Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 27 July 2008

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

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

Thanks

Some people will do anything to avoid answering a question, eh? I gather that's one of the few reasons for editing a talk page that way. I'm glad you stepped in before I saw it. :-) --Doug Weller (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Should have added I'm a native Floridian, Miami. A while ago. Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Let me know if he keeps it up. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whyh did you endorse a dishonest AFD nomination?

At the deletion discussion for Featherproof books, you endorsed the nominator's demonstrably false accusation that the publisher was a "vanity press." I am curious as to why a responsible person would do such a thing. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln Kennedy coincidences

I see you created the article Lincoln Kennedy coincidences. In case you hadn't noticed, there is another article, Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend, which contains much of the same information, so perhaps a merge is in order. Just wanted to let you know. Zagalejo^^^ 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. Thanks for the heads up. A merge is the best solution. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Would appreciate your input/thoughts at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for my stupid messages, which I wrote for you. Very sorry, because this messages were as you wrote "trolling", so I think that my block was OK. Very sorry Alden or talk with Alden 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bogus

I appreciate you jumping in, but is it your contention that my 3RR report was "bogus"? I stand behind it. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't conceding that point to him, but I agree that my wording was unfortunately ambiguous. I'll try to correct. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When people take petty bitches to ANI, I'm never sure if it's wisest to respond or let it ride. One the one hand, engaging in back and forth (on ANI at least) probably gives the impression that it's just two kids in a sandbox trying to throw sand in the eyes of the other. On the other hand, I'm hard pressed to allow Arzel to try and trash my name with innuendo and misstatements simply because he got caught with hands in the cookie jar. I also find the SPA comments pretty dubious; I'd bet major odds that it's either Arzel or Jsn9333... anyway, thanks for trying to help. Looks like most people are wise enough to avoid getting entangled, regardless of who is right or wrong (which I'm sure Arzel counts on). Cheers. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, it looks exactly like what it is (especially the ridiculous and obvious sock/meat puppet) and I wouldn't worry about it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as we are talking about other editors on Fox News, have you run into User:Trilemma before? Now he seems to be diving into my edit history and insisting AIM is a valid source. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will try to turn this into accusations of a cabal or other such nonsense... I have a little experience with him surrounding the Scott McClellan / What Happened articles. Though I wouldn't say he is agenda free (who among us doesn't have some personal beliefs?), he does seem open to productive discourse in my experience. As always, I assume good faith, though we both know AIM is clearly not a reliable source. Regarding that programming question you asked about... just email me and I'll forward the solution to you. Let me know if you can't find my email addy, or if you get no response (my spamfilter might grab your email). ;-) /Blaxthos ( t /c ) 16:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to be a reasonable sort so far, I overreacted. AGF and all that. I should take my own advice more often. Gamaliel (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He and I seem to have a serious difference of opinion over at Talk:What Happened, but hat's what keeps us honest.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mtracy9 and Edit Warring

I thought you should be made aware of this. Ramsquire 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone responded yet? Gamaliel (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's been there for a couple days now. Ramsquire 16:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

COI complaint against me

Are you aware of this complaint by User:Arnold1 ? Doug Weller (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would completely ignore it, beyond what you've already said. It's clear that Arnold is a Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account, likely John Ennis himself. Someone will probably block him eventually. Gamaliel (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And the focus of the argument is now deleted. I think he may have helped. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Double standards

So you have problems with such language, but when Boody accused others of antisemtitism and trolling, that was perfectly acceptable and did not merit a single word of criticism? Could you be so kind and explain the difference to me? PS. I don't endorse Poeticbent style there and I support your warning there, I just wonder why you have warned him and not Boody.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a point of noting that I have no intention of issuing warnings or apportioning blame for past comments. I've certainly noted that Boody in the past has crossed the line of civility, but most of the people on that article have as well in the past. I thought it was clear that I was only concerned with current behavior. If Boody has made some new inappropriate comments, I haven't noticed them, and I can only plead lack of omniscience. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that I have cautioned Boody to be more civil in general terms and to avoid comments such as those. Gamaliel (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing footnotes

You left the following message on my talk page.

When you remove text with a footnoted reference, please ensure that other parts of the text that you have not removed do not depend on that reference. See Misplaced Pages:Footnotes or ask me if you have any questions. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know which specific editorial change that you are referring to...— Preceding unsigned comment added by C08040804 (talk • contribs)

This one. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Flora-bama Article Deletion

Greetings,

I just checked the Flora-bama article and saw that it was up for deletion and that you had suggested it be deleted. While I agree that it does not have any references, it is a very notable bar. By far, I can easily say that it is one of the most renown bars of the Gulf South. I added the link to the bar.

Regards,

Joshua Melder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.34.33 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the proposed deletion... I know firsthand that reliable articles exist, and the subject is notable. I'll try to dig up some references soon. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I look forward to it. Gamaliel (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Judicial Watch

Yes, you restored a citation, but it is a citation to the Nation, a publication that does not have a neutral point of view and has a record of hostility to Judicial Watch. What you did was restore the introductory sentence of this article offering the Nation's description of Judicial Watch. If I changed the introductory sentence of the ACLU article to offer the National Review's description of the ACLU and then cited to a National Review article, you'd be all over me for non-neutral point of view. Your claim of a copyright problem, which you do not describe (there is no problem) is also a non-starter. Rather than have a continual battle, why don't we agree to put the introductory paragraph of Judicial Watch on the same playing field as the ACLU--that is, just as the intro paragraph of the ACLU describes the ACLU in accordance with the ACLU's web page, so to the Judicial Watch's introductory paragraph should describe Judicial Watch in accordance with the Judicial Watch's webpage. As for the positions, I will leave them as is and then put in a separate section afterwards explaining criticisms of the ACLU's positions (the same could be done for Judicial Watch--a section on Judicial Watch's positions, followed by criticisms). Please advise. In the interests of editorial harmony, I will wait till tomorrow evening to hear from you before making any further revisions to either article. C08040804 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Judicial Watch, where this message is duplicated. Gamaliel (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

New picture

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

— Mark Twain

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I always liked that saying, but I never knew it was Twain. BTW, thanks for the hand at Judicial Watch, arguing with that guy was getting tedious. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Swiftboating, Macaca (slur), & Macacawitz

These subjects are related and should be linked. Thanks for your contributions and interest and help in expanding understanding of these subjects and maintaining a NPOV. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If they are related, then you should have no problem producing a reliable source demonstrating this. Until then, we should refrain from making connections between unrelated subjects. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann stuff

I'm a pretty sporadic contributor, so I won't try and fight you too hard on this, but I don't think you're making a very convincing case to rm the tax section. "Importance" and "Encyclopedic notability" are fairly vague, but I certainly think a Yahoo News article on the subject meets Wiki's criteria for notability. Frankly I'm concerned that NPOV is being compromised here. --Kangaru99 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How is NPOV "being compromised"? One yahoo news article doesn't make an issue encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to content. It's funny that you mention WP:NPOV, as I fail to see the encyclopedic value in pointing out a miniscule corporate tax issue that was resolved before the issue was published. Removed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RCP - Joel

He has been making other contributions, plus it appears he is creating another account. If he really feels that strongly about the NPOV then someone should be making some comments to what the problem is. Arzel (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he should make comments. No harm in giving him a couple of days to get around to it. If he doesn't, I will support your removal of the tag. Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Are you sure your ID shouldn't be "Gangsta"? :) :) :) Baseball Bugs 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

keith olberman

i am kind of confused why i need to source something that is an obvious fact? based on your wiki page it appears you are a democrat. is it not obvious to you or anyone else for that matter that olberman is a liberal commentator? i assume you don't think of him as a straight down the line host? Willcoop (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not an "obvious fact". Sure, he doesn't like Bush, but that doesn't make him a liberal, any more than the fact that he doesn't like Hillary Clinton makes him a conservative. Read the article; it quotes him as saying "I am not a liberal". In any case, it doesn't matter what we think, what is required by Misplaced Pages policies are neutral and reliable sources for that claim if you want it to go in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Email List

Mtracy9 is seeking to have his block repealed. Although his initial request was declined, I was concerned by this response. If he does pursue this email list avenue, would we have an opportunity to state our case as to why we believe he is RPJ, how he has edit warred, and how immediately after the block he created two sockpuppets to avoid the ban before seeking unblock. I'd have no problem if another admin, after reviewing all the evidence reduced or repealed the block. But I would want an opportunity to state my case or at least review the process before it happens. Ramsquire 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Guess who may be back for the next presidential election (here's a hint: ). Shem 05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing struggle with User Dan56

Hi Gamaliel. We've discussed the problematic editic habits of Dan56 before. And, unfortunately, the user still continues to be a bit of a rogue when it comes to music related pages. Perhaps, if you have time, you could provide Mr 56 with some more advice as to how music articles should be edited. Thanks, cheers and take care. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow-up. Dan56 is still struggling with adding cut/paste copyvio into articles. He also struggles with the WP:ALBUM guidelines regarding reviews and what constitutes "professional" which, for him, equates to a lot of amateur spam additions. The review field in the album infobox was never intended to be used as a link factory for every single review ever done on any album subject. I have found a few a Dan56's regular haunts where he has added as many as 12 links. The WP:ALBUM project page a a list of acceptable professional review sources that can be used. Dan56 seems to think every single website hosting a review even though many of these sites are not the true authors of the original review. This is falling under the WP:EL rule about "do not knowingly add links to websites that may have copyright violations." Any assistance would be great. Dan56 has several Jazz album articles in his watchlist that are extremely long. But when you read deep into those articles you can see that the entire page is simply cut/paste text from other sites/sources. Troubling. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be some misunderstanding. I see from this edit that you removed a blockquote using the edit summary "(rm cut/paste copyvio)". A quote such as this is not a copyright violation as it is clearly identified as a quote and it is clearly sourced. Such a quote may be removed on grounds of encyclopedic style or appropriateness, but there is no violation there in terms of copyright. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just tried a wp:quote clean but got reverted yet again. Articles shouldn't be written by pasting text word for word from external sources should they? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. I know that Dan56 has done that before. But to be able to deal with him we can't lump together non-violations with policy violations. If you can identify legitimate copyright violations, I will act upon them. Gamaliel (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He has been known to upload album covers as "self work" which isn't copyvio I know but still a blatant lie and one knowingly done too. I haven't checked his image uploads in a while but they are worth investigating due to his past history. I am at 3 strikes on the LL Cool J album article and quoting the quote essay about what makes for a bad article doesn't seem to make any difference. When an editor sees "fanboy page" as better than "encyclopedia page" then its hard to sway them toward quality no matter how many policies, guidelines or style essays are mentioned. Speaking of policy though, Dan56 has been blocked for 3RR in the past and now it looks like he has veered that line again without care. He has a tendency to blank any warnings he is ever given almost as quick as he receives them so any editor who stumble on to his regular haunts will never get any sort of pre-warning about dealing with him unless they review his talk page history. I know deleting is the same as acknowledgment but still I think for all the 3RR warnings and similar that Dan, or anyone has received, they should have to stick for 30 days before the user can blank them. Dan56 has violated WP:3RR countless times against countless editors, including you, to try and keep all his copy/paste quote content into the articles that he ignores WP:OWN on. Very troublesome edit habits. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If he violates copyright, I can deal with him, but I can't exactly block him over stylistic differences. You can report him for violating the 3RR at WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, 3RR reports are the most painful thing ever invented on Misplaced Pages. :-) I'd rather just pretend he didn't exist for a day or two and try and focus on the more productive WP:MUSICIAN/WP:GUITAR project 'to-do' lists. He'll take a powder for a while. (we can hope) and trying to follow him is tough (since he also edits as an IP as well to skip around the 3RR policy) I appreciate your efforts and your advice. Misplaced Pages wasn't built in a day. All bad editing will eventually be replaced with quality some day. Maybe even by a reformed Dan56 eh? Who knows. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree they can be a pain, but they are effective, and after enough blocks even the most stubborn edit warrior gets the message. Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Gamaliel - I wonder if I could seek a bit of advice from you concerning fair use of an image. This is in response to an ongoing discussion on the Al Gore talk page which you can read here about updating the infobox photo. You can read the entire discussion there, but essentially I am arguing that photos in infoboxes for former presidents and vps should be professional, official, portraits in order to maintain quality WP articles. Besides the free image currently in use in the article's infobox, there is another professional portrait online but it is WP:NONFREE. I find the rules concerning images and copyright a bit overwhelming, so I was wondering if you could take a look? Is there a way it can be used? Is permission needed?

• http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the rules is limited, but in this case I believe that we almost certainly could not use it because a free substitute is available. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Is there a way to ask for permission to use it? To contact the photographer etc? -Classicfilms (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an issue of permission. On Misplaced Pages the preference is always for the freely usable image, so even if you had permission, the free image would still take priority. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Davis

Please hangon - I will open a discussion on talk. I think the reference I cite is pretty clear. Thanks --Justallofthem (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear that the material is acceptable when used properly, as it is in the article in question. Gamaliel (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmkay :) --Justallofthem (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely serious. It's a legitimate, award-winning publication, and the use of it in the article adheres to the guidelines in the policy you cited. What is the problem? Gamaliel (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than that it is a non-notable, one-sided, and derogatory opinion by someone that is extremely biased against Scientology and Scientologists and some of us here (not you) feel the need to trumpet that non-notable opinion in a WP:BLP article? No problem, I guess. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is a different matter entirely than saying it is prohibited by that policy.

I would say that it is in fact notable, since he is the editor-in-chief of a major publication and it speaks directly the specific action taking place and sheds light on what critics think of the work of the subject of the article. One-sided, biased, and derogatory are irrelevant, as it is clearly labeled as his opinion and it's pretty clear that he's a critic. NPOV requires that we present both sides and hear from these critics. Gamaliel (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the letter and spirit of BLP argues against its inclusion. And I argue that that is only underscored by the RS reference I cite. Gotta run, let's see if anyone else chimes in on the talk page. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the discussion there then. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Talk:Fred Phelps

I quote from my recent e-mail:

I would like to report a flaw in the bot HelloAnnyong. Recently, I have been defending a user's post on a talk page. The bot in question appears to be reverting my edits without considerable discretion. As a talk page consists and exists primarily for the purpose of discussion and attaining a general consensus on an issue, I believe that the bot is either a) malfunctioning (acting on falsified coding), or obsolete (reverting edits of previously scrupulous origin, which have since its inception proven encyclopedic). I can cite reverts to the talk page for Fred Phelps (excuse my failure to link to said article). The talk page has served as an arena for discussion of encyclopedic inclusion or exclusion. And, until recently, the page was open to influential and academic interpretation. I conclude that the bot HelloAnnyong is overstepping the very guidelines that make Misplaced Pages free and inclusive.

As you will note, my edits do not constitute violation of any existing policy. Please acknowledge this before proceeding with any further incriminations.

Thank you, John

Please familiarize yourself with the policies at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people. They prohibit defamatory material from being posted anywhere on Misplaced Pages. The material you keep restoring is clearly defamatory, and thus prohibited. Please do not restore it again. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your style dude.

You're totally right about Real Clear Politics. I was reading some of the articles on that site when I said to myself "this seems pretty conservative." So I came to Misplaced Pages to see what it said and found your comments on the talk page. Right on! It's as fair and balanced as Fox News, or a baseball umpire who tries to keep the game tied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenFehling (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

you may

You might want to have a look at User talk:Swamilive‎ and see if you think a reduction in block time is in order. - Nunh-huh 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me

How this is vandlism, and these 1 and 2 are not?

Your own quote on my talk page regarding this.

"The crux of the issue is that you are pretty free with the word "vandalism". To another user, especially a new user, adding the word "right-wing" to the article of a Fox anchor is logical and not vandalism."

Arzel (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:TWINKLE? I use it regularly. The program creates that edit summary. However if you look at the user talk page of the anon I reverted I clearly noted that the problem was "adding content without citing a reliable source". Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that or many of the other automated tools, I haven't had much time to really qork with them. I did see your edit, I also saw that he recieved a warning after his second edit. The anon in my situation made far more edits before I warned, and made sunsequently many more edits. It just seems like you are more apt to remove accusations of a liberal nature and allow those which are against those you view as conservative. Case in point with John Aravosis. His was not as much of a story as Clark's but it was not difficult to find several reports. 1 23 4 5 67 If I was the conservative agenda person that You and Blaxthos think that I am, I certainly would not have hesitated to add this back into his article. Arzel (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think you have figured out some kind of imaginary agenda on my part, but once again you have leveled false accusations regarding my motives. I have no problem with you adding that to the article if it is properly sourced and written in an NPOV manner. The offending material failed on both counts. Also, you'll note that while I thought it was a pretty clear cut case I only reverted three times, then brought the matter to the BLP noticeboard for other editors to act upon the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your previous history speaks for itself. Try a Google News Search Perhaps you should follow your own advice like I have. BTW, your EL to KO criticism to "balance" the article is still gone, as it has been for several weeks now. It was pretty sneaky I must say. Arzel (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky? Yeah, I hacked into newsbusters and broke the link. I'm tired of your trolling and your constant accusations and your paranoid, delusional fantasies. Go away, preferably in a manner which WP:NPA prohibits me from describing in detail. Do not post here again. Gamaliel (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice please?

Hey, haven't communicated with you in a long time. I need advice as to whether it is ever acceptable to summarize a primary source? I think it is if you don't draw an inference from it at all, but another editor disputes that and I don't want to dig in my heels on it and be wrong. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the summary is done in an NPOV manner, I don't see the harm. What article are you working on? Gamaliel (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue (author) Where there is just a lot of problems now. I would invite you to step in and help Orange Mike who has already done some things there, and help keep order. And if you think I am being wrong there, I am as happy to be told that as anything. Its a real mess!!! --BenBurch (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've only had time to skim the talk page, but if I grasp the situation correctly, you want to summarize the tone of comments made to a post, while the other editor objects on grounds of WP:OR. Perhaps you could skirt the issue by citing a secondary source. I know that there is a Wired article about this mess and I'm sure they probably made some comment about the objections of readers. Gamaliel (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good enough. I removed it until a secondary source can be found. If you do have the time, please keep an eye there. Major dishonest crap happening there. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rube Goldberg

I'm glad that 4 years later the Rube Goldberg page has finally been restored to what I tried to restore it to way back then with your ridiculous Mike and Ike, Foolish Questions, Lala Palooza, The Weekly Meeting of the Tuesday Women's Club, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and other links all removed. Your "immediate to do list" must still be quite long given those never made the cut in this long timespan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank yot for bringing this to my attention. I immediately restored the links so it would cause you another four years of discomfort. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was off-wiki for the holiday weekend, so I appreciate your coming to my defense on the Talk:Fox News Channel page. The whole thing surprised me, because I thought my comment was quite unexceptional; on re-reading it, I saw nothing that I'd change or apologize for. Ramsquire has apologized on my talk page. Presumably we can concentrate on trying to improve the article. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving talk page threads at Talk:Racism

Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{resolved}} and {{stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayers election controversy AFD

Hi - one of the editors over at Talk:Barack Obama pointed out that your user name is similar to the Gamaliel Foundtion, for whom Barack Obama worked as a consultant and instructor. I don't know if you would have any obligations to disclose this, or whether it would be a WP:COI even if you were, but because the concern has been raised you might want to clear up whether or not you have a stake in the issue. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the Gamaliel Foundation. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

68.75.0.0/16

Just looking into an unblock request at User talk:68.75.172.216, which is unfortunately difficult since I have no idea why the block on 68.75.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is in place. If you don't mind, could you/we/someone change the block reason to something which doesn't apparently accuse a large number of AT&T customers of harassment? From personal experience blocking ISPs and fielding unblock requests, a decent number of people will be offended after they (unfortunately) assume the block reason accuses them of doing such things. {{anonblock}} might be another option, with a <!-- commented --> note if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still Joe Hazelton, and this is the only thing that keeps him muzzled. I'll change the blocking reason. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, that's a name I'm more familiar with. Thanks! – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WB74

I don't know if you are aware, but WorkerBee74 has mentioned you on WP:AN/I (see subsection Article probation). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've added my contribution to the discussion there. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been several ANI discussions and in one of them, after proposing several individual sanctions against multiple editors, it took sometime before they were one-by-one enacted in some way or another. My view is that to resolve issues more quickly and effectively, the area of conflict should be subject to the terms of article probation I've proposed in the link above. However, I'd appreciate if you could state whether you support or oppose that measure being enacted by the community. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk)

Thanks. I've added my two cents there. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed that you are currently engaged in a talk page argument discussion with WorkerBee74. This is an utterly fruitless exercise and I urge you to just ignore him. He will not see reason, he will not back down, and his provocations and repetition of the indefensible will be relentless. For your own sanity, I recommend de-watchlisting his talk page. It's like trying to argue your case with an unholy alliance of Terminator and Borg drone. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that might be the sensible thing, but I've got plenty of things up my sleeve. Such as a dish-drying rack and a comfy chair. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mike and Ike (They Look Alike)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mike and Ike (They Look Alike), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wright (author)

Hi, I'm wondering why you moved RW(author) to RW. When I typed Richard Wright into the search box on Wiki, I was looking for information about the Pink Floyd keyboard player, and in fact had never even heard of the american author of the same name. Why does the author merit having the main namespace? all the best Jcuk (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because he's one of the most important American authors of the 20th century. Gamaliel (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Equally you could say he's one of the most important English keyboard players of the 20th century, I still dont see your logic, sorry. Americans are no more notable than other nationalities and authors are no more notable than other professions....so that doesn't really explain why he (the American author) merits the main namespace. all the best. Jcuk (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point but encyclopedias simply don't treat all countries and occupations equally. In any case, take a look in some other encyclopedias and standard reference works and you'll see plenty of evidence for my assessment of Wright's importance. Gamaliel (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee report

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfert the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)