User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:38, 5 March 2023

Hello, welcome to my talk page. Please try to keep it relatively organized by 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 also reserve the right to delete rude and/or insulting comments once I've warned someone about making such comments. 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

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_5.

Ted Kennedy vandal

Hi. You reverted me on Ted Kennedy. I was removing a vandal's (69.177.44.91) graffiti that he is adding to Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Rush Limbaugh. I think you reverted me by mistake. Please contact me if not and we can talk about it. - Tεx τ urε 18:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought I was reverting the vandal. My mistake. Gamaliel 18:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grahm Junior College

I added a few lines to Grahm Junior College, so it's not a "nothing" anymore, but at least a substub (heck, maybe a full-blown stub). In any event, having reviewed the content of its Memorial web-page, I'm convinced it should be kept. -- BD2412 ^thimk 10:56, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

VfD drive-by

I am a bit annoyed by the fact that you bothered to look up my logged-in contribution history and post it under the VfD comments I posted, yet couldn't be bothered to add your own comments or put your signature next to your "addition" to the discussion.

Rather than stay annoyed, and wonder if you even realize that it is annoying, I thought I'd take the time to mention this to you. I think this is mildly hostile behaviour, and it should be discouraged.

At the very least, you should have the courtesy to sign your edits when making such comments.

P.S. The Book of Love is a red link. ;) --Unfocused 19:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I offended you, it was not my intent. However, noting the short history of certain vfd voters is standard practice on vfd. This is not done to dismiss or dispute their arguments, and there is certainly nothing hostile about it. It is done because it is vfd policy that the tallying administrator can and usually does discount the votes of very new users to avoid "ballot stuffing" by users who don't have the best interests of wikipedia in mind. This isn't to say that you are one of those users, of course, just that this problem is common enough that such "tagging" of votes is routine. I did not sign not because I wished to remain anonymous (the edit history obviously makes that impossible) but because I was offering no personal opinion or comment on your vote, just merely noting a fact, and thus I didn't think a personal signature was necessary. Some others who "tag" votes like this do sign their comments, though. I'm sorry if you think this routine practice is distasteful, hostile, or elitist, but it is nothing personal. Once you become more familiar with vfd you will realize that. Gamaliel 20:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To say I'm offended is to overstate my feelings by a lot. I wasn't offended, only a bit annoyed, since I've been here anonymously for quite some time (probably almost a year). I've only recently decided to be more involved. If tagging of VfD votes is to be routine, it should also be routine to comment and sign, even if the comment really is just "No opinion". That would take some of the "anonymous snipe" aspect out of the tag that might really sting new users who haven't bothered to hang around for months before registering a user name. Some of those new users won't stick around to become more familiar with VfD. Further, for me, it wasn't the discounting of the vote, as I expected that; it's the appearance of discounting the arguments made that inevitably comes with a tag like that. I think over time, you'll see that I'm strongly inclusionist, and try to draw in as many people as possible into this amazing project. That's why I start to bristle over anything that appears in any way hostile to new users. I hope you understand. --Unfocused 21:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but your problem isn't with me, it's with a standard Wiki practice. Perhaps some sort of template is in order. But a discussion like that is best held someplace like Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. In any case, a belated welcome aboard. Gamaliel 22:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, I need to report

Gamaliel, I need to report the following user:Cukestroke who left this comment on my talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Classicjupiter2#What_happened_to_the_Keith_Wigdor_article.3F They could be that impersonator, but I need to ask you for your help in keeping this person off my talk page and not harrassing me or this artist they keep goofing on. Thanks.Classicjupiter2 20:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to post a message there and is not vandalizing your page or posting personal attacks or insults, there is nothing I can do as he's not breaking any rules. I suggest you just delete his message and ignore him. Gamaliel 20:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Trivia Section

Gamaliel, please visit the discussion page for the Clinton article [1] and explain how the fact that some people get parodied as rationale for omitting information. Lots of people have birthdays too, yet we include them. plain_regular_ham 17:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting Wikipedia vote

You voted once for the policy at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεx τ urε 17:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had no idea this was up for a vote again. Gamaliel 19:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Number, User:Sollogfan RfAr

Hi Gamaliel, after the latest round of shenanigans, I've filed an arbitration request against The Number and Sollogfan. Please consider if you want to add yourself as a plaintiff. Cheers, --MarkSweep 09:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added myself. We should have done this a long time ago. Gamaliel 20:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki weirdness

An edit of yours seems to have vanished from the history of Joe Scarborough. Any idea what happened? Mirror Vax 21:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now it's back again. Never mind. Strange! Mirror Vax 21:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Gamaliel 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Neruda

No problem with you overriding my edit. My usual policy is that when there is a dispute, I start from the side more politically distant from me, and then try to make specific edits that I hope will get consensus. I'm basically in agreement with you on what I'd like to see the article say, but I don't see that we'll ever get consensus on that, nor do I see how you and TDC reverting one another back and forth are ever going to reach consensus. Do you have a plan in mind, or are you just hoping you have more patience and fortitude than him? Because, having dealt with him in the past, that would be a lot of patience and fortitude. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've actually been thinking about this lately. I'm not sure what to do. Few other people are participating in the talk discussion and until your edit I wasn't even sure anyone noticed the discussion at all, really. I'm more than willing to work towards consensus, but I'm not sure how to do that with someone who calls me names and has utter contempt for Wikipedia policy. If you have any suggestions I am eager to hear them. Gamaliel 07:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finished reading the Feinstein biography last night, and I am now convinced more than ever that you were absolutely correct in your opposition to TDC's additions. FWIW, I am sorry not to have been more help earlier this month on the talk page; I was following the discussions, but when he started coming up with citations to obscure sources, etc., I had no context with which to refute them. In any event, I hope to add some more bits and pieces to the article in due time. -- Viajero | Talk 11:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schools deletion

Hi, I noticed you voted on several school VfD's. Can I get you to reconsider? I can't help noting that WP is filled with articles containing unencyclopeadic trivia on non-notable actors in bad TV shows; surely all of these should get blanket VfD's long before we start deleting articles on elementary schools? OMFG, just take a look at the mass of articles that WP has on Pokemon. Surely, an article on some hobunk elementary school in the middle-of-nowhere, Oklahoma, is more notable, encyclopaedic and important than some totally bogus, entirely fictional pokemon character? linas 19:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for a number of reasons:

Mass media cultural products are seen by millions around the world and thus are more relevant and notable than somebody's elementary school.
There are thousands (millions?) of nearly identical schools around the world. The minor differences between them are of local interest at best.
Much of the information about schools is unverifiable info added by anon editors. I find this disconcerting.
Wikipedia is not the only source of information in the world. Removing all the pov and unverifiable info and we're left with little more than school directory entries. Either we should just dump one of those directories in Wikipedia or we should just leave this task to them. Gamaliel 00:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't care about accuracy

This project pretends to be an encyclopaedia, but what it really is is a bunch of stupid power mad kids like you who are running around trying to get everyone to bend to their wills. So we can spend hundreds of hours on something, and you pull it apart, then start hurling abuse and then ooh, you've blocked them. Well, aren't you special.

You're an idiot. And I am beginning to think all administrators here are. Stupid project.

Does it make you feel good to delete hundreds of hours of work, and then claim it to be vandalism? Does it make you feel good to remove all of the evidence of something, just so that you can tell lies about it?

203.26.206.130 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about your contributions to Port Arthur massacre, the article was moved to Port Arthur Massacre. Nothing was vandalized or deleted. If this is not what you are talking about, please be specific and omit the childish personal attacks. Gamaliel 19:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa media article

I finally got around to writing this. Please add more information if you can. Mike H 17:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. I don't know much about the history of the Trib despite reading it for a number of years so I don't know what I could add to this that isn't terribly subjective. Gamaliel 23:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tamagotchi

Hang on... are you the same Gamaliel whose Everything2 writeup for 'Tamagotchi' - a haiku, which goes "Shiro-bai ni / oikakerareu / tamagotchi" - are you that person? Fled, for just over a year? I too spent some time away from Everything2, but have returned, because there are two sides to my personality and Wikipedia only allows me to express the middle side. Small world, I run into your name via the Sollog mess and now I run into it again, by chance.-Ashley Pomeroy 23:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's me. I've written so many articles there you're lucky I remember that one. Or nodes, I guess - haven't used that word in over a year. There's no particular reason that I haven't been back to e2 other than wanting to see how high I can get that fled clock though I might stop by to port old articles here or get the POV out of my system by posting some rant. Gamaliel 23:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Landis

You just sent me a message about my attempt to delete the page on John Landis. Thank you for making clear to me the rule against random users such as myself deleting entire articles. But I'm not sure how to approach the subject. The article was so full of factual errors and highly subjective remarks that it was a disaster. It didn't need just a little editing, it needed a complete re-write. I replaced what was there with a blurb from the IMDB, but I guess that might be a copyright violation, so it's a temporary solution at best. But here's my frustration: Navigating through the editorial procedures of Wikipedia is very labrynthine, and I can't for the life of me find the list of pages that needs such extensive re-writing. I found pages that mention the list, and talk about the list, but I can't find the list itself. unsigned comment from 69.177.110.87

Replied on User talk:69.177.110.87 Gamaliel 23:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gamaliel. Actually, I don't know if it's appropriate to post a thanks here, but thanks for your help anyway.

Wiki FoxTrot

Hey there. You may wish to take a look at Image:Foxtrot wikipedia.jpg, which is the same as the one you uploaded (Image:Wikifoxtrot.gif). Your version, however, is quite a bit smaller (GIF being more appropriate for such an image). Just thought you might want to know about the duplication in case you weren't already aware. violet/riga (t) 23:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we bother listing one of them on IfD? Gamaliel 23:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. We could delete the one you did seeing as it's only linked to from this page, but the size is much better. It's not particularly worth the hassle changing the other one to this though, so I'm sure it's fine to leave them both – it's amusing enough to deserve a double appearance! violet/riga (t) 23:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic, Social and Cultural Council

there two members of of the Economic social and cultural council of the African Union that should be articles themselves not redirects.

ArbCom on Internodeuser

FYI, a Request_for_arbitration has been opened on user Internodeuser. I bring your attention to this and this edit where you have had prior dealings with this user. -- Longhair | Talk 12:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African Union

I saw that you made two members of the Economic, social an cultural committee of the african union into redirects. these are not redirects but subsanitive articles. Now, they maybe stubs or sub stubs but they are still articles. i don't know if that can be changed but maybe you can think of something.

All they said was "Member of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union for the region of Central Africa." This is not substantive in any sense of the word. Gamaliel 21:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eponymous

Hi, I saw that you moved Eponymous (album) to eponymous. Personally I don't think that's a good idea, since most people who link to "eponymous" will probably expect an explanation of the term, while those intending to link to the album will typically check first whether it's really there. In any event, if you prefer the current state of affairs, I would ask that you fix all the now-broken links pointing to eponymous. Cheers, AxelBoldt 15:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed that Ozomatli also has an album called "Eponymous", for what it's worth. AxelBoldt 15:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, there were only two links which weren't to the album, both of which I've either fixed or eliminated. In any case, I made the change because I had a hell of a time finding the page for the album with the search box and wanted to eliminate similar confusion for less experienced users. Gamaliel 15:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, R adiant _>|< 08:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism to Shadow Hearts

Hi, on 16 May 2005 you warned anon User:156.63.116.26 against vandalism but he hit the Shadow Hearts article [2] earlier today. --TimPope 17:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Most likely it's a different user with the same ip assigned randomly. I'll keep an eye on it and block him if he keeps it up. Gamaliel 19:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Middlesex school

Kappa has uncovered at least three prominent alumni of this school, including the current governor of New Mexico. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Reed.gif

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Reed.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is now tagged and sourced. Why did you say this image was unused? Gamaliel 15:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moving Pages

When I tried to move the page, John F. Kennedy assassination to Assassination of John F. Kennedy, I got a message saying that it cannot be moved. -- SNIyer1^(talk) 21:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, if it was merely a redirect the page move will work, but since that page has a history now due to your cut and pastes, the move was rejected by the software. I see you've already posted to Wikipedia:Requested moves and so an administrator will take a look and if there is a consensus for the title change, s/he will perform the move for you. Gamaliel 23:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPA blocking

Hi there! I'm attempting to revitalize Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks with a proposal that's far more lenient than the previous two, and requires multiple attacks and multiple opinions. The main point is that the remote threat of blocking may well discourage people from attacking. Anyway since you were involved in the previous version, I'd like your feedback on the new one. Thanks, R adiant _>|< 17:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lichtenstein

I've updated the page for Roy Lichtenstein. You may want to take a look and consider removing it from the list of articles requiring expansion :)

Cheers

--John-Nash 17:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Yousuck.jpeg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Yousuck.jpeg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Copyright Violations

I don't know where else to ask, so I'll ask you since you posted the violation on the page I posted. I had permission from the original author to post it, but I don't want to take down the violation page you posted, if that's bad form. I don't know exactly what the procedure is to overturn those, either I'm dumb, or the copyright violation listing page wasn't very helpful. Sorry for bothering you --Danalog June 29, 2005 04:52 (UTC)

I'd just make a note of it under its listing on Wikipedia:Copyright Violations so the admin taking care of it will see it. Gamaliel 29 June 2005 04:56 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Danalog June 29, 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Image:Walkereyre.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Walkereyre.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Naming conventions

You asked that I "Please follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions when choosing titles of articles." It would be helpful to me if you could tell me what's wrong with my current practice - and how you would like me to fix them. Thanks. MulgaBill 3 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguations. Gamaliel 3 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to avoid them. MulgaBill 3 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Pablo Neruda

Could you please respond to my comments at the end of Talk:Pablo_Neruda#TDC.27s_version? It seems to me that some of what you are reverting should stand, although most of it I'd be glad to be rid of. Are you even reading what you are reverting? -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 23:22 (UTC)

If TDC wants to make some more incremental changes, I'm not going to revert them on sight, but I'm not going refrain from reverting his insertion of chunks of plagiarized and POV material because of a mislain wikilink or two. Gamaliel 3 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

So you are reverting my changes, as well, because of your disagreement with TDC? I do not believe I've made any inappropriate edits. -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 19:05 (UTC)

I'm sorry about any spelling corrections that get caught in the crossfire, but I'm more concerned about factual inaccuracies and plagiarism than spelling errors. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

The fact that he received the Stalin Peace Prize is not a spelling correction. -- Jmabel | Talk July 5, 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk July 6, 2005 04:16 (UTC)

User Name Question

I have read that, considering your use of the name "Gamaliel," apparently for the saint, it would be permissible to retain my user name, obviously after the Doctor. Could you confirm this?-- Thomas Aquinas

I don't see any problem with your user name. I wouldn't worry about it. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Why do you ignore democratic process to suit your interests?

I am not trying to insult you, but you and Rhobite are the only editors that want to keep the Lori Klaustis paragraph. Five other editors voted to remove it. Why do you insist on ignoring the other editor's opinons on the fact that this paragraph has been decided to have no bering on the issue? Don't give me a "well, it has been decided already." because the decision has changed. Now, you either respect it, or you're letting or true colors show. You decide. 67.18.109.218 5 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Why do you unnecessarily post essentially the same message here and to Talk:Joe Scarborough? Why do you insist on such ridiculously inflammatory language? I see no 5-2 vote. I see no consensus or concluded discussion. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

Diggnation VfD

You were adding nonexistant users to the vote. Which is why I reverted you. --Hoovernj 7 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

You are reading the edit history incorrectly. I did no such thing. In any case you should be identifying any votes in the discussion you think are invalid, not removing them. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)

GRAY SOCKS, BANAL, ALL NIGHT LONG

Gamalie, please don't go around reverting people when you don't know what the fuck is going on. SPUI says on his talk page that he likes vandalism and please don't revert. Please read and understand this before meddeling again. GraySocks 17:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell other editors "fuck you" in edit summaries and I won't revert and block you. Gamaliel 17:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heyen Bio Stub

I am the Editor and Publisher of Exit Online and adapted my bio on Heyen specfically for use on Wikipedia. I trust others will enhance it. PLEASE DO NOT COPYVIO this piece! Thanks 21:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I found that you disregared my notice. DO NOT Revert to Copyvio on this page. You and others on this service seem to be motivated by misguided zealousness in ferreting out "violations" whether they exist or not. There is nothing to "resolve" on this article. LEAVE IT ALONE! 01:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As noted in the Discussion page, there is no "resolution" needed. Nor is "somehow" an acceptable assertion on how to "substantiate" one's right to use their own material (or other material to which they have rights). You are making the claim of a copyright violation, but I can find no indication that you attempted to contact us at Exit Online regarding any copyright issues. Your actions also reflect the sort of pettiness on the part of many admins that lead contributors to simply stop contributing. You folks seem to waste a lot of your time and ours making hasty, ill-considered decisions that seem to stem from misguided overzealousness!

It should also be obvious that there are only so many things one can say in a biographical blurb: birth, childhood, education, achievements, personal life, death, etc. These facts will invariably be similar to other information on the person that might be found somewhere -- such brief summaries cannot be compared to in-depth considerations of the person's life or work. 05:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You claim that you own the copyright, so you must substantiate this claim. End of story. Gamaliel 05:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, Gamaliel. You're deliberately attempting to frustrate and annoy, failing to answer questions, and now resulting to the language of the bully. Hardly the hallmarks of a professional. I've noted the snide comments you posted on the Copyvio page, the sort of pre-emptive attack designed to cover yourself. Another hallmark of the bully. ~~Anon 07:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)~~ comment actually from User:4.157.77.100[reply]

I have no interest in discussing this matter with you unless your remarks become a lot more civil than the above comment. Gamaliel 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Liefeld

Can you provide me with a brief background of where this dispute has gone and how we arrive at the current point? What has been your involvement? -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't thank you enough for intervening at the article. Dealing with the constant accusations of bias, oppression, whatever you've supposed to have done wrong, etc. is quite draining. I swear, I got less accusations of being an oppressor when I was a teacher.

I first became involved when User:198.93.113.49 reported a 3RR violation by User:N. Caligon on WP:AN/3RR. Because I have a bit of familiarity with the subject matter, I decided I'd be a good choice to intervene. I posted some questions on WP:AN/3RR, locked the article to prevent the war from continuing, and started to look at some of the diffs. I hadn't even read the entire Liefeld article yet when 198.93.113.49 accused me of a conflict of interest. I decided to recuse myself, thinking that would end the matter. I had previously blocked 198.93.113.49 due to a 3RR violation on John Byrne reported to WP:AN/3RR by N. Caligon, so now 198.93 thinks I am Caligon's pet administrator apparently. Gamaliel 22:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have listed it on WP:RFC which has generated some further discussion, and N Caligon is taking an active part in the discussion now so at least it appears to be going somewhere. It apears to me at this stage that User:198.93.113.49 is just trolling for the sake of being abusive as having looked through the article they have indeed not actually made a single constructive comment. If they continue I will have no hesitation in starting to impose blocks. -- Francs2000 | Talk

22:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S/he won't be back till tomorrow due to a 3RR vio block on a different article imposed by another admin. Gamaliel 22:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear from comments left with his contributions that you have an adoring fan... -- Francs2000 | Talk

22:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. McConnell

I just wanted to say "Thank you" for providing the source for the assertion about supporting a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. -- DLJessup 16:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sense.jpg

I was just wondering why this image was up for deletion, and as an administrator i was wondering if you could tell me where i could find the information for such cases and how i can vote. comment by User:7121989

Please sign your posts, which you can do by typing four tildes (~).

I submitted the image for deletion because it is a copyright violation. If you follow the links in the template message I posted to your user talk page, you will find information about the deletion process. Gamaliel 21:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you merge my account post history with my i.p. post history?

Hi, I recently started an article, but then i realized that this history is listed under my ip (68.147.148.132); therefore, i created an account Bobm987. Can you please merge these to things into just my account, along with the ip's post history? comments from User:Bobm987

Replied at User talk:Bobm987. Gamaliel 01:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you beat me

You beat me to welcoming a new user. Ah well. Good to see an active WP:WC. Redwolf24 05:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No vandal here................

Dear gamaliel,

Did not know I had to be a member to revise text.

I just signed up, so I will proceed to edit the 1 section I had previously changed in Karl Roves' bio.

In 1980 Karl Rove was indeed fired from the Reagan/Bush campaign. It is a documented fact. He was fired for leaking information to a reporter. That reporter was in fact Robert Novak.

I was surprised not to find this juicy tid-bit on wikipedia.

Anyway...........sorry for the confusion.

User:Spinels

Looking at your edit history, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you please provide a link? Gamaliel 14:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magdoff article

I don't know how full your plate is at the moment, but if you have a chance could you take a look at Harry Magdoff (one of the co-founders of Monthly Review)? User Nobs01 (talk · contribs) has turned the article into a TDC-style smear job using what looks like pretty dodgy sources. Thanks, -- Viajero | Talk 10:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FYI: Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log#TDC -- Viajero | Talk 12:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: TDC, it's good to finally see some independent administrator intervention there. If you are serious about taking this to arbcom, I will gladly participate, though I suggest you involve as many people as possible so TDC can't portray himself as the victim of two or three leftists.

As far as Harry Magdoff, I'll add it to my watchlist, but I don't think I'm the right person to look into it. I've never even heard of Magdoff before. Gamaliel 14:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thanks for the edit to my user page. The strange thing is that the anon vandal had only one other edit that day, three minutes earlier, an article edit in which I can't see any change. I followed the contribs expecting to find other vandalisms to correct, but apparently s/he was too lazy to create any. So, what's this, I'm not good enough for a really first-rate vandal? They have to send the rookies to practice on me? I'm insulted. JamesMLane 07:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you wish for, I've got so many vandals I had to protect my userpage. Gamaliel 14:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was prophetic. Somebody vandalized my user page four times over the course of an hour, as well as adding my name to spurious edits to a dozen or so articles. JamesMLane 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I blocked one of them and actually protected your user page for about an hour earlier this afternoon. There's really no solution other then protecting your userpage, but then you wouldn't be able to edit it. Or you could become an admin yourself and protect and edit it whenever you want... Gamaliel 22:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far the nuisance level is tolerable. I may have to reconsider in November, when Rex's latest ban expires. :( Incidentally, thanks for the heads-up about the Kerry article. Lately I've somewhat slacked off in monitoring it. After your alert, my preliminary research turned up some interesting facts about this poor Mr. Rodriguez, so shamefully treated by the evil Kerry. Talk:John Kerry#Rodriguez and Rodriguez is my initial comment. Meanwhile, Neutrality had removed TDC's addition because it was completely unsourced. JamesMLane 00:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the latest nitwit. His only other edit is a right-wing attack on Democratic Underground, so I guess this latest spree of vandalism is somebody's idea of compassionate conservatism. JamesMLane 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsella v. Palmer

Take a look at the delete process now on Tom G. Palmer. Nskinsella

Your vote to KEEP Tom G. Palmer and to DELETE Stephan Kinsella seems inconsistent and unfair. Are you sure you are being consistent and not arbitrary? Stephan Kinsella 15:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained my reasoning, and both votes are perfectly consistent with each other and with the many past votes I have cast on VFD. Gamaliel 15:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted to delete Stephan Kinsella for vanity and having "minor" articles. I don't agree with this; I have made significant impact in libertarian legal theory, and have published in many respected scholarly journals. As someone ELSE wrote on my entry,

... Kinsella's views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory. ... In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard's [3] and Williamson Evers's [4] "title transfer" theory of contract, linking it with inalienabiltiy theory while also clarifying that theory ("A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability" [5]). Kinsella sets forth a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory ("Causation and Aggression" [6]). Kinsella, as a practicing intellectual property attorney, also gives non-utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles ("Against Intellectual Property" [7]). Kinsella advances a "discourse ethics" argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel (A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights).

I have also authored two legal treatises on international law--hardly "minor" articles; and am editor of 4 other legal treatises.

In any event, if you still vote maintain your delete vote, applying those standards consistently, wouldn't you also vote have to against Tom G. Palmer, for the same reasons, which apply even moreso to his case?

Also, please note SEVERAL wiki entries (e.g., Intellectual Property, Patent Attorney, Kinsella, Libertarian_theories_of_law, discourse ethics, refer to my entry. Why have them go to a blank page?? Does that serve any purpose? --Stephan Kinsella 16:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me some sort of standard reference work - and not a directory like Martindale - which substantiates your contributions and notability, I will reconsider my vote. Until then, I would appreciate it if you let this matter drop. Frankly, I find your campaign of self-promotion here and in your blog rather distasteful, and more of the same will do little to convince me. Gamaliel 16:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been invited numerous times to join various Who's Whos, but I never do it, as mentioned, b/c I do NOT self-promote. So your accusations are a bit amusing, and ironic. Anyway, let's see. Hmm,. I did win the President's Award for Physical Fitness in 7th grade. Hah ha. Just funnin' ya. I'm just curious to see your vote on Palmer. I respect your right to do as you pleez. Cheers mate. Stephan Kinsella 17:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call posting the entry twice, blogging about it, complaining about it on your user page, and arguing with everyone in the VFD discussion and on their user talk pages? It's quite obvious that what you've undertaken is a campaign of self-promotion. Gamaliel 17:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me. Maybe it's just a simple desire for justice. Anyone who knows me knows I'm not a self-promoter. If I were, how would you explain my ALWAYS throwing away, e.g., Who's Who invites? I actually usually downplay my contributions, and shun the limelight. I just like to write, and spread and discuss ideas. And I like people who are intersted in my take on things to find out more about my ideas. That's all. Be friendly, Galadrial. Stephan Kinsella 17:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to me on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don Saklad

Hi. Thanks for replying to me over on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don Saklad. I didn't want to clutter that up any more than I have already, so I am replying to you here.

I have another question about the Votes for Deletion policy. Was it acceptable for User:Texture to edit other users' vote texts at all? -- Takeel 13:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As long as none of your comments were altered significantly (words changed, etc.) or removed, there is nothing wrong with what s/he did. Though it is generally preferred to simply add a comment below the vote as opposed to adding "invalid vote" in front of it, there is really nothing here to make an issue out of. Gamaliel 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how people can be swayed by simple things like that when decision-making time comes. I still don't like it, but, as I mentioned on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don Saklad, I'm not going to make an edit war out of it. --Takeel 16:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Tagging" the votes of new users is a routine occurance on VFD as votes by very new users are usually discounted by the adminstrator tallying the votes. Gamaliel 17:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly tolerate tagging people as new users. My big quibble was when someone went through and took the next step of marking many votes with the text "invalid vote". Oh well, eh? --Takeel 13:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was a bit much. Gamaliel 16:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on this. -- Takeel 20:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet spies

Hi. Thank you for restoring the dispute tags on Project Verona... As you have probably seen, Nobs01, along with TJive, have been contributing a huge amount of work, which I'll call "original research" to be polite, calling one New Deal era left-winger after another a "Soviet spy" as a matter of fact. They are such persistent and active contributors, and so dead-set on working on this topic, that I don't have a clue on as to how I'll find the time to keep this vast amount of misinformation out of Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any ideas. 172 | Talk 19:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue, unfortunately. I suspect, however, that their eagerness and obstinancy will be their undoing in the end; as their claims become more and more fanciful more and more editors will object. Gamaliel 07:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi, Gamaliel. Thank you very much for quickly reverting vandalism on my talk page. This lovely edit somehow says that User:Apple123 doesn't quite like me, even though I've never encountered him/her before. It seems strange how this user created an account yesterday, made 3 edits outside of User talk:Sango123, then defaced one particular user's talk page. Thanks again, Sango 123 20:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I suspect it was just some anon whose vandalism you reverted sometime ago, or just some random drive-by vandal. Gamaliel 07:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorrussell

Thank you for blocking the user for 3RR violations, and for providing an outside opinion.

You might be amused that he has posted a request for permanent page protection for the article, which he says is being damaged in an edit war. Robert McClenon 23:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism 210.55.230.21

You left a warning for User talk:210.55.230.21 and it looks like they are up to it again. Please take whatever action you feel is appropriate. Thanks! - Thatdog 21:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I dropped another warning and I'll keep an eye on him. Gamaliel 21:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Scarborough

Gamaliel, if you ignore the discussion and just revert to what you feel the page should be, I will place an RFC against you regarding your actions. Several people have communicated to you about this, and you have ignored them. There has been a clear consensus that the entry has no bearing or need in the article, therefore it should be removed.

Please, instead of reverting, perhaps you should cooperate. You're letting your views come into play too much into this issue. unsigned comment by User:138.180.100.140

Interesting that you know what an RFC is but you don't know how to sign your own posts.

I don't respond to anonymous threats and I don't respect a "consensus" of anonymous editors who are probably the same person and have conducted an insult campaign for months against me on the talk page. Get an account and discuss this matter in a civil fashion without threats, and we can talk compromise and consensus. Until then Rhobite and Ruy Lopez and I will continue to revert. Gamaliel 17:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting little tidbit Gamaliel, again you miss the point of wikipedia. Anyway, the funny thing is the fact that Heathcliff, JPotter, Bletch, J. Parker Stone, liquidcycle, Mirror Vax, Wasted Time R, Conradrock, RegBarc, and Boisemedia have all commented on the Talkpage and stated that this salnderous information does not belong in the article. That's 10 vs your 3. Sounds like you have a total lack of disregard for those people who even have accounts. I'm going to contact each of those people. 67.18.109.218 18:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And your edit here tells us what you think of the point of Wikipedia. Gamaliel 18:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll freely admit I did that. Why don't you admit that you don't care about the 10 users on the talk page have to say about the paragraph? I seriously wonder how long you're going to keep this comment here, since its pretty blantant where you stand Gamaliel. Just admit it, and that will be perfectly ok with me. After all, 10 vs 3 is QUITE a huge consensus. 10 Fully Registered Users. FRU. 67.18.109.218 18:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, Bletch and myself have brought up a possible compromise on this article, I just wanted to see your input on it. Also, I do apologize about the trolls, it is summer time after all. Conradrock 15:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I have requested an RFC against you. See [8]. Have a good day! 67.18.109.218 22:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anons even do that? tregoweth 23:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they can't, but I think I will watch it collapse by itself before I contest this nonsense. Gamaliel 00:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find anything at Wikipedia:Requests for comment that forbids an anonymous user from filling an RFC. If there is such a restriction it must be recorded elsewhere. If there is, I'd like to see it because if this RFC is invalid, it probably ought to be stopped now because if someone starts claiming it's invalid after it's already started, I think it will create a mess.--Heathcliff 02:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop abusing Grider's user page

It says clearly "The following schools are under watch for continuous organic growth and improvement". It's up to Grider what kind of article to accept there, and frankly Vfding an article and then listing it there with the tag "Must be saved!" is blantant trollery which you should not be supporting. Kappa 19:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at what you were reverting, you will notice that I removed the "must be saved" comment added by another user and made sure the entry was in the style of others in the same list. The proponents of this schoolwatch project crow about its openness and then when something happens they don't like, you close ranks. So much for openness. Gamaliel 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a bad-faith addition, I don't see why we should be open to that. The other schoolwatch handles all school-related articles, listing on Grider's is just WP:POINT making. Kappa 20:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it bad faith? Is it not a school-related article? If you're just telling everyone you don't like to use the other schoolwatch, then is this not just a redundant, exclusionary project? Gamaliel 20:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad faith because it wasn't listed with any intention of trying to keep or improve the article. It continues to be bad faith because it implies the GRider's schoolwatch would like that article to be kept or improved and it is encouraging people to go and improve it and vote "keep" on it - basically a mean trick. Kappa 20:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is "a mean trick". It's a school-related article on vfd in a list of school-related articles on vfd. You people keep saying that anyone can use these lists regardless of where they side in the school debate; apparently that was just not true. Gamaliel 20:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your lie is still there on the page, be satisfied with that. Kappa 20:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get snippy. Gamaliel 20:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're making bad-faith, misleading, WP:POINT making additions to another user's page when he isn't in a position to defend himself. The only purpose of listing that article there was to cause trouble, and OK it succeed. Snippiness is a natural reaction. Kappa 20:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't abide by the policies Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, please do not post on my talk page. Gamaliel 20:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK since you won't withdraw that misleading listing I've tried to clarify its status. Kappa 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Liefeld (again . . . .)

The anonymous anti-Liefeld user who was vandalizing the talk page has started inserting POV comments into the article and otherwise messing up sections of the article against the consensus discussions (which he mostly heckled rather than contributing to). (I assume it's the same guy; he won't log in or sign his posts, but the style doesn't change.) His comments make clear he either doesn't care about NPOV, to whatever little extent he understands it. Following the discussions while the page was protected, I've tried to tone down the POV overtones (mostly removing implications that I actually agree with). Any suggestions, before this goes to hell again? N. Caligon 20:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]