Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 14 October 2006

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.

• March to August 2004: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 1
• September to November 2004: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 2
• November 2004 to February 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 3
• February 2005 to April 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 4
• May 2005 to July 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 5
• August 2005 to October 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 6
• November 2005 to February 2006: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 7
• March 2006 to July 2006: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive8

Peter Roskam

FYI I wonder if those comments could be removed as personal attacks. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for locking the page, now we have a still target to discuss. I will, in the next few days go line by line and discuss this page. I am willing to be very nice and hope the other editors "BE NICE" too.

I have been in contact with User:Jahiegel to help me in this. Thank youJoehazelton 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Clay Shaw

I'm asking for an Rfc on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment. Ramsquire 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

trying to avoid an edit war

could you take a look at the recent edits of Jojouka.

http://en.wikipedia.org/The_master_musicians_of_Jajouka

I have a couple of users who feel that the commercial link they placed on several different articles is ethical and should not have been removed. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Rsm99833 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link advertising the CD and I'll be watching the article in case it pops up again. Gamaliel 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note my edit history. They're placing the link on other pages as well. Thanks again.Rsm99833 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gammers

Please unblock Gammers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That is just his last name. Fred Bauder 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Has he provided proof of this? I find it difficult to believe that two days after someone impersonating me on the Joe Scarborough article attempts to restart an edit war there, a Mr. Gammers appears and heads straight for that article (and no others) and makes extremely similar edits. For over a year I've been the victim of a vicious vandal who has attacked me because of my editorial position on this article (see the deleted edits on my user talk page for some examples) and I believe this is the same person attempting to get at me again. Gamaliel 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered you without researching this more. this edit is good for an indefinite block. Fred Bauder 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Link

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm on the road (going to Las Vegas) and cannot follow proper protocol. Could you make a call or send this one up for consideration as if it belongs here or not-

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_Degrees_from_Truth&diff=prev&oldid=67578886

Again, sorry for any inconveniences. Have a good weekend. Rsm99833 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Vandalism

When you take it upon yourself to undo the work of two other editors who negotiated and compromised to include something that is based in reality, and not wikiality, then yes, I call that vandalism. The fact is that conservative bloggers DO use that alternate definition all the time. If you go to Conservative Underground and ask what swiftboating means, you will get that answer repeatedly. EECEE felt that blogs were not a reliable source, so I came up with those other three sources. He picked the t-shirt one to use. I'm not going to continue an edit war, but you have your head stuck up a dark hole if you refuse to believe that "swiftboating" means something other than the definition that you approve of. Crockspot 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your little warning about personal attacks is bogus. I made an equivocal statement, the outcome of which is determined by your ability to discern your own bias from reality. Are you going to address my concerns, or are you just going to play wiki games? Crockspot 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, that was an equivocal statement that is only true if you are unable to separate bias from reality. I assume that you ARE able to make that distinction, therefore the statement would not be true. You are well known for using the wiki rules to get your way. I hope you are proud of the fact that you have supressed a bit of valid information about a term that is actually used, and done it within the rules of Misplaced Pages. I would report you for a 3RR violation, but since we both made the same number of edits, I'll let it go. But feel free to continue to post warnings. Crockspot 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well now who is resorting to personal attacks? The fact remains that the alternate definition that I added to the article is widely used among conservative bloggers, and you have supressed it. Your verbal assault on my talk page, as well as your prediction that I will be banned from WP, only confirms to me that you have an agenda to pursue. I have a prediction of my own. The definition that you have called "bullshit" will get back in the article eventually, either through an acceptable publishing, or through a modification of the RS rules. You are not the only one who knows how to work the system around here. I may not have been around as long as you, but I suspect that I am quicker on the uptake. It's been a pleasure getting under your skin. Crockspot

16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So you insult and attack everyone in sight, and when someone responds in a way that can be interpreted as even the slightest bit uncivil, you attempt to take the moral high ground. How typical. If you're going to reinact the troll playbook, please don't waste any more of my time. Gamaliel 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just overexaggerating. If you really have looked over my edit history, you will see that I have a civil working relationship with BenBurch, who is a bitter enemy of mine outside of WP, and also worked out a civil compromise with an editor who could have potentially conflicted with me on the Ava Lowery article. If you go back and examine the first interaction between you and I, you will see that YOUR edit history was the first to use the term "bs". Perhaps you should examine your own attitudes, and how they contribute to the attitudes that you receive back. Namecalling is not a good trait for an admin. Crockspot 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. You have this tactic down pretty well, so you might actually fool someone. You accuse everyone in sight of bias and vandalism and then you have the chutzpah to attempt to claim the moral high ground. Impressive! Gamaliel 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. (curtsy). Now, can we start getting along? Crockspot 17:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are sincere about this, sure. You can start by refraining from accusing people of vandalism and bias. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Allrighty then. Consider me being haved. Crockspot 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh by the way, please refrain from removing messages posted on MY talk page. That really is poor form. Thank you. Crockspot 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. Reverting the edits of blocked users is standard procedure. Gamaliel 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of a user's talk page? Please. Your attempt to hide the information from me failed. Crockspot 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. *eyeroll* Give up the conspiracy theory. I could have deleted the edit from the page history with my administrative powers and you never would have known it existed. No one is trying to "hide" anything from you. If you want to follow the dubious advise of a blocked user, go for it, but it won't get you anywhere but blocked yourself. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How does one archive a discussion?

Looking at the JFK assassination page, I think it is time to do one. But I don't know how. Ramsquire 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How did you reach your decision? RPJ 23:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I received a message on the top of the page saying "This page is 126 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable." Ramsquire 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect of my User: and User_talk pages

It's been almost a year. Can you unprotect these now? I promise, I will behave 99% of the time. 67.18.109.218 01:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper

You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting my user talk page after Tchadienne's edit. I think he has problems and may need help. I doubt that editing Misplaced Pages is good for him just now. Anyway, thanks for your help. --Guinnog 11:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dagmarlife.jpeg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dagmarlife.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kevin 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Garrison

Hi. Thanks for your edits. I edited the Jim Garrison article, including putting back some of the material you removed. The reason was that this version left almost no information at all about the Clay Shaw/Kennedy assasination case, which certainly is what Garrison is most famous for. Making the article more factual and more in line with NPOV is welcome. I encourage you to explain what the specific problems are with material you remove. I think the article needs more info on the famous case. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See my note at Talk:Jim Garrison. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick import

Refering to John Trumbull (poet). Added more links/pages off the 1911 text. Sidetracked by researching colonial american newspapers. My head is spinning. :) Electrawn 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Roskam

Hello. At the Peter Roskam page there were several disputes, which lead to you protecting the page. I have no problem with that; however, there is an edit that I was hoping you could make on my behalf. I've posted my propsed addition at Talk:Peter Roskam / . In my opinion there should be a discussion of the O'Hare Airport issue. I appreciate your help. Propol 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

I know we have not agreed (although we have agreed once) but I am asking you for help. SBHarris is going over the top and definitely needs someone in a position like yourself to have a word with him. His answers to simple qustions are always long, lacking in paragraphs, have POVs, and worst of all, are extremely insulting. I know it has been said that a third party, or deceased, is "nuts", but attacking other editors so personally is attrocious. I think you may empathise with me on this one... Thanks. andreasegde 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some specific examples of behavior which violates policy? He's been a bit hotheaded, but then so have we all on those articles. RPJ's lowered the bar of civility and we've all stepped over the line a bit. I'd need something pretty serious if I'm going to single him out above everyone else. Gamaliel 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It´s respecting Misplaced Pages´s rules of editing. "Be nice", as it says. andreasegde 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from deletion vote

Figured this was not relevant, so I moved it here, if you mind, you can revert:

Grand, we have the conservative POV warrior circuit here voting now, what I called the neo-conservative cabal before. User:Gamaliel, User:CJK, User:TDC, User:MONDO were is User:172? Travb (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been accused of being a liberal POV warrior plenty of times, but this is first time I've been labeled a conservative POV warrior. Interesting that you draft me into a cabal that would hate my guts. One fellow member you listed called me an asshole during an edit war. But I guess that's in the past. When should I expect my cabal membership card in the mail? Gamaliel 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• As a neo-conservative cabalite and member of the VRWC Wiki Editors Guild, I can confirm that Gamaliel is most certainly NOT a member of our Guild. :) Crockspot 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL User:Gamaliel that is the problem with broad labels like this, you are bound to make mistakes, and look like a fool, like I just did LOL. I vaguely remember some of your edits, I must remember them incorrectly, sorry. Some of these users love to be called witty names like "neo-con Cabal" etc. It gives them a sense of importance maybe, I don't know. One of these users once told me in no uncertain terms he was not a "neo-con" but he works actively with the "neo-cons" all the time. So I will have to go back through our edits together. I have seen some editors proudly list all of the partisan names they have been called on their wikipages. Again, sorry User:Gamaliel for putting you in this group, you can list this label on your talk page if you want. I can move this discussion to our talk page. Actually I will do this right now.Travb (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gamaliel, as a Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (Member No. 31) here's the info: annual membership fee: $50000. For those leaving the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, however, the membership fee is waived as long as you turn over your user name and password to the VLWC's computers. Upon receipt of the fee or information, you'll get your hat, tee-shirt, and complete Ann Coulter library. PainMan 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

I am going to add citations to the hannity page, there has been alot of vandalism, and im trying to fix the page. It would be great if you would remove your post from my talk page so I can finish this stuff. --Zonerocks 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't "fix" the page by inserting his biography from the Fox News web page and I don't see how my post on your talk page would interfere with your editing. Gamaliel 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It does. Do you think neal Bootrz actually said wear blue ribbons to promote the beating of rodney king?? This a horrible page, and don't change it again. --Zonerocks 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. That is a very POV page and Im making it NPOV. Let's stick with that. Don't forget there is citations.

I make no claims about the quality or accuracy of the material you wish to remove. I merely oppose your insertion of a copyright Fox News promotional biography. Gamaliel 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Swift vet article

I made a slight NPOV adjustment to the blatantly POV edit that you reverted. I suggest you check the "Alleged debunking of SBVT assertions" section of the article's discussion page to understand where I am coming from. Related to this syndrome, I will remind you that John Kerry had a recollection seared.. SEARED.. into his memory, of being sent to Cambodia by Richard Nixon, at a time when Nixon was not even President yet. Cherry-picking minor discrepancies in the 35 year old recollections of decorated combat vets does nothing to discredit their core assertions. Crockspot 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, try again. The factual inaccuracies were proven. The connections to the GOP were proven. Gamaliel 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reply was so quick, I must assume that you refuse to read what I wrote in on the talk page. The factual inaccuracies are common to all Vietnam vet recollections. They are irrelevant to the core assertions. I will post here what I wrote there. "I lost a family member in a helicopter crash in Vietnam in 1970, near FSB Ripcord. I've spent the last five years researching the crash, gathering accounts from about twenty different men who had either direct or second hand knowledge of the event. I also had access to official records. What I found was that, in the minute details of their accounts, not one man's story jived completely with any others, or with the official records. But I did find that the general essence of their stories matched, even with the official record. When you ask a man to remember an event that occurred 35 years ago, and that event occurred in a war zone, where one's sense of time is distorted even at the time, you are going to get minor discrepancies in the details. In my own researh, after discovering other events that occurred in the various units around the same time, I was able to account for these discrepancies as details being confused with other events, and just bad recollection. While they all told slightly different tales, the important story was all the same. About 250 highly decorated Vietnam Vets participated with the SBVT, and I am not surprised that some of the details of their accounts turned out to be wrong. "Debunkers" have found these discrepancies, and use them to discredit the entire SBVT story. However, I have seen no "debunking" that does not fall into this "minute detail" category. The main assertions of "Unfit for Command" have not been disproven. Crockspot 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" Crockspot 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not refuse, I simply didn't notice it yet, but I will read it now that you have brought it to my attention. Gamaliel 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into getting you a cabal discount. Crockspot 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

Your revert of User:Tregoweth on this article reinserted poorly linked (external links instead of wikilinks) and copyrighted material (a cut and paste job from the Fox News website) originally inserted by User:Zonerocks. I'm sure this was an innocent mistake, but please be more careful when you dive into an edit war. Gamaliel 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed an unintended mistake...and I wasn't aware of either an edit war or a copyright vio there. I simply noticed a blanket reversion involving a whole bunch of text in many different paragraphs with no edit summary explaining why. The previous version seemed reasonable so I felt, at the minimum, a reason should be given for reverting. Maybe, in the spirit of Misplaced Pages and trying to improve an article, it would have been better to simply convert the links to wikilinks and delete or rework the copyrighted stuff instead of reverting to a stagnant old version. Anyway, what's done is done. I'll check the edit history more thoroughly on that article when User:Zonerocks is involved. Perhaps you should also leave User:Tregoweth a note encouraging him/her to use edit summaries when making seemingly major changes to an article.--WilliamThweatt 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

USF Health

No, our contribution is not a press release. Everything we wrote was a verifiable fact. Health is a major part of USF now. The fact that there is no mention of it on the page, was a glaring ommision, that makes the article, dated, and inacurate. I am sorry that our hard work and research offended you.

Ken DeRoche & Edward Saint-Ivan

9-19-06 11:47pm EST I made some Grammatical error corrections to the Health article. Right after I resubmitted the cleaned up version, someone named Michael halterman deleted the entire article. Do you believe that was appripriate. I have since resubmitted. This type of behavour does not seem to foster much in the way of community. How would this clown like it if I arbitrarily deleted every article he has submitted. Shame on him. I think I have wasted enough time with this supposed "Encyclopedia"

Ken

Swiftboating revisited

Hi Gamaliel. I wanted to revisit the alternate definition of Swiftboating with you. We butted heads a while back over the use of t-shirts being sold at Cafe Press as a source. You came down pretty hard on me over it. I notice that the Fitzmas article also uses t-shirts from Cafe Press to source the definition and usage of THAT term. No one seems to have an issue with it. Since this has now been brought to your attention, I'm sure that if I add that alternate definition with the source back into the article, you will either not have a problem with it, or you will have a problem with both articles. A good natured test of your neutrality, if you will. Crockspot 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for such tests. Go find some other test subject. Gamaliel 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Place a NPOV TAG on the Peter Roskam Page ASAP PLEASE!

I am wondering if there will be any changes allowed at the Roskam page?

In the mean time, I would like you, since you locked the article, to add a tag to the page indicating that there is an on going NPOV dispute about this article. Let it be known that I am disputing the NPOV of the Roskam article.

Considering some of the issues I have pointed out at the , a

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

tag placed on top of the Peter Roskam page would be most appropriate. The Peter Roskam article, as it sits, has to many sections, which any reasonable person could call in the question, the relevancy, accuracy and as well as the lack of poor or no citations for the pov assertions many of sections in that article make. The Roskam article appears, as I have read them, not to conform to the Wikipdia standards for living persons; is not encyclopedic in it's tone, and many of the assertions made in the article have flawed logic backing them. Until this NPOV Dispute is resolved, Please place the POV tag on this article.

ThanksJoehazelton 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Sorry that I did it again. I will slap myself silly until I stop it... andreasegde 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone (Gamaliel) tell me why Jack D. White´s testimony and link was taken out? (Sound of fingers drumming on desk...) andreasegde 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You already asked this on the article talk page, so why is it necessary to ask it again here? Gamaliel 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clary

Hey there Gamaliel, I noticed that you voted for the Johnny Lee Clary article and I was wondering that you would be willing to help with an article or perhaps help with getting it out of its deletion tag. Any help would be appreciated. I have drafted it here http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary Nick. Potters house 06:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gannon, and WP:BLP

Here we are again. Since you are an admin, I assume that you are familiar with WP:BLP. I suggest you refamiliarize yourself to be safe. Prostitution is a crime. Calling a living person a criminal on Misplaced Pages without high quality sources is not allowed. None of the sources provided give any proof that Gannon is indeed a prostitute. They are merely gossip, allegation, and political punditry. Gannon has never been arrested, charged, nor convicted of prostitution, nor has he made a public admission that he is a prostitute. I see no solid evidence that he ever advertised as a prostitute, only unsourced allegations made in articlea. These are not the "high quality" sources that are required by Misplaced Pages when dealing with living persons. When in doubt, always defer toward privacy of the individual. The policy is very clear. I think you are way off base in your position on this subject. If I have to, I will pursue this issue to the Board of Trustees if necessary, and I am positive that they will agree with me on this one. I have also asked for clarification on whether or not negative info has to be sourced at each instance, or if following a link to another article to find sources is "good enough". Crockspot 14:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Forgot to mention, I am reapplying the noncompliant tag. Please do not remove it until this issue is hashed out fully. As you know, removing maint. tags is considered vandalism. Crockspot 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me, I am well aware of Misplaced Pages policies and rules. Gamaliel 16:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Where have I threatened you? I believe you are wrong in this case, that is a fact. If we cannot resolve the issue through a mutual understanding of the rules, the I have no choice but to seek redress through the process. That is also a fact. I take this matter with the utmost seriousness. I cannot just walk away and leave libel on Misplaced Pages. Are you taking this seriously? Or are you just following me around to thwart my good faith edits? I prefer to assume the former, not the latter. Crockspot 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You issued a vandalism warning to an administrator. Seriously, how else am I supposed to take that? And Gannon was on my watchlist months before I first encountered you. Gamaliel 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My first edit to the Gannon article was April 25, 2005. Gamaliel 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not use any warning templates, simply an advisory reminder. I can see now that you are not open to any fruitful discussion with me, so I will start the process of resolving this by requesting AMA advocacy. Have a nice day. Crockspot 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your first message was to warn an administrator not to vandalise. How is that a productive way to open a "fruitful discussion"? Geesh. Gamaliel 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your failure to address the valid concerns expressed in my first message gives me that impression. In fact, in all of our communications in the past, I cannot remember a time that you addressed a single valid concern of mine. You zero in on what you perceive to be slights, and ignore the substantial issues. That is not a pathway to fruitful discussion. Crockspot 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't enjoy talking to people who threaten me. Is that such an odd position to take? You've also accused me of following you around to "thwart" your "good faith edits". This is not the way to engage someone in "fruitful discussion". Gamaliel 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't believe that I have threatened you. In any case, I would hope that an admin would have a slightly thickened skin, and would direct the discussion toward the subtantive issues at hand, rather than ignore those issues, and focus on subjective perceptions. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist in that regard. I had thought that our ideological divide could be overcome on this particular BLP issue, being that the best interests of the project are at stake, and the guidelines are so clear cut. I was wrong. Crockspot 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(Moving back to left margin) I don't believe you an threaten or accuse someone and then demand that they address whatever you feel like addressing and pretend you never threatened them or accused them of anything. But if it will end this silly back and forth, fine. The information on Gannon was widely reported in multiple news outlets. He openly advertised his services on multiple websites. We have the testimony of the person he hired to put up these sites. This is pretty open and shut. Gamaliel 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the sources are of the "high quality" required by WP:BLP. I have read them all very carefully, and they are mostly of an editorial nature. The reporting on what was said by the web developer can hardly be characerized as "testimony". On a tangeant, I also believe that it is important to source negative info on living persons wherever it appears, and not rely on the reader to follow a link to another wiki article to find the source. That one has not yet been clarified in policy, as far as I know. Crockspot 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then that is a reason to take the sources from the other article and add them to the article that lacks them, not to remove the information. Gamaliel 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, as the nutshell for BLP states, "Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." I am making the opposite claim, so it is not my responsibility to do the work of those who make the claim. In fact, it is my responsibility to remove the claim. As to the sourcres themselves, I should have previously stated that the authors of all of the sources can arguably be characterized as biased, further lending credence to my belief that they are not suitable sources for negative info in a BLP. Crockspot 19:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To remove something from a secondary article when you know the source is in the main article on that topic is wikilawyering, sorry. Gamaliel 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not when I dispute the validity of the primary source to begin with. Why would I source information that I believe should be removed, with sources that I dispute? This wouldn't be the first time you've tried that Jedi Mind Trick on me. "This is not the article you want to edit." Crockspot 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What trick would that be? Seriously. If I have Jedi Mind Powers, I'd like to know about it. Gamaliel 19:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That was an attempt as Star Wars humor. You have in the past tried to convince me that I should do something exactly opposite of what I am trying to accomplish, in order to accomplish my goal, ie., that I should go remove the same types of sources from Fitzmas that I am trying to include in Swiftboating. A pretty neat trick, but the Force is fairly strong with me. Crockspot 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught the SW reference, thanks. I wasn't trying to "trick" you into editing Fitzmas, I don't care if you do or not, it was just my response to you trying to get me to edit it. Gamaliel 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion and Conjecture?

I would like to know what in my addition to the William Greer article constituted opinion and conjecture. Very little is known about William Greer, and the article is marked as a stub. What I had added was referenced and supported by fact, to any who care to look. What service do you think you are performing, as an "admin", other than censorship? Readers, I guess, are not allowed to consider the possibility that Greer fired the fatal shot into Kennedy's head, being content with the fact that he appeared in some family photos in 1962. Who do you work for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Laubin (talk • contribs)

Additions to Misplaced Pages articles must follow the rules of Misplaced Pages, such as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Additionally, your conduct must follow Misplaced Pages rules such as Misplaced Pages:Civility. Angry accusations of "censorship", etc., etc. are inappropriate and will not be tolerated. Gamaliel 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Misplaced Pages:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Misplaced Pages:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael H. Hart

I reversed your deletions (please excuse if impolite) because of some information on Dr. Hart:

He is not a member of the American Physical Society, the American Astronomical Society, or the American Geophysical Union. That means he can't even present a paper at a meeting of one of those societies unless he gets a member to endorse it.

This site has a free search service for paper, abstracts, and the like:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ads_abstracts.html

I searched and found almost nothing.

There is a review by Bruce Jakosky in Icarus, Vol. 127, pp. 264-265 of the second edition of his book,

Extraterrestrials, Where Are They? 2nd ed. B. Zuckerman and M. H. Hart (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995. 239 pp., $39.95 hardback, $19.95 paperback

It turns out to be just a compendium of essays! According to Jakosky, the last chapter (the only one written by Hart himself) is unchanged from 1982, which Jakosky finds "distressing." The "editors do disservice to the community" by publishing out-of-date work, he says (Hart is one of the editors).

Zuckerman is well respected.

So if you like Mr. Hart you could add mention of the other book (on extraterrestrials). I also looked at the Montgomery Community College website and among the staff found no "professor". I e-mailed them to ask if they used titles like that but they have made no reply. It is possible that the faculty are "instructors". Not to stand on ceremony, but just to avoid aggrandizement of a guy who wants to partition the U.S. along "ethnic" lines. Reminds me of Bantustans. Carrionluggage 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because I edit an article about a person does not mean I am a fan of that person. Please don't make assumptions like that, especially when we are dealing with people who may be racists and white nationalists/supremacists. I initially removed your edits not because I am a fan of Hart but because of the rules at WP:BLP. Serious accusations like calling someone a white nationalist calls for reliable sources. White supremacist websites do not qualify as reliable sources. Gamaliel 05:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks

for the help. 132.241.246.111 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Seems you've stumbled into a preexisting edit war here. BTW, please be aware of and adhere to the Three revert rule. Multiple parties have broken it and everyone needs to calm down on this one. Gamaliel 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No Problems

OK knuckles duly rapped and noted. IMHO User talk:132.241.246.111 is adding contentious material and in some cases NPOV material as he has done previously. note taken, and I will ignore all edits,however inflammatory, from this user. Cheers Khukri 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can certainly challenge and/or revert his edits, but I just have a problem with him being treated like a vandal instead of a contributor. Gamaliel 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem being called a vandal when I overstep my bounds but it's inflammatory to threaten to ban a person for calling the Unabomber a serial killer. 132.241.246.111 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be a bit much. Gamaliel 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

now this guy needs banning

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Madge_Oberholtzer&action=history

I don't know everything about wikipedia but I know trying to intimidate editors is not allowed and that's what 75.13.99.82 does. 132.241.246.111 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into 75.13.99.82's edit history. Gamaliel 22:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He's got a rotating server. The best way to get him to appear is to revert the article on Madge Oberholtzer. 132.241.246.111 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your comment at the Talk Page for 75.13.99.82

Note the edits of 132.241.246.111 to that very page:

• inserts a typo into the comment by editor for whom it is the talk page
• removes explanation by that same editor as to why accusation of sock puppetry is implausible
  (then gets scared and undoes that bit of vandalism)

Now, look at these edits by 132.241.246.111:

• inserts bogus semi-protection tag into article on D.C. Stephenson
• again inserts bogus semi-protection tag into article on D.C. Stephenson
• inserts bogus semi-protection tag into article on Madge Oberholtzer
• inserts bogus semi-protection tag into article on Timothy McVeigh

These are just some of the more blatant examples of vandalism by 132.241.246.111.

In reply to your

Please discuss your edits on the article's talk page and do not refer to other editors as vandals.

I'll tell you: Please don't allow yourself to be played by a vandal who keeps shopping his complaints around, seeking an administrator who is both gullible and precipitous. (You do not appear to be the latter.) —12.72.69.26 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The preeceding stalker troll is likely the same guy I was telling you about.

He too is on a rotating server making it difficult to quantify his vandalism.

yes I listed him as a sock puppet because he is one and I was tired of dealing with him.

132.241.246.111 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

New Vandalism by 132.241.246.111

Now

• 132.241.246.111 has completely blanked the Discussion page for 75.13.99.82

My vandalism, BTW, quantifies at 0. —12.72.69.26 03:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Chris Kennedy Death

Hello Gamaliel,

Regarding the death of Chris Kennedy, my source for this information is the bands manager with whom I am acquanted. The incident happened early this morning.

I would imagine the information could be confirmed with local authorities, though I don't know which town in particular responded to the scene. I do no know that he was off the coast of Cape Cod at the time.

Chris Kennedy is in fact a stage name. At this time I don't want to release his actual name because of privacy issues.

If/when I found out more detail, I will let you know.

Thanks, Mike

Thank you for the information. There is no need to add his real name. Misplaced Pages rules require us to have a source such as a newspaper article, but I'm sure one will be published shortly. Gamaliel 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Swift Vets

Amazing that got through. I figured the Kerry article was pretty closely watched. Anyway, it seems like the thing to do is grab the version of that section from a while back, from before the vandalism, and replace it entirely. I'm leaving town for a couple days in just a minute, so I can't have a closer look now. Derex 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jack Vance and racially motivated photo

All right, I cooled down a bit. You are too loose with that "bizarre" epithet. Let us try to resolve this peacefully. This is what I posted on "Template_talk:Blp#Image_change" page:

Please, change this "Two Girls" abomination to anything: Pioneer plaque, fine, though I think for a Biography Project it would be better to use an image of an old, leather-bound book with some press guilding and some silhouette that would offend no one: Beethoven's, Newton's, Aristotle's, you name it. I find "Two Girls" image so offensive that I am ready to blow the top and start a vandal war over it, and that's not really in my character. The problem is, this image is a racially motivated imposition of certain ideology that I despise. Human beings should be regarded strictly on their individual merits, without classifying them by race. Race-based political correctness is a racism, painful to anybody who has been persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity -- inverted racism, granted, but still a racism. Like those questions about your race in government's questionnaires. If they are skin-color blind, why do they care what my race is? The same with this "Two Girls" photograph. It is a real torture to me, to see it on the talk page dedicated to my favorite writer. Please, remove it ASAP!

You are too loose with that "bizarre" epithet. Insulting people will lead to nothing constructive for Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate any help in the speediest possible resolution of this matter. Please note that I am not the first one who has been revolted by this photo. Arvin Sloane 07:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The template is a standard one and we aren't making a special one for the Jack Vance. Argue it, as you have done, on the template's talk page. I don't see anything wrong with using the word "bizarre" to describe your repulsion regarding a completely inoccuous picture of two children, and I expect many others will have the same reaction. Even so, if you confine your crusade to the template talk page, I have no other objection. Gamaliel 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, we don't often agree on much, but "bizarre" is appropriate in this instance. Just... wow. Crockspot 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Double wow: It looks like he may have succeeded. Some well-meaning editor removed the picture from the template. Geesh. You might want to chime in over there on the talk page too. Gamaliel 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, you don't talk about other participants of discussion in third person. This is an insult in itself. Secondly, every person of color in the US and in Europe is sick and tired of Blacks and Asians being used as PC "balancing" heads, stuck in ads, TV broadcasts, magazine articles, everywhere. You are using people of color to achieve your own, not very noble ends. If you don't understand such a simple thing, what do you understand? Arvin Sloane 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Gamaliel, you are afraid of something, aren't you? Otherwise, why would you insist on removing legitimate comments? Arvin Sloane 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Vance is for talking about the Jack Vance article, not for your rants. Please keep your comments on topic. You can rant about the template on the template talk page. Gamaliel 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, Gamaliel. Jack Vance page is for talking about the Jack Vance article, not for your rants, not for your unsubstantiated edits and reverts, not for your vandalism, not for your friends' rant about tags that have nothing to do with Jack Vance, and not for those tags in the first place. I didn't start this "tag war," the Misplaced Pages editors inserted the tags without asking anybody's permission. And I wouldn't continue it if you wouldn't remove, without explanation, the whole record of my previous conversation with Peter1968, that shouldn't concern you at all. Can I ask you, as a human being (I know you are still cringing from losing the PC photo argument but please, get over it already): leave our page alone, you are an unwelcome and uninterested newcomer there. Who are you trying to fool? It is obvious that you are engaged in removing messages that you don't want to see, nothing else. Please, stop. Thank you. Arvin Sloane 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Arvin, you have been insulting and offensive, you have vandalised and you have made threats, and you have done more than enough to deserve blocking or banning. Misplaced Pages is not your sandbox or message board or a free speech zone. I'll let you have your little rant space for the time being, and when your conversation with Renesis13 is concluded, it will be archived. You will refrain from insulting individual Wikipedians or Wikipedians in general. You will refrain from using the article talk page for offtopic rants. You will refrain from making any threats or any other trollish behavior. If you persist in this behavior, you and your sockpuppets will be blocked. If you persist in evading those blocks, a report of your behavior will be made to your service provider. I hope it does not come to that. This will, I hope, be our last conversation. Gamaliel 04:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you made me laugh so hard my sides hurt. Whatever you say, Ms. Vandal-in-Chief. Just leave us alone on Jack Vance page, and let us continue a meaningful and largely polite discussion that we had before you appeared on the scene. Ciao, bambino. Arvin Sloane 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Largely polite? You were threatening an open ended revert war because you felt threatned by a pic of some kids. Whatever you need to tell yourself to get by I guess. As long as your behavior improves immediately, you won't be hearing from me again. Gamaliel 06:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Vance

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the one to remove the discussion. I thought Arvin Sloane had. However, I am not discussing the template, and I do not see how the discussion is not related to the Jack Vance article. I want a legitimate answer -- it is destructive to Misplaced Pages to have little corners of the article space like this that are owned by a few people exhibiting troll-like behavior. If he wants a place that projects, templates, and Misplaced Pages work do not apply, he needs his own site. I want to know why Misplaced Pages is so important and yet so disgusting. -- Renesis13 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You know that Arvin has no talk page I can work with, since he uses a dynamic IP to avoid being blocked. I can't leave messages for him on my talk page. How else am I supposed to do it? My goal here is not to "restore his trolling" (I tried to remove everything but the relevant messages last time), it's to find out why he and a few others do not want to allow any cooperation on the Jack Vance page. I don't think it is fair of you to say you'll protect the page just because you have the ability and I don't, as I am not vandalizing, nor objecting to discussion, nor trying to prove a point. I only left a message that I don't want wiped away 2 seconds after I wrote it. -- Renesis13 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. -- Renesis13 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You can archive the talk page now, if you feel up to an edit war. I don't want to start anything, nor am I afraid of hiding the conversation like Arvin Sloane thinks I am, so I'm not going to move it to the archive just yet. -- Renesis13 06:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Robeson

It's the first time when someone removes my contribution from a discussion. May I ask, what is your historical education to do such thing? I hope you have written a number of books about the Sviet Union? If not - would you be so kind to revert the discussion to the state before your action?

Paul Robeson has been used by Soviet propaganda and obtained Stalin's prize. It's a shame. Xx236 07:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not a soapbox or a message board. It does not take a "historical education" to realize that. They are for discussing changes to the article. If you wish to propose changes to the Paul Robeson article, you are welcome to use the talk page to discuss that. Gamaliel 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalism Xx236 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

mystery vandalism

Hi Gamaliel. I was wondering if you could clear something up for me. Tonight I discovered that somebody at IP 24.80.152.101 had vandalized the Mexico (game) page several times on 10 Sept. When I finished reverting the vandalism, I noticed that the IP in question appeared as a live link, so I clicked on it, planning to leave the user a message on his talk page. However, all I found was something called a "special page" for that IP number, with no talk page at all, and just a list of edits that had been carried out by someone at that IP (4 edits in total, all of them directed at the Mexico (game) page for some reason). So my question is: What gives? It almost looks like somebody set up a special page for himself just so he could do a little vandalism. Or is a "special page" actually "special" in some way that I'm not aware of? Buck Mulligan 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the link above should be to User:24.80.152.101, which in fact resolves to this, because (I'm speculating here) anonymous users don't have user pages. John Broughton 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that was the special page I saw; thanks for linking. But my question was/is: What exactly is that page? It doesn't look like a regular user page, and it seems to have been set up specifically to target one quite obscure game page. Or is it just a page that the system automatically sets up whenever someone edits anonymously? I guess it must be the latter. Buck Mulligan 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

William Garnett: copyright problem

Dear Gamaliel,

I wrote the Misplaced Pages article on William Garnett that you have flagged for possible copyright problems. I believe that I have followed all Misplaced Pages guidelines in writing this article and that I did not violate any copyrights. The copyright flag you posted indicated that I should assert my copyright on the William Garnett talk page, but the link to that page indicates that there is no such page. Therefore, I am posting my reply to your page.

My primary source for the article is "William Garnett Aerial Photographs," 1996, published by the University of California Press. Other sources include recent obituaries in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and an artist profile at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu.

There are 21 factual assertions about William Garnett in my article and each fact is corroborated by at least two of the reputable sources mentioned above. Most facts are corroborated by three or four of the sources. As a postscript to this note I have listed the 21 facts and then included an indication of what sources corroborate that fact. After that listing I include links to these online sources and a bibliographical reference to the book I cite.

If you consult these sources you will see that I have not violated any of their copyrights. I have simply laid out the salient, skeletal facts of William Garnett's life in the chronological order in which they occurred, according to these sources.

I hope you will examine the sources I have cited, agree that there are no copyright violations and remove the copyright flag from the article.

Sincerely,

H Lewis

The 21 factual assertions and their sources:

Birth year (explicit or implied): nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

Birth city: nyt, lat, wgap, getty

Move to Pasadena: nyt, lat, sfc (implied), wgap (to Altadena)

John Muir High School: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

Art Center School: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

Crime scene photography: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

Signal Corps service: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

G.I. Bill & flying: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

Bought first plane in 1947: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap (cites 1949)

Guggenheim grants: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap, getty

Fortune magazine appearance: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

One man show at Eastman House: nyt (says 4 man), lat, sfc, wgap

Family of Man exhibition: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

Use of a Cessna 170B: nyt, lat, wgap, getty (no model number cited)

1958 move to Napa: lat, wgap

UC Berkeley employment: nyt, lat, sfc, wgap

Museum collections: nyt, lat (getty only), sfc, getty (getty only)

Wife Eula Beal & three sons: nyt, lat, sfc

Death date: nyt, lat, sfc

Death city: nyt, lat, sfc

Books by Garnett: lat, sfc, uc berkeley library

Getty Art Museum (getty) http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1580

Los Angeles Times (lat) http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-garnett5sep05,0,6657309.story?coll=la-home-obituaries

New York Times (nyt) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/obituaries/09garnett.html

San Francisco Chronicle (sfc) URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/10/BAG0CL2UHU1.DTL

"William Garnett Aerial Photographs," 1996, University of California Press, Berkeley. (wgap)

UC Berkeley Library http://sunsite5.berkeley.edu:8000/

• Comment, I've replicated this at Talk:William Garnett.--Isotope23 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:William Garnett. Gamaliel 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Kroupa article

I'm one of the editors who has contributed significantly to the Patrick Kroupa article. My interest in all this began when the 60's Yippie Speaking Tour showed up on my campus in 2003. I made a lot of the sections in the article and unfortunately probably made it too gung ho in places, especially with liberal POV, I think part of the problem is I took the overall tone from all of the books, etc, and it's probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.

I'd like to turn it into a good article which covers all relevant material (none of which is present post 2000 right now) removes material not necessary (civil rights section) and removes the liberal POV that got picked up from all the references used. I think I have a better overall grasp of style, after having read and used wikipedia for many years and contributed mostly to hacker underground articles, the latest of which was Mixter. I directly reference everything I write, backed up with real world books, articles, etc, not websites, there is no original research, but I guess that isn't the problem since nobody has ever found fault with that, only the overall tone.

I would very much appreciate advice on the following:

Although I made a lot of the article's structure, over time there have been hundreds of edits. May I simply add and remove sections without stepping on any toes?

I wanted to make changes and additions a long time ago, I even wrote the subject of the article and received no response. If I'm shooting a movie or writing a book, he seems to cooperate, any web oriented project does not seem to receive cooperation at all. This seems to extend to all projects they (the NY mindvox people) are involved with. Dead trees and movies, keep coming out. Their own website was last updated in 2003, all their efforts seem to be completely offline. At this point I mostly dropped it because my intent was not to anger or upset anyone and I ceased adding material or edits, which is when every organization he is a member of seems to have arrived and added themselves into the entry and started the "Affiliations" section which in my opinion should either be worked into the text, or removed.

To be succinct, my questions are:

May I edit/remove/change large sections of the article without upsetting the many editors or violating some policy of wikipedia?

Should I write any of the other main editors/wikipedia admins such as Myleslong (who is also in CDC with Kroupa) and ask them or mention this first, or simply do it and they can edit/revert at will?

The article has many links and all references I used are included. It also links web sites, but none are commercial or for profit. Neither Kroupa or anybody involved with Mindvox seems to be selling anything.

I've looked at bios of controversial people in similar positions such as Tim Leary, Burroughs, etc. Is there any other biographical article that stands out as a good example you think I should look at prior to making changes, or any other wikipedia policy I should read.

In short: I would like to bring the article into focus, remove the cruft and liberal POV and not enrage any of the other editors, some of them also admins on wikipedia. Probably that won't be possible, but I would like to do my best.

Thanks TrancedOut 02:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User evading block

The user evading block posted again on the Global warming talk page. Since you erased his comments before and he posted the exact same thing as before, I thought I'd let you know. Brusegadi 04:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've blocked him again. Gamaliel 04:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Roskam

FYI — goethean ॐ 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello, Gamaliel. I'm an editor who spends a lot of time working in politically controversial topics making sure that POV doesn't work its way into the project. I was recently involved in a dispure with the user Getaway on a statement on the Sam Brownback page, and while browsing other topics of political pertinence I happened on the ongoing dispute at the Fred Phelps page. If there's any way I can be of assistance in disputed material, I am more than happy to lend a hand to make sure that NPOV is maintained, that no unreliable sources get through, and that interests stay out of the project. Just give me a shout on my talk page if I can be of assistance. --Kuzaar 15:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Darwin Kastle
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Olivier and Antoine Ruel
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tommi Hovi
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Selden
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kai Budde
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mike Long
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jon Finkel (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering people

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Football vandal

See my answer on WP:ANI. --LiverpoolCommander 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Manchester councillor

Hi, I've brought up this AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan, which you had previously commented on a batch of Manchester councillors including Mr Chohan. I think he is one of the least notable entries. Perhaps you feel like commenting? JASpencer 14:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

As an administrator, your reverts of the Fox News Channel article are especially astounding. This highly debated addition to the article has been discussed on the talk page and can be found in the archives as well. As a result, it was removed from the article. Now, without discussing the change, you are imposing a POV on the article that you believe the channel is conservative. Even if you believe consensus has not been reached, continuing to add this assertion of bias to the article is inappropriate. As the talk page states, this is not a factual position. Please stop adding it to the article, atleast until a firm consensus is reached (which I believe already has). ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​ 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, I didn't realize this was being highly debated on the talk page. I saw a couple of what I thought were drive by reverts sanitizing an article on a conservative topic, something that happens quite frequently on such articles, and I saw no edit summary referring to a talk page consensus. Though I think this is quite absurd, I will refrain from restoring the objectionable word for now and when I have time I will read the talk page discussion and perhaps add some remarks. In the future, to avoid such confusion I suggest you and the other editors on this page use the edit summary to refer to a talk page consensus if you wish to use it to justify a revert. The edit summary by Clindhartsen is an excellent example of what I am refering to. Gamaliel 05:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just viewed the mess on the FNC Page that gamaliel has caused. It's common sense to view a talk page and anyway what you were trying to add was highly POV. Why did you keep editing with your own POV when different users were reverting it? if wiki has admins like this, it still has a long way to go before it can gain any real credibility. Perrymason 13:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Go see Misplaced Pages:Be Bold. There is no requirement that I read a talk page before making an edit. Once the discussion was brought to my attention, I refrained from making that edit again. i don't see what the problem is here, other than an editor making a personal attack upon me for making an edit he doesn't like. What does that say about your credibility? Gamaliel 16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

i know there is no requirement but it should be common sense (esp. for an admin). i didnt make a personal attack at you, i made a comment about the structure of wikipedia which seems very valid now looking at your actions a whole. and it doesnt matter about my credibility, im just a very minor user/editor of wiki. however, you are an admin which is suppposed to be a more major trusted role. oh and looking at the comments below it looks like you have a bit of a POV problem with FOX. Perrymason 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see any personal attacks in your comments above, look again. It seems you have a bit of a civility problem. Gamaliel 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

doesnt matter if i have, i dont inject it into the edits i make Perrymason 23:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The civility policy, and note that it is official policy here at Misplaced Pages, applies to your interactions with other users. You might also want to take note of assume good faith. Gamaliel 23:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I apologize for butting in here, but I notice that one of your edit summaries states that "obvious facts are not POV". I must ask, obvious to whom? Misplaced Pages is about sourcing claims, and verifiability. This is far from the first time I have watched you take this stance. Just because you think something is an obvious fact does not make it so, and does not release you from the responsibility of sourcing the claims you add to articles. In my opinion, you were adding POV OR. (Didn't the owner of Fox just give a bunch of money to Hillary? Certainly a multinational corporation cannot be labelled with an "obvious" political leaning.) Our history shows that there is a diverse group of editors, with widely differing personal POVs. But we must all learn to become more objective when editing. Not only does it make for a better encyclopedia, but is also gives us the added benefit of being able to hold our own POVs more credibly when they are based on verifiable sources. Crockspot 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious to a sane adult. Perhaps you buy the "fair and balanced" line, but I don't. In any case, I am aware of the need for verifiable sources, thanks, and since this is fact is apparently contested I will participate in the talk page discussion before editing on that matter again. I don't see what more could be asked of me than that. Gamaliel 16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Questioning my sanity and maturity is beneath you. In my opinion, FNC is slightly to the right of "down the middle", and all the other networks are in the pocket of the left. But I would never impose that opinion on Misplaced Pages by adding it to ABC/NBC/CBS articles, because that is my POV. You being on the left are of course going to see Fox as uber right wing. That is your POV. The only thing that is "obvious" is that we have different POVs. I have no issues with you as an admin. As far as I am aware, you have never abused the admin tools. My issues with you are as a rank and file editor, though as an admin, I believe you do have a moral responsibility to set a good example for others by being extra careful about POV. Many users (obviously me not one of them) are intimidated by admins. Crockspot 16:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't intended as a personal attack, just a bit of hyperbole. I'm sorry you were offended as it wasn't my intent to insult you in such a manner. I'm sure you realize that if I wanted to insult you, I would just insult you. And in my experience I haven't encountered a user intimidated by admins (though I don't dispute that they exist) but I have encountered many, many users who feel that they have to try to take me down a peg because I have some extra cleanup tools or treat every editing dispute as the Man trying to keep them down. It is really quite tiresome and if I wasn't so dedicated to the project I never would have signed on for this thankless task. In regards to POV/NPOV, I stand by every edit I have ever made and I firmly believe that they have all been, to the best of my knowledge and ability, NPOV. We obviously see the political landscape very differently if you think that FNC is the middle of the road and not at all conservative. Gamaliel 17:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have insulted you plenty of times in the past, so I don't have alot of room to complain. But you are misrepresenting what I said about FNC. I said they are "slightly to the right of down the middle", not "not at all conservative". I actually haven't watched any cable news in a few years, except for the occasional CNN in airports and such, but I have more than once shaken my fist at FNC for exhibiting "lilly-livered librul" tendencies. But they do have the hottest babes this side of the Weather Channel, and the coolest sound effects to go with their flashy graphics. BTW, I just reverted your edit to Gannon. Crockspot 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I assumed that would be happening. So what do we do about this? Tbeatty's compromise, insincere though it was, was a good idea, and I really don't see any other way out of this. Gamaliel 17:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the RFCs you started is the way to go. We aren't going to convince each other, because you believe you are right, and I know I'm right. ;) Crockspot 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to the introduction is an improvement and is fair. My only concern is that should such language be added to the CNN and MSNBC articles to be consistent? Especially with MSNBC, who in recent years has seemed to directly take on and try to counterbalance FoxNews. Ramsquire 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:FCFCcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FCFCcover.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I could have sworn I used that dropdown menu. Fixed. Gamaliel 01:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

escort cat

I'm willing to work with the escort category, but I made a small adjustment. I removed the "sex worker" category from the category, and added this discription for the category: "This category is for persons who have offered or advertised their companionship for a monetary fee. Escorts may or may not be involved in sex work." BTW, somebody reverted your edit to gannon back to the courtesans and prostitutes cat, but I reverted back to your edit. Crockspot 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is a sexual therapist a sex worker? They are not prostitutes and usually do not have sex with their clients. Gamaliel 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, are they? I always thought that a sexual therapist was just a legal hooker, and did have sex with their clients. If they were a true therapist, and did not have sex with clients, then I would be hesitant to call them a "sex worker". Maybe I have a narrow view, but to me, "sex worker" implies sex, pornography, or simulated sex (such as table dancing). Did my few stints as a go-go dancer at a gay bar qualify me as a "sex worker"? I hope not. Crockspot 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's a bad example. I assume they don't since it's a legal profession and all, but maybe I'm wrong. More to the point are the other subcategories of sex worker which don't involve intercourse. Gamaliel 19:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it is Fox

In regard to your statement on WP:BLPN, I left you this reply there:

"Since it is Fox"? That is very POV. Do you have ANY evidence that Fox has EVER gotten a story wrong on the facts? It's fair to quibble over perceived "spin" that a particular organization may or may not apply to their coverage, but the factual accuracy of their reporting has never been at issue. If this is the the standard that you apply to the reliability of a source, then to be fair, anything sourced by The Nation, Daily Kos, TruthOut (Leopold), heck, even the NY Times (remember Jayson Blair's stories they had to retract?) and CBS (fake but accurate) would have to be brought into question. Do you really want to go there? Crockspot 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that, by your standard, I could gut the Jeff Gannon article, citing past reliability problems with most of the sources, and require that additional sources be found. I'm not planning to actually do that, just pointing out to you the double standard that you appear to apply when the subject is someone that you have "issues" with. Crockspot 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I merely noted Fox's known history of massaging the news as a concern among four concerns that I had, and the fact that it's Fox is the least of them. I find it much more troubling that 1) the article relies on a single source and 2) that source is written in the style of a personal essay 3) by a man who knows one of the participants. I didn't advocate removing the source or say that Fox could never be used. So your problem here is not my supposed "double standard" but the fact that I said something you don't like about Fox. Gamaliel 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that you have special Jedi powers that allow you to see into my psyche and determine what "my problem" is. If one were able to measure Misplaced Pages editorial objectivity, based upon an editor's political views, and their ability to set aside those views and be objective when applying editorial policy, I would bet dollars to donuts that you would be a dot in my rearview mirror. You have a lot of qualities that I respect. But being objective about political subjects is not one of them. Crockspot 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not applying policy. I advocated no policy applications specifically towards Fox news. I warned a concerned user to be wary of a source for four distinct reasons. I then expressed support for her edits to the article, including her use of that source. I don't see what the problem is here, and I don't appreciate you jumping all over me accusing me of all manner of things on two different pages for a matter that is completely insignificant. If I advocated a prohibition against using Fox News (and only Fox) in WP articles, you would have a point, but merely warning someone to be wary of Fox News is not a misapplication (or any type of application at all) of policy. Gamaliel 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the abyss between your application of RS policy on some articles (such as Gannon) and your suggestion of needing additional sourcing in this case. If CBS posted an article saying that Gannon was a prostitute, you would likely have no problem inserting that statement into his article based upon that sole source. The inconsistency frustrates the hell out of me. I'm not perfect either, but I try very hard to acknowledge and adjust when my faults are brought to my attention. Crockspot 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If all I knew about Gannon was based on one single news article written in personal essay format, you bet I'd be wary of basing the article on that single source. In the Fox case I briefly expressed concerns, then supported the use of the source in the article. Where is the double standard? Where is the inconsistency? Where is the problem? Gamaliel 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sami al-Arian

I recently saw Laura2006's edits to Sami al-Arian. I think this user could use some mentoring, or at least some watching over. I have the page (al-Arian) on my watchlist, but I think it would be good if an administrator paid extra attention to this user until they get fully aquainted with Misplaced Pages's policies. Regards, DRK 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Assistance with an image - photoshop vandalism?

The image in the Mark Souder article was, I believe, a photoshopped version of this jpg: , and was designed to make the Congressman appear particularly unattractive, I thought. I've not worked with image uploading (to replace the photoshopped one), and this appears to be a special situation in any case, so any assistance you could provide to fix the situation would be appreciated. John Broughton | Talk 17:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The finer points of image uploads on WP sometimes escapes me, so I nuked the old picture and uploaded a fresh one. I also left MadSeason a vandalism warning. Gamaliel 18:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. John Broughton | Talk 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Byrd Page

Hey, I've noticed you found your way onto the Byrd page. I have two questions for you, if I put a tag on the top of a page requesting citations, do I need to go through the article to each individual sentence that needs a cite? AND am I correct when I tell users that Wiki policy forbids users from posting unsourced and unattributaed slurs made by other people, on the talk pages. There is a user who wants to refer to one of Byrd's detractors as someone who has been "labelled an 'Uncle Tom' by many". Ramsquire 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to tag each sentence individually, but it might be helpful to tag a few of the worst offending statements. I'll drop a note on the talk page about the second matter. Gamaliel 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News

Why did you delete my edit on Fox News it was factual that CNN recieves the same criticsm from the other side? ````TannimTannim 23:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was about Fox News, not CNN. Gamaliel 00:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

FNC Intro

I believe this version (which was there before the weasel editing) is more agreeable to a consensus and a compromise between the two positions: "The channel was created by Australian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes, then President of CNBC and a former Broadway musical producer as its founding CEO. Fox News is seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions, a charge which the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies.". Notice it contains the changes like removing "openly", "widely", and "operative". Seems to be the better choice. What are your thoughts? AuburnPilot 06:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Broadway producer" - this was inserted by another editor in an attempt to score a cheap debating point - it's irrelevant and a WP:POINT violation.
• "openly" - that can go.
• "widely" - I think this should stay to accurately describe how pervasive this perception is
• "operative" - I really don't understand why people have a problem with this word. "Campaign worker" implies he passed out flyers. What would you suggest as an appropriate synonym?

This is all pretty minor stuff and with a little effort I think we can all come to a reasonable consensus on this. Gamaliel 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe "widely" and "operative" should still be removed. Widely is definitly a weasel word that doesn't add anything to the sentence. Aside from that, the sentence simply sounds better as "seen by critics" rather than "widely seen by critics". Operative may be acceptable by definition, but its connotation implies something more (spy, agent, spook, etc). I believe "political consultant", as his own WikiBio describes him, is more appropriate. AuburnPilot 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And one other thing; I think the new addition of "and observers of the channel" should be removed as well. AuburnPilot 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Consultant" is perfectly fine by me. I added "observers" because of the PEJ survey I added to the intro. Is every single one of those journalists surveyed a "critic" of Fox? Gamaliel 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can live with observers. I went ahead and changed it to consultant. AuburnPilot 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have initiated an RfC on this topic. It would be great if you'd participate rather than continuing to revert; at least until something comes of the RfC. AuburnPilot 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already made my position clear on the talk page and I'm more than willing to discuss anything new. Gamaliel 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So you refuse to participate in the RfC? Is that what I should take from that comment? AuburnPilot 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oviously not; I see you left a comment.....AuburnPilot 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Identify the living person?

You deleted information from a Kennedy article on assassination theories because a living person was mentioned. You were then asked to identify the living person you believe exists. You still have not identified the person except to subsequently say that one exists. Could you please either identify the person who you use as the reason for the deletion or revert your deletion?

Thank you

RPJ 20:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already answered your question on Talk:Kennedy assassination theories. Thanks. Gamaliel 21:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Attacks

I have never attacked you personally - I have only questioned your opinions. Please do not play the game of accusing me of attacking you, which you know is not true. --andreasegde 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh you have a lot of gall to accuse me of gamesmanship when you've perfected the game of insulting people and then acting indignant when they respond. Gamaliel 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You are going overboard. Calm down. I have never attacked you. Please give me proof of my so-called attacks before you get so angry. --andreasegde 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think accusing someone of racism isn't an attack? Please. Gamaliel 01:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think it was a direct attack, then do something about it. I would prefer arbitration by a Belgian user, if you agree. --andreasegde 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL. Thanks for the laugh. Now I know you aren't serious and you're just trolling. Gamaliel 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can You Protect this Page?

I've adopted The Game (rapper) page to help fight vandalism. However, it is hopeless. This page needs protection pronto. I've listed it on the WP:RFPP page and nothing has happened, apparently there is a backlog. You can check through the page history and see how much times it get's vandalized in a day. Is there anyway you can protect this page? (See this is why I'd like to become an admin, there are so many backlogs and things that need to be checked by admins, but when you go through the RfA, they want to talk about edit summaries and edit counts. Anyway, I'm done venting.) Ramsquire 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it and I'll leave it like that for a few days. Gamaliel 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Ramsquire 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another PAIN report

I've reported the user who, on the JFK, Oswald, and Assassination theories pages continuously accuses us of being government agents because we have the audacity to ask for reliable sources. I know you have been hesitant to get involved in WP:PAIN procedures with him but I think you should add something since you are the focus of his rants more than I am. Ramsquire 23:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)