Misplaced Pages

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.

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)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

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.

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 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 and his alleged involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name Bulldog, he resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005.

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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? . Thanks in advance. Abe Froman 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Daily Show, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/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. 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.

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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:

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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

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 Misplaced Pages: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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 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 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 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages staff rather than to engage in public discussion which might pass general scrutiny on any of these points himself. I contend that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages hound and "AN", "RL", "ES", etc. do not have meaning to me. I do not spend time on Misplaced Pages flippantly or maliciously editing entries, or as one paid to maintain entries to control their spin. I rely on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages--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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. I repeat that I am not a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 . He's been able to hoodwink a sympathetic admin, but is up to his old tricks. Propol has tagged him as a Hazelton sockpuppet, and he (true to form) has removed the tag from his page . I'd appreciate your looking into this, as you previously blocked him . His IP is within the series of several Joehazelton socks., 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.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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_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_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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

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.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages? :) - 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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)