Jump to content

User talk:Gamaliel/Archive14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh noes!

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.

Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user.

Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09

Voina

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Voina at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You happened to catch me exactly when I was bored and needed something to do. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: article on Billy Collins

[edit]

Thank you for your intervention of advisement on civil discussion. I do realize how important this matter is and I do my level best to pay heed to this advise. Pjt48 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by laughter (thanks)

[edit]

Noticed this link on your user page. Perfect. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cocksucker". Classic. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

Notability

[edit]

If you used a different word, maybe you would make yourself more clear. Notability, as per the wikipedia policy, is completely and utterly about articles, and in no way applies once an article is deemed notable. It has nothing to do with the contents of an article, or whether this or that should be added or removed. It says so right on the page. "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles"WookMuff (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking an IP user

[edit]

User talk:173.9.69.5 needs to be blocked; his latest change was to say that The Lord of the Rings was written by J.K. Rowling. Darth Newdar talk 14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no further vandalism, I've issued a warning and I'll keep an eye on this user. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threat

[edit]

Please do not come on my talk page and threaten me, If you do I will do nothing because threats are against policy, which I once again urge you to read. WookMuff (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a threat, it's a statement of policy. You violate NPA, you get blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, its a threat. WookMuff (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomato, tomato. It'll still get you blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you editing as a user or overseeing as an Administrator? What is NPA, and how was it violated? And, as you are involved in ongoing discussion, wouldn't the most appropriate action been to have filed a complaint at AN/I for a neutral administrator to consider? Immediate action should, I am led to believe, only occur in cases of vandalism or serious disruption. I don't believe that a disagreement that does not even rise to the level of 3RR meets the standard necessary for you to invoke Administrative authority with an editor you are involved with - if a technical violation has occurred the professional response is not a "GOTCHA!" block, but a complaint at AN/I.99.151.164.51 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, multiple warnings, accusing someone of being "Pro child molestation", repeatedly restoring that comment directed at another editor even after those warnings, no, this is beyond the pale. WP:NPA is "no personal attacks" and has nothing to do with the 3RR policy. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Mark Levin

[edit]

The usual suspects are blanking the criticism section again. --BobMifune (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP

[edit]

As an admin, can you help me with this? What are the procedures for complaints about an admin abuse of power and violation of policy? Any help would be appreciated WookMuff (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have previously complained that I supposedly have a conflict of interest when it comes to you, I'm sure you would be the first to suggest I stay out of this matter. I'm sure any one of the 1000+ other admins would be happy to assist you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but it is not a conflict of interest to give a link. My sister, for example, works for the government. She is not allowed by law to access my files, but she can tell me where to go to find information on a specific statute. WookMuff (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Always best to err on the side of caution. After all, if I accidentally provided someone with the wrong link, I might be accused of doing so on purpose. I'm sure any one of the 1000+ other admins would be more than happy to assist you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never fear, I would never accuse you of something you didn't do :) Out WookMuff (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are the kind of person who would never do such a thing, just as I am sure you are the kind of person who will graciously and politely accept my decision and move on. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent user page

[edit]

You have an excellent user page! And entertaining too! Maybe add WP:Plaxico to your useful links? And, if I want, may I steer newbies to your tips page? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone

[edit]

The Mark Levin page is as it should be and I have no interest in discussing it with you anymore. Thanks.Onefinalstep (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion isn't over yet, sorry. And you still owe me an apology. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team up

[edit]

Its like a supervillain-superhero team up in here :) I am sure we each disagree on which is which, but its weird working together :) WookMuff (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're starting to say things I agree with. :D It is odd, but I much prefer it this way. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)

[edit]

Hi, could you take a look here? — goethean ॐ 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. I'm used to people challenging reliable sources, but this one has to get the chutzpah award. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving a note on my page in response to my response to Jeff Sharlet. As I mention in my post to Jeff, something has gone quite awry on the Fellowship page. I had worked on the page this summer when the Fellowship received a spate of media attention. Many of the reported facts out there regarding this organization are not positive. They portray a secretive religious organization that claims a tax exemption due to its status as an apolitical church. The facts show that in reality the Fellowship is far from apolitical, and its purpose appears to be to influence our government to further Christianity. The fellowship fosters connections to some of the most powerful figures in our government, many of whom live there and receive the favor of below market rents. I included these facts in the Wikipedia piece. Nonetheless, I also did my best to maintain a neutral tone and to portray the good with the bad. I added facts that reflected well on the organization when I found them, such as highlighting in the intro that President Obama spoke at the Fellowship's signature National Prayer Breakfast event earlier this year. Like you, I left the site for several months. When I returned recently I was very surprised to find that nearly all of the unflattering facts regarding this organization had been removed or minimized. Worse, Jeff Sharlet's extensive research on the Family was removed. A somewhat superficial article in Newsweek, one of the very few in the mainstream media that did not portray the Fellowship in a negative light, was highlighted as if it represented the mainstream view of the Fellowship. There are more details of what occurred in my posts.

I also was surprised to find that Jeff Sharlet was kind enough to post on the discussion page for the Fellowship piece. Jeff defended his work as the kind of scholarship to which it is permissible to reference on Wikipedia. Jeff was ignored. When I went to Jeff's page I saw welcomes from yourself and another Wikipedian which were oddly dissonant with the conduct on the Fellowship page. If you are offering to intervene but waiting for someone to take you up on your offer, I hereby ask you to intervene. Please review the history of the page and you will see the damage that was done to the NPOV regarding this controversial organization.

Thank you for any action you can take to review the site and, if you agree with our conclusions, any corrective measures you take in rolling back improper edits and preventing their recurrence. Before I will consider making any further edits, I await your findings. Likesausages (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for apparently taking action on the Fellowship piece. It is much more factual and balanced. My own personal faith - in Wikipedia - also is restored ;) Likesausages (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

Ignoring Consensus on Mark Levin

[edit]

Gamaliel, I am concerned that one user in particular, is ignoring the discussions and temporary consensus on the Mark Levin article. Looking at his talk page, it seems as if he has been blocked several times for edit warring. Now, I do not want to get suspended for a 3R violation, so I was wondering if you could look into the edits being made and enforce the etiquette of consensus. Ericsean (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify which user you are referring to? Gamaliel (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to Jimintheatl. But it seems as if he undid his revision after I made a comment about it on the Mark Levin discussion page. However, it does appear is if this is not the first time he has made a similar revision, and he has never even posted on the discussion page. (I did a search for his name.) Thanks anyway. Ericsean (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsean (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Voina

[edit]
Updated DYK query On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Voina, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor complaint against you at my talk page

[edit]

An editor complained about your conduct at my talk page. I scanned the talk page and found nothing objectionable. However to prevent allegations of "admins sticking together" I posted a notice at ANI to get an uninvolved review. Manning (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you, smart way to handle the situation. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - The AN/I has been dismissed for having no basis, much as expected. Cheers Manning (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I have repeatedly tried to tell people when they complain that you are only following the rules. I suspect the recent bad experience with a sock puppet has oversensitized some people. My efforts to point out the difference apparently didn't work. Sorry. For example, see here. I thought that worked. I guess not. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

mark lloyd page - stop the threats

[edit]
MARK LLOYD:

I made three valid contributions to the Mark Lloyd wiki, all validly sourced. In no way was an "edit war" being engaged in. Do not threaten me again or I will seek administrative intervention.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per standard Wikipedia procedure, I made a participant in an edit war (you) aware of a key Wikipedia policy. If you find this notion offensive, you are free to complain to an administrator at the administrative noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reasons were given for the first two deletions of my additions. Therefore, these deletions were invalid (AKA vandalism) - THUS the deleter should have been warned, not me.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in fact, one of my "three reverts" that earned me the warning are still on the page. In other words, one of the "reverts" that your warning is based on was a valid edit and has not been "reverted". I demand that you retract your warning.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other user has been an WP editor since 2006, and thus is expected to be aware of this rule and will be blocked without warning should s/he violate it. You are a new user and thus are not expected to be aware of this rule. The purpose of my note, the same note given to every user in this type of situation, was to inform you of this rule. I will not "retract" it because your complaint is with standard Wikipedia policy and procedure, not me. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see from the edit history of the page that the other user has clearly specified his or her reasons for those edits, so you are misrepresenting his or her actions. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONE EDIT was given a reason for. Not the first two, which is why I changed them. Therefore, your warning was based on my correction of two deletions without explanation (aka vandalism).--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This note is left for every new user before they violate any rules so they can be made aware of these rules. And, again, you are misrepresenting the situation as I can clearly see reasons specified in the edit history. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at the history, no reason was given for the deletion of the statement regarding Mark Lloyd's views on freedom of speech until the very last time it was deleted: "18:39, 20 October 2009 Sxeptomaniac (talk | contribs) (6,696 bytes) (RV. Sourcing is not the issue. undue weight, and, as a result, biography policy, is. The source of the criticism is conservative media per sourcing.) (undo)" Finally, I was given a reason - "undue weight." You're right... an arguably valid reason was given... AFTER the first two deletions, like I said. Now, please revoke the arbitrary and capricious warning you have doled out.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one unexplained deletion, this one by a new user, Yair rand. I have left the same note for this user as I left for you. Note that this is a different user from the one you are currently engaged in an edit war with, Sxeptomaniac. Every edit by Sxeptomaniac has been accompanied by a comment in the edit summary. I suggest you and Sxeptomaniac discuss this issue on the article talk page.
Leaving a standard, template note for a new user engaged in combative behavior is standard, everyday Wikipedia behavior. There is nothing "arbitrary" or "capricious" about it. I'm sorry this tame and generic note offended you so much, but if you are offended by being informed of basic Wikipedia policies, perhaps Wikipedia is not the website for you. I hope that is not the case and I hope you can continue to contribute here within the parameters of Wikipedia's norms and policies. If you wish to continue to complain about this matter in the same fashion as your previous complaints, please do so at the the administrative noticeboard and not on this page. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that every edit made by Sxept was accompanied by a comment. But the edits were broader than the comment. No comment was given for the deletion of Mark Lloyd's views on freedom of speech until the last edit, like I said. Where in any edit comment of Sxept before that does it mention a valid reason for deleting the statement about Lloyd's views on the first amendment. It doesn't.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for you and Sxeptomaniac to discuss on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gamaliel. You have new messages at Yair rand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Family

[edit]

Gamaliel -- thanks for your editing of my comments on "The Family" page, and apologies for my use of the term libel in an inappropriate venue. That sounds like a good policy. That said, several of LeFevre's comments do seem legally actionable, in particular those in which he suggests that I'm lying and that I did not do the research I say I did (and footnote in the book). I generally ignore these things, but since this guy seems determined to defame me in this very public forum, and won't respond to facts or reason, I feel I may have to take legal action. Is there a method for proceeding within Wikipedia, or if I decide to go forward should I simply have a lawyer contact LeFevre?

Thanks for whatever advice you can offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffSharlet (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm not sure that there's anything to do. LeFevere appears to have backed off and hasn't edited the page in a week and the section with the offending comments has been closed. If you wish further non-legal action to be taken, we can discuss that here or you can contact the Foundation at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. As far as legal action goes, we have a strict policy of keeping that off this website. It's considered an off-site matter between you and the Foundation and LeFevere. Contact information for the foundation, including their registered agent, is here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

Thank you

[edit]

I have been dealing with the obsessive "Brady Bunch Jeopardy" vandal for a couple of months now. The last few days he has declared war on me, as you can see, reverting recent edits that I've made as part of his vendetta. I don't know what can be done long-term; I don't think permanent semi-protection on that article is much of an option. Do you know of a bot that will watch one article and revert an edit that contains, say, two specific keywords? Because this addition (which has been going on since December 2007, BTW) is always word for word and always from an IP. Anyway, thanks for watching my back and taking action. -Jordgette (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, permanent semi-protection won't do much good if this vandal is targeting more than one article. I don't know a thing about bots, sorry, I'm not much of a tech guy. My suggestion would be to keep track of the IP addresses (the easiest way would be to use a category to tag each IP's talk page) and then we can see if a pattern emerges, if they are all from the same area or ISP. If so perhaps a targeted range block can help matters. Or perhaps the vandal is using open proxies, so this may require the involvement of Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been documenting the IPs on the article's talk page Talk:List_of_The_Brady_Bunch_characters#Jeopardy_hoax. This user's behavior has been particularly egregious, for example rewriting my own talk-page statement and turning around what I said. [1] The IPs are all over the place. I'll just keep watching it; hopefully his meds will kick in one of these days. -Jordgette (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a few of these IP addresses and they come from a number of different sources. I suspect open proxies. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Plagiarism

[edit]

Hey Gamaliel, I was reading the Jennifer Eccleston page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Eccleston). While trying to find a picture of her I took that link to here CNN bio page. Turns out that the wikipedia is simply cut and paste from the CNN page. I know this is against wikipedia policy. How do I report it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsean (talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful to Wikipedia if I checked the bios of CNN's other minor talents? Ericsean (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Good idea. Gamaliel (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]

LTA

[edit]

It makes absolutely no difference to me what this user is on about or what they want. Posting emails without consent is inappropriate, in some cases a breach of copyright, it's antagonistic and disruptive, but most of all it is irrelevant to the LTA page and adds no value whatsoever. I'm sure ARBCOM has also written something about posting emails recently. The email is unverifiable, has had parts of it edited by the recipient and others, and is three years old. Really, from an independent point of view, no value at all. Note there are no other contents of emails on that page. I strongly urge you to reverse your edit. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonistic and disruptive! As one of a number of people who has been abused by this individual for years I find this notion that we are the ones who are being antagonistic and disruptive by merely quoting the insane rantings of our abuser highly offensive. If copyright is truly a concern, then you can merely remove some of the text instead of deleting the whole section, but frankly this individual lost any claim to consent or anything else when he began his campaign of disruption and threats both legal and violent. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Richmond High School gang rape article

[edit]

Gamaliel, As an Admin can you check out this article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape. I feel like a edit war has been going on. In addition, I feel like user Off2riorob has gotten far of the track of incivility. If it is a bit close to the edge, can you give some warnings? Thanks, Ericsean (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, while I do see a contentious discussion, I don't see any behavior on the part of Off2riorob that's gone over the line. Could you specify which comment or comments you find particularly uncivil? Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have misread what Off2riorob said. I thought he was telling other editors not to participate because they did not have his level of experience, which is substantial. I think he might not have been directly referring to himself though. Thanks for looking. Ericsean (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would indeed be inappropriate, but I don't recall seeing comments to that effect. I do recall him urging other editors to get consensus for their edits, which while not required, is encouraged. Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit]

Snopes.com

[edit]

Response on the talk page. Am I totally off-base about the Wikipedia guidelines and policies? --Shadow (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've replied there. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski - NPOV: The Sharon Tate murder section now gone

[edit]

(Buried in Personal life and no link to main coverage now). See: this new talk topic.

FYI: My recent "extraordinary measures" (in a cycle with Tombaker321) put me in doghouse via a strategic ANI (with no prior notice on my talkpage) ... Hope others will watch for POV adjustments in the wake of my restraint. (Excuse if inappropriate. Just concerned.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

Unwarranted speculation

[edit]

Just wondering how the following could be considered speculation:

It is unknown what impact, if any, this incident had regarding her decision to step down as White House Communications Director.

Personally, I think that the following is speculation:

This incident probably played a large role in her resignation.

OR

More than likely, the damage to her reputation was negligible.

Claiming that something is unknown is the furthest thing from speculating but I have no problem posting a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinblakeyoung (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that a particular incident has an unknown connection to something else is an implication that there is a connection, and thus that is the type of thing we avoid on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And if I would have said "There is an unknown connection between this incident and her resignation" I would agree with you. The only thing I was implying is that there has been some debate over whether or not there was a connection, which is common knowlege. I certainly didn't insinuate that there was a connection. --Justinblakeyoung (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been some significant speculation, then you need to provide a source substantiating that. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't now because Looneymonkey rolled it back claiming "Rolling back further. The section shouldn't have been inserted to begin with." REAL nice. Where SHOULD it have been inserted?? I was wondering why nobody had brought this up on Anita Dunn's page and now I see why. I can only imagine the amount of information that gets deleted because of history revisionist like you people. Why can't you leave your political beliefs at the door? I wrote a fair paragraph bring up something that she said that was considered contraversial, without bias or malice. I'm definitely never donating to wikipedia again after this lovely experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinblakeyoung (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you are directing this tirade at me. I deleted one sentence and I explained why. Why on earth are you going on about the rest of it here? Go argue with the people at Talk:Anita Dunn who actually deleted your precious precious paragraph and leave me alone. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say it like it is

[edit]

Hi, there would never ever be any benefit from that ip being not blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ip is continuing with the same blp violations on his talkpage, I suggest removing his privilege to edit that at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Backyard Photographs

[edit]

Since I'm not all that big into the JFK/Oswald thing I'm not too concerned about maintaining my edits for this article. I added the opposing view because it looks like there is going to be a big blow-up over the photos. I have no interest in changing it back but if you are invested in this particular article you should probably be prepared for a lot of activity regarding the photos and the recent analysis. I have not doubt that a lot of high school and college folk pretty much pull the information for their JFK papers right out of the Wiki article and like you said, conspiracy people abound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grifterlake (talk • contribs) 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we have years of experience dealing with the conspiracy folks. If you are really bored, check out the talk page archives - it's like a never ending series of car crashes. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont like you

[edit]

thats dumb i delete what i want. if u dont like it then i never go to ur site agen. cry cry cry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachielol (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, most people here don't, but I'm not here to make friends. Try Myspace. Gamaliel (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please see the above section about the adding and removal of an email message. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wikipedia Watch

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wikipedia Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon man

[edit]

I've taken some lumps fighting to protect BLPs from some serious issues, so it's a little annoying to see the policy watered down through misuse. Hypotheticals, like this one, can not be BLP violations because there is no intention to claim that the premises are true (just the opposite, in fact). It may be inappropriate and off-topic, but it is most definitely not a BLP violation. If you insist that Zsero was violating policy, fine, but at least cite an applicable policy. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotheticals are one thing, but he insists that him calling critics of Savage "idiots" and "ratbags" is perfectly acceptable. It's not like this was an out of the blue block for one hypothetical. I will gladly unblock him if he simply states that he will not use the talk page or an edit summary to make derogatory comments directed towards living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I'm seeing in a quick search, insults are generally not considered defamatory. I agree they are inappropriate and disruptive on WP, but BLP still is not the appropriate policy. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you contending that BLP allows editors to use talk space as a forum to insult living individuals? I don't believe that to be the case and to my knowledge that is not the case nor is it how the BLP policy has been interpreted for the last four years. I think that given the caution with which we handle BLPs I think it would be necessary for people to build consensus that this sort of thing is acceptable instead of assuming that talk space is a free fire zone because there is no line in the policy that specifically says "You can't call so-and-so a ratbag". Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am contending that BLP is not a catch-all policy. Insulting people on talk pages (whether the target is present on WP or not), is disruptive and off-topic, but not a BLP issue. The purpose of WP:BLP has been to address the often serious problem of defamatory material slipped into WP. A person's opinion on a talk page is not going to be taken as encyclopedia material, and so is not going to be damaging. Instead, the issue is the disruption to WP, through off-topic conversation and needlessly confrontational behavior. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe namecalling such as this falls under the categories of disruptive, defamatory, confrontational, and contentious editing, all of which are prohibited under BLP and other WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement regarding disruptive, confrontational, and contentious, but I see no solid reason why it should be considered defamatory, and several reasons why it should not be. So, I'll just conclude by saying that I still believe that it was against other policies, but not BLP. I strongly believe too broad of an application of WP:BLP, outside of its intended purpose, risks weakening it, and possibly creating an eventual backlash against the policy, which would be unfortunate. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do concur that broadening BLP too much will have a negative effect, and I frequently oppose its misuse and misapplication. However I still do think straight namecalling falls under the BLP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP concern is inconsequential, other than in an academic sense -- such a block is generally acceptable under several other policies (WP:CIVIL, etc.) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Doesn't Wikipedia Consider NewsBusters.org to be a 'Reliable Source'?

[edit]

I note that Wikipedia allows to be cited a whole host of highly dubious sources. Media Matters being just one.

NewsBusters.org is an oft-cited source in many media outlets, and has much greater credibility than any number of sources you allow to be cited - again including Media Matters. As just one example, Media Matters was recently the catalyst in pushing forward the two made-up racial comments falsely attributed to talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. It was in fact NewsBusters.org that led the charge in debunking Media Matters' lies.

One of the places of origin of these fraudulent quotes was - Wikipedia.

So again I ask, what about NewsBusters.org is unreliable as defined by Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.52.2 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is disqualified as a reliable source on the grounds outlined here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As decided by whom? Who are the "reliable sources" upon whom you rely to make this determination?

Again I ask, how does Media Matters pass their muster, and NewsBusters.org does not?

What views has NewsBusters.org expressed that are "widely acknowledged" by these "reliable sources" as "fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist"? Your "reliable sources" should properly and publicly identify them. And themselves.

NewsBusters.org documents, exposes and neutralizes media bias - often with transcripts and video and audio evidence to back it up. How is this "fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist"? And how does that disqualify them as an approved Wikipedia source?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.52.2 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As decided by me, since I am the person you are asking for an opinion. You are welcome to disagree or seek the opinions of others at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided to bolster your decision to pull NewsBusters.org citations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources) stipulates that NewsBusters.org be "widely acknowledged by reliable sourceS" as un-reliable.

That's sources - PLURAL. Yet you state that it was you alone that made the determination: "As decided by me, since I am the person you are asking for an opinion."

In other words, your action - removing the NewsBusters.org citations - was in violation of the Wikipedia rule you yourself cited as the alleged justification for your so doing.

You are not empowered by the rule you cited to unilaterally ban a source.

It is not my responsibility to do the work you as an Administrator are supposed to do - again as stipulated by the policy you cited. The onus therein is on you to have your "reliable sourceS" gather together and make the collective determination that NewsBusters.org is not one of them.

As you have failed to live up to the stipulated Wiki policy and its proscribed process, you should immediately re-post the sentence and links you deleted.

And should you still feel strongly about this, you should do that for which Wiki policy calls - convene your "reliable sourceS" and have them make a ruling on NewsBusters.org.

I am quite confident that if they are at all objective, they will find in favor of NewsBusters.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.52.2 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsbusters is in fact widely regarded as unreliable. If you disagree, you are, as I said, welcome to seek another opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Newsbusters is in fact widely regarded as unreliable." By YOU, and YOU ALONE.

The Wiki rule you cited as justification for your deeming NewsBusters.org unreliable stipulates that MULTIPLE sources must do so. Who else does? You alone does not qualify as "widely regarded." That is actually as narrowly regarded as something could be.

As per the rule you cited, it is YOUR responsibility to impanel a group of your reliable sources to make a collective decision that NewsBusters.org should not be included among them. You have repeatedly admitted that you have not done so.

Is Wikipedia now a tyranny of one? Does one Administrator get to ban a respectable, reputable, very well read and cited source simply because he/she does not like it, in violation of the Wiki standards and practices he/she cites as his/her justification?

Again, you are in breach of Wiki policy, so the post with the NewsBusters.org citations should be immediately republished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.52.2 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "widely regarded", that clearly indicated that the opinion was not held by me alone. If you disagree with this, you are, as I have repeatedly said, welcome to seek another opinion. Attacking me will not get you anywhere, nor am I going to change this opinion because you keep posting here. Gamaliel (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate to intrude on Gamaliel's talk page, I just concur with him that NewsBusters.org is not a reliable source. The website is run by an advocacy organization and thus cannot be considered reliable as a sources of UNBIASED news. I would suggest that the unsigned person arguing the point take a look at the Mark Levin talk page. There is a massive disagreement about sourcing and NPOV issues. However, early consensus was reached the anything from the MRC was not unbiased enough to use as a source. Ericsean (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. Media Matters is "run by an advocacy organization!" Newsbusters entries are typically supported by primary source text and video. This really looks like a clear example of liberal bias in Wikipedia. It seems that "reliable" actually means "agrees with my political viewpoint." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is bias only if you accept the dubious premise that the two organizations are mirror opposites of each other. You could randomly pair up any two left and right organizations or publications and make the same dubious claims, but I doubt people will accept those either. You are, of course, welcome to see another opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason you would not see them as mirror opposites is if you tend to agree with the liberal bias of one, and reject the conservative bias of another. Again, Newsbusters virtually always has primary source text and/or videos to back up what they say. Their opinion doesn't mean much (neither does Media Matters' opinions) but the sources they provide should not be banned from Wikipedia. I see no way to explain this but naked ideological bias. You understand, I'm sure, the credibility problems that Wikipedia chronically has. This sort of bias does not help things.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that I simply don't accept this false equivalence, any more than I would accept an equivalence between your website and Spartacus.uk. I see NB as a group of fringe cranks who see "liberal bias" under every rock and twig in sight. I don't see much use for them (or MMFA for that matter) beyond being a resource to other sources more appropriate for Wikipedia. After all, if an issue is truly significant, others will be discussing it. And if you don't like my opinion, you are welcome to seek others. I fail to see how the opinion of a single editor can affect the credibility of WP as a whole, but if this is a matter of concern I can point you to plenty of other editors who might affect said credibility, such as some paid operatives of corporations, politicians, and right-wing think tanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zsero block

[edit]

Just a note to see this. Thank you, m.o.p 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Zsero will behave himself, I have no objection if you unblock him. At this point it is clear that he's not willing to listen to me, so I'll be happy if you'll be kind enough to make it clear to him that this sort of edit summary is inappropriate, and he can edit with abandon. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

Might as well just block Joehazelton's latest IP now

[edit]

and be done with it, otherwise he's just going to keep doing stuff like this. Tarc (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already blocked it, but I forgot to uncheck the box that allowed him to edit the IPs talk page. Protected the page so he has nowhere to rant until he unplugs his router and waits a bit. So sad that he spends his Thanksgiving this way. His family life must be incredibly dysfunctional. Gamaliel (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help I am not the bad 76.203.0.0/16

[edit]

Dear Gamaliel, I normally edit Wikipedia using my user name User:WickerGuy but occasionally (through mere oversight) log in anonymously. The last two times I did so I was told that I was suspended or blocked due to personal harassment, my IP showing as 76.203.0.0/16.
However, I honestly am not that person. This must be some kind of group IP address or migrating or morphing IP address, that as things get reconfigured. I am not an expert on this element of the Internet. At any rate, I am not the person from that address guilty of vandalism or harassment.
I respect Wikipedia's need to protect itself (DO I!!), but there must be a way to compensate for floating IP addresses.
This is not urgent as I prefer to edit under my WP user name, but I thought you should know about this. --WickerGuy (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know the identity of the vandal, and it's definitely not you. It's a guy who edits under the name "Joe Hazelton". He rotates his IPs so the blocks are usually of short duration until he moves on to a new range of IP addresses. I envy this guy's free time, though obviously not his sociopathic personality. Sorry for the inconvenience. All the JH blocks should allow any logged in editor to edit, so if you are ever unable to edit while logged in, please contact me immediately and I'll put it right. Gamaliel (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

Citations

[edit]

Please see my response on my talk page. --Malvenue (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Inhofe

[edit]

You came dangerously close to a 3RR in Jim Inhofe the other day. Please excercise greater caution in the future. WVBluefield (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I've been doing this since before there was a 3RR, I know what I'm up to, but your concern is appreciated. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"Gibson is, in many ways, a perfect Fox company man: rabidly pro-Bush, ferociously conservative and willing to launch feverish attacks on his political opponents with a passion that rivals that of his more famous Fox colleagues."

Now what part of that do you find to be neutral and non-biased? As someone who's an administrator wouldn't you know the difference between a reliable NPOV source and a opinionated commentator's article? Sources do not have to be politically neutral, they have to be accurate and reliable. Thismightbezach (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAIR is generally considered "accurate and reliable" in the genre of media criticism. WP:NPOV doesn't apply to sources, only to our presentation of them. Hope this helps! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that statement is in the WP article. External links are not governed by the same standard. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FAIR is a liberal organization, much like Newsbusters is a conservative organization. What we have here, again, is clear editorial bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk • contribs)
Much like the underpants gnomes, you fail to connect points one and three. A political orientation does not immediately "disqualify" a source or link. Should we, following this logic, remove all links to and citations from the conservative publications National Review and Wall Street Journal? Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet blocking

[edit]

Hi Gamaliel -- it seems that you placed an anon/account-creation block on a rather large segment of AT&T home DSL addresses (76.217.0.0/16). I understand that the guy you're going after is a hassle, but is it necessary to lock out so many IP addresses from creating new accounts? Tim D (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the block so as to allow account creation. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Express Your Views on Mention of Membership in the Family on WIkipedia

[edit]

It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4#Category:Members_of_the_Family_also_known_as_the_Fellowship, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jim Inhofe#Protected

[edit]

I have locked Jim Inhofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week, as discussion seems to have devolved into edit warring. I would like to unprotect the article as soon as possible if discussion can be restarted. I am asking each of the participants to please affirm that until one week from today they will refrain from editing any material at that article that is related to climate change. The idea is to mimic the effects of the lock without the software enforcement. Unless there is a firm consensus at Talk:Jim Inhofe, please do not make any potentially controversial changes. I expect to block any editor who continues to edit disruptively despite assurances to the contrary. I am posting this message to all relevant talkpages; please do not take this as laying blame on any particular editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all parties will abide by this, this seems completely fair to me. Gamaliel (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

Your invited!

[edit]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret account 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about blocked IP address

[edit]

I understand that you accused of disruptive activity and blocked a user who somehow shares/shared my IP address. I found this out when trying to edit a section on an article: "Ontological Argument" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontological_argument&action=edit&section=1). After creating an account I tried to enter that section again to see if logging on would remedy the problem; it did. However, I don't know much about Wikipedia and worried that perhaps using an account with the same IP address with that user would look suspicious to an administrator. How may I avoid seeming guilty by association, other than trying to make sure I sign in before making edits - and following the community rules, of course?

If necessary, then I will provide the IP address and/or the username for which it was blocked in an e-mail. Harpoonbaptizer (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)harpoonbaptizer[reply]

I'm afraid I will need the IP address to find the block in question. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

Marist School Wikipedia

[edit]

Hello, I am an employee at Marist School working to update our Wikipedia page with official school information. I recently added an entire section of information to our page, then found it had been deleted and our IP address had been blocked due to "vandalism." The site indicated you had blocked our address.

This is the page I am working to update: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marist_School_(Georgia)

My IP address is: 66.187.187.66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marist School (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to editing information on Wikipedia, and wanted to know if you had any information as to why we had been blocked and the new information we added had been deleted.

Thank you for your time. Marist School (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] 


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marist School (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked that IP address on December 17th because someone was using that IP address to vandalize Wikipedia articles. My advice would be to create a Wikipedia account and you will be able to edit Wikipedia without being affected by the block. As far as edits to that particular article, I don't know why they were removed, but my suggestion would be to ask on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit]

Hugh Jackman

[edit]

There was some major vandalism on this page. I reverted back to right before it, but can you check out if it needs to be protected? Ericsean (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Jackman

[edit]

There was some major vandalism on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Jackman). I reverted back to right before it, but can you check out if it needs to be protected? Ericsean (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit]

Reversion of my change to Climategate FAQ

[edit]

I was hoping for an explanation of your reversion of my change to the Climategate FAQ. Is that an unreasonable expectation? Or has my practise, given that deletion is easier than creation, of always carefully explaining any reversion of someone else's contribution to the encyclopedia been entirely unnecessary, in your opinion? I'm not just having a dig at you, I am genuinely concerned as to whether you thought that my contribution was false, or that FAQ pages have special status, or that you think WP:BOLD is not valid, or that the CRU can validly be cited as a WP:RS to support its own allegation that the info was stolen? Do you have a position here? Or are you in the practise of reverting without reviewing the context, and without giving a reason? Maybe I am just having a dig, but maybe I can rely on you to WP:AGF? Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you did see this, the 1st para of which I wrote before I did the FAQ change, and to which I drew your attention in my edit summary provided for the FAQ change, didn't you? Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the FAQ should not be used for editorializing and that your changes constituted editorializing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ is editorialising by definition. It is the explanation, in part, of how the article has come to deal with issues in certain ways. That explanation is editorialising. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on the definition of a FAQ then. Gamaliel (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saxby Chambliss page

[edit]

Recently we engaged in a minor tug-of-war over the Saxby Chambliss page occasioned by my aggressive and impatient wish to make the page less "prosecutorial," as I saw it. You finally did a little trimming on a paragraph that particularly offended me and that I had several times removed altogether. Although I remain far from satisfied with the page, the change you made was a help.

FWIW, I am a rather fervent conservative but no particular friend of Chambliss. Before going to the page to try get more of a fix on him, I knew only vaguely of the bitterness of his campaign against Max Cleland, although as soon as I looked at the page I understood that it was a bitterness that lives on. At this point, I don't expect to wrest any concession from you, Gamaliel, that the page was and remains a prejudiced account of the man.

I recognize that you are intelligent and, in particular, have editorial skills. You also seem to be committed to putting a lot of time and energy into Wiki. But none of your seriousness or your ability puts you beyond the influence of your prejudices, a problem that we all must struggle with in these partisan times. As a conservative who believes, for example, that the NYT and WaPost, CBS and NBC, PBS and NPR among most of the outlets in the "MSM" have badly lost their objectivity, I'm not surprised that Wiki, also, is plagued by this problem. But then, of course, most Left-leaning partisans would hurl the names of Fox News and some well-known conservative voices back at me and say, "Yea, well what about them?" So I freely admit that Fox News ~commentators~, not to mention almost all of talk radio, is well to the Right of center and often careless with the facts. But would you admit the same about the NYT and NPR? I can only speculate, but I'd guess that you wouldn't. I think most educated Democrats think that the MSM is just fine and all the prejudice and distortion is on the Right. And people who believe that would have a hard time being objective Wiki editors. (But, again, I don't know exactly what you think about such things; I just know that you are an educated person, a declared Democrat, and an editor who does not see prejudice where I see it in the matter at hand.)

I am not going to undertake here to critique the page; I pretty much feel that anyone who can not look at that page and immediately recognize that it is prejudiced against its subject is having trouble getting beyond partisanship. But, as I say, very educated, elite editors and reporters at flagship MSM outfits have this problem everyday. So why would it be different here?

In our earlier back and forth, one suggestion seemed to be that I could add information more favorable to the senator. That may be consistent with the Wiki philosophy of "let's all contribute and make it better," but, frankly, I am not very attracted to trying to dredge up some biographical factoids on Chambliss to dilute the hostility in the current version. I'd be more pleased if an editor would see the prejudice and take an aggressive attitude of "starting with just the facts here, let's see if we can't arrange them to be more even-handed" (which might include dumping some of them that had been selected for their prejudicial value, I believe). I don't feel very encouraged to work at a process where every inch will have to be fought for when the glaring fault is plain for anyone to see.

Wiki is a great resource; I use it constantly. But I suppose it has its limits. And people and topics that are in current controversy may just be more than it can handle well. (Thanks, though, for all the great articles on 18th century France, science, and countless other areas.)Ed-Claude (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

[edit]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello Gamaliel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 687 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Mel Mermelstein - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Lyle Waggoner - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  3. Elayne Boosler - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  4. Robert Stackhouse - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  5. Ana Rosa Nuñez - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  6. Matthew Wilder - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  7. Naushad Waheed - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards proposal

[edit]
Master Editor Hello, Gamaliel/Archive14! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

[edit]

Service award update

[edit]
 Hello, Gamaliel! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.

Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have requested outside opinions at [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I see that you have returned the external links, but you did not answer the some outstanding questions that I had asked on the talk page: 1) what exactly is "unique" about the site - there are hundreds of JFK assassination sites that have content about Dorothy Kilgallen. 2) Where can I find evidence that "It is well regarded by reliable sources". Thank you for providing answers. MM207.69.139.142 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

[edit]

CfD nomination of Category:American progressive organizations

[edit]

I have nominated Category:American progressive organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ruby

[edit]

Source--Hardy Mardy (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia policies. See WP:RS. Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters maybe? (Thomas Peter, "Art shock troops mock Russian establishment", Reuters, Jul 23, 2008.) You use as reliable source at Voina article. Curious.--Hardy Mardy (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters is a well established mainstream news agency. What is the possible problem with using that as a source? Gamaliel (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
News are news. Not a enciclopedic source. jfkmurdersolved.com is a site with many books published. --Hardy Mardy (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at our policy WP:RS you will see that mainstream news agencies and publications are in fact considered encyclopedic sources on Wikipedia. Random websites are not. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defence

[edit]

CNN defend her, removal was to reduce the content as much as possible, it is coatracked and excessive right now, she has made thousands of interviews, there is nothing special about this one. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is her employer and not a third party. There is nothing special about that particular quote, but there must be something there to show that it wasn't 100% criticism. Gamaliel (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

[edit]

Dorothy Kilgallen

[edit]

I'm a little confused by the extra effort the 207. IP is going to in order to have sources removed or disqualified. The IP went to RexxS about it, who came in to the talk page this morning to claim that in order for anyone to be an authority, that person, at the very least, must have a Wikipedia article. [3] Since when is that true? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new qualification to me. I can't say what's up with 207, since he seems to be campaigning against pro- and anti- conspiracy links, but I do know that McAdams tends to inspire a special kind of rage in pro-conspiracy folks. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he wants a McAdams article, he gets a McAdams article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]

Glenn Beck reference for "miscarriage"?

[edit]

Just curious about this reversal of an other edit. I'm trying to find in the reference a mention of Glenn Beck mocking a woman's miscarriage. Not that I doubt it, because Beck publicly states that he was a real bastard (paraphrasing) when he was an active alcoholic. The reference after the statement about the miscarriage is the Salon article. I just can't find anything about this in the article. Am I looking in the wrong place? If I am confused, I can understand the other editor summarily removing this claim from the article. CosineKitty (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone else made a correction that resolves the confusion. Oh, by the way, love your deletionist LOLcat! :) CosineKitty (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what happened now. I didn't follow the ref, I just headed straight to the story via google, so I didn't realize the ref was pointing to the wrong part of the 3 part story. Kudos to ThinkEnemies for sorting this out. And I wish I could take credit for the cat, I just swiped it from someone else's user page. :) Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 18:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Shelby

[edit]

I'd like to understand your good-faith reason for going to Richard Shelby and adding information that violates Wikipedia policies about citing blogs and adding incorrect information in a BLP -- on a page you've never edited before, but just happened to undo an edit of mine on after snarking at me on an unrelated talk-page.

I highly recommend you self-revert. THF (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil and factually-false edit summary

[edit]

After your abusive reversion on Richard Shelby, I looked at a random few of your other recent edits. This edit summary is factually false and violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV, and arguably WP:BLP, given that Matthew Vadum is a living person. CCR is a highly controversial and political organization, and the article is written like a hagiography, yet you saw fit to delete well-sourced criticism within the article that appeared in the pages of Human Events, a magazine founded before Breitbart was born. Please do not continue to engage in a double-standard regarding left-wing sources such as blogs and center-right sources such as decades-old magazines. THF (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to use my talk page to discuss article content. You are not welcome to use it to cast aspersions on myself and my motives. Further messages in the latter vein will be summarily deleted. Gamaliel (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider signing our proposal.

[edit]

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I know that we don't usually see eye to eye on various topics but hopefully we can come together on this. ChrisO, Hipocrite, and I started working on a joint proposal and have been working to gather support for it ever since. Please take a few minutes to give this proposal your full consideration and in the spirit of finding a compromise position both sides can live with. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced Blatant Advocacy."

[edit]

You are assuming bad faith on my part which is a violation of wiki policy. I am attempting to negotiate with you before reverting. The wording can use refinement but if you check the archive of the article and the talk page you would understand the context of my actions. If WP: BLP is to remove controversy sections then this section needs to be renamed, but the fact is, that the data is still highly relevant, but it has to be given CONTEXT which is that this section was placed here by those refuting these accusations against Palin. I mean, I'd rather not source FALSE accusations, but the accusations themselves come from very well respected secondary sources. I'll wait 24 hours for you to reply in the talk page and then replace if no refute there is made. Manticore55 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your motives are, but the language you inserted is both unsourced and POV. Both issues must be resolved before this material can be inserted into the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your concerns, but multiple language that has ALREADY BEEN INSERTED into the article meets this criteria. Most of the Post 2008 section for example. I'd also like to point out that the wording in the controversy section was worked out by consensus MONTHS ago and now there is a desire to remove it. That's fine but all of the things I mentioned were previously sourced before consensus was to remove all mention of "Rape Kits" and "Book Banning." Yet many people firmly believe that she did these things. Manticore55 (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't follow this at all. Perhaps if you just point me to the relevant section. I admit I haven't followed the discussion at all, but I can't believe that there's a discussion that decided the language you inserted was appropriate. If so, I would like to participate in that discussion to voice my objections to that language. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found another solution to the problem. Manticore55 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party Protests, 2009 and Tea Party Movement suggested Merge

[edit]

Hi Gamaliel, just thought you might be interested in stopping by the Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement pages, there is a good discussion going about possibly merging or editing down the content there. Since you've been a contributor there in the past (at least that's what I recall) I thought you might be interested. Thanks! --Happysomeone (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at dispute resolution

[edit]

After your baseless accusations of trolling and sockpuppetry, it's clear we need to escalate dispute resolution here. I've opened a thread Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Gamaliel. THF (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we do. You don't seem to be able to get it through your head that your baseless and sweeping generalizations are offensive, unfounded, and uncivil, and so you are shocked absolutely shocked! that I'm reacting negatively to them. All you have to do is stop that and the conflicts will stop, but you can't seem to admit that you are hardly an innocent here. I appreciate your edit on Gerald Posner, by the way. Gamaliel (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I have inadvertently offended you after I got offended myself. I don't think you intentionally tried to offend me, but there are people who hold center-right viewpoints in good faith, and get offended when these mainstream views are characterized as "far right" or "fringe"--and you kept doing it long after you were politely requested to stop. Bozell has written op-eds for the New York Times, and they don't take fringe opinions there, at least not from the right. And I don't see how you can possibly think that CCR infobox summary you reverted back complied with NPOV.
And where the sockpuppet accusation came from is beyond me. THF (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was pissed off, that's where it came from. And the CCR infobox thing I didn't even look at, it just got caught in the crossfire. I understand that you are genuinely aggrieved at my slight of Bozell, but your conduct predates that slight. Please have a look at what I just posted to the Wikiettique page about Loonymonkey's talk page. Do you really not see that you are making sweeping, unfounded, offensive generalizations? And you are doing it as your initial comment, not one made in the heat of the conflict or after a long discussion. I don't think you realize what effect these comments have. To you, you are just pointing out what you think you see (just as I am pointing out what I see in Bozell), but to others you are attacking them and their hard work. Those of us who have invested years in this project and take policies like NPOV and BLP very seriously do not care to see all that dismissed just because you don't like their latest edit. Gamaliel (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my initial comment to Loonymonkey, it was a comment made after he unjustifiably reverted me several times, and was very uncivil to me on multiple pages. THF (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. But from the position of a neutral observer, it appeared to be an initial comment, and that perception was reinforced when you opened several discussions with me by making broad and unfounded accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And "crossfire" is no excuse for that edit -- unless you are misusing Twinkle to edit-war. If all you wanted to do was to revert the Vadum edit (an inappropriate reversion, but), there is the "undo" command. You apparently didn't even look at what my edits were before hitting the revert button on Twinkle. People have lost their Twinkle privileges for less. Please self-revert and be more careful in the future. THF (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do regret the mistake, but there is also no excuse for using the edit summary to make broad unfounded attacks. You know quite well that is an inappropriate use of the edit summary. I made a small mistake because I was pissed off because you made a big one. Do we really want to stack up misuse of Twinkle versus violations of WP:CIVIL? Is this going to get us anywhere? Gamaliel (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really wasn't threatening anything there. I'm happy to wipe the slate clean. THF (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to as well. If you could refrain from the broad accusations and generalizations I've been complaining about, I don't foresee any reason for conflict between us. Disagreements, sure, but that's a different thing, as you know. Gamaliel (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Posner page

[edit]

The blog article contains clear documentation of many cases of plagiarism not discussed elsewhere, and quote tampering within the plagiarized text. All of these instances of plagiarism and quote tampering link to the sources (the relevant Posner article on the Daily Beast and the source which was plagiarized from). I’m actually the individual who discovered Posner’s serial plagiarism and provided the information to Jack Shafer (resulting in Jack’s articles). The material discussed on the blog is the information which, once forwarded to the editors at Daily Beast, resulted in Posner’s resignation. Since all the sources are linked in the blog article, there is little that can be argued with (in the way of solid documentation). And, incidentally, I’m not a conspiracy buff, and was blissfully unaware of Posner until a week ago. I find plagiarism (and lack of integrity in journalism) offensive, and thus began pursuing it. I also think it’s problematic that you earlier edited the Posner discussion page to remove the edit warring section. As far as I understand, the point of a discussion page is exactly to resolve disputes to avoid repeated reversions in the primary article. I’m willing to work with you on a consensus product, with professional language, but removal of plagiarism documentation and details is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurytemora (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The blog may contain potentially valuable information, but we simply can't use it. It has nothing to do with convincing others of its value or anyone wishing to cover up for Posner. Blogs in general simply can't be used as sources for Wikipedia articles, especially in biographical articles, and even more especially when they make new allegations not found in news articles or other superior sources. See WP:RS and WP:BLP for more detail regarding our policies.
  • Conspiracy has nothing to do with it, as I'm sure we'd all agree.
  • The only thing problematic about the discussion page were the unfounded allegations leveled by the IP editor. Talk pages, or any pages, should not be used for such a purpose.
  • I find plagiarism extremely offensive as well. But WP policy requires us to put aside our personal feelings and edit in a neutral manner.
  • No one is interested in removing or covering anything up. But we have to edit within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. All the links (except for the blog, which I discuss above) were retained, only excessive detail was removed. We don't need a blow by blow account, we just need to report what happened. Gamaliel (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moyers - On Karl Rove and U.S. politics

[edit]

I've added the section-specific npov tag to the section, with the assumption that you are going to indicate on the talk page your npov concerns with the section. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRU article name

[edit]

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you defend your senseless concur at swiftboating??

[edit]

You said you concurred when restoring an unsourced statement at swiftboating. Can you defend the "not substantiated" statement with a specific quote from the Manjoo book? No one else has been able to, although you evidently don't care.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem pleasant. Gamaliel (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You come in and revert at a page you haven't been participating in, you insert a statement unsupported by the source provided or any source, you act like someone's sockpuppet. You have not been personally attacked, your embarrassing behavior has just been properly characterized. If you truly think you are acting in good faith, you should be able to present your analysis on the talk page. If you were relying upon the opinions of others in a clique, your trust in their commitment to the standards of wikipedia have been misplaced.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I am a sockpuppet you are welcome to make a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you wish to discuss the content and not your personal conspiracy theories, feel free. Otherwise you are not welcome to post on this page. Have a nice day. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are voluntarily serving as a sockpuppet, by reverting without participating in the discussion or considering the merits. I do not believe you are someone's extra account. I welcome your consideration of the merits of whether the text should be included and the provided source is properly characterized. I admit that is a little harder than just reverting.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered the merits. I disagree with you. There is little point in continuing your campaign of hostility since consensus appears to be firmly against you. You can seek out fresh opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but I see little point in you attacking the same cast of characters repeatedly. Gamaliel (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to say that you considered the merits, but a little more difficult to present a reasoned case that the source supports the "not substantiated" statement or that the consensus that the article should not discuss the merits of the SBVT claims should be ignored, or that whatever statement that actually can be supported by the Manjoo source is not mere opinion that should explicitly be attributed to Manjoo as in the proposed compromises. No one else has been able to do it, perhaps someone who actually has considered the merits, such as yourself, should give it a try.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]

Moyers

[edit]

Just wanted to make you aware of this. ► RATEL ◄ 00:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already noticed it and added a comment. I suspect that his complaint will be disregarded since BLP is pretty clear cut. You might want to add a note to the BLP messageboard if you haven't already just to cover all the bases. Gamaliel (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bozell

[edit]

You continue to edit war on Nina Totenberg without responding to new evidence on the talk-page that your basis for removing the Bozell remark is incorrect. This is a plain violation of WP:EW. Please self-revert. THF (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider an unblock?

[edit]

Hello Gamaliel. See this statement by User:Malke 2010. Under some conditions I would take a 'promise to refrain' as a good enough reason to unblock somebody. Perhaps you would like to add further conditions. (He seems to be unaware that BLP applies on talk pages). Anyway, consider leaving your own comment there, or leave a note as to whether you will permit other admins to lift the block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block my school, for the love of Wiki!

[edit]

Hi, Gamaliel. I noticed a message when browsing Wikipedia at my school today; you threatened to block my school's IP from editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:168.11.42.2). I think you put in place a temporary block, but I'd like to request that you perma-ban Tattnall County Schools from editing. I didn't realize how much people here vandalized the site. Please, ban this IP for good! If any high school student here wants to make a constructive edition to a wiki page, they're free to make an account. Thanks! --Colleen 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen3217 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I must say it isn't often that I get a request from someone to block their IP. The current block is temporary, but it won't expire for a year. I don't think I can make the block permanent, but we certainly can make it a multi-year block should the problems reoccur next year. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Gamaliel. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocks

[edit]

I am being consistently blocked and apparently being confused with someone named "joehazelton"

The most recent IP logged for me was User:207.67.146.62

Please let me know what I need to do to straighten this out.

I am definitely not "joehazelton"

My username is deanw0508 I keep trying to sign in, in order to send you this but it keeps kicking me out and saying I'm not signed in.

I'm fairly new to anything with Wikipedia outside of reading content, so I appreciate your indulgence.

Thank you in advance for any assistance67.197.208.244 (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The range 207.67.146.0/24 was blocked by User:Spellcast as a proxy. You can talk to him or her about it but he will likely just tell you to use an account as proxies are often abused and thus blocked. See [Wikipedia:Open proxies]].
If you keep getting kicked out of your deanw0508 account, perhaps something is wrong with your cookie settings. Beyond that I'm afraid I can't diagnose any particular technical problems. Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sock drawer

[edit]

I noticed your recent SPI submission regarding the Embarq Corp. DSL user usually geolocated near the Virginia/Tennessee Area. In the interest of providing as much information as possible to the CheckUser that handles your case, might I suggest that you add User:184.0.119.152 as a clear sock of User:71.51.22.105? (Note they both personally address someone named 'Bob', and one replies on the other's talk page as if it were his own; both use Embarq Corp. ISP.; both warred on the Roesgen article.)

I find it odd that you didn't add [Username redacted per OTRS ticket #2011082410001801] to your report. He was using the Embarq ISPs from the Virginia/Tenn area [redacted - per WP:PRIVACY and OTRS request] before actually registering his Drrll account and continuing his edits. His very first edit as [redacted] is a response to the editor that asked him to register an account and stop using those IPs. User:71.51.22.105 in your SPI report edits the Susan Roesgen and Mark Levin articles, as does [redacted]. More than coincidence, in my opinion, but you have dealt with him more than I have. I seem to have used up a lot of red pixels here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was lazy and I just grabbed the most recent accounts. But thanks for the suggestion, I've added them all to my investigation request. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know who I am and that my edits don't resemble IP edits in Susan Roesgen (that is the article of interest in the sockpuppett investigation I assume). Yes, I've edited the Roesgen article, and you know that I've edited the Mark Levin article (both are on my watchlist).--[redacted]) 22:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who you are and I didn't look at the edits, I just added a number of accounts and IP addresses at the request of Xenophrenic. For the record I don't think you are the same user as the SR sockpuppeteer, but investigation requests are open to anyone and I saw no reason to deny his request. After all he could simply make his own investigation request. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[redacted]: As someone who knows firsthand what it is like to be wrongly accused of being another editor based only on having an article and an Internet Service Provider in common, I don't raise the accusation lightly. If there is no relation between you and the disruptive sock-farm at the Roesgen article, that should be evident after a checkuser is performed. As I mentioned above, you and the IPs have at least the Roesgen and Levin articles in common, but I also took note of the following:
  • After your proposal to add particular "Bush-protestor" content to the Roesgen article was contested, disruptive IP 76.4.72.225 immediately responds here with a counter-argument on your behalf. (I also see that both you and the IP failed to sign your edits in that very discussion...) So it is not exactly accurate to say that your edits do not resemble the IP's edits at Roesgen.
  • The disruptive IP user has already indicated he will use whatever deception is necessary to circumvent account blocks and sanctions in order to continue his tendentious editing — so sockpuppets, proxies, etc., are probable.
Still, it is possible that two completely different editors can make similar arguments, from the same POV, on the same articles, from the same Embarq ISP, within hours of each other. I'm just asking you to understand why I mentioned the [redacted] account for inclusion in the SPI report. If it turns out that you were just coincidentally in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'll be your biggest advocate. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced that if the investigation is performed in a careful manner and not with a wide net to catch anyone with whatever similarities to the sock-farm, I'll be vindicated. BTW, yes, I do occasionally forget to sign my Talk posts, but if you check the history of my Talk posts, you'll see that I usually do sign them.--[redacted]) 06:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Why didn't either the person investigating this sockpuppet inquiry or the person seeking the investiagation (you) indicate in the report and on my user page that I was cleared of this accusation?--[redacted]) 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't even notified when it was closed. I suggest you contact the closing checkuser, User:Brandon. Gamaliel (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for responding to the proper incantations on the Sarah Palin talk page. I appreciate it.Malke2010 20:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please go over to the Sarah Palin talk page and ask Brendan19 and Writegeist to delete or strike through their negative comments about me? Thank you.Malke2010 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the situation there and hopefully that will smooth things over. Gamaliel (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. Thanks.Malke2010 00:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive14&oldid=1139022729"