User talk:Gamaliel/Archive10

Saint Stephen Mourned by Saints Gamaliel and Nicodemus, follower of Carlo Saraceni, c. 1615, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

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.

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

Attempt to delete banners and buttons page

Someone feels that teh banners and buttons articles violates wikipedia policy on free use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. Currently that includes hte banner you have on your user page. If you have an opinon on the issue feel free ot enter the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. Mrdthree 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Xanadumoviecover.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Xanadumoviecover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my comments concerning Free Republic

They might have been slightly incivil - but certainly true. The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire]

[www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More nuttery from this time period]

And even speculated that the US. Gov, not Al Qaeda, bombed The USS Cole : "IMO the Cole bombing, if not another American Reichstag event, is AWFULLY convenient for a lot of Clinton goals.."

[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a208ce00453.htm Cole bombing - An American Reichstag?]

From the Stony Brook Press on Dec 3, 2006:

"Free Republic. HOLY CRAP IN A GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HANDBAG!!! The people of www.freerepublic.com are as psychotic as can possibly be. Now I understand that there are many conservatives that support Bush, the Iraq War, or other Bush Administration policies. But this site, its founders, and its posters take this America-worship to a new level! A new level of psycho has been achieved! Free Republic is another one of these blog sites, a right-wing one, but it’s different from the others, mainly because these people aren’t conservatives, nor are they neoconservatives. They are complete and total fascists. They abhor, though they won’t admit it, every value America was founded on. The moderator and founder, Jim Robinson, deletes any post that contradicts the opinion of himself, his members, and the Bush Administration. If you question any American policies (as long as they are Republican-made ones), you get banned. No questions asked."

More recent criticism of Free Republic See ? Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that you need the help

Gettin' ready

Or would even welcome it from me, but I put in a good word for you. Good luck with this group. I don't envy you getting into the middle of it. - Crockspot 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. They are appreciated. I'm not looking forward to the inevitable shitstorm, but there's nothing I can do about that except put on my boots and hope for the best. Gamaliel 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cabelas has reasonably priced chest waders. You'll need 'em!. - Crockspot 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

offsite contact

Love the ready to fuck you up oldschool. Have you a method of offsite contact (messenger, email, etc.)? Thanks. /Blaxthos 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just follow this to email me. Gamaliel 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

semiprotection on Peter Roskam

Why did you sp the article? I see a lot of activity, but I wouldn't call it vandalism, and most of the editing is by established editors, with only one IP lately, and that editor seemed to be adding controversial content, but not vandalism. I added the {{semiprotected}} tag, since you forgot to --rogerd 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by a banned user is the reason I semi protected the article. Gamaliel 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roskam/Hinnen

I've had it with this nut and his threats. I am gone from there until he finally gets the community ban he deserves. Let him WP:OWN this thing. I am SO disgusted. --BenBurch 17:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consider sticking around. I'm pretty fed up with his behavior to and I was going to smack him with a rolled up newspaper today. Gamaliel 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am on semi-wikibreak, but I will not leave entirely. Now I have a radio network to go run. (BTW, if you want to hear about my several radio projects, just ask!) --BenBurch 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Check WP:AN/I Hinnen is self-destructing. Or not. Maybe he'll convince somebody to ban me. At this point I hardly care because he has sucked all the fun out of this activity. --BenBurch 23:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

you're fed up... a lot of good Republicans in the Sixth Congressional District, which read Wikipedia are fed up with you and your partisan agenda and bureaucratic bullying and partisan little childern. So, grow up and take responsibility for your little fifedom, and truly make the article encyclopedic and neutral in point of view, which should have been done almost a year ago. Your behavior, in that, to allow the Roskam biography to stand for so long in such shabby and partisan tone borders on malfeasance. You don't get it - You're playing in the big leagues with the big boys now.207.67.151.184 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which might mean something if you were not posting from San Diego... http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=207.67.151.184 --BenBurch 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's just baby Joe again. Ignore him. Gamaliel 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the dnsstuff.com thing is accurate. It says I am in New Jersey, but I am in Indiana --rogerd 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DNS geo-location is only *mostly* accurate. --BenBurch 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• That IP is an anonymous proxy according to a source I just checked; http://www.maxmind.com/app/lookup_city --BenBurch 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Colbert vandal

Hi. You blocked Kione (talk • contribs). I think Neoist (talk • contribs) and NinePoundHammer (talk • contribs) are the same vandal as well; note their contribution histories. I'm not an admin or I'd block them myself. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Neoist has already been blocked by another editor, but I blocked NinePoundHammer. Gamaliel 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips "criticisms" section

Hi. You reverted an edit of mine under the "Criticisms" section of the Kyra Phillips article. I deleted two of the "criticisms" for a good reason: 1) the link referring to the "gay parent" interview does NOT quote Kelly McBride (the person referenced in the Wiki article) as actually "criticizing" Phillips herself; it merely quotes McBride as making a general statement about anchors in general. The link article makes it sound as if McBride is referring to Phillips, but there's no way to ascertain that without a McBride quote directly mentioning Philips' name. As it stands, the gay parent interview criticism in the Phillips Wikipedia article is blatant, off-topic commentary residing in the middle of what should ordinarily be just a simple biography.

2) The included references to the other "criticism" I deleted -- on Phillips' comments during the 2006 French labor protests -- a) don't work (link #8); and b) can't be verified online (link #9).

Unless you can think of a compelling reason to retain the two aforementioned "criticisms" in the Phillips article, they should be deleted. J.R. Hercules 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1)It is not "off-topic commentary", it is a reliable mainstream source using a prominent Phillips gaffe as an example of a wider trend.

2)I can't speak to reference number 8, but reference number 9 is a reliable source and I have read the article myself. The fact that it "can't be verified online" is not a valid reason to remove properly sourced information. I will email you a copy of the Financial Times article if you wish. Just contact me via email with your email address. Gamaliel 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's deletion of my talk comments

Could you possibly ask Tbeatty not to continually delete my talk comments - ones that aren't directed at him with tenuous BLP claims?

I posted the following on the Roskam page regarding the well-documented homophobic breakaway faction of the Episcopal church that Roskam belongs to - and Tbeatty deleted it. He does this on a semi regular basis. tbeatty's deletion

• The leader of Roskam's sect, Peter Akinola, supports a Nigerian law that "levies a five-year automatic prison sentence not only on almost every expression of gay identity and sexuality but also on giving advice or support to lesbians or gay men." gay.com This guy is a serious homophobe ! : "UJA, Nigeria, Dec. 20 — The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done." NYTimes Homophobic Bishop No wonder the Roskamites want to downplay his membership in this sect! - User:Fairness And Accuracy For AllFAAFA 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is possibly objectionable is my neologism 'Roskamites' - but he deleted the whole thing. (I posted this on Georgeherbert's page too) Thanks! - FAAFA 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to repost your comments without the phrases "This guy is a serious homophobe" and "NYTimes Homophobic Bishop". If he removes them again after that, I'll have a chat with him. Gamaliel 13:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I've noticed that many believe that some of your actions as a moderator are quite POV. Now, assuming good faith on all sides, might I ask what your opinion is? RW 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that many pov warriors resort to accusations of bias as a cheap debating tactic. I've found the quicker they resort to it, the more likely they are going to be an uncooperative and uncivil editor in the long run. Gamaliel 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions at Peter Roskam

Calton is deleting well-sourced positive material about Peter Roskam: his legislative voting record, including an amendment that he authored on a bill that eventually passed 400-3. I believe that the legislative record should be the centerpiece of a biographical article about a legislator. But I've been told that if I want to balance all the criticisms that linger in this article from the campaign, I must delete the criticisms. Of course, that would start a dispute with Propol and Goethean. Calton doesn't care to discuss it; he prefers to just delete the material with a less than entirely civil edit summary. Your intervention is respectfully requested. Dino 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added my comments to Talk:Peter Roskam. Gamaliel 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review the edit I made. Thanks. --BenBurch 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh. Dean seems to have decided to make a WP:POINT point. --BenBurch 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I've decided to make a consensus without you. Propol has been a very pleasant surprise, Tbeatty has been reliable as always, and the result is very exciting. Gamaliel, come on over and share our joy. I've asked for a review of the decision to deny Good Article status, and removed the NPOV header on the mainspace. Dino 15:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My Talk Page

I you could please kindly point to the wiki-rule that says I can not blank my talk page and it is after all my talk page, this is my IP (though it's used by multiple users I come from this IP address and everything I do is under this IP) and I would be more than happy to cease if you would just please show me the wiki-rule that says I have no control over what people put on my talk page.--209.137.175.59 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not even going to respond to my message? Just going to continue to edit my page? --209.137.175.59 07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it was 2am my time I figured I had plenty of time to get around to it. But you want a reply, here it is: stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. It is not your talk page, it is a Wikipedia talk page. The needs of the project are more important than your desire for a blank page. If you want a clean page, get a free Wikipedia account. That's it. Gamaliel 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're a pretty sneaky guy, but I'm sure I can contribute now. Thanks for helping me see the light. --Socko111 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion question

I was unable to follow the directions to recommend deletion of an article. I could not set up the entry page to receive comments. I found the Blalock article this afternoon; you must have removed it later.

Also, I cannot understand how to place photos in stories. I tried to do so by following an example of a photo in place on another article, but it would not work. Do you have two to five steps on how to do this.

Thanks,

Billy Hathorn 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drnopenguin.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drnopenguin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith

According to your "tips for angry new users" you advise to always assume good faith. So, why am I a troller because I disagree with your opinion on Joe Scarborough? Mr. Ray Lopez 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your long track of trolling? Just a guess, there. --Calton | Talk 05:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrrm, Wikistalk much Calton? I guess that's why so many people have an issue with YOU on here. Mr. Ray Lopez 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, given your track record, it's quality control. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and your track record is so much better. How's your Cogsportif Sock Puppet Ring running for you Calton? Mr. Ray Lopez 07:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ray Lopez

He's acting out again. A comment at WP:AN would be helpful right about now. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to harass me? Mr. Ray Lopez 07:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, looks like a lot of stuff happened while I was asleep. Good to see that this troll was quickly blocked this time, without having to put up with his crap for months again. Gamaliel 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Scottmckenziestainedglassreflections.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scottmckenziestainedglassreflections.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast!

You just blocked a username that I was just posting a notice about on the Admin Noticeboard. GJ and thanks. :)

-- TomXP411^[Talk] 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Getaway

We're having some trouble over at the Sam Brownback article. I think the real problem is that there aren't enough people contributing. Addionally Getaway has some interesting thoughts on what wikipedia is. Can you weigh in? Or suggest other options? I have requested contributions, put a NPOV tag on the page, and taken other measures, but we still have a pretty unproductive article. Jerimee 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want more contributors, a good place to request assistance is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Before I become further involved in this dispute, I'm wondering if you can sum up what you think is going on at that article in a couple of sentences. Thank you. Gamaliel 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This comment was left on my talk page: I've been asked to take a look at the dispute at Sam Brownback, and I have to say that my initial impression of the dispute is not favorable towards you. The issues in dispute appear to be very minor matters that should be able to be resolved amicably, but your throwing out of terms like "POV pushing" and "censorship" certainly doesn't help matters, and is going to stop immediately. If you'd like to, please summarize your perception of the dispute in a couple of sentences and we'll see what we can do to bring this towards a resolution. Gamaliel 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC) RESPONSE: I'm fine with you taking a look at it. However, let me point out that I am not the only one who was crying "POV pushing" or even the first. Just for the record here are the edit history comments where Jerimee called my work "POV", etc.: Jerimee removes info again and calls my work "POV", and here: Jerimee removes all info again and once again calls my work "POV" and here: Jerimee removes all info again and once again calls my work "POV" and here: Jerimee removes all info again and once again calls my work "POV". But more importantly, Jerimee has removed information that is sourced and relevant and notable. Brownback's major claim to fame as a Senator is the Human Trafficking work, that needs to be clearly and fully outlined. Brownback worked as a broadcaster when he was younger. Jerimee has stated repeatedly that he is going to remove that from the article because in his opinion it should not be there. Brownback lists it in his literature, CQ Politics lists it on there site and I have placed in the article a quote, that Jerimee keeps removing, where he talks about broadcasting, in response to questions about his broadcasting. I have asked Jerimee several times to provide an independent third-party reliable source to back up his personal opinion that Brownback pads his resume and I will remove it. I have agreed to several of his edits, even though I have not necessarily agreed with them. I have compromised. Jerimee has not. I agreed to have the criticism of Brownback in the article about his Congressional attendance record even though it was only for one month and it might not meet the requirement of notability. I have agreed to several other edits. I have been talking on the talk page, but Jerimee has not been responding to me. Also, I am NOT the only one who is in violation of the 3RR rule. The edit history of where he takes them out, just today only, looks like this: First Removal Today and Second Removal Today and Third Removal Today and Fourth Removal Today and Fifth Removal Today and Sixth Removal Today and Seventh Removal Today and Eighth Removal Today and Ninth Removal Today and Tenth Removal Today. So to sum up, I tend agree with your comments above that you left on my talk page. Yeah, I my work here has not been favorable, but based upon the documented times that Jerimee has reverted me, in just one day, no one can state that Jerimee's work has been favorable either. I'm willing to compromise, like I have in the past, I would just ask Jerimee to attempt to compromise with me also. It should be a two way street. For example, the 3RR rule applies to him just as it does to me. Also, I have provided sourced, fully cited info for the article and he just can't remove item just because he does not want them in there. Have a good day!--Getaway 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the 3RR rule applies to all, and both you and Jerimee were blocked for it by another administrator.

If I am reading the content dispute correctly, the objection to your edits seems to be that they represent "overkill" and "padding". Whether or not this is correct I do not know, but it is a legitimate point of dispute in a content discussion. Asking for a citation that "Brownback pads his resume" is a non sequitir. I think it would be helpful if both of you got back to discussing the content of the articles instead of who is or isn't "POV pushing", etc. Gamaliel 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death

Hi, I notice that you are a regular contributor to the List of Notable Deaths section. Could you please also add the cause of death when you make an entry? It is usually listed in the article that you have cited, and it saves the rest of us from having to edit the list. Thanks. WWGB 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Question.

You probably saw my message on User talk:207.195.245.205. Did I do the right thing? I know I'm not an administrator, but I have seen a non-administrator do that before. I was in the area at the time and was hoping to reduce the admins' backlog slightly. Acalamari 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm done, though if he posts another request I'd leave it for another user to deal with. Gamaliel 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clearing things up. Acalamari 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Social impact of H5N1

Well, you didn't like my intro/summary of the politics section of Social impact of H5N1. So how would you introduce/summarize that section? WAS 4.250 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine as it is now, I just don't see any need to define spin in the introduction of an article. Gamaliel 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LOTR:TT revert

You recently reverted an edit I made to the Two Towers page in the 9/11 Controversy section and therein reintroduced several inaccuracies in the article. I was a close friend of Klerck until his passing, and was in frequent communication with him when he created the 9/11/Two Towers petition. Klerck knew very well that The Two Towers was the name of the book (he read the series in high school for fucks sake) and intended the whole thing as a joke (he was a well known internet troll). Do you have some reason to dispute my edit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.179.146.13 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

All edits to Wikipedia must be verifiable and have to cite reliable sources. If this account appears in a newspaper article or similar source, it can be included in the article. If not, then the edits have to stay out, sorry. Gamaliel 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary, Mary

Thanks for catching the vandalism to this article as quickly as you did. To my way of thinking, people like that clearly are not serious about contributing to Wikipedia and should be blocked immediately, rather than be let off with a warning. SFTVLGUY2 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:07 5 March 2007 (GMT).

Oh, crap, I had no idea. I was so used to people complaining that I didn't subst things that I started subst-ing everything. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg question

Hi I noticed you were an admin and had edited on the Jonah Goldberg page so I wanted your advice. There's been an individual from multiple ips who's been vandalizing this entry pretty constantly (putting in LBJ as his dad) [1]. Then he put a pretty nasty comment about me in the talk page. I was willing to let it go but someone rv'd it and I read the WP:NPA and as it was homophobic it was pretty clear that it had no place. They have also kept putting it in (so I've been taking it out). Anyway my question is what do you think a good course of action. Should I ask for it to be semiprotected? Makgraf 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI

I think the {{subst:testN}} warning templates have been deprecated in favor of the {{subst:uw-testN}} templates. I'm not sure what the advantage is. Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Usual_warnings. WP:UW is the project that made the changes. --Tbeatty 08:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, I can't keep up with this stuff. Too many templates! Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I wish there were more explanations as to why it needs to be updated or changed. Templates are supposed to make it easier to issue warnings, not harder. Now I have to look them up all the time. --Tbeatty 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ninety-nine accounts of sockpuppets on the wall... ninety-nine accounts of sockpuppets...

thanks for the support on talk:fnc. patience and persistance have always been two of my strong points, but i'm glad when other editors step in and validate what i'm saying (because I do second-guess myself at times). thanks for keeping me oriented and voicing your support. on an unrelated note, how would you evaluate my chances as an RfA candidate? /Blaxthos 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Glad I could help in a small way over there. I've been staying away because I just don't have the kind of patience you have for dealing with people like that.

I'm not familiar with your overall edit history so I can't say for sure. My advice is to see what kind of resumes the candidates currently up on RfA have and see if you measure up, statistically and experience-wise. For what it's worth, I'd vote for you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're Going To Love This...

Take a look a this page. Spot anyone familiar? Acalamari 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Geesh. Some people need better hobbies. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your attention to James Buchanan is requested

We have people attempting to insert Loewen's non-NPOV pop history into the article again. Any help you could offer at the Talk:James Buchanan page would be appreciated.K. Scott Bailey 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop by in a day or two and add my comments. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to expedite your actions, as someone there has suggested that the editing block be lifted because they seem to have canvased likeminded folk in an attempt to get the POV-pushing allowed per consensus, but against WP policy.K. Scott Bailey 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, way to assume good faith, K. Scott Bailey. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Way to gather support for inserting material via consensus that is in violation of WP policy. And please refrain from following me around to other people's talk pages.K. Scott Bailey 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

They are now putting this to a "vote."K. Scott Bailey 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I've withdrawn from the debate, and will be removing James Buchanan from my anti-vandalism watch list. I'm done fighting against the ones wanting to include POV-pushing "sources."K. Scott Bailey 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

conspiracy theory

I was just deleting the Mary O'Grady conspiracy crap as Mgunn did. 68.37.97.101 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. You removed a link to her Wall Street Journal biography page. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this comment on nonworking internal links

Per your discussion on the Rube Goldberg TALK page. [2] SBHarris 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wally Pleasant

hello, I have removed wally's last name from this page. We'd rather it not be posted for personal reasons. Thanks so much for the attention to his page! Miranda Records —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.22.239.226 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I wasn't the person who added his real name, I'm just the last person who edited the article. You should probably leave a note on Talk:Wally Pleasant instead. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the help

SBVT page stuff

Hi Gamaliel - Having a bit of a kerfuffle over at Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You will see from the edit history and some of the recent Talk page ("Book Section") discussion between another editor and me that there is some disagreement about what constitutes "original research," what is proper sourcing, etc. Maybe you will drop in and offer your reasoned opinion? Thanks --EECEE 01:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I was just coming here myself to ask for you to weigh in. My compromise, so that I could end the argument and continue with the reference formatting, was to place an {{or}} flag on the sentence in question, and move on. But apparently that is not even acceptable to EECEE. I see it as clearly violating WP:ATT, but even if you do not see it so clearly, surely it is at least acceptable for me to flag it as possible OR. I agreed to assist Blaxthos in formatting the inline hyperlinks, and am mainly doing just that, but if I see something that I think is improper, I am going to act on it. I am willing to simply flag things I think are problematic, rather than remove them. But only if I have some assurance that my flags are not going to be immediately removed by the article's owners. I also don't appreciate having my good faith questioned by Derex by his implication that I was going to bring my wikicabal into this. I wonder if you were one of the names on his predictive "list". - Crockspot 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Do you guys have a delay on your user warnings system?

I received 1 message today advising me to stop vandalising wiki pages. I then receive a 2nd message, on the same day, issuing a warning. Why send two messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.65.25 (talk • contribs)

Because you vandalized more than once. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of Daniel Brandt

Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has filed an appeal of his indefinite ban at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeal_of_Daniel_Brandt. Fred Bauder 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters

Question about your edit summary here. By "no reason given", do you mean something in an edit summary, or language worked into the content? Also about "loaded", can you be a little more specific? An anon editor originally added the bit into the Criticism section, Gothean reverted, and I reinserted in a different location, and changed one word to "attack", based on Gothean's objection in his summary. I think this issue is includable in the article, but I agree that it could use a different presentation, and it would be even better if there was a reliable secondary source commenting on the issue. (There may be one, I just haven't had a chance to do some digging yet.) Also, a reminder on something else. No one seems to want to touch the RfC that I posted above with a ten foot pole. I would really appreciate comments from editors other than those who are directly involved in the dispute, and you seem to be one that we all would like to hear from. Just looking for an opinion, not a "ruling". Brain dead today, the RfC is a different article (Drudge Report), anyway, there is an issue at SBVT, but it isn't an RfC. - Crockspot 18:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

About the SBVT article? Sorry, I've been distracted by other stuff recently. I'll try to stop by today.

I'm not familiar with what led up to the edit that I removed but the problems I have are twofold:

• "False accuser"? Though it seems likely true based on what little I know of the case, has this been definatively established? As I'm sure you agree we should adhere to the highest standards of accuracy when it comes to living persons. Would it not simply be better just to mention her name and leave it at that?
• Why should this particular issue be included? MMFA comments on dozens of issues every week. Why is this notable or important enough to be mentioned there? We should not cherrypick.

I hope that's clear. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In a press conference yesterday, the state AG referred to the defendants as "innocent" as he was announcing the dismissal of the case. But yes, it could be more neutrally worded. I believe it is notable because MM was dead wrong in their assessment of the situation. MM claims to be a media watchdog, but they are just as succeptable to error as anyone. Like I said, I didn't make the original inclusion, but it seems like every time Matt Drudge prints something that turns out to be wrong, there are legions of editors adding it to his articles, and I've had great difficulty in getting those statements tossed. - Crockspot 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they can be wrong just as much as anyone else. But unless there is some particular significance about this specific error (or any error added to the Drudge article) it shouldn't be included. --Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okiedokie. I'll investigate further sourcing, and see if I can come up with something acceptable, if not, no biggie. It's not something I feel that strongly about either way. I just wanted to make sure I understood your concerns. - Crockspot 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Earth Day

Happy Earth Day! __earth ^(Talk) 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage

Thanks for catching that...I reverted to the wrong version obviously. Sorry about that. El hombre de haha 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's an easy mistake to make. I've done it plenty of times. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

I guess you watch for IP edits that are unexplained. Thanks. This allows me to avoid undertaking the revert you did here. -- Yellowdesk 02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Reid

I'd love to know what exact changes made to Harry Reid were inacurate or in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I'd like to make the changes so they conform to the policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spalvisak (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Lee Harvey Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker

Hello, I am Judyth Vary Baker. Quite awhile ago, I wrote that your information about me basically led people to a screed by John McAdams, who has written many pages about me, although he never interviewed me. He never even spoke to me on the phone. You replied that while the article about me relied visibly on McAdams' information,there were no copyright infringements. That's not the point. The point is accuracy, and your sending inquirers to a prejudiced resource (McA attacked me on the Internet before he could spell my name correctly). I wish to offer correct information for the Wikipedia article about me. For example, almost everything is written as "she claims," -- even saying "she claims" that "she was" a "star" science student. Not a claim: a fact. I'm asking you to allow me to send you corrections. I note that the article mentions dispute and asks for evidence. Fair enough, but I'm a person on the move: I've written Wikipedia and never received an answer. There are Internet sources showing some of my files, such as at JFKMurderSolved.com, where living witnesses verify having seen me with Lee in a romantic relationship, for example.

I ask you to refer readers to Edward Haslam's new book, "Dr. Mary's Monkey" --the chapters "The Witness" and another chapter on my story -- which provide evidence concerning my earliest training in cancer research. Please direct readers to at least these sources, who have actually contacted me personally, met with me, and seen the physical evidence. McAdams relied on secondhand reports. He even had to remove one libelous false account. Yes, I will be happy to work with you to get the Wikipedia article corrected, if you will contact me within the next few days before I leave again for Europe. Additional films and documentaries are planned in the future, and I hope that the Wikipedia article will update more aspects of my life story from 'claims' to facts, and not present hearsay, but facts, so that history can be trusted in Wikipedia's hands. --please forgive any typos...I have eye problerms, which is why I wrote before in caps, and why I blink on YouTube's "The Love Affair" the banned History Channel Documentaries. Imagine, banned! The 'historians' hired by The History Channel declared the three new documentaries by Nigel Turner were inaccurate, etc. Yet neither they nor History Channel people EVER contacted ME. They simply declared that the documentaries were to be banned. The truth can set us free only if the truth is known. --- Best Regards--

Judyth Vary Baker (you can verify my identity through howpl@aol.com and dank@xs4all.nl... some claim to be 'the real Judyth Vary Baker' and promote misinfo and factoids to muddy the waters.. I have no control over these characters!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.236.65.127 (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I have fixed the troublesome sentence that read that you "claimed" to have been a science student.

You can post any corrections you wish on the talk page of the article where all editors watching that article can examine them and act accordingly. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FNC

Just wanted to drop a note lamenting my departure (maybe temporary) from Talk:Fox News Channel. I've considered you on of the good guys, and I've always appreciated other editors who have tried to keep things right. It seems to have deteriorated to the point of insanity, and I wish you luck (if you retain interest). So much for starie decisis -- possibly a fundamental flaw of wikipedia (WP:CCC not withstanding). If there is meaningful effort let me know and I'll be glad to offer my opinion, but I will no longer lead the charge. Hope we run into each other on other articles -- it was always a pleasure. /Blaxthos 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the wolves have taken over with the probably unintented help of an admin. I quit the article last night as well. Now there's an intro that doesn't jibe with the sources, and basically marginalizes anyone with an opinion of the subject. But hey. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

welles screenplay

Hello, this is ambabeuf. Yesterday I added a reference book on the Orson Welles page. It's a book that prints Welles' script for The Other Side of the Wind. The ISBN is 2-86642-442-5. It was published in 2005 by the International Film Festival of Locarno in collaboration with Cahiers du cinema. It presents both English and French versions of the text. It also includes articles by Stefan Drössler, Oja Kodar, Bill Krohn and others, and an interview with Peter Bogdanovich. I think anybody interested in the work of Orson Welles might like to know such book exists. I am not one of the authors nor do I have anything to do with its publishing. It's not covert advertising. I'm just a Welles fan who happens to have the book open in front of him, borrowed from a university library. I don't understand why you have eliminated the reference. I'd appreciate some explanation. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ambabeuf (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I was reverting vandalism which identified Welles as a "janitor" and the son of "Ben Dover". I guess your edit got caught in the crossfire, sorry. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 13:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gannon

Can we agree that the dKospedia link in the EL section should be removed? It's a wiki, and their main page states an editorial policy of POV... There isn't anything that I see there that isn't already better covered here anyway. - Crockspot 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Crockspot about removing the dKospedia link. Secondly, Gamaliel, I am willing to call a truce and retract the accusation of you verbally harassing me, if you will talk to me, and discuss our disagreements on Jeff Gannon. I honestly do not know what your disagreement is. I cannot fathom why you would disagree with changing verbiage to be more objective, and to make it clear that some things are unproven allegations. Please help me out here. I will grant you that I got frustrated, and lashed out in frustration. I am sorry for that. Will you please explain why you feel the need to revert every single edit I make, and what your disagreement is? Sdth 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Please cease your trolling on my user page, and you rpersonal attacks on me at Wolf Blitzer Isarig 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the one calling me a vandal. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my Edits

Gamaliel, I made several edits today, in small increments, so that each edit could be evaluated on an individual basis. I tried very hard to make each edit an improvement on the NPOV nature of the Jeff Gannon article. I will be glad to civilly discuss any edits with which you disagree. Sdth 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Itsabeautifulday.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Itsabeautifulday.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No longer orphaned. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "claim"

Gamaliel, of course you can use "claim" when someone makes an unproven accusation. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Sheila Jackson Lee made an unproven accusation against Gannon. There is no proof whatsoever that her claim is true. That's quite a bit different from quoting Gannon when defending himself against UNPROVEN accusations. I am courteously asking for your feedback as to why you think what you think, and will politely discuss it with you. Sdth 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "stated", and reworded the last part a little to sound more NPOV- Crockspot 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Plame

There is no proof that Plame was undercover, and no proof that her status was illegally leaked. Fitzgerald did not prosecute the person (Armitage) who "leaked" her status as a CIA employee, and he knew that Armitage was the "leaker". So it's very fair to say "allegedly" and "perhaps". Your thoughts? Sdth 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The source that I cited does state "undercover CIA operative" as fact, and further clarifies that there was no crime committed, so I'm fine with calling her the UCO. - Crockspot 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because the source cited says fact, does not mean it's fact. I could have my own blog and state something as fact, but without proof, that would not make it fact. Many news organizations have make retractions. So, just because someone says it is fact, does not make it so. I'm still not understanding what is wrong with "allegedly" when there are MANY who dispute that she was undercover, and we have no proof that she was undercover. Help me out here, please. Sdth 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that notably holds that she was not undercover, I might reconsider, and we could present that view. I've seen that view (and held it myself) on blogs, but we can't use those as RS. The source I provided shows that no crime was committed. That's the important point. Bear in mind that this is not the Plame affair article, so we need to not get off on a side path over the merits of the Plame case. I was just trying to cut that part down to the bare essentials, and make it accurate and neutral. - Crockspot 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried a more minimalist version, just the bare undisputed facts. We should probably move further discussion to the article's talk page. - Crockspot 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gannon and alleged pornography

I am really confused. Why do you feel so strongly that these unproven accusations against Gannon have to be stated as fact, when in reality, they are also unproven accusations? What is wrong with saying "alleged" and "may have"? Sdth 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dellcomicslogo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dellcomicslogo.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Dellcomicslogo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dellcomicslogo.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I have a bone to pick with you

Why would you: 1)Revert a gramatically incorrect sentence; 2)remove NPOV language; 3)add BULLDOG in bold, contrary to the MOS, in the intro, when that name can be worked into the controversy section, where it properly belongs? Do you really WANT this article to look like it was written by a couple of warring twelve-year-old partisans, or were you not paying particularly close attention to what you were editing? And point of fact, I dispute the claim that Gannon had "no journalistic background", so being in dispute, and having previously provided a source for some journalistic background, I think you are misusing WP's voice there. I think it's healthy that you and I keep each other honest here. I truly want to improve the article, and make it less POV from both angles. - Crockspot 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• First, I missed the grammar edit, whatever it was, so sorry about that.

• Second, alternate names and aliases are always put in bold in their first appearance in the article, as per the MoS. If you think it should be in the controversy section, why didn't you put it there?

• Third, that two week seminar and working for your high school newspaper does not make you a journalist. If so, I have more journalistic training than Gannon, seriously, and there is no way anyone would consider me a professional journalist. The sentence said "lack of a significant journalistic background", not "no journalistic background" in any case. Would changing it to "lack of a significant professional journalistic background" be acceptable to you? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't care what it says, as long as it is attributed, and not in Wikipedia's voice. Let's parse it, and maybe you'll understand why I'm having a problem with it:

Guckert then came under public scrutiny, in particular for his lack of a significant journalistic background[2][3] and his alleged involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name Bulldog, he resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005.

So after Bulldog, there's a comma, and the sentence continues on... Mangled sentence structure. That's the easy one. As for the message, what I am reading is that at the time that he came under scrutiny (Feb 2005?), he lacked significant journalistic background, and came under scrutiny particularly for that "fact". However, a Google news archive advanced search shows that he published many articles with Talon News under the Jeff Gannon byline, going back as far as April 2003. (See Talk:Jeff Gannon#Talon News articles by Gannon, which I have not even completed listing his Talon articles to, there are about as many yet to list.) This includes a three-part interview with Joe Wilson, published in Oct/Nov 2003, which is cited in the article, and mentioned in many of the other sources cited. He was also named in a March 2004 WaPo article as a reporter, and was the subject of an article, again as a reporter, in September 2004. (See Talk:Jeff Gannon#2004.) So even if I stipulated that he had never put pen to paper before his first Talon article, he then spent almost two years attending press conferences and writing and publishing articles, some of significant notability, like the Wilson pieces, before the time that he "came under public scrutiny". I would call almost two years immersed in the Washington press corps fairly significant journalistic experience. For Wikipedia to make that editorial statement, only to have it contradicted by the reliable sources we have, does not make WP look very credible. WP:ATT calls for statements such as this to be attributed, and I agree with that policy. - Crockspot 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a twofer article I just found from 2003, Les Kinsolving asking a "deferential" question, and then referencing Gannon as a reporter.
• Kinsolving, Les (2003-07-23). "Shooting of Uday, Qusay illegal?". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved 2007-05-16.

Okay, the weekend is over, back to the edit wars. ;) I think I understand your objection now, that at the time of the scrutiny, he was at least nominally a journalist due to his Talon work. But his lack of experience certainly was an issue regardless of this, as you certainly don't typically get into the White House press corps with such a scanty resume. I'll write a version of that sentence that I think will satisfy both of us; if it doesn't work for you, let me know. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mrt4.jpg

Hello, Gamaliel. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Mrt4.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 6. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon Gnagy page

Hello Gamaliel, the page is cnow completely re-written at your request: Talk:Jon Gnagy/Temp -- although the original page at http://www.tseymour.com/Bio.html is not copyrighted, and permission to use the text was received from the founders of that bio page, Jon Gnagy's daughter and son-in-law. Still, I completely agree that the text as it was lacked a neutrality that should be required of a Wikipedia entry, and hopefully my re-do can be judged as satisfactory. Trackway 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I misread the notice, unfortunately, and redid the page ... realizing afterwardss that I was to wait for a resolution .... I hope this doesn't hinder a resolution Trackway 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on George W Bush discussion page

Gamaliel, I know that you probably don't care for me, but I'm really not a bad person. I just noticed that someone from this IP address (70.72.196.49) just deleted the entire discussionpage for George W. Bush, and replaced it with this: "Gorge [sic] is a dummy". I reverted that edit. Can you do something about that IP address? Thank you! Sdth 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like the user has already been blocked, but only for an hour. Entire edit history (four edits) is vandalism/blanking. - Crockspot 21:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is something that I don't hesitate to deal with, regardless of who brings it to my attention. I wouldn't worry about vandalism on a high profile article like George W. Bush, since many people are observing that article and will revert vandalism almost immediately. You can also remove the vandalism yourself. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did remove the vandalism. I just don't know how to deal with a vandal, in terms of stopping them. Sdth 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Feith

As an editor who has worked on the Douglas Feith page in the past, could you please comment in the unfolding discussion concerning George Tenet's memoir on the Douglas Feith talk page? [3]. Thanks in advance. Abe Froman 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Daily Show, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#Liberal_bias Liberal bias

Due to Stewart's liberal leanings, some perceive that The Daily Show has a liberal bias and that Stewart gives special critical attention to conservative figures.[14] While this was brought up and addressed by Stewart in the famous Crossfire Interview, the perception has continued. Stewart often skewers Democrats for allegedly being weak and unable to take stands on certain issues, such as ending the War in Iraq. Stewart also summarized Democratic senator from West Virginia Jay Rockefeller's criticism of exaggerated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, by saying, "Democrats, always standing up for what they later realized they should've believed in."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080005 STEWART: But apparently, we liberal secular fags here at Comedy Central --

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1582009,00.html He makes no secret of his liberal leanings, but his duty as a comedian, he insists, is first and foremost to be funny.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/peopleinthenews/a/JonStewart.htm His four-night weekly Comedy Central cable program The Daily Show is a must-watch program among the young, liberals and political-insiders.

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/oscars/articles/2006/03/03/why_jon_stewart_isnt_funny/ According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, only 2 percent of the show's audience identify themselves as conservatives

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/tv/10180/ No matter that his Manhattan-liberal studio audience laughs harder at his ridicule of Bush

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3769869/ I think Stewart's probably a liberal, but so what?

That enough for you smart guy? Oh, and btw...don't ever edit war me again when you're the one who has started it. I'll comply with your nonsense for tonight, but tomorrow I'm changing it back. If you don't want me to, it's YOUR turn to show sources how Stewart isn't a liberal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman Meow (talk • contribs)

Dial back the hostility, "smart guy", right now. There's no need for that crap in a simple editing dispute. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. But then again, I'm not the one who slapped an antagonistic "edit war" thing on another user's page when a simple "please show me sourced material" would have been sufficent; so dial back your patronistic tone please. Chairman Meow 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a "patronistic" tone is what I generally adopt when confronted with hot-headed chest beating. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd probably have to ask you why you feel so frightened by someone who isn't going to kowtow to your admin rank. Is it because you hide behind it and go slap happy with reprimands when you cause the problem to begin with? BTW, in light of my jumping through your hoops and giving you sources to prove what we already know, I'm changing the Stewart thing back...any problems with that? Chairman Meow 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem is your hostile attitude. It has nothing to do with "kowtowing" and everything to do with civility and respect towards other users. It seems that you have some issues with authority that you are projecting on to me for some reason. I'm no authority, just a volunteer janitor, so please keep your issues to yourself in the future. Thank you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, now that that's been resolved, I'll bid you adieu. Peace! Chairman Meow 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Confused about your definition of NPOV

You obviously have a problem with clarifying Congresswoman Lee's negative comment about Jeff Gannon. My point is that if we are going to quote her comment, without any evidence, there needs to be some balance pointing out that she simply voiced her opinion without any supporting evidence. I know you and I come from probably opposing ends of the political spectrum, but regardless, I would hope that you can be fair-minded. I feel fairly certain that if I put a quote about Dan Rather from Rush Limbaugh, you would probably edit it out. Please clarify this for me. Thank you. Sdth 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to say "this is an opinion" when quoting an opinion. It is quite clear from the article that this is her opinion. Otherwise it would just be stated as fact in the article without the need for the quote. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have to say it is an opinion, but that is a very serious charge with NO evidence. There needs to be some balance to an unsupported allegation. What is wrong with pointing out that she provided NO evidence of her very serious charge? Sdth 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is her opinion that Gannon's presence was a security breach and it is her opinion that a self-investigation was insufficient. There is nothing there to disprove or provide evidence for. Or are you saying Gannon was not present? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 05:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If someone is going to make a serious charge, then there needs to be some sort of proof. I say we either need to delete Lee's unsupported claim, or include the statement about no proof to give some balance. To include her unsupported accusation by itself is POV. As for Gannon, he says he never stayed overnight in the White House. Sdth 05:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Inserting statements to "disprove" opinions that are clearly designated as such is what is POV. Cite the facts and let people's opinions speak for themselves without interjecting your own analysis. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 05:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree. When writing news articles (which are not so different from encyclopedic articles), a good journalist gives balance. If you quote one person giving their side of the story, you need to quote someone else with an opposing view, or at least include a statement that shows there are more than one view. I'm not trying to "disprove" Lee's comments, but I am trying to show that it is nothing but her opinion, and not supported by evidence. To quote her without some sort of balance gives undue influence to her opinion, as if it were some sort of "fact." Just the fact that she is a Member of Congress gives a certain weight to her opinion. Besides, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. So it's not ethically defensible to quote someone making this serious charge, when there is nothing to counterbalance, or at least show proof, of her serious charge. Sdth 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Meggar has made a couple of edits, moving things around a little, and I believe it has improved the situation, simply by changing the position of the presentation of the issues. (SS quote immediately following Lee's quote). Unless a secondary source appears discussing Lee's comments, I'm fairly satisfied with the way it reads now. - Crockspot 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Meggar's edits work for me. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Friendly" Question

The same goes for the statement about the journalists who thought Gannon's question was "so friendly it might have been planted." Once again, to include this statement is extremely POV because there is absolutely no evidence or proof to support that opinion. Not to be smart-alec, but do you have any journalistic training? I do. In addition to my degree in Education, I have a minor in Journalism, and am certified to teach it. I was an award-winning editor of my university student newspaper for three straight years, in addition to being a reporter for a year. I'm not claiming to have "significant journalistic background," but I am fairly well-trained in objective reporting. Wikipedia should be objective, and to include both of those unsupported statements with nothing to balance them is very subjective and POV. Sdth 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia attempts to be objective is by using sourced statements. Unsourced attempts to provide balance is generally considered original research and can violate WP:NPOV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I DO, however, have a problem with quoting someone's opinion that is not backed up by any facts. There's no reason to quote someone who just spouts off their partisan opinion, if they have no evidence to support their opinion. That in itself becomes POV. So, the way I see it, there either needs to be something supporting a quote, or else that person does not need to be quoted. Your thoughts? Sdth 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorial assistance

I apologize for not recognizing you earlier. I am just getting familiar with this type of userbox. You may want to place the following on your user page:

This user helped promote List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry to featured list status.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Short wikibreak...

I hope your break is short, but relaxing. Georgewilliamherbert 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It's good to walk away every once in a while, it tends to keep you from walking away permanently in frustration. ;) Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Have some fun, and come back soon. I mean it. - Crockspot 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have fun, Gamaliel! My Wiki-life is boring without ya! Talk to you when you get back! Hope you come back relaxed and refreshed. Seriously. Sdth 04:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NietzscheBGE.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NietzscheBGE.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NietzscheBGE.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NietzscheBGE.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

rm attack?

could you please define? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

YI apologize if I misinterpreted your comment, but it appeared to be focused on your opinion of other editors as opposed to commentary on the content of the article or the quality of edits. Such comments are inappropriate and should be avoided whenever possible. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. My comments pertain to the entire argument...it's almost as ludicrous as some of the archives on the FNC talk page. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 16:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Roskam

Ah, thank you for the clarification, I was not aware that this was a puppet of a banned user, it was buried behind lots of edit summaries that contained nothing more than "undid revision xxx by yyy..." I apologize. Is there any conclusive evidence of these allegations of sockpuppetry? --Ybbor^Talk 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Initially checkusers were performed, but after a while that got tedious. You can always tell its Joe, he heads for the same articles, constantly harps on the same points, and attacks the same people in the same way. There are plenty of other telltale signs as well and he makes no effort to disguise himself aside from the occassional indignant outburst claiming to be an innocent party. There is no chance that any of these people are not Joe. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I hate to bring this up again, but you recently slapped the same label on DuPageCountyFlyer. Granted, I had my immediate suspicious too (starting his entires with the word "sorry"), but isn't this a bit much? I mean the guy made one edit. At some level, don't we run the risk of scaring off new users? what if someone comes and their first edit is to a Roskam/Duckworth article? At what point does this become more harmful than good? Again, I think you're right that it's JoeHazelton, and I agree his sockpuppets should continue to be blocked, but just want to make sure we're approaching this the right way. --Ybbor^Talk 02:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A new user who makes his first two edits only to his user pages, then waits four days - the minimum amount of time for a user to bypass the semiprotection - and heads immediately to the section hotly disputed by Joe days earlier. See WP:DUCK. It's clear that this is an experienced user who knows exactly what he's doing and is intent on disrupting the article. If I am wrong, then all the user has to do is use the unblock template and not have a temper tantrum, then the block will be examined by a different administrator. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Chef!.jpeg

{| align="center" style="background-color: white; border:8px solid red; padding:5px; text-align: center; font-size: larger;" | |This file may be deleted. |} Thanks for uploading Image:Chef!.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added. If you can remember the source, please add it to the rationale. For now I've just put 'Unknown'. ~~ Peteb16 18:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly confident it was from amazon.com and I added that to the template. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 15:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Creamwheelsoffire.jpeg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Creamwheelsoffire.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale for this image. — Mudwater 03:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You uploaded this picture and I do not see how it violates fair use. Could you offer the relevant information on this album cover or send it along. Not sure how to edit the description either. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale. If you run across other images in need of similar information, Template:Non-free media rationale is an easy way to insure the image is in compliance. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Northmeister 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So what is OR about it?

You have removed that section several times, citing OR, and claiming that no effort has been made to bring it into compliance. Yet you have never specified exactly what you find to be OR about it, or what you would consider bringing it into compliance. It is a published article, and all the statements come directly from the article. Exactly what standard are you using to determine that it is OR? If I could understand that, then I can apply the same standard consistently across all articles that I edit. I would like to satisfy you, but I do not understand what would do that. - Crockspot 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Connecting it to Gannon is original research when the article does not mention Gannon. Connecting it to Gannon when it covers a different time period from Gannon's visit is original research. Making the assumption that conditions were the same is original research. We are not journalists or investigators, we cannot make these connections unless published reliable sources have made them. Heck, a blog would probably do. I am not hellbent on keeping this information out, I actually would prefer it in, but it must be connected to Gannon by a published source, not by ourselves. As per WP:OR, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a synthesis though. The Gannon article is talking about White House Secret Service visitor records (a subject within the subject, if you will), with the implication that those records are accurate. The WND article is pointing out that there were known problems with the WH visitor system records, so it is addressing the same subject (the WH visitor tracking system). I don't believe that this is clear enough of a case for us to settle this dispute without further opinions, such as an RfC. However, from my past attempts at RfC's on Gannon, it seems that not many editors want to touch it with a ten foot pole. But I think it is worth the attempt. If it turns out that consensus finds that your interpretation is correct, then that's fine. I will apply that same standard with great zeal wherever I find similar problems. - Crockspot 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Before an RfC, I am starting the ball rolling at Wikipedia talk:No original research#OR interpretation dispute. Please make sure that I have stated your objections correctly. - Crockspot 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• After reading the Gary Leupp source through once again, I have made a change to that section, and am willing to leave the other source out if this will stand. Also see talk page on Leupp remarks. I think we can come to a compromise here. - Crockspot 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Our New Anon Friend

I have a sinking feeling that this new anon may be our old friend RPJ evading his one year ban, somehow. Can you do a checkuser to see if this is the case, or do I need to file a formal request. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Only a few people have checkuser powers so I have to file requests just like everybody else. :( He doesn't "feel" like RPJ, but admittedly that's just subjective, gut feeling. He doesn't sound like him either, but then he doesn't say much besides his lists of "errors", so he could have deliberately changed his style of interaction. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the use of blockquotes, and the immediate PAs (calling Wallon a Posnerphile, and referring to him as McAdams) which makes me feel that this guy has a history at those articles. Anyway, I think I may file a request just to make sure. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me, the blockquotes are a characteristic sign of RPJ. The checkuser is a good idea. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy shopping

In light of recent events, I am considering writing an essay on policy shopping. Your contributions and thoughts (both positive and negative) are welcome and requested. Please find the (very) beginnings of my essay here. Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

I think it's now pretty much done (much revamping) and covers the basic points I'm trying to make. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! BTW, thanks for the support on the (silly) MFD.  :-) /Blaxthos 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MMfA

Sry, didn't catch the quotations from some reason. My mistake.Chairman Meow 00:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Debunked/Disproven v. Called Into Question/Disputed

I am having a tough time explaining to Vidor on why his edit warring on the topic of whether the lead should state that the dictabelt evidence has been debunked, or C.IQ. He is simply going into this less accurate/more accurate argument which is IMO irrelevant. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack on editor

"...We remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: John Kerry. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

I'm not sure to what you are referring. Please be specific and I will try to avoid doing it in the future. (And who is we?) Arlright 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Texas Theatre

All of those links were dead when I removed them. But if they work now, then there is no reason they cannot be there. Reginmund 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A dead URL is no reason to remove a source. URLs are only there for convenience. If there wasn't enough other info there to make a complete citation, the url could probably be found at web.archive.org, and a complete citation built from the archived page. Once a complete citation is built, then a url is no longer even necessary (but still nice to have.) - Crockspot 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund is using "dead links" to refer to red links to uncreated articles. I told him that it was generally okay to have these and it encourages people to create articles, but I don't think I got through to him. I'm also not sure why he removed a category as a "dead link", but I'm not going to pursue it as he's stopped edit warring for now. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mississippi Burning

hey sorry for my improper comments on the "mississippi burning" page, i was just frustrated with the fact that a website that doesn't deal with the movie keeps being put on there.Mac902 (talk · contribs)

No problem, it was easily fixed. Just remember that that's what talk pages are for. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reliability" of Media Matters

I thought you should see how reliable Media Matters really is. Here is a actual quote from an article they "transcribed", which had to be purchased by an editor in order to verify. Here is the Media Matters source, from which other editors, relying on the reliability MM, insisted upon putting into a BLP article something they believed was a direct quote from Thompson. And now here is a third-party blog who claims to have verified the "quote", but of course, through purchasing the actual obscure article, we now know this was never a "quote" of Thompson, it was a "quote" of the author of the news article. I hope this opens your eyes just a tiny bit as to the subtle was that Media Matters and other non-mainstream sources twist what they report on, and why I do not consider them a reliable source that should be used in articles. On a personal note, I am very frustrated and disappointed with Wikipedia in general, and with some editors in particular, unfortunately you now being one of them. I feel like I am getting the crap kicked out of me unfairly on the Soros article, and you seem unwilling to comment on something when your sense of fairness conflicts with whatever the hell it is that motivates you. I have ignored my own views in the past in order to back you up when you were being attacked, or when I thought you were actually right about an issue. You seem to be unwilling to return that courtesy. I thought that it would be possible to get fair and consistent treatment of subjects and sources on Wikipedia, but if I can't even get you to voice the words of something that I know you believe (that something in particular is not a BLP violation), then perhaps I expect way too much of this project. I always thought that you were more fair than most editors, and I still believe that you are, but that just bodes ill for the general atmosphere. I was one of the very first editors to volunteer as a BLP patroller, and now, unfortunately, I will probably be one of the first to remove my name from that project, because apparently, I don't know shit about WP:BLP. For the time being at least, I think I will stick to recent changes patrolling, and nailing IP vandals. It's much less stressful, much more satisfying, appears to be more appreciated by the community, and I don't have to deal with any personalities or hyprocricy. Upgrading all of those citations was just giving me carpal tunnel anyway, and very few editors seem to appreciate the work I do. If I'm going to keel over at my keyboard, I would rather it be over some really good porn than over what is reliable enough to use as criticism in a Soros article. - Crockspot 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NietzscheBGE.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NietzscheBGE.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to add a vandal target to your watchlist?

Mark J. Green is a liberal Democrat; the article is being attacked by someone who evidently considers him insufficiently liberal. The anon editor keeps inserting unsourced information about a left-wing criticism of one of Green's recent actions at Air America Radio, and keeps asserting (again without source) that Green is conservative. The anon does not comment and has not responded to short ES explanations or to a message on his/her talk page.

I've been reverting but I may be off-Wiki for a couple days for RL reasons. It would be great if someone else were keeping an eye on this situation. I don't think it's yet serious enough for the AN, so I thought of bothering you. Thanks for any help you can give. JamesMLane t c 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

And so, here we are again dealing with the same thing. I'm not going to violate 3RR. I requested sprot, but now we've got a cabal of users insisting on inserting a granular issue in a macro overview in the attempts of making him out to be hypocritical. What is the best course of action (because edit warring certainly isn't). /Blaxthos 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course, they protected the wrong version! (HA HA JOKE!) I guess we'll have to call an RFC? /Blaxthos 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As promised, I've initiated an RFC here. /Blaxthos 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark J. Green entry

Hello, I was left a message stating that I was in an edit-war, as my changes to the Mark J. Green entry are repeatedly reverted back to original content, and must be repeatedly re-posted. I assert that my edits are entirely accurate, and relevant. I further assert that the purposeful editing out of any information that is not viewed as universally flattering in biographical articles should be guarded against by Wikipedia because it can render them simple propaganda pieces, rather than fully accurate informative, relevant sources upon which people can rely.

Moreover, I just saw that a charge was made above (unless that user has subsequently edited it out) that I did not engage in discussion. I searched for discussion on these points BEFORE MAKING ANY EDITS AND AFTER THE REVERSIONS: There was none. This user, who wants his one-sided, only-rosy, content exclusively present has not engaged in discussion to dispute anything I've posted, or to justify his changes. He seems to prefer to slam and attempt to under-cut others to Wikipedia staff rather than to engage in public discussion which might pass general scrutiny on any of these points himself. I contend that Wikipedia entries aren't meant to be propaganda pieces for celebrities to put out and maintain good PR about themselves, but rather relevant, useful and balanced articles. I strongly assert that this has not been allowed here. There is, in fact, a tremendous amount of controversy surrounding Green's running of his current endeavor (Air America Radio). The high-profile sources I listed as condemning Green's actions in my entry (Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and Al Franken) have, in fact, made these criticisms. It's not right for them to be disallowed by a particular user, simply so that Green can be left free of criticism in an ostensibly unbiased source. These edits are highly relevant and accurate. The sources simply cannot be refuted.

Finally, please note that my edits, of course, have not asserted that Green's actions were "wrong", "bad", "negative", or any other such language. Rather they have stated that there was "controversy" surrounding his stewardship. Very simply, there is. This cannot be refuted. Sources critical of his controversial actions have been listed in the edit itself. This being the case I maintain that my edits are perfectly accurate, relevant and that they should stay. Moreover, I ask that the other user be warned against repeatedly reverting these edits, or otherwise vandalizing accurate and relevant content.

I am not a Wikipedia hound and "AN", "RL", "ES", etc. do not have meaning to me. I do not spend time on Wikipedia flippantly or maliciously editing entries, or as one paid to maintain entries to control their spin. I rely on Wikipedia as a resource, and value it being accurate and informative. I feel very strongly that bias should be avoided in these articles. This is precisely why I've made and maintained my minor but sourced and very relevant edits to the entry. The other user seems to be very active in the environment, and to spend much time trying to maintain Green's entry, to ensure that he's portrayed in a very particular, very uncritical light. I'm simply an occasional Wikipedia user who is trying to get a piece of relevant, accurate information, which I found to be absent, to stay where it belongs. I considered this to be the unique nature, and value of Wikipedia--it is not subject to singly-sourced editorial, but rather is open to all accurate and relevant content-entry so that it can be as thorough, well-balanced/neutral, and relevant as posible. I've tried to do this on my own without complaint, but as the other user has seen fit to escalate this, I ask you to please resolve this so that an accurate, unbiased, relevant entry can be allowed to stay unmolested.

Thank you, and your response to this matter very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.69.38 (talk • contribs)

I have responded to the anon at User talk:66.26.69.38. My response includes the suggestion that s/he should raise content concerns at Talk:Mark J. Green, as you also recommended. JamesMLane t c 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

it isn't irrelevant in the context of the "controversy" section of the article. you deleted it from everywhere the first time around. i will not put it anywhere else if you leave it in the controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.63.2 (talk • contribs)

I suspect the above comment is misplaced and relates to Lou Dobbs rather than to Mark J. Green. In any event, I've started a thread on Talk:Mark J. Green so that the Green article can be discussed on its own talk page instead of here. JamesMLane t c 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I responded to a similar message at User talk:66.208.63.2. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that Mr. Lane seems to think it's proper to control content through becoming a Wikipedia junkie, rather than through courteous respect for honest, relevant information. I'm just a guy trying to get an honest fact in that article. And I'm still waiting for comment from the Wiki staff member on this. Mr. Lane DID NOT post anything with regard to this in the discussion area of this page, which I have checked repeatedly.

Mr. Lane cannot but know for a fact, if he pays any attention to Green's current endeavor at all (which I would assume he does if he's willing to venture to edit that section constantly) that there is indeed a tremendous amount of controversy and upset surrounding the issue I inserted my edit on (Green's tenure at Air America Radio). This isn't something I've made up. This is something I've included even network sources as backup on. I'm very sorry that Mr. Lane feels the need to try to dishonestly manipulate content like this, and to dominate control of this article. And I refuse to drop this and to be bullied out of posting one piece of honest, relevant content like this. I again ask for feedback from the Wikipedia staff member. I do not understand who above posted the second comment, but I wanted to make it clear this is not me. My edit was included in the Air America Radio section because the issue is about Green's stewardship of Air America Radio: That's where it's most relevant on the page. Mr Lane apparently wants to disparage me for for not creating an account on Wikipedia. I repeat that I am not a Wikipedia hound. I'm just a regular user who is trying to get ONE RELEVANT CORRECTION MADE on one article that is deficient. I don't want to establish an account to do any other hunting-and-editing of articles. I'm posting uncontested, relevant, accurate information on the subject of the article, in the proper place. I simply ask the Wikipedia staff member to please look into this and ensure that this sourced, relevant and accurate information not again be bullied out of the article by an individual who seems to have some sort of vested interest in Mark Green being spun in a biased, exclusively glowing way. Again, thanks.

PS if Mr. Lane wishes to agree leave the "conservative" or "liberal" appellation off this article altogether, I'll accept that compromise. But I must insist that the Air America information be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.69.38 (talk • contribs)

I weary of pointing you to the correct locus for this discussion. I've started a thread: Talk:Mark J. Green#Anon IP's repeated edits. Please read what I wrote there and respond there. Knowing that you're not a "Wikipedia hound" (actually the correct term is "Wikiholic", but never mind), I've provided you with links to some of the pages that provide guidance relevant to handling the AAR stuff. I'm not going to get any deeper into a discussion of article content on Gamaliel's talk page. JamesMLane t c 17:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I HAVE BEEN discussing this on the "discussion" section of the "Mark J. Green" entry. Again, this is also where I looked for your comments when you repeatedly deleted content earlier. I'm glad to see that you've discovered that area too. I discussed this matter here for one simple reason: YOU BROUGHT IT HERE. Period. I would hate to see you get any "wearier", so if you would please respond in the appropriate area, to achieve a PUBLIC CONSENSUS, and refrain from further hiding behind the skirts of Wikipedia staff, undercutting others in their talk section, apparently we'd both be very relieved. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.69.38 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the 'discussion' section of the 'Mark J. Green' entry". There's an article at Mark J. Green, which is about the subject of the bio. That article doesn't have a section where we discuss what should be in the article. Instead, there's a talk page at Talk:Mark J. Green which is about the article. That talk page is the appropriate place for extended discussion of how to structure the article and of specific edits. You have not posted there before today. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Houston A. Baker Jr.

“….In the Baker article, too much empahsis is placed upon his opinions and almost none on his scholarly contributions, which is why he is important, why he has an encyclopedia article, and why anyone should care what he thinks about the case….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ikilled007#Houston_A._Baker_Jr.

Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What I have read on Baker is that his “scholarly contributions” are nugatory, and consist of race-baiting and hyperbole. His academic career is based on his being an “activist,” which is a euphemism for a faculty member who racially harasses white students. The high points of his career have so far been his 1993 organizing of a racist campaign against an innocent, white University of Pennsylvania student, Eden Jacobowitz, and his leadership role in 2006, in organizing the racist and sexist hate campaign against the victims of the Duke Rape Hoax.

70.23.167.160 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Baker is noted as a scholar and is included in a number of significant biographical reference books such as Contemporary Authors, Contemporary Black Biography, and Notable Black American Men Book II. Some pertinent quotes:

• "Houston A. Baker Jr. is considered a unique and influential scholar and theoretician of African-American literature."
• "...this trilogy is only Baker's most recent accomplishment in a long series of major contributions to both scholarship and education."
• "During the last quarter of the twentieth century, Houston A. Baker Jr. gained national and international prominence as a literary critic and scholar."

You are certainly welcome to insert contrary opinions, provided they are cited from reliable sources. But there clearly is a POV problem with the article if it does not include and reflect this information from mainstream reliable sources. If you continue to insert unsourced POV statements and remove the properly inserted NPOV tag, then I will have no choice but to make this a WP:BLP matter, which means immediately removing the questionable material and locking the article to prevent anyone from reinserting it. I would prefer simply to use the NPOV tag. It's up to you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 15:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Joehazelton is back

This sockpuppet you have banned more than once is back as Willie Peter [4]. He's been able to hoodwink a sympathetic admin, but is up to his old tricks. Propol has tagged him as a Hazelton sockpuppet[5], and he (true to form) has removed the tag from his page [6]. I'd appreciate your looking into this, as you previously blocked him [7][8]. His IP [9] is within the series of several Joehazelton socks.[10], and his disruptive edits, combativeness, misspellings, grammatical mistakes, ersatz literary references, and threats are the same as ever. Thanks. Eleemosynary 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Kids Against Combs

A tag has been placed on Kids Against Combs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I missed the article. I still don't think the band satisfies WP:BAND for this, but I'd like to see what you think before I do anything else. Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Brownback edits

Hi,

So I'm cool with editing what I wrote about Brownback, but deleting it? I've updated a more "neutral" wording of his switched vote today on the floor of the Senate. Maybe keeping tabs on LGF edit wars would be helpful, too.

Take care, David

Obviously you're a neutral arbiter, sorry.

Okay, so I perused this page and you can clearly keep your RL and wiki life separate, which is nice for you. The edit I made on Senator Brownback's page is accurate and I'm willing to help make it as accurate as possible without forgetting that he switched his vote. If it means going to the other senators' pages who also switched their votes, I'd be happy to do that too. The official record of what votes were cast only reflects the last vote, senators are allowed to change their votes, but the notion of doing so on a highly charged issue with a clear intent of deception shouldn't be allowed. His page, as all others should reflect what happened on the vote for cloture in on this bill.

Thanks, David

Orphaned non-free image (Image:RepTomDowney.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RepTomDowney.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Nuuon

Keep an eye on this one. He added a youtube flash video as an EL to a bunch of articles, some which you have an interest in. I advised him that this video is not an appropriate thing to link in wiki namespace, and reverted all his contributions. As of this moment, he has not attempted to add it again since I contacted him about it. But keep a lookout. - Crockspot 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Forgot to mention, I watched the full video, and it presents a bunch of CT POV as fact, and defames multiple living people. - Crockspot 18:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:OpalMehta.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:OpalMehta.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Reid

Am I missing something? Do you really want articles that read like this? I added the MediaMatters material that was there since it appears factual and sourced. If there's more media matters material to add, I think it should go in but this reads pretty bad. I can see starting each paragraph with "according to" if it was MediaResearch or Rush Limbaugh or other highly partisan source, but this is the AP. --Tbeatty 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification, I mean "you" as an editor, not as a supporter of that particular version. I know you watch that page but haven't weighed in on hte two different versions. --Tbeatty 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't been paying much attention. John Solomon's articles on Reid have been heavily criticized and aspects of his reporting are disputed, so mentioning the dispute is fair game and probably necessary for NPOV. I don't know if the other version is the best way to go about it, but bringing up this dispute isn't "ad hominem" and seeing those edit summaries makes me think that you don't know what ad hominem means. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am very aware of it and apparently too aware of the subtlety for random editors. Ad hominem simply means that the person trumps the facts. In this case, Solomon reporting of the facts has some relevance to the facts themselves. That is ad hominem. I've provided links on the talk page but this is pretty standard debate ad hominem. It is not the lay person ad hominem that involves name calling. It is a Poisoning the Well style of ad hominem argument. You can read the styles in the template I put in the talk page but saying "John Solomon was wrong and his reports are questionable." and then starting every sentence with "John Solomon reports X" is ad hominem argument. Logical argument would require refutation of X, not simply mentioning it's John Solomon reporting it. Since Solomon's piece isn't an opinion piece, the style is inappropriate. Read Poisoning_the_well and I think you will see how it is being applied here by mentioning Solomon before every sentence. --Tbeatty 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

An unattributed source

There is a new editor who hit the ground running pretty hard, so I suspect he is a recent avatar of a previous user. An unattributed source (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to hold views that you might be sympathetic with, but I think you'll agree that he is constantly violating OR, NPOV, Undue, and by extension BLP. I have advised him of all the relevant rules several times, but he seems to be of the opinion that since he claims to have met all these people he is editing about, I should just STFU. He's pretty prolific, and I just don't have the time and energy to follow him around, and I'm losing patience with him, so if you run across this one, I would appreciate it if you keep an eyeball on him. His username seems quite fitting. Thanks. - Crockspot 19:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this is FAFFA or whatever his name was? I'll have a look at his contributions. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like FAAFA. But he sure feels like someone who knows his way around. - Crockspot 03:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Daviddellinger.jpeg

I have tagged Image:Daviddellinger.jpeg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Daviddellinger.jpeg

Hi, Thank you for uploading Image:Daviddellinger.jpeg,however it would be much appreciated if you could expand or clarify the sourcing information you have provided in the image summary. , In particualr which agency or Police Department took the photo orignally? ShakespeareFan00 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oswaldneworleans.jpg

I have tagged Image:Oswaldneworleans.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Krugman article

Sorry for reverting your edit. I am currently on a WindowsMobile 5.0 handheld device that has some I.E. browser issues. My reversion made no difference to me, so figured I'd either look at it later from a real computer, or someone else would set it all straight - Best wishes. Apparent public relationship 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Chester

You might want to check out the work I did on the article on Alfred Chester. Still could use list of books / bibliography. --Larrybob 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Great job! It's always nice to see when someone takes one of my lame stubs and turns it into a real article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 15:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"personal attacks"

I made a specific assertion that accusing another editor of exercising a double standard is no more offensive than accusing him of pushing a POV. Which you have not objected to when directed at me. Which is a double standard. Andyvphil 21:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If a particular edit serves to insert POV into an article, it is not an attack to point this out. If there is a specific statement directed towards you, please point it out to me or another administrator and we will deal with it appropriately. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If a particular revert, or series of reverts, demonstrates a double standard for what should be in the article (background on OISM, but not UCS, in this case) then pointing that out is nor more an attack than alleging the insertion of POV. We are discussing boundaries here, or would be if you would respond to my point, now made for the fourth time, instead of retreating into gaseous generality. Andyvphil 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling other editors hypocrites is an attack. If you think there is a double standard, specify it and then end it there without descending into namecalling. There is a difference between discussing edits and complaints, and your remarks were complaints that did not discuss these edits. Keep it WP:CIVIL. Say "I feel that it is not-NPOV to have this and not this." Not. "You, you, and you are hypocrites because you are doing this!!!" Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, my edit was a "complaint" which did "discuss an edit", namely the crude reversion of my correction of an uncontested error in the text, the existance of which I'd repeatedly pointed to as demonstrating a double standard in operation. Andyvphil 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And the portion of your complaint which did discuss an error was not removed. Only the portion that was an attack on other editors was removed. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I am currently involved in an edit war with an anon User:User: 70.189.74.49 on the article Thematic motifs of Lost. I have reported this editor for a 3RR violation, but nothing seems to be happening. He blanked his talk page, with the warnings, and his edit summary was "good luck with that." I and other editors have tried to engage him in discussion on the article's talk page, but the only response we seem to get is "you're wrong and you just don't see it." I really want to avoid escalating this battle but I am getting increasingly frustrated at the lack of response from any administrators. I want to discuss this content dispute rationally and achieve consensus, not be told to "go away" and "I'll revert the article as many times as necessary and no one will do anything about it." Any suggestions? Ursasapien (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address for 3RR violation and another user has semi-protected the article. When the block expires he or she will be forced to talk instead of revert. Hopefully that will work out; I'll keep an eye on the article to see what happens. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Lise Skaret

Of course I object to your deletion! The removal of hot naked Scandinavian teens from the net is a crime against humanity and a direct violation of the fundamental purpose of the net.--Prosfilaes 21:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've saved a copy of course, if you'd like me to email you one. ;) Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

external link message

which external link you were talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masoodnasir (talk • contribs)

This one. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One Breath at a Time, Inc. deletion

One Breath at a Time, Inc. You deleted this page because of use of copyrighted information. Every word in the article was obtained from officials of the organization and the article stated so. The main source was Angel Oliva, president of the organization. He is the person who endorsed putting up this article. Its work is significant and it's a growing organization.

What kind of proof is required that no copyrighted information is contained in the article? The wikipedia article was written many months before they created their own web site, which may be the origin of your concern. It took some of the verbiage from this article and therefore their web site is guilty of taking material from the article, not the other way around. In any case, please let me know what we can do to get this back up. The organization is very grateful for its presence on our site.

Many kind thanks,

FloridaFox

{{Review-Christgau}} and {{Subst}}

Hi there. I see you are adding Christgau reviews using {{Review-Christgau}} and {{subst}}. I don't think it is appropriate to use subst for this, as that makes the article less clear (see example). It would be better to just use the template directly. Have a nice day. --PEJL 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I won't subst in the future. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point

I've read BLP, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I'm a huge supporter of the purpose and spirit of the policy. So what does it have to do with a comment left by editor F.A.A.F.A.? FAAFA wasn't trying to write a biography about anybody.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying FAFFA left that comment there and you were powerless to remove it? Keep derogatory comments about living people off your user space. Jimbo has extended BLP to cover all of Wikipedia, not just biographies, as your friend Tbeatty has no doubt told you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that BLP applies everywhere. I just don't think it applies here, as F.A.A.F.A. wasn't commenting about Moore at all, but commenting on his perceptions about my "friends". Nonetheless, I'm not here to defend a banned editor, so I'll just remove it rather than fight with you about it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we just delete everything that guy ever posted to Wikipedia? :) - Crockspot 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Users are not responsible for keeping other users comments off their user space. There is simply not an affirmative duty to do anything. If you think an item needs to be removed, you may remove it yourself. I believe I am paraphrasing a quote you made over a year ago when you were making very one sided edits t oarticle space. --Tbeatty 04:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing how you all come out of the woodwork bitching when somebody has the audacity to actually enforce one of the rules you like to quote at everyone else. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"You all?" Should "we all" sit in the back of the bus too? No one's bitching. You dragged my name into this so I figured you were interested in what I had to say. I didn't have any problem with your deletion or I would have reverted it. What's more amazing is your out of the blue random enforcement of policy on talk pages that you selectively ignore everywhere else. --Tbeatty 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll be sure to spend more time on the User Talk Page BLP Violation Noticeboard. As far as "random" enforcement goes, yes, I randomly enforce the rules because I enforce violations when I come across them. I don't go looking for them and I don't think I'm particularly obligated to go checking up on people's user pages - do you actually think I am because that's the logical extension of what your are saying - and that's hardly "selectively ignoring" anything. I don't see how anything in your screed can be a rational basis for any complaint, you're just peeved that I picked on somebody in your wolfpack. But before you get all Rosa Parks on me, feel free to bring violations to my attention and I will enforce them in a non-random manner. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 15:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, no one is peeved and there is no wolfpack. You brought me into this, not the other way around. In fact all I did was give the opinion you asked for and you decided to make it a personal attack comparing editors to bitches and wolves. --Tbeatty 19:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gama, you have to admit that it's a little suspicious that you would be such a hardcore enforcer of BLP on a comment that so obviously had nothing to do with Michael Moore, but was directed at me, and further to come to a backwater subuserpage to do it. The dispute that I had with you over Fry Mumia was a year and a half ago, and happened when I was a brand new user -- can you just forget about it and leave me alone? Holding onto a dispute for that long just doesn't make you look very good.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A derogatory comment about a living person, in clear violation of WP:BLP - a policy that has been clearly established as applying to all WP pages, including user pages, was hosted on your user subpage for eight months. Now you didn't put it there, but at some point it becomes your responsibility when it's hosted on your user subpage, one that you and other users edit quite frequently - hardly a "backwater subpage". But fine, plead ignorance or innocence or whatever, but when it's removed as per policy, first you complain about the enforcement of a policy that you supposedly "agree with...wholeheartedly", then you try to blame it on your banned enemy instead of your buddy who actually left the comment, and follow that up with an accusation that my enforcement of this policy is part of an imaginary year and a half old grudge instead of normal administrative responsibility. I don't know what your problem is, whether you actually believe that BLP enforcement is part of some anti-Mort campaign (springing into action, eight months later!) or you are throwing up as much chaff as you can to make dealing with you such a pain in the ass that people will think twice before attempting to make you adhere to policy. Either way, you are trolling and you are gaming the system, and maybe your short break from Wikipedia won't make you stop this, but perhaps you will think twice before trolling and wasting people's time in this manner in the future. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wow. You know, I've never questioned one of your admin actions before, and have even backed you up on a few of them. But was this block really necessary? The summary in the block log doesn't make me feel much fuzzier about it either. Is this the BLP violation referred to in the summary? That doesn't seem so clear cut that Morton committed a BLP violation, but it is there in his block log for posterity, and that is a pretty severe black mark to have. I know technically it was for trolling, but the BLP violation is explicitly implied. Wouldn't a simple "Get the hell off my talk page" have done the job just as well? The other day, you made a speedy deletion that was an easy call, yet you put it up for DRV yourself. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you second guessed yourself on the CSD, but you found it so easy to make this block. - Crockspot 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• It was not an easy decision; I only spent about half an hour pondering the Skaret deletion, but I actually slept on this one. This was a flagrant BLP violation kept up for eight months, followed by complaints, lies, and taunting, and trolling. Whatever he thought of my decision to remove the BLP violation from his subpage, a reasonable person would have agreed or disagreed without resorting to this kind of behavior. And he isn't a newbie; he's been around long enough and has a history of drama and envelope pushing, so he can't play the innocent. I don't have any more patience for this crap, frankly. I've spent months of my time dealing with other users who engage in similar behavior (Rex071404, JoeHazelton, RPJ, etc., etc.) and it always turns out the same. I'm going to try skipping the carrot and going right to the stick for a while and see how that works out. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that he didn't add the image and caption, but let's say that he did. A single BLP violation normally get a warning issued. WP:BLP mentions repeated reinsertion being the blockable offense. If I were to read his block log summary knowing nothing about the history, I would assume that he had repeatedly violated BLP in a blockable way. I also only see three posts by him in this section, and no request by you for him to go away and leave you alone. Granted he was poking you with a stick, but it's wasn't so severe as to get most established users blocked for trolling. Does he really deserve to have a double scarlet letter branded into his skull? 24 hours is nothing. He probably thanks you for the break. But the summary in his log is a pretty severe punishment that will always follow him. The gift that keeps on giving. I'm sorry, but I can't get behind this action. And it's not because Morton is a friend, because I consider you a friend and an adversarial ally. It's just seems too severe, and leaves an appearance of being motivated by personal feelings. The damage is done, but I just had to express my view on this. - Crockspot 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• When you aren't pissed about Fox News, I find that we can disagree reasonably, a welcome contrast from the shrill hysteria of others, so I value your comments here. The block log is something I hadn't considered, honestly. Not that I don't give any thought to what is preserved there; I'd never say "Blocked for being a stupid motherfucker", for example. But the long-term implications of a block log message are something that I haven't spent much time pondering. While I feel the block log message I wrote is accurate, you are correct in that it could be interpreted in a manner much worse than the actual offense. But then any block log message could be misinterpreted in such a manner; there simply isn't that much space to work with. As far as the severity of the offense, how much trolling should you get away with before action should be taken against you? He is an established user, and he's been pushing the limits of civility as long as he's been here. He should know better than to pull this kind of crap. The fact that Wikipedia process tends to favor warning after warning after warning as well as the fact that he has a bunch of other users, both reasonable and shrill, to argue on his behalf, has only encouraged him, and I thought this was the best way to get his attention. Unlike some of his buddies, he seems to have been quite reasonable post-block, and if he gets the message then this drama will have been worth it. I hope that message is "Don't attack and troll people for performing routine policy enforcement" and not "I can do anything I want because my posse will get in the face of anyone who messes with me." Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK you kids, break it up and regroup. And Gamaliel, we aren't a pack of wolves, we're a band of Secret Chimps. Speaking of packs of the ankle-biting variety, I'd like you all to head over to Talk:Matt Drudge and respond to the RfC. I have a couple of chi-wah-wahs that have been following me around Wikipedia, disagreeing with my every opinion, trying to stack consensus. I would value your reasoned opinions, no matter what they are. - Crockspot 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC) By the way, here is a link directly to the RfC, for the wheelmouse challenged: Talk:Matt Drudge#RfC on NYPress source as EL - Crockspot 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to stop by, as I've preferred spending what little free time I've had in the last week reading instead of participating in WikiDrama. Is this scuffle still going on? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've actually worked out an understanding with Skoppensboer regarding the personalization of content issues. We're trying to be more civil and productive with each other now. Now that other people are adding their views, I'm trying to not ride roughshod over the article as much, just pipe in a comment now and then. - Crockspot 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't understand why people keep putting up the same articles again and again for deletion. It's like you have to keep all of Wikipedia on your watchlist these days. Hmm, maybe I should write an essay about it. ;) Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I put it up for deletion is that the first Mfd, which was nominated by Guy, seemed to have the opinions overwhelmingly based on the fact that the essay was in user space. It is now in WP space, and I want to reconfirm consensus. I am not even proposing deletion, I would just like it moved back into the author's user space. - Crockspot 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, it was unfair of me to lump this one in with the others because that's a perfectly acceptable rationale for revisiting the MfD on that article. It's just frustrating to see the same articles go up again and again and again on AfD until people get the result they want. Hell, I don't think I've ever listed anything a second time, much less 3, 6, 12 times for some articles. I realize consensus can change, but when sane people don't get the result they want, they give up and move on, but as a result, that essentially cedes decision making to the extremists who are willing to hammer at something over and over again while the reasonable people are off writing encyclopedia articles. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and thanks for the apology, though it wasn't really necessary. - Crockspot 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your fight

Hello, In case you didn't know, you are fighting against a well organised team of 'Spooks' who even try to intimidate Wikipedia administrators like you who they feel aren't friendly enough to the official Bush-USGOV positions. You dared speak up so now you are being 'targeted' for elimination as an administrator. Didn't you know? All administrators must be 'USGOV-Bush approved'! I am starting to document their reprehensible transparent actions. One of them forgot to 'sign in' and their edits to the Waterboarding article were tracked to the USGOV Department of Defense. These 'Spooks' will be exposed, and their heinous battle to make Wikipedia a 'PR' division of the USGOV-Bush administration will be stopped in its tracks. Bmedley Sutler 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you already warned by another admin about spreading this kind of tinfoil hattery? I must fax teh Rove for instructions on how to handle you. - Crockspot 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack and baiting by Crockspot noted. --Eleemosynary 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He warned me before he knew about the Spook editing the Waterboarding article from the Department of Defense and then after he learned that he agreed about the Spook editing but he (or someone else) said that most of you Spooks are careful to 'log in' so your IP doesn't show, and that individual Spook may have been drunk. Once Wiki starts posting the IP numbers of all the edits you Spooks are through. Bmedley Sutler 21:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley Sutler, be careful what articles you edit, because you see, we spooks, directly under the instructions of the Zion-Nazi-Con ChimpHitler Junta have ways of dealing with dissidents and "truth seekers". Ways so powerfully malicious and sinister that not even the new ACME 22gage aluminum neural wave helmet can stop our dastardly plans. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You Spooks are the ones who need the ACME 22gage aluminum neural wave foil helmets with your piece of fiction agenda and arguments that the US never overthrew a foreign govenment that didn't deserve it, never did waterboarding, Saddam was part of al Qaeda and so many more. I found a new 'campaign' too. Matt Drudge isn't Gay! Absurd! No one outside the US even takes him seriously any way, so I will not care to fight the Spooks on this article. Now he has the Wikipedia Spooks calling him 'Walter Cronkite'. Bmedley Sutler 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please respect Gamaliel's talk page and take this discussion elsewhere. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I am finished openly documenting the 'Spooks' 'spookery' for now any way. Bmedley Sutler 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ramsquire, for a badly needed voice of sanity. For the rest of you, I'm not interested in being recruited for or participating in your ideological warfare. I'm here to edit an encyclopedia, not to push some preposterous theory about 9/11 or to refight the Cold War one article at a time. Those of you who are here to be an ideological warrior should be summarily banned from Wikipedia and if you think I'm here to play in your reindeer games, you are an idiot. Wikipedia is not here for your snowball fights and I'm not interested in participating in them, or getting caught in the middle. I'll leave this section up as a small testament to your collective stupidity, but in the future, stay the fuck off my user talk page. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Timebirkenhead.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Timebirkenhead.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwartz

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Barbara Schwartz, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Justanother 14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just some background, I believe this article has been through AfD before, so a prod may not be appropriate. I always was troubled by this article, and supported deletion, but since consensus was a keep, I tried to improve it. But there are still fundamental problems. - Crockspot 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, I was talking about Barbara Schwarz, wrong article. - Crockspot 16:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Different articles, but I was annoyed that one originally redirect to the other, so that's why I created the stub in the first place. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but User:Tyrenius wrote a decent article before I could even have a chance to look at it. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I didn't realise you'd started the stub, because of the redirect edits. Tbeatty drew my attention to the article. Tyrenius 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 31	30 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium	Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry	WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Houston A. Baker, Jr. Redux

A dispute has arisen between two editors on the Houston A. Baker, Jr. page. A third opinion has been requested. Since you have earlier taken an interest in this page, would you mind taking a look here? Thanks! --Anthon.Eff 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you took to respond to my request. I have a further question, however, motivated by my interest in how administrators respond to informal requests to mediate (I'm working on a paper about self-correcting mechanisms in Wikipedia). The response you gave, that each individual edit should strive for NPOV, is not found in official policy, as I am sure you are aware. In fact, the offical policy suggests that a one-sided, but reliably sourced contribution (the source being reputable) should not be removed but should be balanced with other reliably sourced material. I think your decision would perhaps make a nice little case or anecdote for my paper, illustrating that much of the self-policing that goes on in Wikipedia falls outside the boundaries of official policy, since no set of rigid guidelines are flexible enough to meet all individual circumstances. It would be especially helpful if you could point me to community discussion pages or something similar that would give some background to your decision. If you would prefer to respond off-line, a userbox on my userpage gives access to my email. Hope to hear from you soon! --Anthon.Eff 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires that offending material be removed immediately, so I feel my opinions regarding the Teachout material are perfectly in line with policy. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I didn't notice this until now. I guess I won't use the anecdote. Thanks. --Anthon.Eff 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ff236.jpg

I have tagged Image:Ff236.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Air Pirates.

I wasn't aware the information was non public. My mistake. Just wanted to flesh out the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratomic yso (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok

You make a valid point about what I should have said. Chairman Meow 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on Phil Hendrie Page

Hello, Gamaliel.

I would like to report on a vandal. 216.93.229.62 (talk · contribs) vandalized Phil Hendrie's page on wikipedia. Claiming he had stomach cancer and died on 18 August 2007. This user was warned before by you for vandalizing Christopher Dodd's page. Also had a last warning issued by another administrator, Crockspot who caught User 216.93.229.62 vandalizing Chelsea Clinton page.

Since User 216.93.229.62 didn't heed the warnings by the two of you. Can you please block this user from vandalizing more pages on Wikipedia.. Thank you, ELO MnLynx Fan77 10:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked. He might return, so we'll probably want to keep an eye on those articles. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have a bit of a shark fetish too. Strange edit history. - Crockspot 17:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

He is back at again on the Phil Hendrie page. He won't give upELO MnLynx Fan77 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked again, this time for a week. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you,Gamaliel..he'll be back in a week, I'm going to keep an eye on the Hendrie page. ELO MnLynx Fan77 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

82.35.53.95

Hello there, I noticed you posted a warning on the above user's talk page threatening a block if he/she vandalised another article. I wanted to let you know that earlier this evening the user vandalised the article on Jade Goody; I came upon the page after reverting the edit and, accordingly, thought you might like to go ahead and block the user. Best wishes! Lordrosemount 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Ff236.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff236.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image 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 image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL 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 talkpage. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign for a White Christian America

Hello, I admire your work here. I am concerned that all the documentaion of Human Events and Regnerys ties to Nazis and White Nationalism are being hidden in a campaign here on Wiki. Please read these links and then look at the Wiki articles on these people and groups. Like the National Policy Institute. and many more "Regnery and two other isolationists began broadcasting Human Events and in 1947 started the Regnery publishing business. Interesting enough the first two titles published by Regnery were critical of the Nuremberg Trials. The third book Regnery published was another pro-Nazi book attacking the allies air campaign. In 1954, Regnery published two books for the John Birch Society." [11] [12] [13] [14] Can you help uncover and document the truth, or will Wiki and its administrators stand with Racists and Nazis? Thank you. •smedleyΔbutler• 07:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am curious about the way you've chosen to go about addressing this issue, however. Have you tried editing the relevant articles yourself to add this information? Have you encountered resistance from other editors while doing so? The proper way to go about this is to edit the articles yourself and then ask other editors to join the discussion on the relevant talk page if you encounter problems, not to issue challenges to those editors. Your implication that editors "stand with Racists and Nazis" if they don't rise to your challenge will likely offend many who would otherwise support you, and I'd advise you to avoid that sort of unnecessary provokation in the future. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a group of RW editors who fight everything I do. And others too. They 'tag team' to avoid 3rr. I thought it could be better to tell a few administrators about the problem. For support. I will try not to provoke them, and just edit. If they attack me can I ask you? •smedleyΔbutler• 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make your edits. I'll keep the Regenery and NPI articles on my watchlist. If this behavior keeps up, let me know and I'll intervene or I'll let you know if I see any problem with your edits. I'd advise you to try to avoid confrontation (though I know certain abrasive and deliberately provocative editors make that impossible) and don't sweat the small stuff. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Its already starting

I added a source template because I was reading that the book claimed as their first book was not their first book. Morton Devoshire completely removed the template Link There is also an article on the PIG's that is only a list. There should not be the whole PIG list in th Regnery article too. Yes? I found that there were three other books before the one claimed in the article. This is a very controversial company. These three books were described as thus: "Regnery and two other isolationists began broadcasting Human Events and in 1947 started the Regnery Publishing business. Interesting enough the first two titles published by Regnery were critical of the Nuremberg Trials. The third book published was another pro-nazi book attacking the allies air campaign." Is this edit ok? Link One of their books really claims that Hillary hung crack pipes, dildos and cock rings from the White House Christmas tree! IMO, (no offense or attack meant) these people are maybe insane. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here is my latest change. It is all documented. Link Is it Okay? Thank you. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that Tom Flocco or NNDB are considered reliable sources. - Crockspot 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I added another •smedleyΔbutler• 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage cleanup

Thanks so much! I can't believe I didn't notice that one. --Moonriddengirl 12:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Cool user name, by the way. That's how I ended up on your page in the first place; I was wondering where'd you'd come up with it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Essay

I'm trying my hand at essay writing. I've completed a first very rough draft and would like your input on whether it is a worthy topic, things that should be added etc. It's located in my workspace. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bubbler2222

Bubbler2222 (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of Joehazelton (talk · contribs).[15] [16] Could you look into it? — goethean ॐ 21:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• He certainly has the same interests, but there don't appear to be any abuses in his edit history. - Crockspot 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Goethean...Your a paranoid sociopath... Whats the criteria for a "JoeHazleton sock" - some one editing in a way that is inconsistent with your partisan politics and point of view? Your accusations is so out of left field, that it borderlines insane. Your a real animal. When will the zookeepers shut the mouth of these blantant cyber-slander's.68.75.183.91 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now THAT appears to be a Joehazelton sock. :) - Crockspot 06:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

TO THE DICKHEADS AT WIKIPEIDA, every one, and any one can be charged and convicted as a sock and

be banned unless you drink jimbo juice and wear a wikipedia tin hat of nuttyness. And to ban whole class B IPs, shutting off 2 milllion just to get at one sock. What a joke. Thats the reason why wikipedia is joke.

That is the reason why hazelton sock IP accounts are only blocked for 24 hours at a time. I have seen legitimate edits from that same ISP, both from right leaning and left leaning editors, so it would seem that a large portion of Chicago depends on that isp. When IP6 is implemented, we'll be able to block by MAC address, so that should solve the problem, unless you have unlimited physical access to unique machines. - Crockspot 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a another swig from the Jimbo Juice Jug, and smoke some more sunshine up you fudge farm. IP6 will allow you block by MAC address, but spoofing MAC addresses is, built in to most home routers/Nat servers. That stops nothing. What will stop me, is when, wikipeida is destroyed, or is shown to be, by the main stream media, as a corrupted and unreliable source, full of lies, slander, disinformation, and defamation. When Jay Leno, or Letterman uses Wikipedia as a punch line and the word "Wikipdia" is synonymous with lies, abuse, bullshit, then my work is done.68.75.183.91 15:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, a side thought, By the time IPV6 is implemented, Wikipeida will, in all likely hood, be a. sued out of exsistance b. Be relegated to a cultural punchline, synonymous with unreliable information, and Corrupted MMOL game, with no relevance to "accruate information". Cherrs. 68.75.183.91 15:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that your wife/mother/children are proud that you have chosen to dedicate yourself and your energy to such a worthy and productive cause. I mean, really, get a life. You seem to be capable of positive contributions when you want to be. If you didn't always make a beeline to the same articles, fight with the same editors, and eventually melt down into a foaming-at-the-mouth troll, you could probably edit happily without anyone bothering you. - Crockspot 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the funniest and smartest thing I've read on trolling in a while. Thanks for a good laugh. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Well, my wife and children are proud of me. My mother was committeemen in Chicago, as a republican, as I am now. I devote my energies, frankly, to getting my people elected, so my interests is in politics. Now for you,you proclaim your self as a conservative, yet your here, toadying up to people who consider you a rodent (the liberal basement dwelling children of the corn) for being what you are and go out of there way to diminish your reputation here.

Now, fighting with the same editors, well these other editors, most noteworthy Goethean and his single purpose sock, Propol have been stalking and harassing me in every move I make, so much as to collaterally accuses any and all how dare to enter the'er politically owned, WP:OWN biographies of North Eastern Illinois, Republican office holders as "JOE Hazelton" and do "smear jobs" on all of them. So, you got the wrong idea that I want to fight with these guys. You and the wikipeidan admin consider any disagreement to their idology, or there rule as "Fighting" "trolling" and other insults, this is what really makes WP:AGF WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are a cruel joke.68.77.34.31 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can tell you is the way you've been playing the game, they win every time. You should take some Aikido, and then learn to apply it online. Be the water. - Crockspot 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

they win every time

Well, not every time. He's still got you running interference for User:Bubbler2222. — goethean ॐ 14:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you haven't shown any abusive behavior on that user's part. You seem to suspect him simply on the ground that he holds similar interests and positions. He appears to be attempting to engage you in a civil and thoughtful manner. It could very well be a completely different user. Not every conservative in Chicago is a Joehazelton sock. I suspect that you are simply trying to "backdoor" him because you don't want to have to use your noggin and respond to his points. - Crockspot 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Bubbler hasn't done anything abusive yet, I think that we should assume that Goethean's concern is genuine. Please keep in mind that he's been harassed by Joe for quite a long time. I'm not going to block Bubbler at this point, but I don't think a checkuser request would be out of order. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AGF would apply to Goethean as well. I assume that the user is indeed a conservative from Chicago. Considering that Joehazelton uses dynamic addresses from an ISP that is fairly common in the area, I don't see how a checkuser would be very conclusive. I have seen Joe use hundreds of different IP addresses, and I have seen legitimate users editing under some of those same IPs. (Even obviously liberal editors.) I would also point out that this user has been on wiki for several months, and has shown none of the telltale behavior that Joe seems to always quickly resort to. That sounds very uncharacteristic of Joe. I have gotten Joe socks blocked on their first or second edit in the past, when it is painfully obvious who it is. But bubbler has displayed no bad behavior, and should be afforded AGF until he does something to warrant the loss of that assumption. Disagreeing with Goethean on content is no crime, and in some circles, would be considered a virtue. - Crockspot 18:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC) - PS. If he does end up having a meltdown and showing characteristic Joe-like behavior, I will be the first to report him, and would be supportive of an indef block. - Crockspot 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, no reasonable person would think that you'd be against blocking Joe if he engages in his typical juvenile behavior. Since I haven't blocked Bubbler, obviously I agree with you that we should apply AGF to new users and that Bubbler hasn't crossed any lines yet, but certainly you can understand Goethean's concern about this particular user and why he'd be quick to assume the worst given his experiences with Joe's trollish bullshit. After all, Bubbler zeroed in on the same section Joe's socks have; certainly that would raise anyone's eyebrows. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No doubt that Goethean has been subject to long term abuse, and I actually understand the punchiness more than he may realize, but I would think that he would find it refreshing to face an editor who wishes to engage him on these content issues without the abuse. I would encourage him to attempt to resolve the content issues with this user in a positive manner, so that the resulting content is something that no one can find particularly offensive, from an NPOV perspective. I haven't really paid much attention to the Illinois political articles, nor do I care to, but perhaps the sections that Joe has been complaining about really do have some problems that need ironing out, and other conservative editors are noticing the same thing. Because a "bad" user has repeatedly pointed out a problem does not necessarily invalidate the argument that there is indeed a problem, and if there is really a problem, there is nothing suspicious about other users agreeing about that problem. I think this could be a unique opportunity to both improve the content, and take away something for Joe to complain about. Maybe he will move on if he feels the material is getting fair treatment. - Crockspot 18:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How shocking that Crockspot the Conservative Underground poster[17] wants to just postulate that Joe the psycho troll's complaints have a legitimate foundation. Let's not present the facts about Roskam because Republican operatives would rather that they not see the light of day. Actually, the Roskam article has already been Freeperized because I was unable to devote enough time arguing with partisan Republicans over every clause. Many well-cited paragraphs have already been deleted by User:Dual Freq, User:Tdl1060, and User:TDC. — goethean ॐ 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your dragging out of off-wiki situations is taken as a personal attack, and is the kind of lowbrow cheap shot one would expect from the likes of Joehazelton or FAAFA. Unless you wish to be categorized and dealt with in the same fashion that I deal with those trolls, you should refactor. - Crockspot 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you want me to treat what I said --- which you know is the truth --- as if it were false. I will not do that. Besides, these facts have been decidedly on-wiki for a few weeks now. — goethean ॐ 22:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are both excellent contributors to Wikipedia and it is a shame that you are letting political differences get in the way of collaborative editing. Many editors bring their politics to Wikipedia and use it as a battleground but you shouldn't make the mistake of lumping in good editors with the bad just because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. Goethean, just because Crockspot doesn't think that Bubbler is Joe Hazleton doesn't mean that he condones the behavior of Joe or support his complaints, and it is unfair to lump him in with that troll. Crockspot, if you want to associate with and publicly defend political ideologues like TDC, then people are going to lump you in with those political ideologues and you are going to have to expect this reaction from people, fair or not, which was exactly the concern I raised at your RfA. If you guys want to continue this discussion here, that's fine, but if you are going to continue to attack one another, I'd appreciate it if you took it to another page. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I was attempting to be productive here, but I won't stand by passively while someone takes constant cheap shots at me. I have filed an incident report on ANI over Goethean's contributions to this discussion. In response to your concerns at my RfA, I did try to subsequently mediate a bit on the last outbreak of hostilities between you and TDC. I may not have done it in the way that you would have preferred, but you have to admit that my involvement did diffuse the immediate situation. I am sensitive to your concerns in this area. - Crockspot 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but you are most probably correct that I was not pleased with your action, since I have yet to see you make an edit that was out of line with your political prejudices. Why don't you start following Wikipedia policy, make a few neutral edits, and see if editors become less hostile. — goethean ॐ 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking to Gamaliel above, sorry for the confusion. I don't suppose you have any examples of me editing in violation of NPOV, do you? Here are a few examples that another editor dug out of my history for my RfA. I am sure there are other examples since my RfA that are not diffed here: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. - Crockspot 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have been pleasantly surprised by the LACK of hostility shown toward me since my RfA. The only persistent hostility has come from two editors; yourself, and an editor who is currently serving out a block for pestering me. Everyone else is either following WP:AGF, or they have investigated my edit history for themselves, and seen that I am decidedly not a POV pusher. I have interests in political subjects, as you do. So what? - Crockspot 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times

Hi, you moved the section down below, as you said in a comment that there is not critical consensus that the statement is true, as there is for Fox. I'm a little bit flustered by this; I seem to see equal amount of criticism for both, each coming from the opposite side. I'm a bit confused why you say there is consensus for one and not the other. I would appreciate if you could explain. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fox criticism is backed up by a survey of professional journalists, of whom something like 70 percent assert the perception of Fox noted in the intro. A couple of articles discussing criticism of the NYT is sufficient to discuss the issue, but does not add up to an equivalent perception and thus doesn't belong in the intro. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alberta Martin

Alberta Martin, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Alberta Martin satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberta Martin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Alberta Martin during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson 05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim Garrison

I added content and footnotes to the Jim Garrison page, especially regarding Garrison's investigation into the JFK assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtracy99 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Timeallymcbeal.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Timeallymcbeal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ilse@ 23:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image from the Ally McBeal article, because Time Magazine is not discussed in the article. The image also doesn't have a clear fair use rationale. – Ilse@ 23:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is ample discussion in the article, in the text you have removed and I have restored along with the picture. Also, the fair use rationale seems perfectly clear to me. Could you please specify exactly how it is unclear or inadequate? Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Katie Barge

An article that you have been involved in editing, Katie Barge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Barge. Thank you. DHeyward 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kids Against Combs

I just added some references to Kids Against Combs. If you have others, please add them. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Timeallymcbeal.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Timeallymcbeal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Ilse@ 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't check your talk page before, which I could and maybe should have done. Still, I think the image should be deleted, because Time magazine and/or the cover story are only mentioned in the image caption. – Ilse@ 19:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Tik0701.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tik0701.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you check something

Hi Gamaliel, I was hoping you might have time to check a situation you might have some familiarity with. The relevant discussion concerns Tammy Duckworth and is on the BLP noticeboard linked here. The user I am wondering about is TEAMCrocko who has a 2-3 day old account (which is ok) is passionate (also ok), seems like a single purpose (less ok, but the account is new), left this comment about the 12 months of abuse Peter Roskam has suffered on this website (makes me go hmmm. . . .). That makes me think he is a sock. I'm leaving a note here because I saw where you had previously dealt with a certain puppetmaster, and would like your opinion. Is there enough here to file a WP:SSP report? In the event that there is, should I? Or perhaps you've seen enough to perform a Duck test. Anyway sorry to bring less than fun crap your way, I just thought you might have some needed knowledge/expertise. Thanks, R. Baley 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While other administrators may take a different tack, my personal approach is to pretty much ignore socks until they do something offensive (personal attacks, vandalism, etc.), and then nuke them. If they color within the lines, I don't really see any harm. This particular user does raise alarm bells, and I'd find it hard to believe they aren't a meat or sock puppet, so I will keep my eye on them. Certainly there is enough to file a checkuser request. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. I agree with your approach (and that's why I was asking should I file a checkuser -in addition to the could). If you're keeping an eye on him, that's good enough for me. If his account does go rogue, it can be quickly handled with less confusion all around. Thanks again, R. Baley 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the name they chose was some sort of attempt to draw me into it. There's a slight possibility that it's a FAAFA strawpuppet. The positions are unlike him, but the tactics are generally similar. - Crockspot 18:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. Would you like me to block it as per WP:USERNAME? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a day's thought, and yes, I would like that. - Crockspot 19:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your timing is amazing. :D I was just about to block him anyway per WP:DUCK. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Score one for our new secret cabal. Oh crap, did I say that out loud? - Crockspot 20:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's it, you're out of the cabal! Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider the BLPN case closed now? R. Baley 19:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Crockspot, I did notice the name, I just couldn't think of why. . . anyway,I just wanted to make sure that somebody, who could actually do something about it, was aware of the situation. But I was a little unsure what lengths to go to, because like Gamaliel said, he hasn't really done anything yet. On the other hand, sometimes people keep dormant accounts around for just the right opportunity to try something. R. Baley 18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

72.94.95.190

72.94.95.190 (talk · contribs) wrote to unblock-en-l asking to be unblocked. He acknowledged that the block was fair and noted that he did not understand that information such as he was adding needed to be sourced. He agreed not to make such edits in the future, and apologised for blanking content. As such, I think it would be appropriate to lift the block. Would you please consider this (or at least, consider not objecting to me doing so)? --Yamla 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a first offense I've lifted the block. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Yamla 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough page

RE: External Link section - I made the following 4 changes today 9/19

• deleted one broken link
• corrected the name of another link
• added two links that I think are relevant to Mr. Scarborough's profile

Thank you again for allowing me to edit. I think these are good changes and I hope you agree. 72.94.95.190 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule about YouTube links?

I added the YouTube link to Rube Goldberg to give the public a moving example of this type of maching. Is there a better way to link an example? These machines can be amazingly intricate and confounding and I just don't think words do them justice.

If my link is not appropriate to Wikipedia, please link an example that is. NatalieOne 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it would be fine if you put it in the external links section. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a blanket ban of YouTube videos for a while, because of copyright verifiability issues. I don't remember which policy or guideline it was in, but then it was removed, and I'm not sure of the status right now. Basically, if you can't verify the copyright status of something, it shouldn't be linked. For example, if someone named "IH8Orly" uploads a video capture of the O'Reilly Factor to YouTube, you can pretty much assume that it's a copyright violation against Fox, and it shouldn't be linked. - Crockspot 21:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll put it back in when I have a chance. BTW, what is the time zone for wikipedia? it's only 4pm here 9/24 and I'm trying to figure out when posts are being made. NatalieOne 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated the followin page and left the following message in its talk page.

Wyoming Historical and Geological Society

This society used to function under the name in the title of this article "Wyoming Historical and Geological Society," but now uses "Luzern County Historical Society." As a relatively new user, I have not learned how to rename an article and then create something to redirect users to the new name from the old one.

Please help me make this happen. NatalieOne 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could help me with this. NatalieOne 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• There will be a little tab at the top of the page called "move". Click it, type in the new article name, and be sure to make sure all the right check boxes are checked, taking the talk page and history with it. When you make the move, a redirect will automagically be created at the old location. - Crockspot 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Killian documents talk page

Please lock the Archives of the talk page before User:Callmebc whitewashes them again. Thank you. 74.77.222.188 21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okaaayyy, I just tried to file a 3RR in regards to 74.77.222.188, but got some crazy thing by you instead. It would probably be interesting to hear your reasoning in aiding what is for all intents and purposes an anonymous IP vandal (if you want to dispute that, I suggest you check 74.77.222.188 's edit history.) The last time I tried to discuss making changes to the Killian wiki's I ended up in a major war with LGF-ers, sockpuppets, admins, liars and even pervs. As much as I didn't enjoy that, I won't hesitate to start another one if I feel I'm again being ganged up by right wing sockpuppets and have to pull teeth to get anything done about it. -BC aka Callmebc 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal. My extensive edit history is here. I recently changed my router. You already knew that, Callmebc. More bad form from you. Callmebc's history of abusive behavior on talk pages is abundantly clear from Archive's 7 and 8 of the Killian Documents talk page and from his own discussion page. Read Archive's 7 and 8 and you'll see his bullying and insulting tactics, from long before I got there. He was fine with personal attacks when he was the one leveling them. But when he became the target all that changed.74.77.222.188 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....I just noticed that you archived the entire page -- I'm actually cool with that. I think I made the mistake of letting the discussion become a Usenet-type debate/flamewar/bashing (which I admit I'm kind of familiar with), but that just ended up creating a convoluted, messy podium for ranting -- unlike Usenet, things here don't thread themselves. We shall see.... -BC aka Callmebc 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GovReed.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:GovReed.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell ^babelfish 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Byrd

Just wanted to leave a note regarding this edit. The only reason it was included at Robert Byrd was to validate the Slate source. There was disagreement by conservative editor WatchingYouLikeAHawk (talk · contribs) who refuted the source, saying it was nothing more than an "op-ed" piece. The Charlotte Observer article backed up the Slate article and that was its only intention until the argument by WYLAH was concluded.

The reference is also used at Strom Thurmond. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how it can validate the Slate piece in regards to Byrd's opinions if it is an interview with Thurmond and not Byrd. Regardless, the Slate and CNN citations should suffice. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of an old and beaten topic, but WYLAH originally stated that the Slate was an op-ed piece and therefore it was not a suitable source for Wikipedia (contradicting WP:CITE and many other pages that use the Slate as a reference). I added the Charlotte Observer article to verify that the Slate article was indeed factual and not an op-ed piece. It wasn't to provide additional citations for the Robert Byrd article, but to verify an already existing source.

But since WYLAH has apparantly left WP, the point is pretty much moot. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the Robert Byrd article if it doesn't contain information about Robert Byrd, period. Slate qualifies as a reliable source so it should have been sufficient, but I understand that you have to do odd things sometimes when you are confronted with silly objections. In any case, the CNN citation should be enough to prevent those kinds of objections in the future. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It was an odd situation that has now been resolved... I won't keep hogging your talk page now :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness

You might want to block his IP address as well. 66.7.37.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Crockspot 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Live at the Harlem Square Club.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Live at the Harlem Square Club.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but "hi" again (topic: GW talk page). . .

Hi Gamaliel, sorry to bother you, but once again it seems you have some expertise, or prior experience, which intersects with a current problem (of mine?) at global warming. The situation concerns a previous user (I think) who you blocked about a year ago, but currently (again, I believe) is editing problematically on the global warming talk page (reverting several editors over a comment I made). The evidence:

A IP user who claims to be User:Alexander? (Alexander M. is a Berkeley student and probable contributor to both the Howard Dean and Obama campaigns) edits from Hughes Network Systems (edit diff showing that he signs with IP address 69.19.14.16)
From Whois: Hughes Network Systems NetRange: 69.19.0.0 - 69.19.127.255
Other IP reverting edits from this range (over last day or 2) at global warming talk:

69.19.14.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

66.82.9.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

69.19.14.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

69.19.14.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Once again. the anonIP claims he is User:Alexander. According to contrib history, Alexander's last logged in edit occurred in May 2006 (link).

Circumstantial evidence that these edits are in fact coming from Arvin Sloane (link) Note that the IP address is from Hughes Network Systems.

Behavioral evidence (you might remember, but a refresher in case you don't): AS also tends (tended?) to edit while not logged in: [28] and [29] and [30]

AS interest in global warming? yep. [31]

Just wondered if you might take a look. I'm not sure what should be done at this point. Is a range block called for? Thanks in advance and sorry I only show up to bring you problems, R. Baley 09:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that while Alexander started his user page as an undergrad at Berkely (see user page history) now he is a professional translator with 25 years experience (diff). And he's still disrupting the talk page. Should I take this to RFCU or SSP? I don't think he is Alexander as he claims, but he's giving that account a bad rep. R. Baley 18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a better diff. It shows that the IP added the comment. Note that I had changed the signatures back to the original IP's but User: Blue Tie reverted me saying that I was not assuming good faith. Given that the problems had just started, perhaps BlueTie was right, but now I think there is enough sketchiness to ask him to sign in...? Brusegadi 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am no longer able to assume good faith in this case either. --Blue Tie 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to believe he is probably an older, inexperienced user who may or may not have a problem staying logged in, due to his network. He's still bracketing his name, making it look like the edits of another user, but I think he may just be looking and seeing that everybody else's name is that way, and copying it. I don't think he's a newbie (still have reason to believe he used to occasionally login as AS), but there may be some WP:bite called for, we'll have to wait and see. . . R. Baley 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) have seen enough. agree with BT. R. Baley 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to terminate my account

I want to terminate my user account on Wikipedia but I do not know how to do it. Can you help me? I want it terminated for personal reasons. Thanks. Enoch08 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant

Does this rule to not refer to them as ignorant also apply to the pages dealing with race and racism? If it applies to me, then, by extrapolating, it should apply to those pages as well. I think I'll go back and look at all of them to determine if I need to correct any of these "personal attacks"...I mean, it's not like I don't have plenty of time....Chairman Meow 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So I take it that your silence is a sign of acceptance. I'd like to point out that acting like you're in charge and better than everyone else is also a form of personal attack. Your beloved, oft cited "personal attack" wiki says this: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Your condescending tone and attitude is disparaging to me as well as insulting. Just because you have long longer time on Wikipedia than I, does not make you a better editor, despite how much you would like to project this. Please stop your condescending attitude toward me, I consider it a personal attack. Chairman Meow 21:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time and yours with this pseudolegalistic bullshit. You shouldn't need a policy to tell you that it is inappropriate to call people "dumb" and "ignorant" and to cast aspersions on their parents. My "condescending tone" is irrelevant. You are the one acting inappropriately and my tone is a direct result of your flouting of several clear and direct warnings. You don't like my tone? Stop attacking people and you won't have to deal with it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet & Endless Edits

Thanks for removing that crap (sorry, I can't think of a better word!) from the Karyn Kupcinet article. I attempted to edit all that dvd talk and cited Wikipedia because that's where I got the info. I was advised before that citing a Wikipedia article was ok, so I apologize for doing it because I wasn't actually aware it wasn't acceptable. I keep trying to clean that article up, but it's next to impossible. Can't get protection for it either...very frustrating. Anyhow, thanks for taking it out, it was a straight up mess and I wanted to remove it myself, but I'm hesitant to do that because I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Pinkadelica 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Original Research at Killian documents authenticity issues

Hi Gamaliel, There is an edit war on the Killian documents authenticity issues page. An editor, User:Callmebc is inserting what appears to be his WP:OR. He has a strong opinion on the subject and has told others to read his own Killian papers website at www.aheckofa.com. His revert comments discusses how he "wins". From the history list, the edit war appears to have run for a while already. Can you please look at this and suggest a compromise solution for everyone and define OR for us all so this can stop? Thanks. Jmcnamera 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya think? Not to get into the gory details, but Killian documents authenticity issues has had for quite some time a "Formatting" section that started off It has been claimed that the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time but without any refs whatsoever to one, but that wasn't enough to stop using this imaginary "style manual" to comment on supposed formatting problems with the Killian memos (no, I'm not exaggerting). The only such "Air Force style manual" that can be found or even referenced is Air Force document "AFH33-337" aka "The Tongue and Quill" which originated in the mid-70's. I thought to include a reference to that, and doing so caused this most recent fuss and a revert war. Why? Because its section on "Memorandum for Record" directly contradicts all of the allegations regarding formatting inconsistencies, which doesn't sit well, apparently, with some badly misinformed people.

And while I'm here, I suppose I should mention that "Jmcnamera" is kinda obviously a sockpuppet with alternate ID's of User talk:209.145.67.172 and User talk:68.242.153.205.

Check their contrib histories:

68.242.153.205

209.145.67.172

Jmcnamera

You should note that Jmcnamara accidently became "209.145.67.172" at 13:45, 4 October 2007 in the midst of his series of reverts:[32]

Note also that User talk:68.242.153.205 was blocked, after I filed a 3RR complaint, [33] for exactly the same pattern of reverting, at 20:31, 3 October 2007.

If you check the timing "Jmcnamera" starting his revert nonsense at 17:33, 4 October 2007

That's not quite 24 hours, isn't it? And isn't there some sort of Wiki rule about using a sockpuppet to evade a block? FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wanna give you a prize

Hi, I'm Javitomad, a Spanish user of English wikipedia.

I've seen you've improved some articles about Spain.

Because of that, I want to give you a Barnstar, the Spanish Barnstar.

• 
  I, Javitomad, give you this Barnstar for contributing for a better Spanish-English Wikipedia.
  October 6^th, 2007.

(copy and paste this in your user page.)

Javitomad (...tell me...) 15:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Lee Bollinger

Is an article written by Bollinger himself really sufficient sourcing for the claim that he is a "noted legal scholar"? If that is actually the case, it seems that sourcing could be found that is not written by himself.--Gloriamarie 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to citation number one, the "Lee C. Bollinger" refers to the title of the article, not the article's author. Traditionally, in citations only the title is placed in quotation marks. No author is listed for the Gale Publications Newsmakers article because the database (Biography Resource Center) I used to find the article did not provide one for this article, unfortunately. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on media watchdog groups

Hi Gamaliel, just wanted to drop you a note about some of the goings on at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Research Center. IP user 70.160.234.240 and logged in user Rhino7628 are consistently trying to insert the word "progressive" or "liberal" into the first sentence of the former and remove "conservative" from the latter. I strongly suspect that the IP and Rhino are the same user (since they are both SPA's pushing the same points and since Rhino edited the IP's talk page here in a fashion that suggests they thought it was their own talk page). I actually don't have a problem with the word "conservative" not being mentioned in the lead sentence of the MRC article, though it should be mentioned in the intro. We discuss FAIR's political pov later in the intro and there's no need for it in the first sentence. Though it's not really required I think some consistency would be good, and also I think we need to determine if the IP and Rhino are the same user as this would be sockpuppetry. I'm fine with them contributing and arguing for their changes on talk but if they are essentially using two accounts to edit war this is not good. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My position in a nutshell, for what it is worth: As long as it is in the intro, I don't care where specifically. We cannot state FAIR is "liberal" as a fact since they self-identify as "progressive", but they should be identified as "progressive" somewhere in the intro, as MRC should be indentified as "conservative", which they state they are.

The evidence from that link is pretty clear and it seems obvious that they are the same user. If they continue to edit war, submit a 3RR report and they will get the message pretty quickly once they get blocked. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully they'll just drop the rv war tactics but if it continues I'll submit a 3RR report.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MagicKirin

Thanks. If you follow this edit by Kirin4 [34] to the next three edits. One is by an anon (kirin) and the next few are by winterflyer (kirin). I think this little exchange makes it pretty obvious. Btw, I am not the one that tagged the anon's user page or winter's user page. That was done by a different editor. If you don't think the adding and reverting of this particular comment is enough, I'll dig up some more. I dealt with the last Kirin pretty extensively and I feel like I am making a very positive ID. If you look at the editing history, argumentation style, mispellings and user interests, it becomes crystal clear. Also, this editor recently stated I revert all of their edits. User is obviously talking about his past incarnation. [35] I have only reverted one of his current edits and wasn't tipped off about who it was till afterword. I would have reverted that particular edit anyway. Thanks. Yeah, I can easily dig up more if you need it. The anon should be blocked too. Turtlescrubber 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He's gone. Thanks for the info. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. I appreciate your vigilance. Turtlescrubber 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil Hendrie Vandal Strikes Again

Hi, Gamaliel: The resident Phil Hendrie Vandal stikes again. Inserting false claim that Phil died on 21 August 2007, of stomach cancer. Here is the link from the vandal [36] made by user 216.93.229.62. The user was warned and blocked previously. It seems to be this user hasn't learn his lesson. He keeps violating the WP:BLP guidelines. Can you please block him once again before he goes off on the Steve Martin page. Thank You..ELO MnLynx Fan77 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the problem..Now he is requesting an unblock saying it was an "honest" mistake. It's a half hearted attempt to "change" his ways. here is a link from Phil's talk page [37] he started the section on Phil Hendrie Dead? ELO MnLynx Fan77 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Krisnamacharya and Krishnamacharya

hello,

I'm new to helping out and I see a minor change that can be of help. I searched "Krisnamacharya" and due to one letter difference, an "h" I couldn't find what I was looking for. The article has the name as KrisHnamacharya ("h" capitalized by me for emphasis). Are you able to make it so the spelling without the "h" still pulls up the article in search?

Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Tirumalai_Krishnamacharya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obe19900 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy

As you are an admin with a proven history of assisting in providing NPOV to numerous articles, I would like to see if you could take a look at the Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy article. Two editors, User:Bedford and User:ToddAmelio, have repeatedly censored/reverted factual content from the article and insist on inserting a pro-Limbaugh spin throughout. On the talk page, I have repeatedly attempted to engage these two editors in conversation regarding their edits, and have been met with only insults and wisecracks. If you have the time, please read my detailed explanations on the talk page of the article (under the sections "Incorrect timeline", "False claim of widespread use of "Phony Soldiers" term by media", "Unsourced POV editorializing re: Harry Reid", and "Context"). In those sections, I have provided versions of my NPOV changes, complete with my reasoning, alongside the editors' POV-riddled changes. The two editors simply revert my changes and refuse to discuss any of the issues raised in a substantial manner, simply hurling insults at me (and, while I do keep attempting to develop an ongoing discussion, I have to admit I've responded in kind). This is a strictly informal request, of course, for your assistance with reducing the article's POV-problems, prior to taking this to a Request for Arbitration.-Hal Raglan 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, while you may be opposing some POV pushing, you are not exactly what I would call NPOV. Railing against "Limbaugh apologists" on the talk page sort of taints your claims of neutrality. - Crockspot 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Help, please, on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page

Hi. A few highly partisan editors (including a few of the usual suspects) are trying to add "smear links" to the page, characterizing the article subject as a "fraud" or "hoax," when no reliable source has shown that it is[38]. Right now, it's become a "force all who disagree to violate 3RR" game, and it's tiresome as usual. Any help or advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Fun Bobby

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fun Bobby, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fun Bobby is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fun Bobby, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CopyNight Orlando

Hi Gamaliel/Archive10! I see you're from Florida. If you're in the Orlando area, please check out this brief survey. I'm looking to start a meet-up of CopyNight, a monthly social discussion of copyright and related issues (like Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and open source). If that sounds neat, please answer this short survey to help with scheduling the event. Thanks! --Gavin Baker 11:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

Hi. I just added, basically, a note that lays down the law about edits on this page. I did this mostly because one editor of late has a nasty little habit of connecting things within contributions that in the end, constitute original research. For Kupcinet, it includes (but isn't limited to) connecting her autopsy with difficulties & scandal involving the coroner a few years later. The way it's being done even says her autopsy wasn't brought up, but states that it's probably because her death had happened long before. There's nosourcing for this, and actually, I've not been able to find any connection even on the usual conspiracy pages that talk about her & JFK. I'd appreciate it you'd take a look at what I noted, since you've been there before: talk page. Thanks! Wildhartlivie 07:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow up. Would you please take a look at what is transpiring on this talk page with Dooyar. He is the person who was creating a furor the first of October, when you told him he wouldn't be permitted to act like this and treat others like this indefinitely. He has already had a 24 block for 3RR and bordering on rudeness & incivility. Thanks! Wildhartlivie 05:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Doonesburydemocratparty.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Doonesburydemocratparty.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Angeldelight.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angeldelight.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Curious to know why my contributions to Sen. Ted Kennedy's page were taken down? They are factual and I included a reference for one that was ommitted. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoraMessina (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8

Thanks for you comments. What changes would you recommend for the article? Pdelongchamp 04:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Your name is cropping up here and here. Just thought you'd like to know in case you're being misquoted at all. – Steel 03:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

CISSP article

There's an edit war happening on CISSP, an article to which you've contributed.

tdbf is insisting on inserting a POV tag meaning he feels the article is not neutral.

I believe the article is neutral. I do think that it can be improved but as it stands the problem with the article is not that it's POV.

Would you please leave your thoughts on the matter on the article's talk page?

Thanks Vincent 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet revisited

Thank you for your comments on the Karyn Kupcinet talk page. Trying to work on this article has become quite vexing and exhausting with the level to which trying to discuss it goes. At times, any position which I and the other editors take becomes a point of contention, which feels as if its contentiousness for its own sake. I would just like to direct your attention to an ongoing problem which has been reported and is currently under scrutiny at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar as well as other recent issues which can be seen here at User_talk:Dooyar. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Hazelton again

[message from crazy town removed]

• I don't agree that Democrats should never edit Republican bios. I'm not a registered Republican, but I do tend to vote Republican, and I have edited many Democrat articles neutrally. I would not want such a blanket restriction placed upon me, nor would I want that placed on Gamaliel. You also seem to know quite a bit more about Wiki policy than one would expect a busy politician to know, so it seems highly doubtful to me that you are Peter Roskam. If you think that Gamaliel, as an individual editor, is too biased to be editong Republican bios, then that is a different matter, and one which should be taken up with the arbitration committee. If by chance you do happen to be Peter Roskam, then you can open an OTRS ticket, or contact the designated agent, which I believe is Jimbo. - Crockspot (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While I admire your effort to reason with these types, it's like arguing with the wind. If Joe wants a place at the table, he knows all he needs to do is demonstrate table manners instead of these kinds of temper tantrums. He likes to quote Wiki policy, but he's only interested in it as far as he can use it as a rhetorical club. He knows that if things were really as he claims, all he'd have to do is go to Arbcom and they'd set it all straight. You know, why don't you take a look at the education section Joe keeps whining about? It might take some of the wind out of his sails if another conservative didn't have a problem with that section. And if you do have issues with it, edit away. What Joe can't understand is that I couldn't care less what the article says; the problem with him is obviously his behavior. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[another dispatch from crazy town]

Well, I wouldn't bother with the article, he doesn't think much of you. Since you disagree with him you aren't a "real Republican". This is why it's not worth bothering with these types. They don't want to take any action that might actually achieve their desired result, such as going to Arbcom, OTRS, Jimbo, etc., since they know they don't actually have a case. Instead, they harass and insult and rant and cry. Once they decide they are a martyr for their cause, logic and sense cease to be of any use. What can you do? They huff and puff for a while, and eventually they find some other bright shiny thing to play with. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kupcinet

What must I do in order to stop this, besides abandon the article? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Weiner...I mean Savage!

Gam,

You left me a nice note. Thank you.

You wrote: "...As a general rule, talk pages such as Talk: Michael Savage (commentator) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic."

Fair enough. But, how does my pointing out the obvious INHERENT BIAS deliberately put into that article by Savage haters (calling him Weiner at least 15 times) not an attempt to improve an article?

I ask again, if it's SO DAMN important that every paragraph remind those reading the Savage article that is real name is Weiner, then why is not Jon Stewart nee Lefkowitz (or whatever) accorded the same 'regal' wikipedia treatment?

Hmmmmm....

Thanks for helping me to figure out how to best clean up the Savage article. I'm planning on going in and simply (and rightfully) removing MOST of the gratiutious Weiner references from the article, but will first await your counsel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.70.140 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is a long rant accusing other editors of bias, which is generally considered bad form here on Wikipedia. You can report on problems with the article in a simple, direct manner without the excess baggage of the complaints and accusations. If memory serves he is called Wiener in the parts of his biography when he publicly went by the name Wiener and published books under the name Wiener. So why would it be "bias" call him Wiener and not Savage in the article when it discusses his actions as Wiener, long before he adopted the name Savage? In any case, if you feel it is a problem, why not just change it yourself instead of attacking everyone else on the talk page? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil Hendrie vandal

I think you can unblock User:216.93.229.62 now. This user seems really honest and 3 months is too harsh anyway for something like that. Footballfan190 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Seems really honest"? How so? Repeatedly inserting false information into articles after multiple warnings, then claiming it was an "accident" and a "mistake" seems the definition of dishonest to me. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact. Does seems really honest. This user just made a mistake, that's all. Did not mean to vandalize. Please, unblock that user. Give another chance. Footballfan190 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Always on My Mind

I was curious why you did the most recents revert on the page above? --Rockfang (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits were part of a series of anon edits I thought were questionable. If the material in those edits were in fact accurate, then obviously I have no objection if you restore it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison

I see your comment but do not understand it; I did not put in anything critical of harlan Ellison. Can you elucidate?

Harlan Ellison

I see your comment but do not understand it; I did not put in anything critical of harlan Ellison. Can you elucidate? Email would be preferable (in addition to public dissemination). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy.crabtree@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User 216.213.209.241

Hey, this user did it again. Although a week ago, this anonymous user needs to be blocked. Had a final warning before making the vandalized edit to 1942. Footballfan190 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardin-Simmons

Hi, I think something needs to be done about the vandalism to this page. It's been going on so long that it's hard to be sure what's true and what isn't. Thanks, Rich Peterson130.86.14.89 (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

rationale for Image:Somethingtoremembermadonna.jpg

Hi. In the rationale on the description line, you forgot to list the article. Also, on the purpose of use line, you forgot to list a use.--Rockfang (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done.

Now it's missing a license.--Rockfang (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything else? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can see. By the way, some of your image edit summaries around july 6th were quite amusing.  ;) Just thought I'd add that. :) --Rockfang (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is paying attention. Oh, the things I do to keep myself amused. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 06:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

L. Fletcher Prouty

The page on L. Fletcher Prouty has been vandalized. My page on Prouty was listed as an External Link, and was taken off, apparently because it is highly critical of the fellow.

I hope you can find a way to protect the page from further vandalism. John McAdams (john.mcadams@marquette.edu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.247.65 (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You aren't very popular among the buffs, as I'm sure you know. We'll just have to keep putting the links back in to all the jfk articles and keep deleting the conspiracy nonsense. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

What exactly is your rational for reverting my edits? I was quite clear in my reason for removal. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Occam's razor - Your reasoning isn't grounded in policy or consensus... I believe detailed reasons were given with the reversions. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bones membership

If I recall, all the references are from the Robbins text on Skull and Bones. Why don't we reference well-known facts from the life of George Washington? In part, the community of editors keeps outright lies from appearing in Wikipedia, and I've done my darnest to use fact rather than fiction (though opinion has appeared at times) in each of the Yale society entries. However, your advice is accepted.SLY111 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)SLY 111