Jump to content

User talk:Gamaliel/Archive15

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

Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you. Rock on.

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

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

WQA

[edit]

If you have any thoughts on this matter, you might want to participate in [[1]].--Happysomeone (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

[edit]

An SPI case of possible interest

[edit]

Hey. As one of the users who seem to have dealt with at least two of the suspected socks listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showtime2009, you might be aware of other accounts fitting the pattern described in the case. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LHO entry: Removal of External Link to Fetzer/Marrs Article

[edit]

Hi Gamaliel,

On Rodhullandemu's talk page, you will find a few recent exchanges between him & me concerning the deletion of a link from the LHO entry's External links section. The link in question is to the 10/20/2009 Jim Fetzer/Jim Marrs article entitled, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco," which can be found at numerous Internet sites.

Being a new Wikipedia user, I am curious as to why this particular link has been scrubbed. My latest exchange with Rodhullandemu, just moments ago, suggests asking you for more info in this regard.

Can you please provide specific details concerning the deletion of this link? If not, could you please suggest someone who would? Also, being a new Wikipedia user, any help in regard to the means of communication with other Wikipedia editors is appreciated.

Thanks,

Monticello1826 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monticello1826 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Rodhullandemu's initial objections. A single blog post does not add a unique resource. The article is too broad of a topic to host links targeting only small parts of the article, and the source of this link is of dubious reliability. If you look at the links already on the article, they generally are not blogs commenting on small aspects, they are broad overviews or unique resources. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Morgan

[edit]

On Meanie Morgans page I corrected what was not a neutral quote but was very biased and put out of context to show a negative image of her imho...I added the whole Quote to put it in context and feel that if you changed it it was in a biased way.Many wiki pages have very biased or added controversy pages to them that are lies and many others are putting Positive spin and fail to mention the many controversies and in Olbermanns case his HATE Mongering bigotry. I am just saying wiki is far from neutral and very biased by many of it's admins. You may not admit it but it is the truth!!! Kind of like the MSM and not to be trusted as an honest source and taken with a grain of salt. Just my 2 cents and I will not try and correct any of the other lies and half truths that I see as apparently they will just be put back with the current SPIN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.168.43 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really should read this. Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

[edit]

Happy St. Paddy's Day

[edit]
Happy St. Paddy's Day, Gamaliel

Have a Happy Day, Gamaliel. :D Malke2010 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Btw, I'm curious. Who is the fellow with the puppies?Malke2010 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Crean. His bio was the featured article on the front page a day or two ago. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Albums considered the greatest ever

[edit]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you created the article so I thought it'd be great if you'd give your two cent here since I'm the only one so far who wants the article to stay. The only other people involved in the discussion are deletion-happy administrators, which I think is a bit unfair. So I'd really appreciate it if you gave some insight. Thank you. Best, Geeky Randy (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Not sure what else to add besides to point to the obviously successful Films considered the greatest ever as a handy yardstick. Gamaliel (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Scottmckenziestainedglassreflections.jpeg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File: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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

Fox News Channel

[edit]

Hi, since I've seen your name in the admin boards in discussions on Fox News and Media Matters, I thought you might like to contribute to the Talk:FNC - intro should include controversy and/or one before at Revisiting "most trusted". The current lead discussion has only received replies from several editors there who've demonstrated what i think is a lack of objectivity --they were all in the previous thread arguing against MMfA as reliable source. Three others who seem more neutral have not chimed in, i feel, because they are regularly patronized, insulted and otherwise dismissed. For the poll section, I've submitted an RFC to get outside opinion. Thanks. PrBeacon (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vfdvoting

[edit]

Template:Vfdvoting has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

Glenn Beck--Edit War a-brewin'

[edit]

Advice or intervention would be appreciated. (i.e., stop me before I revert again) Another editor wants to dilute the existing intro w/o consensus; I'm trying to maintain the status quo until any revision is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mcp.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mcp.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Real Deuce

[edit]

User has asked for an unblock of his IP - seems to have been caught up in a range block you initiated.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I've unblocked the range, though I warned Real Deuce that this might happen again if the vandal returns to using that range. Gamaliel (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

Greetings from Sweden

[edit]

Dear Gamaliel,

Way back when we had a disagreement regarding Helen Thomas, this weird lady I'd seen on TV making outrageously biased statements. I wanted to insert her political creed as a self-avowed liberal after her infamous "I was born a liberal. I'll be one 'til I die. What else should a reporter be?" quote, and you thought this was wrong/bad. Fair enough, I let your edits and deletions stand, backed off and moved on.

And now, this same woman goes out and says Israel is evil, that Jews should go back to Poland and Germany, and so on. God it feels good to be vindicated. All apologies are accepted, feel free to leave them here.

Best regards,

-Johan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.133.96 (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what one thing has to do with the other, but please spare me a tedious explanation and return to silently nursing a grudge about something that I'd long since forgotten about. Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Etheridge

[edit]

I don't think full protection was necessary; the edit-warring was coming from anons. Maybe consider changing it to semi? I think the regular users should be able to hammer out a suitably neutral version, especially once Etheridge's press release comes out this afternoon.—Chowbok ☠ 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about giving an advantage in the edit war to registered users. Given the short duration of the block, I don't see any problem with making those users discuss on the talk page for the next hour. With luck, the press release will be out by then. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Semi seems about right for now. This is an active event and there are enough admin eyes on it to keep things in line. Ronnotel (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

Photo for Grateful Dead article

[edit]

Dear Gamaliel, I'm here because I see that you provided the art/photo in the infobox for the Skull and Roses album article. Being that I'm honestly ignorant of fair use, I go to an expert like yourself :) my question is: could a photo of the band be allowed under the same license? And do you have any photos that might work? They have used the one I uploaded but it was not meant for that article (Grateful Dead), but for Bill's bio (Bill Kreutzmann is my brother).Please reply on my page. Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Continued Problems Malke 2010: What to do?. Toddst1 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

TUSC token 1d98909cd0e4fe91c6a31654a2ae6a6d

[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

[edit]

LHO lead

[edit]

Please lend your thoughts at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Lead (again). I hope consensus can be reached without any chalkboard erasers being thrown. EEng (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinéad O'Connor's name

[edit]

Hello, I'm translating the Sinéad O'Connor article for the czech version of Wikipedia, you added there a ref (back in 2007 [2]) that she was named after Bernadette. I am wondering what have these names in common? Isn't this ref related to the name, which she adopted after her ordination? --Pan BMP (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

[edit]

Please delete this photo

[edit]

Hello! I hope you and your family are in good health. Please delete this photo because I did not mean to upload it on Wikipedia, I was just testing (yes I do know about the sandbox). There is also NO copyright for the photo so please delete it. The photo is not being used in any articles either. Thank you, (Aerowikipedian (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Can you specify which photo you are talking about? Or preferably link to it? Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

talk page discussions

[edit]

Please do not close and hat talkpage discussions you are involved in, I want that discussion open, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute expansion

[edit]

I see you have followed my edits and moved to another article I have edited, please do not follow my edits around increasing and expanding the dispute between us to other articles, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm free to edit whatever I want, and I don't see the need to refrain out of fear of offending someone who isn't the least bit civil to me. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

[edit]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:John Gibson (political commentator). Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything. Closing discussions with templates is a well-accepted Wikipedia practice. The discussion can be read by anyone, but it discourages the stupid from continuing. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

Please be aware you are edit warring with the User:Off2riorob at multiple locations, please stop this and move to discussion or dispute resolution. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just trolling. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

FYI BLPN

[edit]

Hi, content you have been involved in supporting is under discussion at the BLPN here thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that you are supporting content from media matters and you are a major contributor to that article. Have you got any declared conflict of interests? Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am biased in favor of Wikipedia and against trolls. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks against me when I have good faith issues with your editing reflect badly on you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack? Are you a troll? If not, then I haven't even mentioned you. You, however, have been nothing but insulting and uncivil to me. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can not support that with diffs. You call me a troll and then attempt to say it wasn't directed at me when it clearly was. Please stick to the content issues. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content issues? You are the one who is attempting to transform a minor editing dispute into a referendum on me. To do this while at the same time attempting to claim the moral high ground is beneath contempt. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Utter rubbish, you have been a supporter of this attack content and that is the only issue I have with you, there is nothing beneath content about my concerns with the content at all. I am uninvolved personally with you, it is the content I am interested in. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have you constantly attacked me? Have you got any declared conflict of interests? That's your idea of not being personal? Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with asking that, you are one of the top four ever contributors to the media matters article and you are strongly supporting keeping three critical comments and five citations to their website from this article? Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is Wikipedia, and there are rules and guidelines about how we interact with other editors. Assume good faith for one. The fact that you have imagined up a conflict of interest for me won't change how I edit, won't change how I feel about the article, and won't help us find a compromise. That kind of obnoxious behavior only poisons the atmosphere and inhibits collaborative editing. I've been here six years and I'm an administrator, I'm not some MMFA plant, and it's both ridiculous and insulting to imply that. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to interact with you as an uninvolved good faith editor with issues as regards your support and reverts and tag team notification of other users as regards this content and have got nowhere, you still as far as you are alluding to support these valueless insults and I will as a neutral continue to disagree with your position. WP:AGF is not to be blind, and I will not be. I appreciate you have been here a few years but the issues you are supporting are positions I dispute, your fluffy claims about me are nothing more than red herrings I care less about, to be totally clear again. all I care about is the living person that imo is being attacked by content you are supporting and that is all I care about, your an Administrator, so what, I don't care, I care about the subject of the article only. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you care about the subject of the article only, then let's discuss the subject of the article only, on the article talk page. Leave personality out of it. Are you willing to do that? Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

Proposed deletion of CovertAction Quarterly

[edit]

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

Unsourced stub

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Q T C 06:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Articles for deletion nomination of CovertAction Quarterly

[edit]

I have nominated CovertAction Quarterly, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CovertAction Quarterly (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Q T C 20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Maashatra11 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

File source problem with File:Dalemabry.jpeg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Dalemabry.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

[edit]


The Signpost: 1 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]
Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

[edit]

Hello, Gamaliel/Archive15! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

DYK nomination of Ellen Hayes

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Ellen Hayes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

DYK for Ellen Hayes

[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Frances Winston Newson

[edit]

Nice work on Mary Frances Winston Newson - I've made a few minor changes and passed your DYK nomination. Any chance you could have a look at my DYK nomination of Seneb, immediately above yours at [3]? Prioryman (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I just added the green button. Great article, btw, and much more fun to read than mine. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Rosen

[edit]

Sorry about that, I hit you on an edit conflict. Please feel free to revert me. Tentontunic (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'm not particularly attached to any version, I just didn't like the one I saw when I first showed up at the article. Now that I know I wandered into an edit war, I don't see much point in doing anything but keeping it NPOV as possible until this thing dies down. Gamaliel (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you removed all reference to previous Fellowships from the lede - I understand the desire not to overemphasize the controversies, but the fellowships have been in the lede for several years, and ought to remain there; there is some discussion of this on the entry's talk page. [Be kind to the newbie]Knowitall369 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer and Abortion

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's sufficient to say she's pro-choice? Really? You think her position is so representative of the typical pro-choice position that it doesn't warrant more specificity? Her position seems extreme, is a matter of public/Congressional record, and is so out of the mainstream that it seems baffling that you would not think it warrants further detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megarian1973 (talk • contribs)

No, I don't think it's particularly extreme or noteworthy. You'll have to demonstrate one or the other with sources to convince me that it is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it's noteworthy that a U.S. Senator believes a woman has the right to terminate the life of her child, even once it's born, until she leaves the hospital and arrives home? And you don't think that's extreme? I also love the shifting criteria:first it was inadequately sourced; now it's too much detail. Yet, the Meg Whitman entry on the Nikki Diaz controversy goes into much more detail. Would it be sufficient to say "Whitman hired a woman who turned out to be an illegal immigrant"? Or would this leave out significant information? Also, perhaps you could tell me what would be considered an abortion position that would warrant more detail.
Also, I've provided adequate sourcing. You'll have to demonstrate to me that the Congressional Record is inadequate and/or that Boxer's position, which borders on infanticide and which has been a matter of great controversy, is a mainstream position.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Megarian1973 (talk • contribs)
I don't believe that you have provided adequate sources to convince me or other editors that this is in fact a matter of great controversy, or even noteworthy, particularly out of the ordinary, or worthy of inclusion. I suggest that a more productive place for this discussion would be the article talk page, where you could discuss this with multiple editors. Also, please sign your posts, which you can do with four tildes ("~"). Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, je vois, I see now: one must use Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow for sources instead of the Congressional Record. I'm rather new here and was unaware of the standards- but thank you, alles ist jezt ja ganz klar, mein Freund. Megarian1973 08:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It's clear from this comment that you do not wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia but instead wish to wage ideological warfare. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope you prove me wrong with future constructive editing. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's the very thing I was implying about you based on your previous comments here and in the editing history for the Boxer page. I've noticed Olbermann sourced in similar contexts on other pages you've edited, but you don't register the sort of concern you did for George Will. As for the future, I don't hold out the same hopes for you re: productive contributions, here or in society at large. Behold, the tildes: Megarian1973 17:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't know enough about Wikipedia to know how to sign your own posts but you've been able to examine my editing history in detail? That is completely believable. Or, more likely, you are making knee-jerk assumptions about me based on my opposition to your edits. My knee-jerk assumption is that you will continue to act in this childish manner. Prove me wrong, I dare you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK for Mary Frances Winston Newson

[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is now featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTOP-FM

[edit]

Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive15&oldid=1141551783"