Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gamaliel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:28, 24 July 2014 view sourceVictorD7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,648 edits →The Blaze as fringe: Reply.← Previous edit Revision as of 23:33, 24 July 2014 view source VictorD7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,648 edits →The Blaze as fringe: Update.Next edit →
Line 292: Line 292:
::::::The audience response has never been in dispute and remains in the article. The significance assigned to it by ''The Blaze'' is what is in dispute. ] <small>(])</small> 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC) ::::::The audience response has never been in dispute and remains in the article. The significance assigned to it by ''The Blaze'' is what is in dispute. ] <small>(])</small> 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::What about the significance assigned to an A+ rating by The Hollywood Reporter? Since both sources agree that an A+ rating is particularly noteworthy, do you still object to its inclusion on "fringe" grounds? If so, do you have a contrary source? ] (]) 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC) :::::::What about the significance assigned to an A+ rating by The Hollywood Reporter? Since both sources agree that an A+ rating is particularly noteworthy, do you still object to its inclusion on "fringe" grounds? If so, do you have a contrary source? ] (]) 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I reposed our last comments on the movie talk page. Feel free to reply there rather than continuing a discussion on multiple pages. ] (]) 23:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


== Business HighBeam == == Business HighBeam ==

Revision as of 23:33, 24 July 2014

The Signpost
24 December 2024
Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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.

Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user and remember the most important rule on Misplaced Pages.

Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11 | 2/11-6/11 | 7-11/1-13 | 2-13/06-13 | 6-13/11-13 | 12-13/5-14


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7

Thank you

I'm preparing to go out on a 14-day wildland fire assignment, and had neither the stomach or time to launch into another ANI thread. Thanks for picking up the torch. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate your comments at . Sca (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux RfC

You asked at Talk:Stefan Molyneux about RS that mention him as a philosopher. Seven are used as citations currently in the lead, but there are a lot more on my compiled list I have at User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Book and news sources. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 22:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll review your list in depth and expand on my RFC comment tomorrow, if all goes well. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


Was re-reading the talk page and was reminded to check back on your point about how Alain de Botton's article doesn't describe him as a philosopher. It turns out that is actually has, for the last couple of years, up until about one week before you made your comment. Anyway, thought you'd be amused by the timing. (same person that removed that also voted against the Molyneux philosopher RfC - guess poor Alain just happened to be a brief casualty of the same debate) -- Netoholic @ 10:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Removal of post

I'm sorry, a friend did that change, I removed it immediately. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthewinner (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg article and Talk

Hi. I removed nitpicky criticisms of her. There is STILL plenty of criticisms left in the article. Please consider restoring the deletions to both the article & to the Talk sections. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.246.31 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you discuss this matter on the article talk page so all editors can participate. If you identify what specific problems you have with the material, other editors might agree with you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have much more important things to do than bother with Misplaced Pages. Have been around here virtually none in YEARS. Do the right thing. I've got other things to do. Appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.246.31 (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't address your concerns if I don't know what they are, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Please restore it at least close to what I did. I cant remember most of the procedures & rules here. Have a blessed day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.47.34 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree with 96.37.246.31. Yes, I realize I have been one of Totenberg's biggest critics here (and elsewhere). Like 96.37.246.31, I agree that SO much of the criticism is nitpicky & doesn't take into account her life as a whole. I also haven't been around Misplaced Pages editing for so long, so I don't recall a lot of the procedures or rules here. I'm letting go of the fierce criticism of her (I think96.37.246.31's suggestions are on the mark). Please do the same. Thanks.

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

ITN credit

Current events globeOn 18 June 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Daniel Keyes, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

ThaddeusB (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Translating

Any chance you could translate what he said to English so I can follow along? Thank you very much by the way for all your help. Go Phightins! 20:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll go do that. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

ElNiñoMonstruo

Hi, ElNiñoMonstruo user has been harassing me in recent days, leaving threatening messages on my talk, and calling me kid. Please would like to know if this can be stopped? . --Jorge Horan (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I get a bit busy on the weekends so I didn't have time to address this until today, sorry. It looks like Go Phightins! already talked to ElNiñoMonstruo but I left an additional message anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Misplaced Pages Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

In re: Tips for… essay

As one no longer a new user, I am perhaps not entitled to an opinion on this. But it would seem to me that, besides the simple mistakes made in ignorance by new users, a second significant category leading to new user difficulties is the failure of experienced users to display the characteristics and make the choices you encourage upon the newest at Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we need an essay on "Tips for experienced users dealing with new users"?. I can offer you a bakers dozen of positive examples, and one or two negative (which, unfortunately, would provide ample enough counter-examples, by themselves). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. A lot of problems arise when we forget what it's like to be unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages rules and mores. Maybe you should jot some of these examples down and try to assemble an essay out of them? Gamaliel (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Recent removal of notes from TASCHEN Page

Hi Gamaliel

Many thanks for getting in contact with me. I removed all references to the recent exhibition in Sweden from the TASCHEN page as I'm guessing these additions were made by the artists themselves and are looking to promote themselves and get publicity from being associated with TASCHEN.

the text stated that TASCHEN had been "publicly criticized" which it has not been. the only people to criticize TASCHEN were the two artists themselves, therefore this is not a representation of the global company.

Also, as the links to the museum page were posted in four separate places throughout the page again this shows they are trying to further their own cause.

I have removed the references again and would ask they these edits be upheld.

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmrkbst (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicholas Wade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BA and MA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to KC Johnson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{NPOV|section}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Cushing

Updated DYK queryOn 14 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tom Cushing, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tom Cushing's 1926 play The Devil in the Cheese features a Greek bandit posing as a priest, an Egyptian god, adventures in the South Seas, and a bit of mummified cheese? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Cushing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Er what???

Please tell me how you are supposed to "cite" the assertion that the "Group of 88" was a "group". It's an asinine request. It is referred to as the group of 88 in the literature. If you or any other editor thinks there is a better word or phrase to use, then use it. I don't have much respect for the sort of editing that comprises "citation bombing", as it is essentially form of attack in the easiest and laziest way imaginable, but at least requesting citation for quotations is reasonable. Asking for a page number to a kindle edition is not only unreasonable, it is impossible. A google books link is the best solution. Asking for citation for normal words is nowhere supported in guidelines or policy, and using citation requests in this way is, IMO, irresponsible editing and a form of editorial bullying. A useful approach would be raise the question of what is somehow wrong with the word "group", if it is deemed to be problematic. That was not done, so the tag is like leaving a template complaining of POV with no explanation. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: In retrospect I should have used a more substantive edit summary, but I was using my tablet and I was lazy. Sorry. In regards to citing the word "group", I concur with the comments of User:Cullen328 on WP:ANI: "There is no such organization as the "Group of 88". Yes, 88 faculty members signed a newspaper ad, and in retrospect, that ad may well have been ill-advised, but jointly signing an ad does not consitute joining a "group" and does not link those 88 people together for life as notorious reverse racists." So if we're going to say in Misplaced Pages's voice that this was a "group", then we should cite that. Perhaps a different tag or alternate wording would be more appropriate, I will explore that later today, time permitting. In regards to the kindle issue, it's completely reasonable to ask the specific location of a specific fact cited in the article, and whoever added all these citations to that book to this article and related ones had no problem supplying Kindle locations for their other citations. Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Salon.com edit

FYI, I clarified the edits I made to the Salon.com page. In the contributors section, there was a highlight of one (relatively minor) article by one particular contributor (Alex Pareene) - it looks like it was dropped in shortly after he joined, and wasn't consistent with the treatment in the remainder of the section. So, I removed that portion, and altered the mention of Pareene above in the contributors section to link to his wiki page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Thanks for explaining that in your edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible socking

I am unfamiliar with sock reporting but there are a-lot of one edit votes here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, now I like to assume good faith but when I see first edit votes by users with names like "Palestinewillbefree" it does raise a red flag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Eckstacy

Re: (see also ) - should I bring this up at AN/I or can you just go ahead and block? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the fun continued after I went to sleep. I'll keep an eye on this one. Gamaliel (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

George Will edit

Hello Gamallel - 

   Thank you for your reply and your statements. I certainly do disagree that my additions were "less than neutral" and deserve to be deleted. I made factual statements - namely that George Will had replied to the senators' concerns - and gave a reference. It seems to me biased to state reference after reference of comments stating that they had problems with Will's point of view and then omit his rebutal. Don't both sides, the complete record, deserve to be heard? I request that my statements be reinstated. - Myron Smith  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myronmeister (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A joke?

Even Atethnekos doesn't describe it as a joke. According to him, it is part of his argument. If you're going to close the thread, at least read it first.--v/r - TP 12:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to reopen it, but I advise against it for your sake. One of the reasons I closed it was to save you from further embarrassment. Saying that statement is "equating COI editing to drunken driving" is like saying that using the word "manhole" instead of "personhole" is sexist. Gamaliel (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd feel different if you were on the receiving end. It is meant to be divisive and insulting.--v/r - TP 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I recall that you used to have a photo on your webpage and you looked fairly young. Perhaps you are unaware that people have been using that phrase in a non-offensive way for decades. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That photo was from 2009, and a lot of folks say I look younger than I actually am. Call it good genes.--v/r - TP 20:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze as fringe

I'm concerned about the editing rationale of WP:FRINGE when it comes to removing material from America. These are opinions being presented, not theories. The existence of TheBlaze as an article and its founding by Glenn Beck indicates notability. Same thing applies to Andrew Breitbart. Whether or not people like Beck, Breitbart, et al. is a different issue. I think you are improperly conflating the content guideline with what may or may not be minority viewpoints. – S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with S. Rich. I don't think FRINGE applies to opinions on other topics and I also don't think TheBlaze is fringe. This is the problem with NPOV; discerning what "neutral" is in a highly polarized environment is hard. I wish Misplaced Pages had an "attributable point of view" policy for this reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I love to have agreement. Please note that I've parsed the film critics and non-film critics into their own sections. This will serve to defuse part of the contentiousness. – S. Rich (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


I think this says everything that needs to be said about The Blaze and its fringiness: The Blaze Mocks Sexual Assault With A Series Of 'RAPE!' Skits Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
And now I am disappointed. The link gives (some) criticisms about the rape report (and does so with a bit of sarcasm). Nothing more. It has a different opinion as to how to read the rape data. It is hardly fringe. And this link hardly justifies an edit summary with WP:FRINGE as the rationale. If you think The Blaze is fringe, you ought to post on the WP:FTN. I doubt you will garner consensus for this view. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
And here I thought that cross-dressing rape mockery made it pretty much obvious that they were a bunch of fringe loons. Sorry that you are disappointed, but I've seen nothing presented here that convinces me that my judgment is incorrect. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
My main concern is with your judgment in citing FRINGE as an editing rationale. Your opinion as to Blaze being fringe simply does not justify the rationale you cited. FRINGE deals with pseudoscience and the like. Not opinion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no difference between a fringe political viewpoint and a fringe scientific one. Fringe political outlets are often the biggest pushers of pseudoscience. Gamaliel (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If the Blaze is pushing a fringe opinion on some sort of empirical question (e.g. propounding evolution denial, or a radical/heterodox form of free market economics, and so forth), then it should be labeled fringe. But ridiculing rape/sexual assault victims doesn't make them fringe by how WP defines the term (in a scientific/empirical context). I do agree that they're jerks and bigots, but that's neither here nor there. Steeletrap (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It was just one example of many that I could have chosen. Apparently I chose the wrong one to make my point, but I wasn't about to post a dozen links here and write it up. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to include The Blaze as a reliable source of facts or an appropriate source for opinions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Are people actually saying it should be used as RS? Steeletrap (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:America_(2014_film)#The_Blaze. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I agree with your edit there. The problem is that Blaze isn't an RS for film. Steeletrap (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


It's not even really opinions, but a fact based segment that's undisputed. No one, including the professional film critics, dispute that the film received an A+ audience CinemaScore grade and that such grades are rare. MOS guidelines specifically endorse using CinemaScore to cover movie receptions and the segment had multiple sources. The "fringe" rationale shows a gross misunderstanding of basic policy. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Strawman. Nobody has or wants to remove the CinemaScore grade. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually it was a battle early on for editors to even get that in over objections from your ideological comrades, but if you reread my above post you'll see I also pointed out that the historical rarity of an A+ grade isn't in dispute. That audience reception was overwhelmingly positive isn't in dispute. It can't be dismissed as "fringe" if no one disagrees. VictorD7 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If everyone agrees with this, then surely you can find a better source than The Blaze. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure they're "better", but the sources Box Office Mojo (confirming America's ranking) and the The Hollywood Reporter (providing the "only 52 A+ grades" over the decades stat repeated by The Blaze) were used. The Blaze just comments specifically about America receiving the grade. The strong audience response isn't in dispute, so it can't be "fringe" to point it out. VictorD7 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The audience response has never been in dispute and remains in the article. The significance assigned to it by The Blaze is what is in dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What about the significance assigned to an A+ rating by The Hollywood Reporter? Since both sources agree that an A+ rating is particularly noteworthy, do you still object to its inclusion on "fringe" grounds? If so, do you have a contrary source? VictorD7 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I reposed our last comments on the movie talk page. Feel free to reply there rather than continuing a discussion on multiple pages. VictorD7 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Business HighBeam

Hello Gamaliel. Back in December 2013, I had requested access to this article on Business HighBeam on the Resource Request forum. You sent me the file too, but unfortunately I seem to have lost it. Do you still have access to the service? Would you be able to send me the article again, please? Ryoga (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I've sent it to you via email. It's just a capsule review, so there's only a few sentences. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, Gamaliel! Ryoga (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)