User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 18

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 and remember the most important rule on Wikipedia.

Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11 | 2/11-6/11 | 7-11/1-13

re: RSN discussion[edit]

I agree with you about your suggestion to merge to the list, but I've linked to two AFD's which were closed as "keep", and I suspect that merging them would result in an edit war. As for the Atlantium article, it was carefully guarded by a COI editor. The "ruler" of that entity was a very active editor here on Wikipedia, User:Gene Poole, who apparently stopped editing in 2011, after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interactions between micronations was closed as "delete". Take a look at his contribs; he was a near-SPA with over 7,800 (still live) edits (and a whole bunch of deleted edits on related topics). Almost every time any type of discussion is initiated on a micronation-related article, that book gets mentioned, which is why I am trying to pin down a definitive answer. I don't want to eradicate micronations from Wikipedia, but I would like to reduce a substantial amount of the fanwanking which currently exists. List of micronations is better than it has been in the past; there is only one redlink, about 10 redirects, and only one "fictional micronation" (naturally, it's from Family Guy), but it's also been semi-protected for two years because of the constant stream of drivel which was dumped there before. Horologium (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It's an old story on Wikipedia. The passionate ideologues take control and the rest of us cede the articles to them, weary of the constant struggle. If this particular COI editor is currently inactive, perhaps now is the time to trim back some of the fancruft. I'll try an experiment with the Atlantium article and see what happens. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

Republican-American[edit]

Thanks for your comment regarding unpublished correspondence. I'm afraid I jumped the gun. The editorial stance will soon be added to Rep-am's website and I will re-enter the quotation at that point with a reference and link to it.

I deleted the other material in the Editorial Stance section because none of the links lead to anything. Links that don't lead to a page containing the information cited are the same as having no references whatsoever.

Mcarroll72 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the broken links with full citations. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Raymond Shipman Andrews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joy in the Morning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Brinkley[edit]

I see that you edited my page, which had been "vandalized" by people who did not like a column I wrote two weeks ago. If you are the one who set it up for protection, thank you for that, too. I would like to ask if you would correct one small error. The introductory sentence describes me as a "syndicated journalist." In the journalism world, that does not make sense. I am a "synducated columnist." 

   Thank you very much.
Joel Brinkley  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.159.126 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ponyo was the administrator who protected the page. I just made the change you suggested. Gamaliel (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

Thanks![edit]

Hi Gamaliel,

Thanks for reviewing my Francis Wolley for DYK, and for adding a more up to date source for the hook. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Monroe[edit]

Could you please clarify what or where your reliable source is as it may help to clear up Meredith Monroe date of birth as well. The point I was trying to make was the name change is associated to her change in date of birth and the two time frames.

Born in 1976 when better know as Meredith Hoyt Monroe her life events would have followed, graduated High School in 1994. University in 1997 and began first modelling job possible 1997/6 if started whilst at University or straight after. As it has always been stated that Meredith first model for the Nancy Drew book and did small television commercials in 1997 and then moved into film and soaps later around 1998. Details can be found on her official website.

However when later known a Meredith Leigh Monroe born in 1969 she would have graduated High School in 1988. University in 1991 only then to have waited 6 years to start modelling in 1997 making her aged 28 with no account of what she had done in the 6 in between University and working. Jay99a (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My source unfortunately does not provide a definitive birth date. Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mary Raymond Shipman Andrews[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page collapse on Maafa21[edit]

Unless you have strong objections I'm going to revert your well intentioned collapse. Only because it hides from view the well reasoned analysis of disputed text. I wouldn't object to that portion being restored to view, with the sniping hidden however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NVM. Somoene beat me to it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, You were correct about the section title. Hopefully it won't be necessary, but for future reference I prefer trout almondine :)  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. I'm heading into the kitchen now. ;) Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 48th Street Theatre[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination[edit]

DYK nomination of Marjorie Hill Allee[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Marjorie Hill Allee at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! NinaGreen (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jane Andrews (author)[edit]

Nyttend (talk 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up[edit]

FYI: Interesting the two attacks on McAdams within a few hours of each other by infrequent editors.[1] [2] You may also want to keep an eye on recent activity in Cord Meyer. Cheers! Location (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I wonder if there isn't an angry message board thread somewhere sending users our way. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template format[edit]

BTW, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on reformatting Template:Garrison JFK investigation in a manner consistent with Template:Assassination of John F. Kennedy. I'm not sure what the MOS has to say about these sort of infoboxes on the side vs. bottom. Location (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I did. I'm afraid I'm not up to date on the MOS when it comes to templates. Gamaliel (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll ask around. Location (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marjorie Hill Allee[edit]

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shirley Barker[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

DYK nomination of Carman Barnes[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Carman Barnes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Orlady (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rex071404[edit]

Is there any good reason to believe that JakeInJoisey is the banned Rex071404? Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're the same type of person, but Rex was less able to manage his anger, Wikipedia rules, and the English language, and he was from Massachusetts. The obsession with John Kerry is 100% Rex though, so there's that. It's possible Rex have have gotten the hang of the rules and matured slightly since 2004, but my gut reaction is that they are different people. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but does the data point to them being separate people? Didn't Rex post from all over, including Texas? Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't recall for sure. I'm positive he lived in Mass, but he may have messed around with proxies. You might see if there are any old sockpuppet investigations that might have captured some IP addresses. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source purge[edit]

While checking some edits, I ran across your back & forth with an editor on the Bubp page and was amused to see how similar your ongoing exchange was to mine with the same editor here. It starts with the removal of an MMfA cite which gets reverted, followed by a litany of justifications and arguments as to why the source should be removed: it is unneeded and only duplicates other sources; it attacks someone; it is a poor (or partisan, or biased) source; it adds nothing that can't be handled by other sources, etc.). I did get an admission from the editor that his intent is to remove MMfA where ever he finds it in Wikipedia, but I'm starting to wonder about motives. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that whole bizarre conversation I had with him makes a lot more sense now. I thought he couldn't understand what I was getting at, or perhaps there was even a language barrier. But instead he just didn't care what I was saying, because his unstated goal was to remove any links of MMFA, regardless of context, the quality of the article, or anything else. There's another similar exchange at Talk:Liliuokalani. (Because we can't have contemporary partisanship tarnishing the articles of dead Hawaiian queens!) A lot of what he's doing is probably for the best, at least when he's replacing the links with solid mainstream news links. (Though the idea that something like Politico is somehow more reliable than MMFA is very silly to me.) But when he fights to remove them regardless of what harm it does to the article, then doesn't share with you what his real goal is, that's something else entirely. I'm very annoyed that I wasted all this time talking to someone who appears not to have been dealing in good faith, and I'm suspicious of the motives of someone who isn't upfront about their goals. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is good sourcing, period, not to remove MMfA everywhere, just where it's not appropriate. When MMfA is done, I'll be moving onto WorldNet, NewsMax, Truthout, etc. From the looks of things, it's been overdue. Very open to any questions about the process along the way. You just have to ask. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, in several articles you have advocated removing MMfA in favor of inferior sources, other partisan sources, or no source at all. Can you give an example of an article where you have advocated keeping MMfA as a source? Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've ever used an inferior source, no. That not every broadcast is transcribed online (which is standard for sourcing those sorts of things) does not make the source inferior, as I assume you're implying. I'm also not using partisan sources in replacement, as far as I can tell. As for articles that I'm "advocating keeping it," I don't know if that's ever something I'll be outright doing, but I won't be trying to remove it in places like Arguing with Idiots or Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, places where the reference is appropriate or where the information cannot be found in better sources. If you have specific disagreements, I'm happy to hear them, but the bad faith assumptions above certainly aren't helpful. In the rare times this project has been an issue, I've been open to discussing any of the issues and will continue to be open to it. Just drop me a line. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, your assumption is incorrect. I have no objection to citing television broadcasts when appropriate, and I have done so myself. I was referring to the objections raised at Talk:Liliuokalani. In any case, I don't feel I've made a bad faith assumption at all, since I have no idea what your motives are. But I think it's certainly justified to point out that not being forthright about your current project when engaged in a lengthy, multi-day discussion with another editor is not acting in good faith. While this project may have some benefits to Wikipedia, you might consider being more forthright in the future and reflect on why a number of different, long-standing editors on different, unrelated pages have objected to what you are doing. Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know my motives (and have made no effort in finding them out) and are making assumptions, it's not really a good faith one considering what you've said above. I'm being forthright when asked, which you did not do. When I'm saying I'm trying to improve the sourcing, that's what's happening. If you disagree with specific instances, please share at those talk pages. Not much more I can say, but I'd hope that you'd share my belief that we need better sourcing on a lot of these articles. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not assumptions, an observation. Your openness to questions is laudable, but editors dealing with you should not be forced to ask specific questions that they won't necessarily realize they should ask. I can't speak for everyone who you've had discussions with, but I think that the objections are not to what you are doing in general, it is about how you are handling the borderline cases. Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carman Barnes[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bathsheba Bowers[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Charlotte Mary Sanford Barnes[edit]

Carabinieri (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break out that trout[edit]

I'm getting a bit frustrated with the accusations of bad faith and persistent IDHT behavior demonstrated on the talk page of Maafa 21. If I'm to get a trout, I change my order from almandine to a cupcake trout,  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I haven't had a look in a few days. I'll stop by tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why fish?[edit]

Hi, Gamaliel. I appreciate your appearances at the Maafa 21 talk page, but I was wondering...what's up with the fish images? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gentle reminder to editors to remain civil when they start crossing the line and making inappropriate comments. See Wikipedia:TROUT. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that fish wasn't smelly enough[3]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anna Hempstead Branch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Empire Theatre
Charlotte Mary Sanford Barnes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to National Theatre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anna Hempstead Branch[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lane (author)[edit]

Hi, Gamaliel. There appears to be an IP who technically slithered out of a 3RR vio in Mark Lane (author) by creating an account. I'm closing in a similar violation myself. Could you take a look there and see if temporary page protection is warranted? Thanks again! (FYI: I cross-posted this at User talk:Acroterion, but he may be gone for the evening. Cheers!) Location (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I participated in editing that article, I can't take that sort of intervention, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I understand. Thanks! Location (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

Donald Arthur[edit]

I have a more procedural question from a seasoned user (administrator) such as yourself. What was the rationale behind temporarily stubbing Donald Arthur? I was using STiki and noticed the partial page blanking and was actually about to revert it when I realized that you were the editor, so I figured there's a really good reason (you did leave a brief explanation but nothing on the Talk page). I know the article was long; how are these situations typically dealt with? Thanks so much, and I hope to hear from you soon! I have no vested interested in Donald Arthur, so take your time; I'm more curious about Wikipedia policy! Cheers! Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page on OTRS should answer many of your procedural questions. I can't get into too many particulars other than to say this is in response to a complaint and will be temporary. I'm not sure how long that temporary will be; User:FreeRangeFrog is the point-person on this particular manner, I was just helping him out. Feel free to ask me any followup questions, I'll answer the ones I'm able to. Gamaliel (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Arthur[edit]

Hi I also noticed that the page on Donald Arthur was taken down. The information on that page was entirely referenced and based upon public documents and Dr. Arthur's own words. Hopefully, you will return the page ASAP after your do-diligence which would hopefully be in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. I just wanted to lend my voice. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.0.201 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to Jackson Peebles above. Wikipedia rules prevent me from restoring it currently. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mary Elizabeth McGrath Blake[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Elizabeth McGrath Blake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Academy of the Sacred Heart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to think you[edit]

for the stand that you have taken at St James Infirmary Blues. For a variety of reasons I was inclined to say, "F**k it." But since you have not only supported my edit but made it stronger, I am now inclined to stick around. Like you, or sort of like you I am a librarian, but (this is probably more than you want to know) my pay is so low that my health insurance is the state indigent fund, and I just learned that there are two ways of dealing with my hand issue, one injection that costs US $3,000 or an operation that costs $ 15,000. I'll know more as to what, if anything, my "insurance" will pay for in a few weeks. meanwhile I might stay away from articles such as SJIB and concentrate on creating new ones, because I just discovered that if i start 500 more, I'll pass you. A worthy goal. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike article ownership, so I was glad to help. Sorry to hear about your medical woes. Do you work for a private library? (I understand if you don't want to answer here publicly.) I work for a public institution, and while the pay is a pittance, at least I have pretty solid health insurance. Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at the Embudo Valley Library (an article soon - but it is complicated) in Dixon, New Mexico and we are a public library, but NOT tax supported, we are a 501 (C) 3 event. And my woes don't seem so bad on Day 2 as they did earlier. I have been straying a bit from civil editing recently and it was comforting to have you show up and help me turn that tide around. Carptrash (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth info ref for Jade Ramsey[edit]

Thanks for the reference for Nikita Ramsey birth date. Do you have a similar one for her twin Jade Ramsey that we can use. I don't want to just presume it is the same with just the name changed. Do public libraries normally carry these volumes or is this something more specialized? --Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that article cited as well. What I'm pulling them out of is a database called Biography in Context by the publisher Gale. It's pretty common in U.S. libraries. Any decent sized college will certainly have it, and a lot of larger public library systems as well. If your library doesn't have it, feel free to ask me to look someone up anytime. Gamaliel (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on both articles. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Afd?[edit]

Hey, Gamaliel. Do you happen to have any more information regarding this edit? Do you know if there was something about this in the previous incarnation of the Afd process? Location (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It likely refers to this. I think there was an AFD as well, but I haven't found it yet. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Location (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Abbie Farwell Brown[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

Miss Calypso DYK[edit]

Gamaliel, thanks for your review and for passing the Miss Calypso DYK. I'm jazzed that it'll be on the main page, along with Maya Angelou, on Angelou's 85th birthday on April 4. I'd like to fulfill my long-standing Wiki-goal of the creation of an Angelou FT by then, but I'm not so sure it's gonna happen. The final thing that needs to happen first is List of honors received by Maya Angelou being passed as an FL. Would you mind helping out by going here [4] and taking a look? I'd muchly appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dornan[edit]

You neglected to add a page number for this quote,[5] and I can't seem to verify it. It also appears somewhat dated and, depending on what you think of its author Michael Barone, possibly biased. Personally, I think the article was more accurate without it. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Barone's columns are pretty out there but the Almanac is a solid reference work. I imagine he outsources much of the work to interns. I'll be at the library today doing (for once!) non-Wikipedia research so I'll grab a page number while I am there. Gamaliel (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Juliet H. Lewis Campbell[edit]

Chamal T•C 16:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Good News from the Vatican, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sixtus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Good News from the Vatican[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 09:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thought you would want to know[edit]

that I reverted your edit to Martha Washington because it added a findagrave link that went to a Harold Charles Feest's grave in the Florida National Cemetery. (Plus the article already had a findagrave link to Martha Washington's gravesite with accompanying photos.)Shearonink (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It was late at night, I guess. Thank you for cleaning up my mess. :) Gamaliel (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

Dragging up ancient issue in JFK conspiracy theories[edit]

FYI: I noticed that some of the comments you made in a 2005 JFK assassination thread here are relevant to a new post I made in the conspiracy article here. I thought I'd run this by you in the event you might have some thoughts or recommendations. Cheers! Location (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They never give up, do they? I guess this is why we archive talk pages, so we don't have to endlessly dig up the same debunking info. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding talk page of JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories[edit]

Which comment are you referring to as being uncivil? BrandonTR (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I removed from the talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Phillips photo[edit]

This image appears to be copyrighted.

We will be happy to provide you with a photo that is clear of any copyright issues.

108.244.138.25 (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:108.244.138.25. Gamaliel (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Phillips photo[edit]

This photo was taken at a private event and has not been cleared for publication.

Please provide me with an email address for you and I will provide further details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.138.25 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the editors of the Kyra Phillips page (Veritas-libertas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 108.244.138.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) are acting in good faith. If there is a true claim about a public domain photo, then they should prove it. Instead they are simply editing like crazy & arbitrarily threatening legal action. I have elevated this to the administrator's noticeboard. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please send further details to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy all. For people with OTRS access, there is a ticket at [6] that might be relevant.--Rockfang (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Kyra Phillip's page[edit]

Hi there! I noticed there is a ton of interest in Kyra's page, but there are still errors. I'd be happy to review correct info with you! Even Kyra says she would gladly give correct information directly to the person handling the page. Also, there's something I don't understand. No other anchor on CNN or HLN has a section for criticisms or mishaps. Why are those sections on her page? We'd also love to share information on what she's doing now, but I feel like if I add anything, the focus will go back to something that happened more than ten years ago. It seems odd. Can you help me out with this? If a phone call is easier, I can send you a message with my number. Thanks! -- Anna Gonzalez, social media producer on Kyra's current show, Raising America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have or help you through the process of adding new, up to date information or getting picture permissions in place. Just to be clear, on Wikipedia no person is "in charge" of the content of a particular page, so I can't dictate what material Wikipedia editors choose to include or work on. I do have certain powers to unilaterally remove things like libelous material and vandalism and will of course immediately do so when that kind of thing appears. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kyra Phillips birthplace[edit]

Gamaliel....I do not understand why Wikipedia seems to shun accuracy. I changed Ms. Phillips inaccurate birthplace several times last night to the correct location. Each time, it was either reverted back or changed to something else. The last edit was made by you. That's not exactly striving for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas-libertas (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key to accuracy on Wikipedia is verifiability. You have provided no source for your information, which contradicts information in published sources. Anyone can get on the internet and claim to be a representative of Ms. Phillips, and the interests of accuracy would not be served if we just took people's word for whatever they choose to claim. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming info for Kyra's page[edit]

Hi again! Sorry, I wasn't sure how to reply to our other convo (do I just hit edit?). A few weeks ago I added new and up-to-date info under my username Webanna, but it keeps getting changed. I fear that there is a troll on the page that keeps changing info. Also, I work with Kyra. I can easily get a new, approved, copy-written photo. I know you can't just take what I say because you don't know me, so can we get on the phone (CNN number should verify me). She also says she'd be happy to be interviewed for her page to confirm the info! But it doesn't seem this works like that, does it? Do we just go back and forth here? As you can see, I'm a newbie here. Anna G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

Citation for Kyra Phillips birthplace[edit]

Hopefully, this will put the issue to rest and you'll move on to more important things.


http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/16/cnr.05.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.97.6 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may throw my 2¢ in, it appears that link just says that she grew up in Jackson, Illinois. Not that she was born there.--Rockfang (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference, I've added it to the article. I am curious, though, why you think this hostility will be an effective tactic for you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Fleming congressman[edit]

You reverted back the "onion incident" on the congressman's article but never gave an explanation why you think it is worthy and meets Wikipedia guidelines. Politics555 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are on the talk page already. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

Shroud of Turin[edit]

Hi, That page was permanently semi-protected for long until a few days ago when you full-protected it for 48 hours only to avoid an edit war among established editors. When that protection ended, the sigma bot removed the semi-protection. Could you put it to where it was before please? It has been a controversial topic and that was the reason for long term semi-protection. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

Better source request for some of your uploads[edit]

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

Mary Jo McGrath[edit]

In March you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. It's at AFD now. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

RFC/U on user:Arzel[edit]

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Gamaliel! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd[edit]

Greetings!

Seeing that you're a member of WikiProject Florida, on the off chance you're in our neck of the woods, I'm inviting you to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

The text you referred to says:

On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors (outing), go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project whether or not they are directed at you.

The offending text contains no direct insults, slurs, revelation of personal information, or other direct personal attacks. It may be uncivil, but it is hardly an "unusual circumstance" or a "most serious type of personal attack"; it is therefore not appropriate for you to decide that it should be removed just because you consider it unhelpful. The appropriate action here is to place a comment on the editor's talk page (User talk:Binksternet) requesting its removal, rather than taking it upon yourself to decide what is and is not allowed on talk pages beyond the limited set of circumstances covered in WP:NPA. siafu (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reconsidered and withdrawn my previous comments. I'm removing the comment in question as a violation of the core policy WP:CIVIL. If you restore it you will be blocked. If you disagree with this, please consult the appropriate noticeboard instead of edit warring about said comment. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk)
"If you restore if you will be blocked". There has been a rather disturbing trend over the last few years, wherein administrators seem to have taken on the role of community censors, including "cleaning up" page histories to hide certain edits, and moderating talk pages. Neither WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA grant admins the right to simply remove comments that are viewed, by them, as being simply "uncivil" or "unhelpful". Warning me about being blocked for WP:3RR is a similar example; the same applies to you, but my choice not to seek admin status places me in the position of being "warned". Did you even attempt to contact the user in question and ask him/her to remove the offending comment? Apparently not. Have you considered using a template to hide it instead of simply removing it? Not that either. Per WP:CIVIL:

It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.

Saying "You have a lot of nerve" is, while being an aggressive or unhelpful statement that is not likely to resolve anything, NOT trolling, vandalism, or even a clearly derogatory comment about another editor, and you have neither the mandate nor the right to simply remove it because you happen to dislike it. siafu (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that you are ALREADY in violation of WP:3RR. I will not be reporting it to the noticeboard just yet, but perhaps you should reconsider threatening users you disagree with with blocks when in violation of policy and at risk of a block yourself. siafu (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was more than willing to discuss a template or other options had you been willing to engage in discussion instead of immediately resorting edit warring, which made my actions necessary. I am certainly willing to discuss that after you've both spent some time AFK and let things cool down. If you are not determined to see this as part of a general trend of administrative perfidy, I'm sure we can come to a mutually satisfactory outcome. Or, you are more than welcome to visit whatever noticeboard you choose with this matter, where others may agree with you or me or neither one of us. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did come here to discuss it; I initiated this very discussion when you were only reverting. Treating me as just an angry mastodon is quite misplaced. siafu (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Angry mastodon"? That's an interesting phrase to use. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another name? Not an accusation, just a question, because I have a specific association with that phrase. Regardless, like I said, we can discuss it if you like, or we can argue about who is willing to discuss it. I'll start: You mentioned templates, did you have a particular one in mind? Gamaliel (talk)
I have always used this signature, but for many years I was under the username "variable" until this one (siafu) had been abandoned long enough for me to claim it. As for the mastodons, I was thinking of WP:NAM. I did not have a particular template in mind, but it seems pretty straightforward that the thing to do in this situation is to contact the editor who made the "offending" comment and ask them to retract it themselves and/or discuss the issue. Just stomping in and removing comments you personally find unhelpful is going well beyond the call, and can be so easily misused that it should be reserved only for extreme cases-- which is exactly what the policy pages indicate. siafu (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I didn't know about NAM, thanks for the link. I guess it's in wider use than I thought. So obviously you aren't that other guy, and even if you were, it's an irrelevant tangent anyway. Sorry about that. So anyway, we obviously have a different opinion about what is "beyond the call". I believe this falls in the category of "using my judgment". Your proposed procedure is the ideal, and should be the approach for new users, but it's not a one size fits all solution for every problem. I see little harm in removing uncivil comments from repeat offenders, and I saw little use in yet another discussion with a serial offender who knows where the line is and runs right up to it frequently. I'll take a look at some templates and see if I can find an appropriate one for this situation. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've been around here as long as I have, you surely recall that it used to be the norm that talk page comments by other users were essentially untouchable barring gross violations (e.g. outing, using racial slurs or profanity, etc.). The fact that simply being uncivil is considered enough to have your whole comment removed from a talk page now seems like a very disturbing development to me. siafu (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They have? I'm unaware of this. I've been removing them in such a manner for years. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question has replaced his comment with one that is much more appropriate and civil. This is the ideal outcome, and while I understand your reservations, I think it might show why I took the approach I did. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zamorano Eighty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Henry Dana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zamorano Eighty[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

Rep. Dana Rohrbacher[edit]

Thank you for your cooperation editing the Rep. Rohrbacher page. I ask that you work with me to post accurate information. I noticed many unsourced references, and it is pushes the bounds of libel, if it is not backed up accurately. I have no problem with controversial positions or statements, but they should be documented somewhere by authoritative sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9711CA (talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego International Airport[edit]

Only full protection should be used for content disputes, would you like to upgrade the protection to full, or perhaps block the edit warring users? I'm not sure which is the better option. Prodego talk 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New rulecruft about this too? The "content dispute" is a single new user who refuses to discuss on talk page. I don't see why everyone should be blocked from editing because of one problem user. Gamaliel (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Gamaliel and Prodego. I'm just an spectator in this dispute, but the new user that seemingly edited the article from two different accounts never responded to the warnings, and kept reverting/modifying at their own discretion. I've encouraged them to discuss at the article's talk page.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was added here. If it is just one user, why not block instead of preventing all unregistered or new users from editing? Prodego talk 21:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to block somebody just for not talking. I hoped the protection would force him to discuss for lack of anything else to do on that article. It's worked before. As far as the rule, well, I feel silly never having known about that rule, but then judgement and discussion have usually worked in the past for me. Also, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. ;) Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I don't need to quote policy to you :). The justification for that rule is that semiprotection causes any non-autoconfirmed users to 'lose' the edit war by blocking them from editing the page. It doesn't put the page on hold while the content is discussed like full protection does. Prodego talk 21:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the justification, certainly, but certainly don't see this as taking sides in an edit war. If anything, it's preventing vandalism and sockpuppetry. Again, it's a judgment call, and if in your judgment you feel that full protection or unprotection is warranted, you are welcome to do so without objection from me. Disagreement, sure, but this isn't something to man the barricades over. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to have the last word, don't you?[edit]

You decided to close off a section without giving me a chance to reply. You know that's a ridiculous move aimed at getting the last word. It's unfair in the extreme, but you're going to get away with it because you are an admin and I am not, and that is how power imbalances work everywhere. Sad but true.

So answer the questions:

  1. Why should your gut feeling about plausibility trump the request of the article subject?
  2. If that discussion wasn't helping the article subject, how exactly does the article benefit her? — The Potato Hose 20:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that it's admin abuse to prevent you from further namecalling, I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise. And I'm not going to simultaneously engage in an insult fest and discuss policy. Pick one or the other. If it's the former, we're done here. If you really want to discuss policy, then abandon the former and I will discuss it with you after you've spend a short period of time away from your keyboard to calm down. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I feel that what you did was abuse period. The fact that you are an admin and I am not is why you will get away with it. Were we both admins, or both non-admins, the situation would be different. It is not an abuse of admin powers, it is a normal but regrettable human dynamic anytime there is an imbalance of power. I trust you see the difference.
And, again, provide diffs of this alleged namecalling or retract that part of your statement. You, I am quite sure, would ask me for diffs if I made that accusation.
Are you going to answer the policy questions or not? FYI, since you called me childish: any answer other than "Yes, and these are the answers" is childish in the extreme, as it prioritizes your emotional state over your repeated assertions that you want to leave emotional states and just discuss policy. But it's up to you of course. — The Potato Hose 21:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that I removed began "No, you're a dick because..." and you want a diff demonstrating that you were engaging in namecalling? Please stop being ridiculous. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A slip of the keyboard, and for that I will honestly apologize. It should have been 'acting like a dick.' This would be after you called me hysterical and childish, which is pretty self-evidently WP:DICK behaviour.
I see you're not going to actually discuss the policy question you claim is so important, so I'm unwatching this and won't be continuing it on my talkpage. When you feel like apologizing for the 'hysterical and childish commentary' I'll be willing to entertain a conversation on my talkpage at that time. Until then. Cheers. — The Potato Hose 21:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice apology, coupled with a pair of insults. If this issue was so important, then I'm sure you could manage to do it without insults. If not, then clearly your heated emotional state is more important to you than this policy matter. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_18&oldid=1168301324"