User talk:Gamaliel/Archive13

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

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

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roz Chast

Hi, I believe you created the page for New Yorker cartoonist Roz Chast. I think I'm going to do one for Hilton Als, a writer, also at the New Yorker. Do you have any advice? This my first wikipedia attempt. I can read the FAQ section for technical stuff too, but if there are any notes you can give, I appreciate it.

Thank you, David

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boo

Welcome back, sucka. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me. Didn't think anyone would notice me sneaking back. Hopefully I'll get back to real editing in a week or two. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity

The mainstream media is clearly left-wing biased, and the sources are thus unreliable. I do NOT think that Mr. Hannity would like the opinions of mainstream media, who clearly dislike him, on his article. If the mainstream were truly reliable, they would not be publicly publishing their opinions in such media. I do know that you will dissagree about media bias, as I noticed that you have a whopping huge picture of Barack Obama on your discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRH95 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not everyone accepts your assumptions about the mainstream media, and here on Wikipedia they are considered reliable sources suitable for use in most articles. Glad you enjoyed the picture. Gamaliel (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About IP 12.150.11.25

Hi, Gamaliel. I've noticed you've had previous dealings with the user with the following user discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:12.150.11.25 I bring this up because this user has made repeated and disrespectful edits to their own user discussion page concerning alerts and warnings that have been received because of vandalism and other disruptive edits made using that IP. You can take a look at the history page and see what I'm talking about and notice how recently these edits were made. I attempted to revert two of these edits and was successful with one of them. After that, I'm afraid my Wikipedia skills are limited. If you could be a doll and enlist the assistance of whomever might be able to help sort this IP out, that would be great. I am morally opposed to Wikipedia vandalism because of Wikipedia's stated goals and, while I can see how a student might find it fun (in the grand tradition of defacing textbooks), it especially irks me that this purports to be from a business and the vandalism potentially from an adult old enough to know better. Thank you. 207.193.29.249 (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed all the vandalism on the IPs talk page. Let me know if I missed any. I'm reluctant to block since the vandalism is a week old and blocks are usually only for ongoing vandalism, but if this IP acts up again, I'll issue a long block based on its history of vandalism. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIVING THINGS

Hi There Gamaliel,

I am writing to you about the Living Things band wikipedia entry, it is full of errors and alot of info missing. Can we hire you to do an accurate wikipedia page for Living Things? Let me know . Thank You..Healer31318:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Jeffries

I see you have Leonard Jeffries on your todo list. I just expanded it quite a lot (some cleanup left). Feel free to take a look and comment. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg

File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hullhouse.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Hullhouse.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrign

Re [1]. Although I think your claim of BLP exemption is correct [2] I think you should use the talk page. See Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address Blocked

Hello. I have just discovered that you have blocked my IP address of: 68.75.25.152. From what Wikipedia has told me. it said that you have blocked me on the basis of: "Personal Attacks and Harassment". I have done neither -- and I quite remember what I have edited on Wikipedia. Please reply ASAP, and give me what you believe I have done wrong or what Wikipedia policies I have violated. I presume you have blocked me in error, and I am requesting to be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthedial93 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are able to edit Wikipedia with your user account, I don't see what the problem is. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are accusing me of Wikipedian crimes that I have not committed. Regardless if I can edit Wikipedia now, I request a proper explanation on what accounts this IP address has violated Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia gave me the reasons, but I request for you to give a further rationale. How have I committed personal attacks or harassed others? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

IP address can be used by multiple users, thus no one is accusing you of anything. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Laurell

Hi. I noticed Kay Laurell linked on your article to do list. I just uploaded a number of photos of her (what I could find on LOC plus a few others) to Commons; so a Commons:Category:Kay Laurell already exists for when there's an article. Cheers! -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. What prompted me to add her to my list were some pics I saw in the LOC's flickr str3eam, maybe the same ones you uploaded. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That profile pic of her you uploaded is fantastic - way better than any of the photos I initially saw. Gamaliel (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tropic of cancer (novel) by henry miller

hello, i recently made a change to the tropic of cancer (novel) by henry miller article which was reverted. jacob brussel was sent to prison for three years, not ten as it says in the article. this is from p. 6 of Funny Peculiar by Mikita Brottman, which is available on google books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.61.78 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, when you incorrectly placed your reference inside another, it caused the tags to work improperly, so that's why I thought you were vandalizing. I've restored your edit and reference in the correct format. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maher

my comments and changes to his page were based on this youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ2L1aQy-io

I might not be as skilled in Wikipedia as you, but I think that it should be pointed out that he supports government run health care.

I did not say this is a good or bad thing just a fact.

The information I added could be brushed up a bit but I think you deleting them as vandalism is out of line.

Thank you for your time, BB


Please see WP:NPOV. All contributions must be neutral and you cannot add personal commentary as you did in your edit. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Then why don't YOU make the contributions more neutral instead of just deleting them? Not everyone that has useful information to contribute knows all the rules.

I think that someone going to Bill Mahers page would like to know his views on health care. Why are you against those facts being on the page? If you don't want to polish up my contributions then let someone else do it.

If I posted on Bob Smith's wikipedia: "Bob Smith is dead, and good thing because I hate that guy." You as a responsible and knowledgeable wikipedian who knows WP:NPOV protocol should investigate if Bob Smith is dead and then take out the I hate that guy part. Not delete the whole thing as vandalism, which would deny everyone that went to Bob Smith's page the knowledge of his death.

thank you, BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.108.233 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our rules regarding articles involving living persons (WP:BLP) requires that offending material be removed immediately. There will be plenty of time to revise it and reinsert it later. Gamaliel (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok so when are you going to do it? As it is clear that I am too offensive to help out wikipedia. BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.108.233 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with you, it has to do with your edits. Points of order: "public funding option" and "public run health care" are not even close to the same thing; material must be attributed to a reliable source, using the primary source is synthesis of thought and violates our policy against original research. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krugman

Hi, I wrote a brief passage on something by Paul Krugman where he wrote in Fortune magazine a prediction after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and he ended up being wrong. This was not libel. It was placed under the criticism section. My source was cited. Then I find out today that someone deleted it and I get a message from you. I object to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.29.183 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit I reverted and as you can see, no source was cited. I see that you have made other edits to that article which I have not reverted, perhaps you are confusing them. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to talk. Here are my objections to changes in Enron section, here is my explanation of removal of Japan stuff, and in total I have made more than 10 comments on talk today. -- Vision Thing -- 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When your edit summary basically says "I'm retaliating", what conclusion is one supposed to draw? I'm glad you are discussing these issues in talk, and I'll join you there if I have anything to add. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you full understand situation at Paul Krugman. LK (Lawrencekhoo) broke 3RR, [3], Scribner broke 3RR [4] and Rd232 broke 3RR [5]. At the same time LK cites non-existing consensus to revert all my edits while claiming that all disputes are settled [6]. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Aravosis, accusations of bias and lack of neutrality

How exactly was the article "bias" ? Was it not properly sourced or POV ? Well no, of course not, it was in his own words and reflects an accurate depiction of that communities view of his actions. Does John Aravosis want the transgendered community out of the LGBT ? Yes ! What you are trying to do is make Hitler shoving Jews into ovens into "Helping improve the Jewish community". Ot seems neutral on the surface but is actively distorting fact. I would like to have this arbitrated rather than get in an editing war. If need be the article on the betrayal of the transgender community should be vastly expanded by including the vast number of articles from transgender activists who feel it was a betrayal. DarlieB (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to do is adhere to Wikipedia policy, so please let's do without the crazy accusations regarding Hitler. Please read WP:NPOV before you leave more messages like this. Perhaps this will clear things up: it is acceptable for WP to quote a significant critic calling something Aravosis did as a "betrayal", it is not acceptable for WP to label any of Aravosis' actions as a betrayal. We don't take sides and we don't put our opinions, however right we think they are, in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I used Hitler as an example so calling it "crazy" is insulting. Aravosis claimed to belong to the LGBT when he clearly only represented straight gays. You went far beyond correcting "betrayal". You completely altered it and removed anything that reflected the reaction to his anti transgender rants. You can claim that he feels that it was not a betrayal by quoting him but it accurately reflects the transgendered communities feelings . That is completely dishonest and I want this brought up before wiki. DarlieB (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what "brought up before wiki" means. If your edits do not adhere to policy, policy requires I remove them. You cannot use loaded language like "betrayal" and use Wikipedia to declare something a "betrayal", no matter how true you think this may be in your heart of hearts. You can quote people saying that, but you cannot have Wikipedia say that. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so perhaps it should have been the "Alleged Betrayal" . Or as it is now but what you did was not neutral, you turned it into a one sided , dishonest shell of the truth. Ok I will quote the famous "neutrality" clause:

"This page in a nutshell: Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

Do you feel " all points of view " were represented  ? The transgender community was not represented , the LGBT was not represented at all in your version . Before wiki just means to have it arbitrated. DarlieB (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi Gamaliel. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

Why was I blocked? I can't even remember the last time I edited a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.59.13 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporter's Inquiry For Gamaliel

Hi Gamaliel. My name is John Cook, and I am a reporter for Gawker Media (www.gawker.com). I'd like to talk to you about a page you created, if you have a moment. Would you mind e-mailing me a john at gawker dot com? Thanks much.

Best, john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.29.204 (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks and sorry

Thanks for the information and sorry for the deletion in the Nina Totenberg article; originally the reference linked to an image of the book, but I cannot see it right now (possibly because I am logging in from outside the U.S.) so I could not check. The anonymous editor who has been so active on that page of late does not seem to have a full grasp of how to do citations or what constitutes appropriate citations, so I wasn't sure. Magidin (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, no harm done. It's better to be overly cautious in situations like this. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the assists. I'm not such a good hand with BLP, and I was beginning to worry it might look like a simple edit war with only two people at it. Magidin (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, whether "relatedly, of giving the impression she had been fired because of sexual harassment" applies to the Hunt article in question? (Let me note the sentence right now is a grammatical mess; it doesn't really parse properly). I have not read Hunt's piece, nor have I ever read anything by him; I can give you my take on it if you let me know where I can read them, but I suspect the other editor is not going to consider me a "neutral third party" (I know it's a violation of AGF to say that, but then, he hasn't shown much good faith towards others so far). Magidin (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you contact me with your email address I can mail you the Hunt article. I've got a copy I got from Nexis. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krugman

Hello, in reply to your comment on the RFC:

Okay, so Op-Ed material that defames is suitable for a BLP? Scribner (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the talk page already, we should keep the discussion all in one place. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist called article on Krugman "The one-handed economist" which is a reference to Truman's quote "Give me a one-handed economist! All my economists say, On the one hand on the other." [7] To me it seems obvious that The Economist choose that title to point to Krugman's partisanship. They flat out say: "perhaps the most striking thing about his writing these days is not its economic rigour but its political partisanship". Because of that I don't understand why are you accusing me of "cherry picking". Theme of the whole article is Krugman's partisanship. So on what else should two sentence summary focus if not on that? -- Vision Thing -- 20:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that partisanship from that quote at all, and I don't think your "summary" is anything of the sort, it's just cherry picking the fact that most pushes a POV. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtz, Hunt, and Nina Totenberg

Thanks for the articles. Okay, I first read Kurtz's piece. I have to say, his paragraph discussing Totenbergs dismissal from the Observer is somewhat misleading; by including the comment "where she says sexual harassment took place" as a clause before "over an allegation [of plagiarism]", it makes it seem that the two are connected; by explicitly saying that Totenberg would neither confirm nor deny if she thought the two were connected, he is essentially creating a "non-confirmation confirmation", so to speak. On to Hunt; Hunt explicitly blames Totenberg for "[leaving] the impression" mentioned above. That seems at least somewhat far-fetched. It would be far more accurate to say "the article left the impression" or "may have left the impression", rather than blame Totenberg for it. He closes by mentioning a separate interview of Totenberg which is not part of the Kurtz article, in which Totenberg pretty flatly claims she "left" and that it was due to sexual harassment. My impression is: Kurtz's piece is at least ambiguous, and can be read as giving the impression that the firing was at connected to the sexual harassment; Hunt is correct on that, though unwarranted in blaming Totenberg for it on the basis only of that column. Though Hunt's column is all about how the Democrats and the GOP have horribly fumbled the Thomas hearings, the stuff about Totenberg is not really part of that (though he claims to be discussing how the media has come out badly as well). In that respect, 71.80.34.146 is correct that (this portion of) Hunt's column is not about Totenberg's reporting at all, it is solely about her being fired. And you are correct that Hunt does not accuse her of anything other than the original lapse and of "leaving [an] impression".

Now, I don't think the current paragraph captures this terribly well either. Kurtz only says "allegations that she had plagiarized part of the story", and effectively blunts that by putting the sexual harassment clause in the middle of that sentence; I don't think this qualifies as "mentioning she was fired over the incident". And there is the separate interview quoted (but not identified) by Hunt. I think that needs to be fleshed out a bit to clarify. It should mention her accusations of sexual harassment; Kurtz's article and potential ambiguity (though I'm hard pressed to figure out how to phrase it properly for Wikipedia); the separate interview quote by Totenberg; then the portion of Hunt's column in which he explicitly claims she is being misleading about the reason for the firing. I can't figure out how to say that the section about Totenberg on that column is really not part and parcel of the rest of the column without engaging in OR, though somehow it seems that should be there somehow. Then again, perhaps it can't. Magidin (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

I may be missing something but I don't see how the meaning of your statement is altered by the truncation. In any case, if you are going to place comments within comments written by other people, regardless of the circumstances, you should clearly mark them as such as you did above, to avoid confusion and conflict. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed missing something. The difference is subtle, but distinct. For reference, here is what the editor claimed I said:

I was then told by the other owner, "If you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you."

And here is my full quote:

And by the way, TharsHammar never attacked you; he was expressing frustration with anonymous teabaggers that frequent this article with disruptive editing. If you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you. If you are one, then consider yourself notified that you frustrate him; no attack was made.

The editor is trying to make the case that he was attacked by TharsHammar's comment. The editor uses my truncated words to misrepresent my position as: "Since TharsHammar only attacked teabaggers, and you say you aren't one, then he didn't attack you." That is completely opposite to my actual position. My position, as made clear by my full quote, is Tharshammer didn't make an attack at all. If you look at my actual statement, you'll see that not only did I start it with the assessment that an attack was not made, but I reiterate that point at the end of my statement as well. My comment that "if you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you" does not equate to "and if you are one, then consider yourself attacked", as the editor would like to mislead you into believing. Read it.

I hope that clears things up for you. If his truncation of my words didn't, as you incorrectly assessed, change the meaning of my comment, then certainly the un-truncation of them didn't change the meaning, too. Yet you saw the editor's reaction to my reinserting the true meaning of my comment, and should ask yourself why. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are getting at now. Thanks for the explanation. Gamaliel (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I blocked

68.251.0.0/16 I believe that is my IP. Just simply wondering what I said or did to get blocked. The reason said I harrassed someone but never remember doing that. Please help

Toya Honeytdp1@sbcglobal.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkyjrp (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is large scale harassment and vandalism coming from that IP range, sorry. You will be able to edit while logged into your account. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Regarding citations supporting Roesgen's awards, I'm perfectly content with using CNN, Nat'l Geo News and her university newspaper. As it turns out, CNN's bios are indeed fact-checked before being published on their website, and the news stories in the other two sources aren't self-published either, as a certain IP editor would have us believe.

As for the Emmy in particular, her article says it was for a documentary. According to the Emmy Award article, documentaries are handled not by the ATAS, which is where the IP editor kept searching, but by the NATAS. According to that article, documentaries are typically grouped by geographical region, and given Regional Awards. Roesgen's documentary was made in New Orleans, and scrolling down in the list of regional chapters, I found the Suncoast Chapter, covering New Orleans. In the Suncoast Chapter article, there is an external link to their website here where you can find many (but not all) of the Emmy Award winners for that region. You'll find Roesgen's in the year 2000 Documentary section.

In the IP editor's recent diatribe, he appears to have located the Suncoast regional source on his own, although the link he posted is broken. A google search of Susan Roesgen+Emmy+Documentary+New Orleans shows the correct link near the top of the first page. I figured I'd let him edit in his new-found source when his block expires. I prefer the presently existing secondary reliable sources over the Suncoast primary source, as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines, but I don't see any harm in adding a primary source as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work finding a primary source. As I wrote on the talk page there, I have no problem with the existing sources, but since we have a primary source, there's no reason we can't use it and nip this thing in the bud. Questions have been raised, however illegitimate we think they might be, and an unimpeachable primary source is preferable to a secondary source when all we have for the latter is some promo biographies. All in all, glad this silly thing is over. Gamaliel (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Your actions have been used as an example here. Whilst obviously no two cases are alike, I think it may be helpful if you'd consider making any comments on the situation at the talk page. It's a long and drawn out history, but in sum the article was protected during a content dispute. Unfortunately calling one side a POV IP edit warrior in this case isn't in line with reality, as the same content is disputed at another protected article (Provisional_IRA_campaign_1969–1997) where no IP had edited. Plus the IP's history in this case doesn't show that type of history. And further there are registered accounts with established histories that support the IP edit, thus it's not a classic POV IP case or sock.

Anyhow, one vocal side (who includes the user that used you as an example) wants the disputed content removed from the protected page as the WP:WRONGVERSION was protected. They've dismissed all comments made by various admins and experienced users (TheDJ, Thatcher, Durova, and myself) that the protection policy doesn't take sides and that to get the content removed we need to get some consensus. I'm trying to get comments that are sidetracking any hope for consensus dealt with. Any words on why the situation may be different and not applicable here would be lovely. Thanks. Nja247 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the edit

Other than the two paragraphs that were removed, can the other changes stand? I also hope you don't interpret the edits I've made as POV-pushing or malicious, I'm a deletionist and especially so with bios. I honestly thought of the Village Voice as more tabloidish and the other link was dead. Soxwon (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this as an accusation, but when editors remove valid sources like that it raises a real red flag with me as a sign of a potential pov pusher. KR is one of those articles I have on my watchlist but I only intervene when I see something untoward going on. You seem a reasonable sort and I don't think your intent is malicious - an unreasonable POV pusher would have left some kind of all caps screed here - but I hope that you'll take more care evaluating sources in the future. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit less draconian next time?

You also got rid of fixes to the Ron Smith quote and to the header for that section that I had made in the Nina Totenberg article... Magidin (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I thought I'd kept those. I read the diffs wrong. Sorry, I'll correct it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you beat me to it. Sorry again. Gamaliel (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gamaliel!

I really don't intend to get into an edit conflict with you about the CNN citation on Kathleen Parker. I have a lot of respect for your contributions here. But that really isn't a proper cite. It would need to link to something verifiable in order to be acceptable (a CNN transcript or an article on CNN.com, for instance). Just linking to another wikipedia page and then giving a date that you (or somebody else) saw this information on a show isn't good enough as nobody can verify that information. Please don't remove the cite tag until a better reference can be found. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused by the Wikipedia link. That is there for the same reason you'd wiklink to something in any citation. No one would think that a wikilink to the NY Times next to an external link for a Times article was a citation of Wikipedia. So why, when there is no external link, would you think that the wikilink is the citation?
And why would it be inappropriate to have a citation without an external link? Not all reliable sources are available freely on the internet, including a gigantic number of scholarly journals and books. A proper citation identifies the source, as I did. To require a link - a requirement that I have never seen in WP policy - would exclude all those sources for no reason. A non-internet source can be verified. You can get a book from the library and read it. You can get a transcript of the show and read it, as I have from the subscription database Lexis/Nexis. It is a misinterpretation of the policy to insist on an external link and I hope you haven't been removing legitimate sources from other articles. Gamaliel (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if any of that comes off as condescending I apologize. Ah, the tonelessness of print. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, simply saying that you heard it on a TV show and giving the date is never acceptable as a verifiable, reliable source. There has to be something that others can look at and confirm. That is the entire point of verifiability. It's not that I can't take your word for it, it's that we should never have to take any editor's word for it. Yes, there are plenty of non-internet sources that are acceptable (scholarly journals, etc.) but this is not one of them.
In general, I find it's a bad idea to defend a single source so strenuously anyway. If this information is true and and notable, then it should be available from more than one source (or in this case, even a single source). --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you just go look at the transcript? It is, as I noted, available in a widely used subscription database. That should be more than enough to satisfy WP:VERIFY (if we stipulate that the policy requires what you describe). The idea that citing a television program is never acceptable is not a standard that exists in academia and scholarly work (I can point you to MLA's citation format for television programs, for example) and I don't believe it is one that exists on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Totenberg

I can see your point very definitely; might I suggest something to avoid yet another edit war? Let's put that paragraph with a {{undue-section}} tag, and suggest that if it cannot be beefed up with a few more citations within, say, a couple of days or a week, then it should be removed. In any case, the incident with Simpson ought to be mentioned in this section; though it belongs in the section on the Thomas/Hill hearings, it was an accusation of bias. A single sentence would suffice. Magidin (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan; I'm all for it if he keeps up the edit war. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; let me put it in the talk page of the article as a suggestion, see what happens. Magidin (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck

I just wanted to comment on your revert. The current version does not include Beck's pov (NPOV violation), presents the material in a way to push a viewpoint that he's inconsistant (NPOV & SYN), and gives it too much weight as a minority view in a biography (NPOV & BLP), especially for a criticism (giving an entire section - NPOV article structue). How is this not apparent in the current format? I hope you'll be clear as to how these are non-issues for this particular entry and not just revert and run. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to have changed some recently, so it's not as bad as it was, but we should still work to address these issues. Morphh (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can easily add Beck's POV (perhaps quoting the link I'm reading now that you added to the talk page), but I disagree with your other assertions. In fact I think the article as a whole gives too much credence to the minority viewpoint that Beck is a swell and stable commentator. The introduction, for example , is one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia and it gives absolutely no indication of who this person is and what kind of controversy surrounds him. It appears that, judging by the talk page comments, a small number of editors are enforcing this minority viewpoint on the article through persistence. But I am new to the page, as you know, and this is just my initial impression, so feel free to educate me or otherwise disagree. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm certainly open to compromise and convincing. I'm actually new to the article as well (as is ThuranX). I'm just trying to follow policy with each new entry and discussion and haven't yet had time to really assess the article as a whole. I agree that there are many areas to include criticism and give a more balanced perspective to the article. For example, there one sentence on each of his NYT bestselling books, which would seem undue weight as it is a large part of his notability. Expanding these areas would include criticism of the books. The lead could certainly use some work and should summarize the article as a whole. As I'm sure you know, having a reliable source is not the only requirement for including criticism or praise in a BLP. We also must treat content in proper weight for the overall biography and as measured by the section. BLP also states that care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. Health care is not an important area to the subject's notability, nor is Gun rights. Like I said, I'm open to discussing these things and working them out, but you'll notice a lot of the talk on the page is not discussion, it's attacks, edit wars, or one off comments about how the article sucks. No doubt the article does suck, but that's not a license to disregard our policies and discussion and just add whatever someone can find a source for (or at least I don't think so). We need to work within policy to improve it as a whole, not just stuffing it with insignificant news of the day that will be forgotten next month. As described by BLP, "criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." It also states "an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." So I was just looking for a discussion that Jon Stewart's comment on Beck's botched surgery meets these requirements (Google test of Glenn Beck, good coverage, controversy, something). Editors should be able to demonstrate it if there is doubt. It doesn't hurt my feelings if the content is in there so long as we can justify it with our policies, but what I get is personal attacks. I don't think it is unreasonable or partisan - I'd do (and have done) the same on any BLP. Morphh (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the current statement regarding reparations, it is already covered in the Media persona section above it. Morphh (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I fail to see what this "wrong" is. Any problems with the section can be fixed, but there's no call for removing it in its entirely. The idea that "Health care is not an important area to the subject's notability" is, frankly, ludicrous given Beck's prominence in the current health care debate, and the idea that criticism of Beck is some kind of insignificant minority viewpoint is equally ludicrous. The question should be not "should this belong?" but "how should we construct this section?" To have a small cadre of editors repeatedly revert and delete gives credence to the view that you are acting as gatekeepers to the article and wish to whitewash it. I don't hold this view at this point, at least for all the editors involved, but if you are going to respond to additions to this manner, you can't be surprised that people are going to think that. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstand the debate Gamaliel. I don't believe that criticism of Beck is some kind of insignificant minority viewpoint. I've never said that and work to include criticism. I'm the primary one that worked to get the Obama and Ellison criticism in the article, but not all criticism is equal in coverage or weight. Every incident of criticism or praise for a BLP has its own weight based on media coverage. Some criticism is significant and some insignificant, and you cover the significant and well covered criticism. The debate was not over health care, it was over the inclusion of a specific criticism of Jon Stewart calling Beck a hypocrite. At the time, the health care section was context for supporting this one criticism. As for Health Care being important to his notability for a section header, such should be easy to demonstrate if that's the case. I personally see it as recentism and minor in his life and career, but it may very well be ludicrous. Maybe he'll write his next book about it, but I can think of many other political issues that have been more significant. I also don't know that his views on health care are unique or much different than most conservatives. Not sure why he would be known for his views on this one issue. I think in a BLP, we must question "should this belong" for criticism and praise and then "how should we construct this section" if it does belong. For the record, I only reverted the content once. I was frustrated at the lack of productive discussion and personal attacks. We do need to be careful of both whitewashing and the opposite, either could be the case in an edit war. Policies and discussion should guide us to what is right, regardless of the POV warriors of any side. Morphh (talk) 2:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I supported your edit, and appreciate both it and your comments, but your edit has been reverted. ThuranX (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help please on Mark Levin page

Levin's fan club is blanking the criticism section again. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. --BobMifune (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy family

Hi G - by "clarify" in my edit summary on JFK section I was talking about the motorcade part of the sentence, not the Oswald part :). Actually, I think adding Oswald doesn't clarify as you said in your summary, but instead opens up the door for crazies to add words like "alleged" or "controversy" Look at the history of the article - it generally did not include Oswald's name - or, for that matter, Sirhan's and still doesn't. This is not the place for edit debates about the assassinations - and in my opinion adding Oswald is not needed and is arguing a side of any controversy that remains. So I think it should be out. Happy to discuss, of course. Tvoz/talk 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood your edit summary, I see what you were getting at now. If Oswald's name is to be omitted, I'm fine with that as long as it is for reasons that have to do with something besides worrying about the conspiracy nuts. WP doesn't cater to the birthers or flat earthers or 911 truthers so it shouldn't cater to assassination nuts. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more! 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gracias...

...for further explaining why those two blogs are RS. APK that's not my name 05:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It always irks me to see policy misapplied. Gamaliel (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban for Greer editor

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Kudos to you for doing this. I'll add my 2 cents. Gamaliel (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch...

Well, I'll help you out whenever I can. Cheers!

Soxwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


New York Times

Hi.

I edited the New York Times article adding 2 sentences regarding the paper's failure to mention the Van Jones controversy. You reverted my edits for both recentism and being a fringe theory. However, the entire section seems to include either topics which recentism would apply. For example, the previous paragraph suggests the paper was a mouthpiece for the Regan Administration's opposition to the Sandinista government in South America. The cite is from a liberal media watchdog organization. The problem is that the Reagan administration hasn't been in office for 20 years, but that criticism is considered relevant. The Recentism rule is supposed to promote relevant material in Wikipedia. If a criticism from 20 years ago is relevant in analyzing bias of the newspaper (despite the fact that the editors, writers, and publishers of the paper have moved on) that fails the same relevency test. I think you are applying a double standard.

Secondly, it appears that by labeling this criticism as a "fringe theory" you have made a value judgment. The addition cited--mind you this is a section critical of the Times--the New York Times blog site. Because the New York Times published the criticism on their own blog site, I don't see how this is a "fringe theory." If the criticism of the Times is good enough for the New York Times to publish, then sure enough its good enough for Wikipedia.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.237.249 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The event is too recent (see WP:RECENT) and insignificant to be of importance to an encyclopedic overview of a 150 year old organization. Additionally, Media Research Center is a fringe group (see WP:FRINGE) and should not be used to source articles. (see WP:RS). Gamaliel (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But is the citing of Media Matters for America, which is also a fringe group by your definition, appropriate? Perhaps we should remove all the parts of the article which cite them by the same argument. Thanks.
No, I don't believe MMFA qualifies as a fringe group. Gamaliel (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why is MRC "Fringe" and MMFA not? I don't think that would be a majority opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.237.249 (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to seek other opinions on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Apparently you were never made aware of this thread....[[8]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It seems you and the editors there have the matter well in hand. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Van Jones

The user in question has been continuously diruptive, assumes bad faith, removes germane comments. Can you not see that his commnts about motives through out the talk page and low level edit warring are problematic? Perhaps I should rephrase that, do you see a problem with his behaviour?--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been monitoring the entire talk page. I'll keep an eye on him. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I prepared a complaint at ANI brfore I saw this, but your eyes would be welcomed at the page. Thank you.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, if you are going to allow editorials from the Huffington Post to clutter up the article on Van Jones, I expect no protest if I add an "editorial" comment from either Michelle Malkin or World Net Daily. For balance. ObserverNY (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Oh, please. The equivalent to Malkin and WND would be something like the Daily Worker and PETA's newsletter. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilson

The ref at the bottom of this is busted - the link is 404. Please re-do. -- Y not? 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant this http://www.epinet.org/newsroom/releases/03/02/030210-econltr-pr.pdf -- Y not? 20:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm breaking all the urls today. It's done. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN semi-protection

I appreciate the semi-protection you placed on that page. I would request, however, that you extend it for considerably longer than just a day. The latest Fox News/World Net Daily slander is certain to draw the anons ranters out of the woodwork for more than just a day, and semi-protection of two weeks or so would be of great benefit. LotLE×talk 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to keep it protected that long unless it's absolutely necessary. I'll keep an eye on the page after the current protection expires and if the anons act up again I'll lock it again. Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks much. I wish I could myself share your optimism, but I'm still happy for the joy and vitality it brings you :-). LotLE×talk 21:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, the vandalism by anonymous editors began again about 30 seconds after the semi-protection expired. In particular, the first thing was changing "nonpartisan" to "partisan" in the lead... the same vandalism that has happened dozens of times before. LotLE×talk 06:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've semi-protected the ACORN page, so I assume you're watching it. The undercover filmmakers say they've got one or two more revelations coming out, first one today, so the page might heat up again. Why you haven't warned LuLu about edit warring, grotesque incivility and urged him to avoid blatant POV pushing seems odd to me -- if I looked harder, would I find those warnings? FYI, I've now filed two 3RR reports at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding LuLu. -- Noroton (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of lack of omniscience. I apologize for being unaware of something that was happening on the internet. In all seriousness, if you've filed 3RR reports, then I'm sure appropriate action will be taken very soon. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought omniscience would be required if you're looking at the history of the page you're semiprotecting. The semiprotection helped LuLu's edit warring and POV pushing. The anon editors have often added good material (that LuLu has then removed), so being that unaware had decidedly mixed consequences when you semiprotected. Which isn't to say that semiprotecting was necessarily a bad idea (I suspect it was a good idea), but you might have done a lot of good, and avoided one of the worst consequences of the semi by at least reminding LuLu not to continue the bad behavior. Behavior he's been doing for years, including in this case, not just somewhere on the big ol' internet, but right under your administratin' nose. -- Noroton (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the most recent edits and found a string of different anons vandalizing, so I placed a short duration semi-block on it. When it came time to consider blocking again after the original block expired I found that there were anons making substantial edits and that there wasn't the same level of vandalism before, I decided not to reblock the page. At no time did I examine the edits of established users with accounts because there was no indication there was a problem, nor was I under any obligation to do so since that was not the issue at hand. If there is a problem with an established user, then there are plenty of channels to deal with the issue, as you know since you've properly reported the problem to the 3RR noticeboard. That should be more than sufficient so I really don't see why you feel the need to supplement that by haranguing me on an issue I have nothing to do with. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I didn't harrangue you. But I am perturbed, and maybe I came across that way. Sorry. I pointed out the consequences of the mix of actions you took and didn't take. I have to admit, I have no idea what it's like to act in an admin capacity, and (as I said) the semiprotection itself wasn't a bad idea in this case. You're not under any obligation at all to take certain types of admin actions or, as I suggested, make a statement or two to someone as an admin. A mere glance at the history page (and hey, you just said you did look at that history page) shows the huge amount of reverting going on by established editors and strong language by LuLu. One of my worries is that other admins, seeing that an admin has just done something on the page, may think the page is being well monitored or may want to give some space to an admin who looks like he or she is monitoring the page. And no, the 3RR noticeboard is not working in a "more than sufficient" way. The admin at the edit-warring noticeboard dismissed my first report with a reason I can't comprehend (I've asked for clarification) and marked the case "resolved" three minutes after addressing another case on the page, which makes me wonder what he was thinking (I've filed a second report and, as I say, I'm waiting for clarification.) If some administrator -- you, the 3RR admin, anyone -- actually made a few judicious comments to a few editors, notably LuLu, it would likely save me and a lot of other editors a lot of time and trouble. You're not obligated to do anything like that, but someone should consider it. On a day when the fourth and fifth revelations have come out about Acorn, we can expect another 24 hours or so of IP-address editors swarming around the page. If you aren't going to be watching the page much, what do you think of the idea that I go to AN/I and aske admins there to keep their eyes on it? -- Noroton (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more eyes the better, an ANI request would be a good idea. With regards to Lulu, I'm not going to second guess the editors at 3RRN, but if you could provide me with some links to what you termed as "grotesque incivility" on the part of Lulu, I will evaluate them and have some words with him if necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note at AN/I. I'll get back to you on the other. -- Noroton (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) List of Lulu's recent incivilities in edit summaries (taken from LuLu's contributions page [9]:

  • 21:29, 15 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (our anonymous would-be yellow journalist removed all balance and encyclopedic tone) [10]
  • 06:22, 15 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Reverted to revision 314026634 by Methusedalot; revert vandalism (same puerile change made dozens of times by anons). (TW)) [11]
  • 19:35, 14 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Judith Butler ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Avaya1; Please see the dozen previous discussion threads about why this nonsense doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (TW))[12]
  • 19:11, 14 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (remove WP:SOAPBOX claim sourced to non-WP:RS) [13] (note the edit -- by me -- that he's reverting, and whether it can be described as "Soapbox"
  • 17:02, 14 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (remove lots more extraneous and ranting material introduced by anons) [14] (again, note what was removed and whether LuLu's use of "ranting" could be used for anything but abusing the editors who added the material)
  • 16:58, 14 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (this is obviously more appropriate in section where it was before ranting anon moved it) [15]
  • 16:54, 14 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (WP:SOAPBOX/rant/slander doesn't belong in lead) [16] (again, can this information possibly be characterized this way for any other reason than to abuse the editor who added it?)
  • 18:15, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Reverted to revision 312829184 by Wikidemon; lots of unencyclopedic stuff, mostly WP:RECENTism and WP:SOAPBOX removes. (TW)) [17] (It appears that "rant" and "WP:SOAPBOX" are his favored terms of abuse, although what he removed here were statements of facts, not opinionating -- nothing here met any of the definitions given at WP:SOAPBOX

Past incivility, same problem, same article:

  • At LuLu's talk page: Your use of the term "vandalism" in an edit summary when you deleted material from the article Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now was clearly incivil and inappropriate. Criticize edits, not editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of WP:CIVILITY that LuLu violated here:

  • Incivility consists of [...] rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor, isolated incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable,
  • [From the "Direct Rudeness" subsection in "Engaging in incivility" section] (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");
  • As well, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong.

-- Noroton (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I'm a little shocked by this because I don't see anything here to get overly outraged about. I see much more egregious comments on a daily basis. One thing I don't stand for is calling a substantial edit "vandalism", but that warning is nine months old. I won't dredge up old news like that, but if he's still doing that I'll call him on it. I admit he is blunt, especially when it comes to prolonged disputes, but we all get a little exasperated at times. I'll have a word, but I'll be honest, I don't see major violations here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he abused the word "vandalism" and abused an editor with it at 06:22, 15 September. That's how old it is. First you say I'm dredging up "old news" (but I kept it to one example of many, and to point out that he's been doing the exact same thing for some time), and then you say "we all get a little exasperated at times." Yes, and a few of us are constantly rude. If you'd like proof of that, some of the examples will necessarily have to be old news. The problem is the steady stream of it, which is why I gave you the first quote from WP:CIVILITY: Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor, isolated incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, Indeed, it is disruptive and it's the kind of thing that spreads, poisoning the atmosphere at a contentious article. And I haven't given you a few examples. I've given you eight from the past few days.
My goal isn't to get him blocked or change his long-term behavior based on what he's been doing recently at the Acorn pages. My goal is to keep that page from devolving even further into incivility and edit warring, and he's a chief source of both over there, as far as I can see. But if you don't think it matters one way or the other that he's doing this, then please don't waste time on it. It'll fester and eventually be dealt with elsewhere, after more damage is done and with much more fuss and bother. And meanwhile the article will go to hell, editors will get frustrated and newbies (there are several who are making their first edits to that page) will be given lousy examples. And what should shock you is the discrepancy between what the Civility policy says and what is ever actually enforced in it. -- Noroton (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd again

I went ahead and semi-protected it again, this time for 1 day. Everyone's going back-and-forth, and that needs to stop. What is needed is discussion on the talk page. Regards, MuZemike 02:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Gamaliel (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully request you reinstate the section that was wiped out regarding ACORN's advice for setting up a brothel. The entire issue is current and will stick around regardless of the final outcome. If additional references are required I would have appreciated they be added by more experienced editors as I am not a full time document writer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.87.40 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter you should take up with the other editors on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn issues

I was quite disappointed to have the changes I worked on earlier tonight stripped out and the page locked. I wanted to include the current distress of ACORN and felt I was being careful in connecting relevant news agencies that would validate the issues. Maybe my wording was less than ideal, but the content I wanted to convey certainly should be attributed to the current and apparently ongoing actions of ACORN. Please reconsider and possible include the context of the issue more completely. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.87.40 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, complain to me about it. I have decided to lower the length of the lock to 12 hours instead of my original 24. Hopefully that's some sort of consolation. I'm just trying to stop this back-and-forth between various editors and encourage discussion on the talk page. Thank you, MuZemike 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Tapper

Since you were involved with the Talk:Van Jones discussion regarding blogs, this conversation at WP:RSN may be of interest to you. APK say that you love me 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is marked as resolved so I will let sleeping dogs like. It appears that A Quest For Knowledge is the only one who has a dissenting interpretation of the policy anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I marked it as resolved before A Quest For Knowledge's latest comment. APK say that you love me 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's going to be convinced, but as long as everyone else is clear what the policy is, I think it'll be okay. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of Derf

The article Derf has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No attempt to establish notability, no sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Derf

I have nominated Derf, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derf. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on Billy Collins

I'm not too good at using Wikipedia, but it was me who added the line that said Billy Collins has never written a children's book. I have reposted it after you took it down. It's important to note, because Harper Collins has a children's book called Daddy's LIttle Boy that is attributed to this Billy Collins and is stocked for sale at his readings, linked to his name on Amazon and BN.com, and in every way is playing off his name. Billy Collins is embarrassed no end that people think he has written this book.

suzannahgilman@gmail.com

76.5.42.243 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're trying to do but an encyclopedia entry isn't the proper place for this sort of thing, sorry. If this becomes a major controversy that is the subject of news media reports, then we can discuss it, but until then it should stay out of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Hi Gamaliel. I've been emailed an unblock request (see: here) Long => Short: User:ObserverNY is requesting an unblock with the promise to "behave". Please advise if there are any further steps I should be taking here. Thanks and cheers. — Ched :  ?  18:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I don't think there's anything else for you (or I) to do in this matter, as I think it's up to Ricky81682 to evaluate the block request and make the call as he was the original blocking admin. Should he decide not to unblock, then Observer can take his case to AN/I or Arbcom via email. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks for the feedback! Glad I noticed you and looked too: My final thesis in both pre-req English and my Public Speaking class were done on the JFK assassination. (although it was quite a few years ago) We'll have to chat sometime. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Gamaliel, I just wanted to drop a note of thanks to you as well. Thank you, I appreciate your help with this. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I hope Observer doesn't let you down. Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Coburn

Hey Gamaliel. I had actually gone back and thought about putting back some of the content you restored about the allegations. But looking at it I was concerned about our BLP guidelines. I still have mixed feelings and I certainly understand why you restored it. I thought it was best to leave it short and maintain the sources for anyone that wanted to investigate further. I'm not sure who unproven allegations like that are best dealt with. It seems a bit heavy on innuendo to me and I'm not sure encyclopedic and helpful it is to our readers. Anyway, just wanted to let you know what I was thinking about it. I would certainyl support its being trimmed or at least clarified, but I'm willing to let it go. Cheers. Take care of yourself and thanks for the helpful intervention to calm things on an article discussion page where there was a dispute. It's very frustrating to me that disputes quickly escalate with ad hominem attacks, and I think it's partly a result of the lack of an appropriate mediation mechanism. Those who disagree with my argument come after me and have repeatedly tried to smear and harass me including by filing frivolous reports against me to make it look like I'm disruptive. This is very frustrating and damaging. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns regarding BLP when it comes to charges that may be unfounded, and we should tread carefully in such matters. However, reporting widely-discussed charges like this is not prohibited by BLP policy, especially in a case like this one where the sources are plentiful and unassailable. I don't know if you are familiar with the Almanac of American Politics, but it is a standard and widely respected reference work, and it notes that the issue was "the most incendiary of the campaign". It's one thing if contemporary news articles make a big stink about an issue that may or may not turn out to be important in the future, but it's quite another when a reference book makes an assessment of an entire career and says the issue is significant. Given that, I don't know how we could justify excluding it.
As far as trimming the discussion, I am of course open to discussion, but trimming it to once sentence isn't appropriate. We shouldn't "tease" the reader by merely hinting at an issue and then dropping the discussion entirely. Undue weight is a consideration, of course, but a sentence isn't enough to even mention the issue, never mind Coburn's legal exoneration.
Best of luck with your Arbcom dispute. I don't want to take sides in the conflict, but I notice that you were giving as good as you were getting on the Acorn talk page. Regardless of who is in the right, a back and forth like that can only escalate. In the future I suggest not responding to what you see as provocations and instead taking a complaint to Arbcom or AN/I. Gamaliel (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we basically agree on the broad points. Like I said, after I removed it I thought better of it and went back to re-add it, but it just seemed to me that too much of it was unsubstantiated allegations.
You noted that "I don't know if you are familiar with the Almanac of American Politics, but it is a standard and widely respected reference work, and it notes that the issue was "the most incendiary of the campaign"." Of course that was exactly what I left in the article! :) "A sterilization Coburn performed on a 20-year-old woman in 1990 became what was called "the most incendiary issue" of his Senate campaign.[cite].
The allegations about medicare fraud seem very nebulous and it's not even clear exactly what he's being accused of except to throw out the words fraud and medicare. Was he supposed to report something that wasn't reimbursible? I honestly don't know and it's not clear from the text.
And the biggest issue, accusing a doctor of purposefully sterilizing someone is SUPER serious charge, and yet there is no proof and wasn't a trial. I tend be fairly inclusive on content, but that seems like a smear that needs very very strong justification for inclusion. I looked again at the article and I actually think the trim was appropriate, but again I'm not going to dispute the restoration. I'm not sure the content meets our BLP guidelines, but if you think its proper to include the way it is worded I defer to your judgment. Politics is a dirty business and Coburn is, I'm sure, used to it. I suspect if it were a Democrat there would be a greater push to stick to the facts and a reluctance to include a bunch of unproven allegations and aspersions, but such is life.
I try to avoid the noticeboards as they seem to escalate disputes as often as they defuse them. Having an editor or an admin like you step in and ask that it be toned down is far more helpful. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the Almanac discusses the entire issue, it doesn't just drop in a tantalizing quote and then abandon the issue. The Almanac aside, my point is while the allegations may have been unsubstantiated, it was widely discussed and was a major issue during the campaign. We are not passing on unsubstantiated allegations, we are discussing a campaign issue and noting his legal exoneration. This happens all the time in articles about politicians of every political persuasion. For example, most of the article on Democrat Mike Espy is taken up discussing dismissed allegations about bribes.
I agree that the best temporary solution is a few stern words from an admin, but the best way to stop a conflict from escalating is not to escalate it. Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That section on Espy is WAY too long and needs to be condensed. I'll have to look again at the Coburn article, but I didn't see anywhere that there was an indication that he was exonerated. It seemed to just leave the allegations hanging which I thought was unfair. People are accused of things all the time. I support noting it was a campaign issue, but beyond that I'd like to see some kind of substance or significance as to why it's important or what it means. Cheers. Anyway, nice to have a collegial discussion. :) Have a good week. I am not the best at turning the other cheek. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions the lawsuit was dismissed and no charges were filed in the investigation. If we just note that it's an issue by just hinting at the allegations, I think it actually makes Coburn look worse because we leave out the parts about the dismissal and the investigation. Regardless, I concur about your closing remarks. it's nice to have a pleasant disagreement for a change; these days it feels like few of them are. And I'm hardly St. Francis myself either. Gamaliel (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Collins

Gamaliel,

What do you mean this is completely unsourced? I'm adding this at the request of my very good, Billy Collins, who is annoyed no end about the Daddy's Little Boy book. He is the source. People are always coming up to him with copies of it for him to sign. It's worth noting in the "Works" section that he did not write this book so that this misunderstanding that takes place across the entire country can be cleared up.

Why didn't you question my adding the information about Rollins College and the Winter Park Institute or that Bill Murray is a friend of Billy's? As you see it, those things are completely unsourced as well. They happen to be true and correct.

My email address is suzannahgilman@gmail.com.

We generally rely on published sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more details about what is and what is not considered a reliable source.
I understand that Mr. Collins is annoyed with this matter, but this is not the forum for addressing it. Perhaps he should write about it in his blog, if he has one, or talk about the matter in an interview. Look at it this way: Do you think the Encyclopedia Brittanica would append such a complaint to the end of his article there? Gamaliel (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Billy Collins

Also, the photo of Billy Collins on the Wikipedia entry under his name is NOT in the public domain. Joanne Carney, the photographer, holds the permissions to the photo. She allowed the Library of Congress to use it; that does not entitle the whole world to use it. Whoever uploaded it and said it was unattributed did not look into the matter at all.

I have removed the photo from the article and I have requested that it be deleted as a copyright violation. Gamaliel (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:119.30.36.33

A tag has been placed on User talk:119.30.36.33, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Abce2|This isnot a test 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

I disagree with stating if "so and so thinks x then they are an idiot" on a talk page of another subject's article is a BLP violation. You are right that it is a non issue so I won't restore it again but am looking for clarification.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not restoring it. BLP applies to all living persons and all Wikipedia pages, and a violation is a violation regardless of where it appears. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize

Just a bad move on my part, shoulda checked. Soxwon (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voina

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive13&oldid=1166514320"