posts were also left sitting there for months. Its only when I begin to defend myself and demolish left-liberal progaganda that you suddenly get excited.

And truth doesn't matter?

A Communist, particular a Soviet Commissar, couldn't have said it better.

I don't know who you are. Perhaps you have the power to impose your views by force, perhaps you don't. But if you do, just think about that for a moment. To rid wikipedia of views with which you clearly disagree you'll be using brute force to remove them.

Goebbels and Suslov must be applauding from whatever very warm locale in which they are residing. (And since I partly Jewish, don't try playing that card with me).

Why don't you contribute to the discussion instead of wiping conservative views from it?

PainMan 22:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I did not act sooner was because I was not paying attention. Three entire sections of large paragraphs of irrelevant material got my attention. I don't see this through an ideological prism, I see this through a pragmatic one. The sole purpose of that talk page is for the discussion of the article. A debate about the crimes of world communism is irrelevant, however valid your points may be. The talk page is about what will go in the article. Allegations about Mandela and babykilling will never go in an article about Rigoberta Menchu. The fact that Senator Byrd was in the Klan will never go in an article about Rigoberta Menchu. Thus there is absolutely no point in bringing it up other than to score points in a debate which is entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the talk page. I am going to remove the material again. You can chose to get on your soapbox and complain that conservatives are supposedly being suppressed, despite the fact that I have removed material from non-conservative perspectives as well. Or you can realize that this debate you are participating in has nothing to do with the mission of creating an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What a joke! Also note that personal attacks will not be tolerated. This is a load of crap. Personal attacks are tolerated--as long as the targets are conservatives. Points tangenital to the subject at hand are tolerated as long as they support Left-Liberal positions. If they demolish a left-wing position then they "have nothing to do with the mission of creating an encyclopedia." You're fanatical committment to a discredited ideology shouldn't have anything to do with it either.

I thought the idea of an encyclopedia was to bring out the truth--not perpetuate and indoctrinate the fantasies of the Left. How foolish of me to think wikipedia would actually be interested in the truth or in view points that deviate from the kook Left. Who's running wikipedia, Al Franken? The site name ought to be the_nation-opedia.com.

I've been dealing with Libs like you too long to do anything but laugh at your ridiculous posturing as though you possess some kind of Olympian deatchment. You don't "view things through an ideological prism"? Do you seriously expect anyone who isn't room temperature to believe that?

Your posts just prove my point: Conservative views are NOT welcome on wikipedia. Only the approved Leftist line is welcome. I've been censored and abused--what conservative hasn't?--my entire life for my beliefs; no American Leftist-Liberal has experienced anything like what conservatives have. Have you ever sat through an entire class where the teacher/professor leads the mind-numbed robots in a group-think attack against you? I have. You're just the latest in a long line of Libs allergic to facts and dedicated to making sure only ONE ideology sees the light of day. Well, those days are OVER. The Left's monopoly on information and the media has been smashed. The truth and the conservative view point (a redundancy I admit) is challenging the accomplices of the Democratic party and the Euro-left. No longer can a Walter Cronkite or a Dan Rather or the New York times spew lies and get way clean. The truth finally has an outlet: the new media.

But the spirit motivating those running wikipedia is decidely Rather-ian. Silence the conservatives, eliminate all contrary points of view and arbitrarily define "personal attacks" as anyone opposing the Left-Liberal position or supporting the conservative position. Don't insult people's intelligence pretending otherwise.

Why don't you guys just be honest and put in on the front page: "Conservatives need bothering posting or participating the project."

To reiterate: just stop the risible posturing that "personal attacks" aren't tolerated. The site is riddled with them--tolerated as long as the targets are conservatives. You know its the truth. That you refuse to admit it says more about wikipedia and you than anything I ever could. And if that hurts your feelings I don't care. PainMan 12:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Nothing about your rant has anything at all to do with the central point of all this: article talk pages are not for political ranting of any stripe, especially when that ranting is entirely unrelated to the subject of the article. Gamaliel 18:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Without going on unduly, my observations confirm PainMan's. The frequent repeating of the great dictum that "Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy" merely shows that it is ("Methinks thou dost protest too much"); and since liberals outnumber conservatives in the richer classes, who in turn are the computer-equipped people most likely to be editing Wikipedia, there is a distinct liberal bias onboard, and yes, conservatives do get hounded. The "NPOV" ideal is quite impossible of attainment; the most that can be said is that in the high-profile articles people can always — and do — slug it out; it gets quite nasty. For that reason (I'm confrontation-averse, and even seeing such a thing gets my stomach churning, regardless of the positions on either side) I personally have learned to stick by and large to minor articles dealing with matters of fact; mostly my little corner of central Italy. Bill 14:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've felt "hounded", but since I have no idea who you are I can't speak to your particular experience here. In my experience, many people cry "oppression" at the flimsiest provocation, such as Painman above. And I could come up with plenty of examples of the reverse, such as the group of conservatives who have attempted to label dozens of historical figures as "Soviet spies" and have harrassed users who disagree with their assessment. (See ArbCom's current docket for a couple of great examples.) There's plenty of examples of politically oriented confrontation, and plenty of examples of biased users on either side, but I simply don't agree that this project is overwhelemed by some great liberal bias. Gamaliel 18:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't felt hounded — never said anything about my own views! — but I can see that many conservatives must feel that way, and why. (There's a huge amount of information about me online, by the way, because of my website, which among other things includes fifteen months of my diary, a brief bio, etc. and of course the website itself is a mine of information.) Bill

Sorry, I apologize for misreading your comments. Gamaliel 19:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Blather?

Sorry? You realise I wrote that... and I was just trying to document the situation. Perhaps it was a bit detailed, but hardly blather. Perhaps you could be more careful with your descriptions in future? I find it quite disheartening when I find authors who I respect (such as yourself) critical of a good faith attempt at documenting part of Seigenthaler Sr.'s life. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, and I mean that sincerely. It was a poor choice of words made far too quickly. I do think it was too much information, though there was nothing wrong with the writing style, etc. and certainly nothing wrong with your good faith effort at documenting the situation. I'll try to be more careful shooting my mouth off in the future. Gamaliel 14:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

You stated that I needed to use a NPOV in reference to the Cindy Sheehan article. I had a reference with a direct quote from Sheehan to the Vacaville Reporter. The quote is as follows, "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together." It was referenced from http://www.thereporter.com/republished and http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002301.html. I was wondering why I received the warning and why the statement "Unsatisfied with her meeting with the President, she began attending larger and larger peace rallies and marches, often speaking to protest the occupation of Iraq." remains, despite the fact that none of the references posted after this statement mentioned anything about Sheehan being unsatisfied about her meeting with Bush. Maybe I overlooked something. Is there another way to state this direct quote without sounding biased? Thank you for any feedback you can provide me.

User BGC resumes edit warrring on music articles

User BGC has today reverted about 75 music articles, removing, as best I can tell, all contributions from other editors since his last edits on those pages. Aside from the infobox issues, he's renewing his counter-MOS changes, changing back timing styles, reinserting gross NPOV violations (for example, note the first paragraph here [8]), removing undisputed factual corrections like this [9], and otherwise wiping out virtually all work on the articles (even spelling corrections!) by other editors over the last month of so. None of the edits are explained by edit summaries; none have talk activity; and none are marked as reversions. In several cases, most conspicuously the [R.E.M. template], he is knowingly replacing consensus text with his own unsupported versions. Given his vociferous (and often inaccurate) objections to less drastic forms of such conduct by other editors (e.g, his complaints about Mel Etitis and the Beach Boys template), his bad faith is evident. This is at best a hair away from simple vandalism and should be addressed by an administrator. Monicasdude 02:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I left a couple of messages at User talk:BGC. Since you have taken an interest in this, I'd like to ask you if you have any thoughts on how to go forward. Jkelly 08:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you open an RfC regarding BGC's actions. Wider community input is what is needed here. Gamaliel 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In hopes of resolving the editing dispute without reopening the interpersonal conflicts, I've put the Infobox 2 template back up for deletion [10], based on the disparities in overall use of the template and the overwhelming disparity in use in new album pages. Monicasdude 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that hasn't gone well. User:BGC has resumed reverting album articles to his own texts, removing contributions by other editors, MOS-compliant changes, correction of simple errors, etc. Has this reached the point where a vandalism complain is appropriate? Monicasdude 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Requiring log-in for editing: a good idea

I've finally done something about the anonymous edit situation, rather than just bleating about it in my edit summaries! laying the case before the Village Pump (here). I encourage everyone to support the move on Village Pump; and in the edit summaries of your reverts to link there — although I've been completely unable to figure out how to do it. . . . Best, Bill 13:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation Help

Hi Gamaliel

You requested sources for the additions I made to the articles regarding Robert Crowley and Gregory Douglas.

> I don't doubt what you've added to these articles is true, but could you

> add your sources to the articles? See Wikipedia:Cite your sources.

> Gamaliel 15:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am Robert Crowley's son. I saw him on an almost daily basis during the last few years of his life. I know personally that my father never actually met Gregory Douglas, much less provide him with "secret documents".

I was present on several occassions when he received phone calls from Gregory Douglas. My father was a courteous man and would speak to Douglas, although he regarded him as an eccentric.

Unfortunately, Mr. Douglas turned out to be a scoundrel who used my fathers death as a pretext for promoting his book.

I'm not sure how one can use their personal observations as a citation.

Greg Crowley

Thanks for your note. There's been a lot of nonsense added about the JFK assassination to Wikipedia, and people like you would be valuable in countering much of it. However we are bound by a couple rules on Wikipedia. There is Wikipedia:No original research, and person observations would be included in that prohibition. We can get around that by finding a published account of this. Have you or your father written about this matter at all? Perhaps you have been quoted in a book review or newspaper article on the subject. In any case, I've made some additions to the article and toned down some of the language as per our policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Gamaliel 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to assist. Regards, Greg

I Married Dora

The final episode of that series ran for the first time in December of 1987. It may have aired again in reruns in August of 1988 - at the time, first-run episodes of existing series never aired during the summer months - but the final date for the series should be the date the last first-run episode aired. | Klaw Talk 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LSB

Regarding La Shawn Barber's page, I am not "inserting an opinion into the article and stating it as a fact." Critics do indeed complain about her tendency to self-promotion, and the parody is simply one example of that. I've revised to better suit your suggestion, though.

Ted Kennedy anons

The arbitration against the Kennedy anonymous editors is in voting. You might want to look and comment. The proposed decision would ban 24.147.97.230 and sockpuppets Labgal and Fishingguy99 for three months. Most of the one-time user accounts appeared to be meatpuppets. However, the timing of the use of Labgal and Fishingguy99 in a 3RR war was too perfect for meatpuppets. I am satisfied with the proposed ruling. Please look at it and see if you are satisfied. Robert McClenon 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Content changes Langston Hughes

I am rather confused. My understanding is that a user can add "correct" and "documented" content in a Wikipedia entry. Yet, as I have noticed with an entry I keep submitting, it is being deleted. Please inform me to the reason. I freely welcome your advice for anything I may be doing wrong. Langston Hughes is my hero, and, I know much about is life and career. Please, is there any way my contribution can be reinstated in whatever correct format the page requires?TonyCrew 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You are free to add material to Wikipedia articles, but others are also free to edit that material as they see fit. My concerns about your additions include:

• You are dumping a large amount of unformatted text into an article. Please add wikilinks and make sure your text conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
• Your text on this particular subject is larger than any other section and far out of proportion to the amount of coverage this topic deserves. Remember this is a general interest encyclopedia. In my opinion a lot of the detail can be removed and is unnecessary.
• Some of the text seems to advocate particular opinions and violates our policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel 21:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I have gone back an attempted to make a version of my NPOV according to your suggestions. I hope to learn from my mistakes. Please, if you think the formatting is incorrect, do not hesitate to correct it. I hope it meets with your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyCrew (talk • contribs)

This isn't a few formatting tweaks we are talking about, you're dumping a large amount of raw, unformatted text into an otherwise well-formatted article. Please consult the Manual of Style to learn how to format your contributions properly, or simply look at the rest of the text in the article and model your text after it. Gamaliel 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have followed your example in the formatting of my NPOV ,AND, I consulted the Manual of Style. It is not my intention to disrupt a well-formatted article by "dumping" unformatted text. If what I have attempted to correct by following your example isn't adequate, I will delete the my contribution to the Wikepedia article. Or, I guess you will delete it.TonyCrew 23:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've approached this the wrong way. I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing, I just want to encourage you to incorporate your changes with the existing article and in proper Wikipedia style. Gamaliel 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Howie Carr article

Hey Gamaliel, see we've gotten in a bit of a edit conflict over at Howie Carr, which looks to be mostly the result of bad edit timings :). Sorry for reverting your changes, they werent there yet when I first started to revert the changes by User:24.147.103.146. This user has edited it again adding the "no proof whatsoever" line, and ive reverted back to your version. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Dying for sins

Heh, you know what I'm talking about. I read your comment and I thought it was dead on. If it interests you any, I'm up for RfB, which Zordrac opposed (one of the two opposes out of currently 60 supports) based on the idea that I was rude to a great activist. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Linuxbeak_(2) will tell you more.

Have a good one, Gamaliel. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[11]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gale Biography of Barnicle

not sure good source of information, misttates biographical information about mother(s) of his children (attrubtes all seven to first wife) and reasons for leaving globe (mistakes made but not plagiarism at the end of the day)

Gale may very well be inaccurate. However, you have provided no source for your information. Gamaliel 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Black List

I think that you should be informed that you are on the Black List. I wouldn't worry or anything if I were you, just conceal any personal information he doesn't have about you. No need to make things easy for banned users. Izehar (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed I was up there a while back. Gamaliel 20:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination theories

The link to Seigenthaler was already there. I figured the article on the Wikipedia controversy was more relevant. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

I agree that your link was more relevant than the preexisting link. However, I still think that no link at all is preferable. Gamaliel 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have no problem with that. Zoe (216.234.130.130 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

---

Felix Navidad

Tony the Marine

O.K. Gamaliel, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida.

I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help make it grow, set tasks etc. Thanks. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Louis Auster

Hello, if you are going to do a merge without any preliminary discussion, could you at least merge all the info. Thank you. -- JJay 21:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what information did I miss? His name, religion, occupation, and the article link are all there in the egg cream article. Gamaliel 21:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I had added a link to the stub (and forgot to put the stub template). Also, as this was a recent page, you might have wanted to leave a bit more time for the first editor to expand the text. -- JJay 21:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The article has existed for ten days, and it did not seem like a subject that was primed for immediate expansion. I'm sorry if I offended you with my merge, but nothing I have done will prevent the expansion of the article if that editor has anything to add. Gamaliel 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The merge is fine with me. I just liked the BBC link I found because it shows the international interest in egg creams. -- JJay 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The BBC link is now in the egg cream article. I placed it there when I merged the articles, but I changed it to read "H2G2 link" as the article is part of the H2G2 project, now run by the BBC website. Gamaliel 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you are very right. My mistake and sorry. You clearly had the right approach- I should have checked the links before posting. Take care. -- JJay 22:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please delete that sentence

Rob, please delete that sentence about SDS/Muskie. Daniel Brandt 10:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's RfA

Hi Gamaliel,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Bronx buses

That person eliminated your redirect on Bronx Science Bus Service. We are also having some crazy editors on Bronx High School of Science that are fighting over these bus services, attacking the opposing companies, and this is somehow related to it. I'm getting pretty annoyed. Tfine80 02:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the redirect is great if you can get User:JosepherLi and his anon incarnations to accept it. Or, really, even to discuss it. I'm tired of reverting the same copyvio text from bronxsciencebus.com over and over! FreplySpang (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Underground

This is not vandalism:

DU members often cheer for the deaths of people who do not agree with them. The death of President Reagan was widely celebrated at Democratic Underground. When conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham was diagnosed with breast cancer, the DU community wished her a speedy demise. These same people preach compassion and tolerance yet show none. Here is an example of how DU'ers react to the misfortunes of those who do not share their views.

It is the truth. If you do not want the truth on your site, shut it down. I have a dialup account I can use it to edit that page if you ban me.

Open your eyes and follow the link. Since when is posting the truth a ban-able offense?

I read the thread you linked to. Out of 135 posts, only a handful could be interpreted as cheering for Miller's death. Most common was to take the occasion to express disdain for him, by suggesting that his medical problems might have been caused by a buildup of excess bile or by injuries suffered in a duel (referring to his silly challenge to Chris Matthews). Perhaps most common was a statement along the lines of "I don't care" -- not very kind, but a far cry from wishing him dead. Out of the many posts on DU, there's no reason to highlight the handful that you want to emphasize for POV reasons.

By the way, making juvenile edits like this one is an offense that will support a banning. Harry Reid's middle name is not "Hitler". JamesMLane 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Change in list of Wikipedians in Florida

The list Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Florida has been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in Florida. Your name has been removed from the list. If you would like to remain listed as a Wikipedian from Florida, please add [[Category:Wikipedians in Florida]] to your User page. thanks!

Dalbury^(Talk) 13:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC), a member of WikiProject Florida

November 3 marginal events

Gamaliel,

Here's my rationale for the deletions I made.

Verde's opera: somewhat notable, but not a sufficiently earthshaking event to me - If we were to extend the 'be liberal' idea, we could put every premiere of every opera ever made into the calendar. We just ballooned the size of each day, month, and year entry. Where does it end? I think we have one or more significant events in music groups to handle things like this.

US Presidental elections - Pretty common events, and most aren't especially notable. It's the things the US presidents do that make them notable. Significant actions make my cut, but not just the election of a new one. If we get liberal with our entries, every regime change in every nation makes the cut.

Other entertainment entries - Again, there is no end to the insignificant trivia you will bloat the day, month, and year entries with if you don't put some limits on it. Every Sinatra movie ever made? Every video game ever released? Every time a soap opera kills off a minor character? Yuk.

I appreciate your sentiments, but these entries are only as valuable as their content. If they get too unwieldy, with entries like "Sonic the Hedgehog's ears change color on this day in the history of video games", no one will wade through them.

I drew a line - I've been drawing them for awhile and, short of vanity entries, you're the first person to object. It's time for a dialog on how do we clean up these date entries. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to present my personal opinion. Catbar (Brian Rock) 12:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy Anon

Could someone please check on IP address 24.147.103.146, which is editing the articles on Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy? I think it is a sockpuppet for banned 24.147.97.230. Thank you. Robert McClenon 11:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:BGC on new revert spree

User:BGC has again resumed systematically reverting album articles to his preferred text, deleting all recent contributions from other editors and using inappropriate/misleading edit summaries when he uses edit summaries at all. Beyond the usual issues, he is adding various star images back to infoboxes, despite the recently established consensus to remove them. He is also systematically deleting all admin warnings from his talk page, usually no more than a day or so after each is posted. Monicasdude 15:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Horse the band

I noticed that you moved HORSE the band to Horse the band (removing the capitalisation). I'm pretty new to 'pedia, is that a protocol that applies to all articles? HORSE the band themselves capitalise the name at all times, so _technically_ the original is correct. let me know via my talk, or summin :-) Jontce 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lots of groups and organizations capitalize themselves (like Time (magazine)) but I don't think Wikipedia should indulge them. Also, allmusic.com doesn't put them in all caps, so I don't see why we should either. That's my opinion, of course, and you're welcome to disagree. Gamaliel

Nope, a fair point - I am just trying to clear it up for myself so I can be of more use with Edits at a later date. Thanks! - Jontce 12:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Reed.gif

I'm afriad that is probably an incorrect use of fair use as well.Geni 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions

Is it so hard to review revisions before you revert them and explain the reasons (if you have any) behind your reversions, as with Tom Coburn? I made a series of edits there, all with detailed explanations except for one minor simplification of a sentence and you think it's ok to revert without explanation? If you don't have time to do the reading, you shouldn't be deleting others' contributions. --Ajdz 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now explained my reasoning in the edit summaries. Gamaliel 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and as for the external link, I did misinterpret Salon as a site that required a subscription when it looks like it just makes you look at an ad. The Roberts Hearings section is still very problematic, but for now I'll put that on the Talk page. --Ajdz 00:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Parrot

Please provide proof, rather than being a Parrot. I might be a meatpuppet, but never a sockpuppet. (A meatpuppet being a person of a like mind with another wikipedian.) 24.0.91.81 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to the administrator who originally placed that message on the page. Gamaliel 01:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take some responsibility for your own actions and remove the block. You don't have to be a robot. 24.0.91.81 02:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It is thought that this account was used by User:Shran. I'm not certain if a CheckUser was done or not. Is there something preventing 24.0.91.81 from using a registered account? --Viriditas 02:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Chic Young birthday

You're correct. I had some bad information. Glad you caught it.

Nemo

I was surprised by your edits to Nemo. You essentially reverted all of my previous edits, leaving the summary, "no reason some song should go first". Well there is a reason that song should go first. My edit summary mentioned WP:D. You should read that over, as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Piping shouldn't normally be done on disambiguation pages (as "in many cases, this may be all the user needs to distinguish the article"), and as for an order (from the MoS):

"A recommended order is:

1. Articles with a clarifier in parentheses (Anticipation (music))
2. Articles with the item as part of the name (Computer keyboard as part of a Keyboard dab page)
3. Synonyms
4. Larger subject articles which treat this item in a section

For places or people, alphabetical or chronological order may make more sense — but only for articles that are equally common. Always place the most-common meaning(s) at the top."

I understand that Nemo (song) may be less common than your preferred Captain Nemo, however it certainly shouldn't be placed at the bottom along with the other articles with clarifiers. I hope I'm not coming across as condescending, that's really not my intention. Still I admit that I was distressed by your edit summary as it had little to do with your edit as a whole, and had reverted a lot of my previous work. I think you'll see now that my edits are appropriate (check out the current version.) If you have a problem with it reply here, on the talk page, or on my talk page, but please don't revert the edits unless there's something significant that should be reverted. Mrtea (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not coming across as condescending. I don't take offense at anything you've said, and I hope you don't take offense at anything I say as well. I don't mean to be dismissive of disambig guidelines, but my first concern is that disambig pages be encyclopedic, and to me that means that they give more weight and significant placement to items of cultural and historical significance and that these concerns should override ones of format and placement that appear in the guidelines. Putting a recent song from an obscure Finnish band above more culturally important and famous things like Captain Nemo and Finding Nemo to me isn't encyclopedic and makes WP look more like a fanboy project than it already does. That's also what I take away from the guideline comment "Always place the most-common meaning(s) at the top".

I don't agree with the guidelines on the pipelink issue, but I'll refrain from using them.

I apologize for reverting much of your work, but my initial impression was (and I say this so you know where I'm coming from, not so you take offense) that not much work went into the edit. For example, you changed "John Fowles's name in The Aristos for the theoretical fourth part of the human psyche that emphasizes the self's insignificance and meaninglessness. It is grouped along with the Ego, superego, and id and comes from the Latin word." to "John Fowles's name in The Aristos", which renders the sentence both meaningless and inaccurate. Fowles is the author of the work and Nemo is a term used within it, and neither of these facts appear in your version of that sentence. Gamaliel 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay great, we're on the same terms now. I think the problem arose in the fact that your primary concern is that disambig pages be encyclopedic, whereas mine is to ensure that they're easy to read, so the reader can easily find what they're really looking for. (It's interesting to note that this is probably why we disagree on the pipelink issue.) I think the current revision is a lot better for both concerns compared to what it was previously. I completely agree with you about placement of the links, which was my oversight, as well as the John Fowles bit. Thanks for the thorough reply, Mrtea (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How dare you

tag an article for deletion before it's even had a chance to be edited. Morton devonshire 02:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how new that article is, but regardless I don't think we need an encyclopedia article on every T-shirt slogan. Gamaliel 02:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

less than 2 minutes when you tagged it. Please give it a chance to develop. Morton devonshire 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD lasts a minimum of five days. That should be enough time. -Will Beback 02:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Are you and Gamaliel the same person? Morton devonshire 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved it

I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, the AFD tag will be removed once the AFD discussion is closed. Gamaliel 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Usr messages

"Stiff little willy" was blocked indefinately about 7 or so seconds before I added that tag to his usrpage. Although I can't prove it beyond a doubt I don't go adding {{block}} to people's pages untill someone else has blocked them. If you unblocked him (Which I didn't see) then I suspect you'll have to remove the tag as the unblocking administrator. 68.39.174.238 19:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't unblock him. In the future, to avoid confusion, you should probably leave placing the tag up to the blocking administrator. Gamaliel 19:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

RPJ

RPJ's edits are consistently POV. If you ever want to take action against him, let me know. I have no time to do that myself --JimWae 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

An RFC perhaps? If you're willing to sign on I'll start working one up in the next week or two. Gamaliel 23:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do so because you will find that a “point of view” objection does not mean evidence placed in an article that both Jimwae and Gamaliel disagree with

It is unfortunate that both Jimwae and Gamaliel spend their time on Wikipedia going to articles that they have strong personal belief on and reverting any contribution that does not conform to their personal beliefs. There is almost never any reasoned analysis by either of them except a vague comment "blatant POV" or "nonsense." Very rarely is there any positve contribution to an article by either of them.

Since RPJ is relatively new to Wikipedia, an effort by Jimwae and Gamalielto take action will help educate RPJ on the process.

The last couple of months of back and forth efforts by both of them will establish a clear pattern of how Jimwae and Gamaliel spend little time on the project, and then spend that little time on counter-productive activity.

RPJ 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As is not required by law, and despite misgivings

Thanx for reverting the 64.92 vandal! 68.39.174.238 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sausage Stripper

I've removed the links that you re-added to the dorm room stripper article. The reason that I'm leaving a note here instead of on the article's talk page is that I was puzzled by your replacing the linnks, and wondered if there was some back-story that I was not aware of? Something not about stripper links, I mean. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, I just thought the links seemed relevant. It's a moot point anyway as (hopefully) that article will end up merged into the dorm article. Gamaliel 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, always better to ask than to wander into a firefight. Thanks. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Simon Conover

Oh yeah, I've done the same from time to time - filling in missing Florida senators. I haven't done too much with Sen. Conover and you can feel free to grab whatever I have there. If you do, just let me know so I won't spend any more time researching. Thanks and good luck!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, most of that is just the initial copy from my Sen. Osborn article so I don't think it will be of much use to you. Feel free to look all the same. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not doing much in the way of research, just copying the US Govt. bio directory, putting up pics, etc. So what you already have for Conover is a lot more than I would have done, at least tonight. You might as well just put the article up as is, it looks pretty solid. Gamaliel 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for transferring pages from bioguide

I've been policing the new pages for about an hour today, and noticed the volume of articles you're taking the time to import correctly from bioguide. Thanks. --James 06:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:132.254.112.4

You warned this anon that if he vandalized again, he would be blocked. Well, he just did it on Nintendo. Care to do the honors? Matt Gies 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. He's gone. Gamaliel 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Thank you. Semi-protection works very well against vandals, and against disruptive anons such as were the subject of the arbitration in question. Robert McClenon 20:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Think "Whoa"

There were two men named Melanchthon Williams Jacobus (father and son). Please re-generate the original articles Titles to keep them apart from each other. Superslum 16:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Placing inappropriate new Titles on pages may create discombubulated articles. Superslum 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If they are father and son, this really should be mentioned in the articles. Also, their first names are spelled differently in the different articles, so you should check on this point. Gamaliel 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I had mis-spelled the name of the father by using an extra "H." I confused things. Superslum 15:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary on JFK assassination page

Keep in mind that most people have offset their time under preferences, so the time that displays for you is different for other people. For example, in your edit summary, you just copied the version you reverted to, which was at 22:30, but for me, that version was at 21:30. Hope this made sense. If not, keep in mind that unless the time is in UTC, its not the same for everybody. Pepsidrinka 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. From now on I'll stick to just putting the editor name or IP addr. in the edit summary. Gamaliel 03:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Gamaliel, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

John Byrne

I totally agree with you that the section is getting out of hand, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. I'm questioning my own point of view on this, but I hope I'm right; Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for every controversial comment made by anybody is it? Steve block talk 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you sprotect Ted Kennedy again, please?

The Ted Kennedy article suffers from a constant barrage of anonymous vandalism. The brief period when the sprotect was in place was like a breath of fresh air. Like the George W. Bush article, the Kennedy article may be one that requires an sprotect all of the time. --AStanhope 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on it and if it keeps up I'll protect it. Gamaliel 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --AStanhope 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Sierra Leone Krio language" to "Krio (language)"

Hi, I see that you moved "Sierra Leone Krio language" to "Krio (language)". Would you please consider undoing the move?

For one thing, the emerging standard for language articles seem to be "XXX language" not "XXX (language)", and in particular articles like "Krio" should be split into "Krio language" and "Krio people". I think that I saw that written somewhere.

Moreover, as you can see in the Krio page, there is at least one more language called "Krio". While the African Krio seems to be more important than the Indonesian Krio, it doesn't seem diplomatic to make such value judgements among living languages.

Finally, there are many more languages with names similar to Krio, in Africa and elsewhere, all derived from Fr. "Creole" and/or Pt. "Crioulo". Those names are quite confusing for readers who are not familiar with the language, especially since their names are often spelled in several different ways. Is Krio (language) distincy from Kriol language, or are them both variant spellings of Kreyol language? Or perhaps of the Creyol language? And which of them is in Belize, which one in Cape Verde?

Unfortunately, one consequence of Wikipedia's growth and globalization is that the short familiar names that are fine for local use become too ambiguous and opaque, and must be qualified. So please reconsider...

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You are absolutely right about the standard being Name language and not Name (language) so I've moved the title accordingly. Sorry about that, I should have checked before making the move. As far as further languages with the same name, when articles on them are created, we can disambiguate them accordingly. I'm going to stay out of this from now on, because obviously you are more knowledgable about this subject than I. Gamaliel 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the move! All the best, Jorge Stolfi 08:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

67.76.228.3 (talk · contribs), 65.40.165.215 (talk · contribs), 65.40.165.92 (talk · contribs), and 24.106.184.50 (talk · contribs) appear to be the same person playing games. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Kennedy POV warrior

Most of what I do on Wikipedia doesn't require admin powers, so I've never bothered to get a mop -- but occasionally I see a mess on the floor that only an admin can clean up. The blocked Kennedy POV warrior has again attacked the Rosemary Kennedy article with this edit. I nominate him for a one-week vacation. JamesMLane t c 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in on the vandalism on Britches (monkey)

that is all. 134.161.148.34 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not appear to be vandalism, but a legitimate dispute about content. Please do not describe legitimate disputes as vandalism. Gamaliel 18:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if the user refused to discuss the issue, or refused to listen to valid sources, and forced their opinion that is is vandalism. Localzuk refuses to admit the dictionary as a credible source, ergo i thought it was vandalism.

Hi, I think the consensus of the community has already been decided partly on this page and partly on the Talk:Animal Liberation Front page. This user has appeared before (as the IP address he uses is from a dynamic range) and done the same changes and been blocked for it, should he not have been blocked? Many other users (I count at least 4) have intervened in the very same matter on both articles previously.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Nigger" was not exactly my choice of words

If you bother to read the article on Mark Fuhrman, and you have an I.Q. at my level or higher, you might recognize that my reference to "nigger-lover" was satirical and that it is well-documentated that Mr. Fuhrman is the one who, quite notably, used that racial epitaph so freely, and later lied about it later under oath and quite appropriately was stripped of his law enforcement duties forever. He deserves to have it rubbed in his nose and for the rest of you to reminded of that on a regular basis, lest he be whitewashed. Pun intended. -- Pinktulip 01:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Pinktulip. Gamaliel 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are so right. I am just going to go back to my regular of working, which is to almost never comment any of my contributions. -- Pinktulip 12:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pinktulip

Hey there. Could you take a look at Talk:Terri Schiavo and specifically the personal attacks Pinktulip has launched against me: [12] [13] (note he continually revises his posts so there's a lot to look through). I can roll with things generally but I have absolutely no desire to have my citizenship and place of residence ("Is he spending too much time with those heathens in the UAE or something?") deployed against me on talk pages. Cheers, Marskell 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And while you are at it, please take a look at Marskell's talk-to-article productivity ratio over the long-term. And I mena NET productivity, please. -- Pinktulip 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

NIE Template

The 1926 edition of the New International Encyclopedia is only 80 years old. During the Clinton Administration, the copyright law was extended by 20 years to 95 years. I am unsure about declaring that the information from the 1926 edition is truly in the public domain (because of that 20-year extension). For all of my life, the copyrights expired at 75 years.

I read the copyright laws. There is information which claims that copyrighted materials in the last 20 years of copyrights are treated differently from newly-created copyrights. Because of that, I suspect that the 80-years-old edition that I employ is now too old to be completely covered by the copyright law. Still, I am not certain that the later editions of the New International Encyclopedia are clearly in the public domain. The 1906 edition is 100 years old, so it is in the public domain. May I employ the NIE template because the oldest edition is in the public domain? I don't know whether or not Wikipedia approves such usage of a template. In my case, I try to amend the material in some way or other to take the "fair use" route. In Walter Wellman, I omitted some text, and I added a sentence of my own invention ("His itchy feet got the best of him" is my own creation). The core facts are from the NIE. Superslum 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made use of the NIE template for the first time at Samuel Willard. I contributed a slightly modified version by omitting the titles of the sermons that he wrote and by breaking long sentences into two short sentences. The information is almost straight-forward. I am apprehensive about the overly-complex stipulations and specifications (etc.) in the copyright law. I'll probably utilize the NIE template for other people who died prior to 1901, especially religious people. They were probably in the 1906 edition. Superslum 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com says that materials in the last 20 years of a copyright and no longer commercially exploitable are called "orphan works." The 1926 edition is in that category. President Bush signed legislation in April , 2005 which affects "orphan works" by permitting libraries to make copies of them. Apparently, there was a loophole in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (Clinton Administration). If Wikipedia is able to describe itself as being a "library," it can make copies of those "orphan works." I'm sticking with the "fair use" provision; it is the easier path. I am not a lawyer. Superslum 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Richard Wright's birth date

Belated answer to Gamaliel who asked ; " I have materials stating Richard Wright's birth year as 1906. Can anyone clarify? Can you be more specific about the nature of your materials? I've verified the b. date in a couple of places, including the Library of America edition of his complete works.Gamaliel 17 Sep 2004 "

Please, read votive tablet from Natchez - PRA 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Souvenir de Richard Wright à Natchez

The best place to discuss this issue is Talk:Richard Wright. Gamaliel 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Robeson

Imagine my surprise that you would remove the information rather than fix it. Ten Dead Chickens 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Only you would react as if removing plagiarized material were some horrific offense as opposed to standard policy. Gamaliel 19:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you cared to look closely at it the two situations have little in common. It took you nine minutes to act on that, I asked you for your input on another article and you refused. One sentence from a two paragraph piece warrants the removal of all the material, when I got it from a different source, that same as the Civil Rights Conference material you fought so diligently to have removed.

I bask in the warmth of your burning straw man.Ten Dead Chickens 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to have a look at the Winter Soldier article, and posted a couple times on the talk page, but frankly the issues were so convoluted that I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Perhaps you are in the right in regards to the article, but I have no idea, and if that issue is still ongoing, I suggest you prepare a clear, consise, and specific statement of your disputes if you wish to involve others, instead of just pointing them to the article and saying "have at it!". In any case, I am under no obligation to involve myself in whatever you think I have an obligation to involve myself in, especially when your motivation seems to be to prove some minor rhetorical point.

I suggest you forget our prior conflicts and your attempts at rhetorical oneupsmanship and take a look at what you are doing here: You are attempting to argue that my removal of plagiarized material was incorrect, and that's just clearly absurd. Gamaliel 19:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That’s not what I am arguing, the offending material on the Robeson article has been re-written. I never saw one post of yours on the WSI talk page, so please correct me if I am wrong. I never said you had an obligation to intervene at my request on anything, that’s why I called it a request and not an obligation, and had no expectations from you, other than an obvious outside impartial voice if you chose to involve yourself. If you don’t see that there is a double standard you have been applying when it comes to my actions, then I don’t know what to say. Ten Dead Chickens 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My posts on the WSI archive are in Archive 3, though most of them were my attempts to talk down an overexcited new editor. I regret not being able to make sense of the dispute, but I can't possibly become involved in every fight. However, I think I understand where you are coming from in this matter now. In hundreds of instances in which you have had no involvement I have personally have deleted articles or removed sections which contained plagiarized material. I did not act any differently in this case, and your involvement was irrelevant. The WSI dispute was an exception, not because of your involvement, but because even after reading the entire talk page I still had no idea what was going on. If you are determined to think I am persecuting you because I am removing plagarism from an article you are currently editing, there is nothing else I can say to persuade you, nor will I bother indulging you any more in this matter. Gamaliel 19:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

After a further look at the issue, I think I owe you an apology. Ten Dead Chickens 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

What about the other guy who kept reverting? This 3RR makes no sense because all i was doing was fixing the article and telling the other guy to take it to the discussion page. How is that wrong? -- 2nd Piston Honda 05:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

When another user violates the 3RR, I will take action. At this point you are the only person to have done so. The 3RR does not take into account talk page discussion (incidentally, I don't see any comments from you on the talk page regarding that particular material) or your motives, it is a strict limit which applies to all users regardless of the situation. Please do not violate it again. Gamaliel 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Just thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) because you participated in the first vote. Savidan 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Objections to Astrology" from the Humanist (1975)

All right, I'll agree to that. I was unable to find the statement on the web and so I typed it in from a copy in a book. It's a statement which its promulgators surely wanted disseminated as much as possible, so I didn't see the objection initially. However, I have now been directed to the text on the web, which wasn't easy to find because it was poorly linked, and I will insert that instead in the pages that refer to this statement. I had originally thought someone had vandalized what I had done, since there is a great deal of contention about the issue. I wish it were possible to get a notification of this as it is happening, since the article is on my watchlist. It would have avodied all this. NaySay 19:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting Ted Kennedy

I'm curious what the rationale is behind unprotecting the Ted Kennedy article. For those of us who have contributed to the article and keep an eye on it the past week or so while it was sprotected has been a breath of fresh air absent the constant need to revert "COCKSUCKER," "FAGGOT" and "MURDERER" vandalism. This is an article that is always under siege in this fashion. With the one-step easy registration process being the only barrier keeping an anonymous editor with good intentions from contributing to the article it doesn't feel like keeping the sprotect on the article is stifling Wikipedia. There are some articles that are under perpetual sprotect - George W. Bush being one of them. I think that this article should similarly qualify. I'd love to see the sprotect restored for the Ted Kennedy article. --AStanhope 14:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection, even semi-protection, is not intended to be a permanent state for any article. The protection can be restored if the vandalism resumes. Gamaliel 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

At least 4 reverts required in less than two days on Ted Kennedy. Please reinstate sprotect. --AStanhope 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please reenable read-only access for 68.125.168.193

Hello Gamaliel. I'm the student who reported the vandalisim by another student at my school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.125.168.193 I'm the comment w/ the same IP). A short while after you blocked editing (thanks, i'd recommend that we be permanently blocked from editing due to the likelihood of vandalism), I (who was reading wikipedia for other reasons) couldn't _read_ pages from wikipedia, and got error pages about heavy traffic. If this was not related to heavy traffic, which I suspect, I implore you to re-enable read-only access to wikipedia for my school, as it's occasionaly used for research. By the way, to prove that it's a school ip, do a ping of the school website, menloschool.org (it's ip is 68.125.168.2, note the similarity). Anyway, thanks for preventing further vandalism. --Cybercobra 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking an IP address or a user only prevents editing, not reading. There is nothing I can do to prevent anyone from reading a Wikipedia page. The error pages are correct; Wikipedia frequently has quite heavy traffic. Gamaliel 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

breckinridge long

I was about to cite the source with all the links and rewrite it but you deleted it. I continued to work on it. Is it ok if I copy it and cite the source or is that not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJstroker (talk • contribs) 07:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The page has a clear copyright notice at the bottom. Unless you have permission to use this material, please do not post it again. Gamaliel 08:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to respond to User:JJstroker on his talk page instead of yours because he probably won't check for your response here. adnghiem501 07:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:JJstroker continues to re-post copyrighted material to Breckinridge Long, not Breckenridge Long that you deleted before. We should stop him from doing this and warn him as well. adnghiem501 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Mini Mike

thank you for your response, but i would like to inform you that i had attempted to sign that post multiple times but this was frustratingly always replaced with my IP address hence my less than frendly replies. which i will now appologise for. I will now log-in more often before adding additions to wikipedia.

Finally can i point out that Wikipedia is not above the internet laws and regulations that are in place to protect myself and indeed other users of wikipedia and as such will always be in the firing line for legal threats regadless of wikipedia's "policy". I would not of had to threaten legal action if the matter was dealt with in a more mature manner to start with. Mini mike 23:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's potential legal liability is a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation to deal with. If you feel this matter deserves their attention, please notify them of it. However, such alleged legal liability will not be used to threaten other editors here on Wikipedia. You were not compelled by others to make legal threats, you chose to do so, which frankly is not the most "mature manner" of dealing with an easily resolved situation. In the future, please resolve your disputes with other editors through discussion instead of threats. Now that you are aware of Wikipedia policies and policies regarding both legal threats and the signing of posts, I hope that you will abide by them. Gamaliel 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

breckinridge

That was really kind of mean to delete the work without notifying me before hand. I thought i fixed the problem by adding where I got the work. Who am I to write articles? I am not a scholar on Mr. Long. I merely tried to fill in a blank page from the FDR article. Everyone gets their information from sources I do see the problem as long as they are given full credit. I didnt know. For future references you should be more aware that people put work into pages which is time consuming so if they make a mistake you shouldnt just delete their work immediately with atleast giving them a chance to save it so they can fix the problem. Its easy to delete work but you should try creating articles.

JJstroker 08:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You aren't creating articles, you are stealing the work of others. I notified you about what you were doing and you simply did it again, taking the contents of a different page. What would the point of a prior notification be? If the material is a copyright violation, there is nothing to save, you don't have permission to use it, period. I admire the fact that you are trying to fill in blanks in the encyclopedia, but please don't do it by violating copyrights. Gamaliel 08:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Have you seen our pathetic article on Rolling Stone? We need links to the article about the magazine a lot more than we need links to a list with copyright problems. And in articles that are often way overlinked, it's more aesthetically pleasing as well. --Michael Snow 05:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what the inadequacy of the Rolling Stone article has anything to do with this. I'll gladly contribute to beefing up that article, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is that these albums are on a list that has an article about it, so I don't see any reason not to link to that article. Copyright problems aren't an issue as that article has a number of paragraphs of original material that will not be deleted on a copyright basis. Gamaliel 05:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you like to call a truce and discuss how this should be done, then? --Michael Snow 05:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. What do you think about a template would add links to both RS and the list? Just though of this off the top of my head. Gamaliel 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, although I'm not that excited about template markup within articles. Part of the issue is how the fact is presented in the first place. If it's just in the regular article text, I think a big long block of text as the link anchor is ugly. If, as in some articles, there's a section devoted to chart placements, rankings, etc., a link to the list looks a lot more normal. --Michael Snow 05:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The template idea wasn't to create another clunky box, just to have a standard text we could agree on to insert into articles. I was thinking something like Template:RS500. Gamaliel 05:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, if it's substituted there's no problem with a template. There's still the appearance issue, though. Take Illmatic as a case in point, where it appears twice. I think it looks fine in the "Accolades" section as part of a table or list, but in the text-oriented "Critical reception" section, it's ugly and it's too many links. --Michael Snow 06:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess we could delink it in the Critical Reception section. Gamaliel 06:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

POV? Nonsense!

Please don't be so sensitive about your buddy Rall. He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Rall is a real mama's boy. 155.84.57.253 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Replies at User talk:155.84.57.253. Gamaliel 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Krugman

I'm fine with the change, thank you for the explanation. cheers, Mexico. RonMexico 00:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

UF Founding

Hey, I'm doing a documentary at the FSU Film School about FSU's seal. Since UF changed their date also, I've been doing some research about that, and I was wondering if you had found anything substantial. If so, just let me know. Thanks! Kushboy 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Feeding of the 5000

Hi there. There was a move in progress of this page, to accommodate both (album) and (miracle). I notice you've reverted the cut and paste jobby done by Hay. Was that just because it was a cut and paste, or is there a problem with the whole idea of moving? If the former, then I can help him do the move properly, and all will be good. But since he copied and pasted teh discussion as well, I'll need you to completely kill the old discussion page, history, etc at (album). Cheers, JackyR 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact I agree with the move itself, and I undid it solely because it was a cut and paste job. Gamaliel 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. So as an admin, could you now kill the (album) page and its history and discussion, so I can do all this again? Ta. JackyR 17:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect at The Feeding of the 5000 (album). Gamaliel 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta. I had to revert to premove texts, and then re-revert, for the discussion page. So i hope the end result is untangleable. however, all seems to be in the right place, and I've asked Hay to work through the What Links Here. Cheers, JackyR 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires

Your input is desired at the noticeboard. And, although I have no control over the matter, perhaps a good block would place Harry on his feet? It'd be appreciated. You don't have to respond to this message if you don't want to, however, if you choose to, please do so on my talk page. Thanks. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Savage

Please read our rules in the Wikipedia:Civility section. There wasn't a "dispute". I discussed why the passage should be removed. You didn't answer. Familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Resolving disputes section, as well as the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view section. Thank you.--Bigplankton 02:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you should attempt to lecture me on Wikipedia rules when you're violating them yourself by attacking me on the talk page and insultingly describing content edits as "vandalism". I felt my edit summary provided more than enough justification for my edit, but on your insistence I will repeat myself on the talk page. Gamaliel 02:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm no longer interested in this. You have an agenda. Nothing else to be said about. You say "I don't listen to you" but so far you haven't addressed anything I said in my original objections to the Allen Ginsberg section. Your excuse is "chronological order". That's it. Anyway, doesn't matter, let someone else deal with it. --Bigplankton 06:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I did not address your points in a manner you find satisfactory, but you will find that people are more willing to respond to your comments in a productive way if they are not filled with angry denunciations and accusations of bias. If I wanted to write you off, I wouldn't have spent so much time trying to encourage you to act in a civil manner. Unfortunately, it was time that I have apparently wasted. Gamaliel 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion vs. paring down

Hi Gamaliel, when it comes to simple bios of people that were copied from somewhere else online (when they are in fact notable), please pare them down to a single original sentence rather than deleting them wholesale; it's useful information that someone thought them worthy of an article... +sj + 05:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of TIME Cover

The manner in which the image of the cover of TIME in Archive 3 is used does not qualify as fair use. According to the image's copyright info, the image must be used to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover. Your user talk page is not an article and therefore means you cannot use the image in the manner prescribed. It would be appreciated if you were to remove the image. Thanks. joturner 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vandorentime.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vandorentime.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

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

Image:Vandorentime.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Vandorentime.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel 's unprofessional behavior

Here are examples of Gamaliel's mis-behavior just recently and just in the Kennedy article. Other editors have complained about this person:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPJ 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What RPJ fails to mention is these remarks are about his trolling, under his wikiname and anon sockpuppets. RPJ has been blocked once already for violation of the 3rr rule and consistently chastises other editors for alleged mis-behavior.

Mytwocents 21:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please SProtect Ted Kennedy

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

I'm sorry, I dislike the vandalism as well, but I don't think it is frequent enough to justify permanent or semi-permanent sprotection. Gamaliel 02:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)