User talk:Gamaliel/Archive10

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

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

Attempt to delete banners and buttons page

Someone feels that teh banners and buttons articles violates wikipedia policy on free use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. Currently that includes hte banner you have on your user page. If you have an opinon on the issue feel free ot enter the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. Mrdthree 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Xanadumoviecover.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Xanadumoviecover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my comments concerning Free Republic

They might have been slightly incivil - but certainly true. The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire

More nuttery from this time period

And even speculated that the US. Gov, not Al Qaeda, bombed The USS Cole : "IMO the Cole bombing, if not another American Reichstag event, is AWFULLY convenient for a lot of Clinton goals.."

Cole bombing - An American Reichstag?

From the Stony Brook Press on Dec 3, 2006:

"Free Republic. HOLY CRAP IN A GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HANDBAG!!! The people of www.freerepublic.com are as psychotic as can possibly be. Now I understand that there are many conservatives that support Bush, the Iraq War, or other Bush Administration policies. But this site, its founders, and its posters take this America-worship to a new level! A new level of psycho has been achieved! Free Republic is another one of these blog sites, a right-wing one, but it’s different from the others, mainly because these people aren’t conservatives, nor are they neoconservatives. They are complete and total fascists. They abhor, though they won’t admit it, every value America was founded on. The moderator and founder, Jim Robinson, deletes any post that contradicts the opinion of himself, his members, and the Bush Administration. If you question any American policies (as long as they are Republican-made ones), you get banned. No questions asked."

More recent criticism of Free Republic See ? Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that you need the help

Gettin' ready

Or would even welcome it from me, but I put in a good word for you. Good luck with this group. I don't envy you getting into the middle of it. - Crockspot 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. They are appreciated. I'm not looking forward to the inevitable shitstorm, but there's nothing I can do about that except put on my boots and hope for the best. Gamaliel 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cabelas has reasonably priced chest waders. You'll need 'em!. - Crockspot 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

offsite contact

Love the ready to fuck you up oldschool. Have you a method of offsite contact (messenger, email, etc.)? Thanks. /Blaxthos 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just follow this to email me. Gamaliel 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

semiprotection on Peter Roskam

Why did you sp the article? I see a lot of activity, but I wouldn't call it vandalism, and most of the editing is by established editors, with only one IP lately, and that editor seemed to be adding controversial content, but not vandalism. I added the {{semiprotected}} tag, since you forgot to --rogerd 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by a banned user is the reason I semi protected the article. Gamaliel 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roskam/Hinnen

I've had it with this nut and his threats. I am gone from there until he finally gets the community ban he deserves. Let him WP:OWN this thing. I am SO disgusted. --BenBurch 17:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consider sticking around. I'm pretty fed up with his behavior to and I was going to smack him with a rolled up newspaper today. Gamaliel 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am on semi-wikibreak, but I will not leave entirely. Now I have a radio network to go run. (BTW, if you want to hear about my several radio projects, just ask!) --BenBurch 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Check WP:AN/I Hinnen is self-destructing. Or not. Maybe he'll convince somebody to ban me. At this point I hardly care because he has sucked all the fun out of this activity. --BenBurch 23:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

you're fed up... a lot of good Republicans in the Sixth Congressional District, which read Wikipedia are fed up with you and your partisan agenda and bureaucratic bullying and partisan little childern. So, grow up and take responsibility for your little fifedom, and truly make the article encyclopedic and neutral in point of view, which should have been done almost a year ago. Your behavior, in that, to allow the Roskam biography to stand for so long in such shabby and partisan tone borders on malfeasance. You don't get it - You're playing in the big leagues with the big boys now.207.67.151.184 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which might mean something if you were not posting from San Diego... http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=207.67.151.184 --BenBurch 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's just baby Joe again. Ignore him. Gamaliel 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the dnsstuff.com thing is accurate. It says I am in New Jersey, but I am in Indiana --rogerd 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DNS geo-location is only *mostly* accurate. --BenBurch 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• That IP is an anonymous proxy according to a source I just checked; http://www.maxmind.com/app/lookup_city --BenBurch 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Colbert vandal

Hi. You blocked Kione (talk • contribs). I think Neoist (talk • contribs) and NinePoundHammer (talk • contribs) are the same vandal as well; note their contribution histories. I'm not an admin or I'd block them myself. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Neoist has already been blocked by another editor, but I blocked NinePoundHammer. Gamaliel 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips "criticisms" section

Hi. You reverted an edit of mine under the "Criticisms" section of the Kyra Phillips article. I deleted two of the "criticisms" for a good reason: 1) the link referring to the "gay parent" interview does NOT quote Kelly McBride (the person referenced in the Wiki article) as actually "criticizing" Phillips herself; it merely quotes McBride as making a general statement about anchors in general. The link article makes it sound as if McBride is referring to Phillips, but there's no way to ascertain that without a McBride quote directly mentioning Philips' name. As it stands, the gay parent interview criticism in the Phillips Wikipedia article is blatant, off-topic commentary residing in the middle of what should ordinarily be just a simple biography.

2) The included references to the other "criticism" I deleted -- on Phillips' comments during the 2006 French labor protests -- a) don't work (link #8); and b) can't be verified online (link #9).

Unless you can think of a compelling reason to retain the two aforementioned "criticisms" in the Phillips article, they should be deleted. J.R. Hercules 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1)It is not "off-topic commentary", it is a reliable mainstream source using a prominent Phillips gaffe as an example of a wider trend.

2)I can't speak to reference number 8, but reference number 9 is a reliable source and I have read the article myself. The fact that it "can't be verified online" is not a valid reason to remove properly sourced information. I will email you a copy of the Financial Times article if you wish. Just contact me via email with your email address. Gamaliel 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's deletion of my talk comments

Could you possibly ask Tbeatty not to continually delete my talk comments - ones that aren't directed at him with tenuous BLP claims?

I posted the following on the Roskam page regarding the well-documented homophobic breakaway faction of the Episcopal church that Roskam belongs to - and Tbeatty deleted it. He does this on a semi regular basis. tbeatty's deletion

• The leader of Roskam's sect, Peter Akinola, supports a Nigerian law that "levies a five-year automatic prison sentence not only on almost every expression of gay identity and sexuality but also on giving advice or support to lesbians or gay men." gay.com This guy is a serious homophobe ! : "UJA, Nigeria, Dec. 20 — The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done." NYTimes Homophobic Bishop No wonder the Roskamites want to downplay his membership in this sect! - User:Fairness And Accuracy For AllFAAFA 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is possibly objectionable is my neologism 'Roskamites' - but he deleted the whole thing. (I posted this on Georgeherbert's page too) Thanks! - FAAFA 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to repost your comments without the phrases "This guy is a serious homophobe" and "NYTimes Homophobic Bishop". If he removes them again after that, I'll have a chat with him. Gamaliel 13:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I've noticed that many believe that some of your actions as a moderator are quite POV. Now, assuming good faith on all sides, might I ask what your opinion is? RW 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that many pov warriors resort to accusations of bias as a cheap debating tactic. I've found the quicker they resort to it, the more likely they are going to be an uncooperative and uncivil editor in the long run. Gamaliel 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions at Peter Roskam

Calton is deleting well-sourced positive material about Peter Roskam: his legislative voting record, including an amendment that he authored on a bill that eventually passed 400-3. I believe that the legislative record should be the centerpiece of a biographical article about a legislator. But I've been told that if I want to balance all the criticisms that linger in this article from the campaign, I must delete the criticisms. Of course, that would start a dispute with Propol and Goethean. Calton doesn't care to discuss it; he prefers to just delete the material with a less than entirely civil edit summary. Your intervention is respectfully requested. Dino 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added my comments to Talk:Peter Roskam. Gamaliel 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review the edit I made. Thanks. --BenBurch 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh. Dean seems to have decided to make a WP:POINT point. --BenBurch 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I've decided to make a consensus without you. Propol has been a very pleasant surprise, Tbeatty has been reliable as always, and the result is very exciting. Gamaliel, come on over and share our joy. I've asked for a review of the decision to deny Good Article status, and removed the NPOV header on the mainspace. Dino 15:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My Talk Page

I you could please kindly point to the wiki-rule that says I can not blank my talk page and it is after all my talk page, this is my IP (though it's used by multiple users I come from this IP address and everything I do is under this IP) and I would be more than happy to cease if you would just please show me the wiki-rule that says I have no control over what people put on my talk page.--209.137.175.59 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not even going to respond to my message? Just going to continue to edit my page? --209.137.175.59 07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it was 2am my time I figured I had plenty of time to get around to it. But you want a reply, here it is: stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. It is not your talk page, it is a Wikipedia talk page. The needs of the project are more important than your desire for a blank page. If you want a clean page, get a free Wikipedia account. That's it. Gamaliel 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're a pretty sneaky guy, but I'm sure I can contribute now. Thanks for helping me see the light. --Socko111 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion question

I was unable to follow the directions to recommend deletion of an article. I could not set up the entry page to receive comments. I found the Blalock article this afternoon; you must have removed it later.

Also, I cannot understand how to place photos in stories. I tried to do so by following an example of a photo in place on another article, but it would not work. Do you have two to five steps on how to do this.

Thanks,

Billy Hathorn 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drnopenguin.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drnopenguin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith

According to your "tips for angry new users" you advise to always assume good faith. So, why am I a troller because I disagree with your opinion on Joe Scarborough? Mr. Ray Lopez 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your long track of trolling? Just a guess, there. --Calton | Talk 05:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrrm, Wikistalk much Calton? I guess that's why so many people have an issue with YOU on here. Mr. Ray Lopez 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, given your track record, it's quality control. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and your track record is so much better. How's your Cogsportif Sock Puppet Ring running for you Calton? Mr. Ray Lopez 07:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ray Lopez

He's acting out again. A comment at WP:AN would be helpful right about now. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to harass me? Mr. Ray Lopez 07:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, looks like a lot of stuff happened while I was asleep. Good to see that this troll was quickly blocked this time, without having to put up with his crap for months again. Gamaliel 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Scottmckenziestainedglassreflections.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scottmckenziestainedglassreflections.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia 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. —Angr 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast!

You just blocked a username that I was just posting a notice about on the Admin Noticeboard. GJ and thanks. :)

-- TomXP411^[Talk] 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Getaway

We're having some trouble over at the Sam Brownback article. I think the real problem is that there aren't enough people contributing. Addionally Getaway has some interesting thoughts on what wikipedia is. Can you weigh in? Or suggest other options? I have requested contributions, put a NPOV tag on the page, and taken other measures, but we still have a pretty unproductive article. Jerimee 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want more contributors, a good place to request assistance is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Before I become further involved in this dispute, I'm wondering if you can sum up what you think is going on at that article in a couple of sentences. Thank you. Gamaliel 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This comment was left on my talk page: I've been asked to take a look at the dispute at Sam Brownback, and I have to say that my initial impression of the dispute is not favorable towards you. The issues in dispute appear to be very minor matters that should be able to be resolved amicably, but your throwing out of terms like "POV pushing" and "censorship" certainly doesn't help matters, and is going to stop immediately. If you'd like to, please summarize your perception of the dispute in a couple of sentences and we'll see what we can do to bring this towards a resolution. Gamaliel 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC) RESPONSE: I'm fine with you taking a look at it. However, let me point out that I am not the only one who was crying "POV pushing" or even the first. Just for the record here are the edit history comments where Jerimee called my work "POV", etc.: Jerimee removes info again and calls my work "POV", and here: Jerimee removes all info again and once again calls my work "POV" and here: Jerimee removes all info again and once again calls my work "POV" and here: Jerimee removes all info again and once again calls my work "POV". But more importantly, Jerimee has removed information that is sourced and relevant and notable. Brownback's major claim to fame as a Senator is the Human Trafficking work, that needs to be clearly and fully outlined. Brownback worked as a broadcaster when he was younger. Jerimee has stated repeatedly that he is going to remove that from the article because in his opinion it should not be there. Brownback lists it in his literature, CQ Politics lists it on there site and I have placed in the article a quote, that Jerimee keeps removing, where he talks about broadcasting, in response to questions about his broadcasting. I have asked Jerimee several times to provide an independent third-party reliable source to back up his personal opinion that Brownback pads his resume and I will remove it. I have agreed to several of his edits, even though I have not necessarily agreed with them. I have compromised. Jerimee has not. I agreed to have the criticism of Brownback in the article about his Congressional attendance record even though it was only for one month and it might not meet the requirement of notability. I have agreed to several other edits. I have been talking on the talk page, but Jerimee has not been responding to me. Also, I am NOT the only one who is in violation of the 3RR rule. The edit history of where he takes them out, just today only, looks like this: First Removal Today and Second Removal Today and Third Removal Today and Fourth Removal Today and Fifth Removal Today and Sixth Removal Today and Seventh Removal Today and Eighth Removal Today and Ninth Removal Today and Tenth Removal Today. So to sum up, I tend agree with your comments above that you left on my talk page. Yeah, I my work here has not been favorable, but based upon the documented times that Jerimee has reverted me, in just one day, no one can state that Jerimee's work has been favorable either. I'm willing to compromise, like I have in the past, I would just ask Jerimee to attempt to compromise with me also. It should be a two way street. For example, the 3RR rule applies to him just as it does to me. Also, I have provided sourced, fully cited info for the article and he just can't remove item just because he does not want them in there. Have a good day!--Getaway 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the 3RR rule applies to all, and both you and Jerimee were blocked for it by another administrator.

If I am reading the content dispute correctly, the objection to your edits seems to be that they represent "overkill" and "padding". Whether or not this is correct I do not know, but it is a legitimate point of dispute in a content discussion. Asking for a citation that "Brownback pads his resume" is a non sequitir. I think it would be helpful if both of you got back to discussing the content of the articles instead of who is or isn't "POV pushing", etc. Gamaliel 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death

Hi, I notice that you are a regular contributor to the List of Notable Deaths section. Could you please also add the cause of death when you make an entry? It is usually listed in the article that you have cited, and it saves the rest of us from having to edit the list. Thanks. WWGB 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Question.

You probably saw my message on User talk:207.195.245.205. Did I do the right thing? I know I'm not an administrator, but I have seen a non-administrator do that before. I was in the area at the time and was hoping to reduce the admins' backlog slightly. Acalamari 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm done, though if he posts another request I'd leave it for another user to deal with. Gamaliel 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clearing things up. Acalamari 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Social impact of H5N1

Well, you didn't like my intro/summary of the politics section of Social impact of H5N1. So how would you introduce/summarize that section? WAS 4.250 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine as it is now, I just don't see any need to define spin in the introduction of an article. Gamaliel 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LOTR:TT revert

You recently reverted an edit I made to the Two Towers page in the 9/11 Controversy section and therein reintroduced several inaccuracies in the article. I was a close friend of Klerck until his passing, and was in frequent communication with him when he created the 9/11/Two Towers petition. Klerck knew very well that The Two Towers was the name of the book (he read the series in high school for fucks sake) and intended the whole thing as a joke (he was a well known internet troll). Do you have some reason to dispute my edit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.179.146.13 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

All edits to Wikipedia must be verifiable and have to cite reliable sources. If this account appears in a newspaper article or similar source, it can be included in the article. If not, then the edits have to stay out, sorry. Gamaliel 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary, Mary

Thanks for catching the vandalism to this article as quickly as you did. To my way of thinking, people like that clearly are not serious about contributing to Wikipedia and should be blocked immediately, rather than be let off with a warning. SFTVLGUY2 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:07 5 March 2007 (GMT).

Oh, crap, I had no idea. I was so used to people complaining that I didn't subst things that I started subst-ing everything. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg question

Hi I noticed you were an admin and had edited on the Jonah Goldberg page so I wanted your advice. There's been an individual from multiple ips who's been vandalizing this entry pretty constantly (putting in LBJ as his dad) [1]. Then he put a pretty nasty comment about me in the talk page. I was willing to let it go but someone rv'd it and I read the WP:NPA and as it was homophobic it was pretty clear that it had no place. They have also kept putting it in (so I've been taking it out). Anyway my question is what do you think a good course of action. Should I ask for it to be semiprotected? Makgraf 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI

I think the {{subst:testN}} warning templates have been deprecated in favor of the {{subst:uw-testN}} templates. I'm not sure what the advantage is. Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Usual_warnings. WP:UW is the project that made the changes. --Tbeatty 08:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, I can't keep up with this stuff. Too many templates! Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I wish there were more explanations as to why it needs to be updated or changed. Templates are supposed to make it easier to issue warnings, not harder. Now I have to look them up all the time. --Tbeatty 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ninety-nine accounts of sockpuppets on the wall... ninety-nine accounts of sockpuppets...

thanks for the support on talk:fnc. patience and persistance have always been two of my strong points, but i'm glad when other editors step in and validate what i'm saying (because I do second-guess myself at times). thanks for keeping me oriented and voicing your support. on an unrelated note, how would you evaluate my chances as an RfA candidate? /Blaxthos 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Glad I could help in a small way over there. I've been staying away because I just don't have the kind of patience you have for dealing with people like that.

I'm not familiar with your overall edit history so I can't say for sure. My advice is to see what kind of resumes the candidates currently up on RfA have and see if you measure up, statistically and experience-wise. For what it's worth, I'd vote for you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're Going To Love This...

Take a look a this page. Spot anyone familiar? Acalamari 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Geesh. Some people need better hobbies. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your attention to James Buchanan is requested

We have people attempting to insert Loewen's non-NPOV pop history into the article again. Any help you could offer at the Talk:James Buchanan page would be appreciated.K. Scott Bailey 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop by in a day or two and add my comments. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to expedite your actions, as someone there has suggested that the editing block be lifted because they seem to have canvased likeminded folk in an attempt to get the POV-pushing allowed per consensus, but against WP policy.K. Scott Bailey 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, way to assume good faith, K. Scott Bailey. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Way to gather support for inserting material via consensus that is in violation of WP policy. And please refrain from following me around to other people's talk pages.K. Scott Bailey 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

They are now putting this to a "vote."K. Scott Bailey 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I've withdrawn from the debate, and will be removing James Buchanan from my anti-vandalism watch list. I'm done fighting against the ones wanting to include POV-pushing "sources."K. Scott Bailey 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

conspiracy theory

I was just deleting the Mary O'Grady conspiracy crap as Mgunn did. 68.37.97.101 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. You removed a link to her Wall Street Journal biography page. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this comment on nonworking internal links

Per your discussion on the Rube Goldberg TALK page. [2] SBHarris 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wally Pleasant

hello, I have removed wally's last name from this page. We'd rather it not be posted for personal reasons. Thanks so much for the attention to his page! Miranda Records —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.22.239.226 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I wasn't the person who added his real name, I'm just the last person who edited the article. You should probably leave a note on Talk:Wally Pleasant instead. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the help

SBVT page stuff

Hi Gamaliel - Having a bit of a kerfuffle over at Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You will see from the edit history and some of the recent Talk page ("Book Section") discussion between another editor and me that there is some disagreement about what constitutes "original research," what is proper sourcing, etc. Maybe you will drop in and offer your reasoned opinion? Thanks --EECEE 01:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I was just coming here myself to ask for you to weigh in. My compromise, so that I could end the argument and continue with the reference formatting, was to place an {{or}} flag on the sentence in question, and move on. But apparently that is not even acceptable to EECEE. I see it as clearly violating WP:ATT, but even if you do not see it so clearly, surely it is at least acceptable for me to flag it as possible OR. I agreed to assist Blaxthos in formatting the inline hyperlinks, and am mainly doing just that, but if I see something that I think is improper, I am going to act on it. I am willing to simply flag things I think are problematic, rather than remove them. But only if I have some assurance that my flags are not going to be immediately removed by the article's owners. I also don't appreciate having my good faith questioned by Derex by his implication that I was going to bring my wikicabal into this. I wonder if you were one of the names on his predictive "list". - Crockspot 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Do you guys have a delay on your user warnings system?

I received 1 message today advising me to stop vandalising wiki pages. I then receive a 2nd message, on the same day, issuing a warning. Why send two messages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.65.25 (talk • contribs)

Because you vandalized more than once. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of Daniel Brandt

Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has filed an appeal of his indefinite ban at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeal_of_Daniel_Brandt. Fred Bauder 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters

Question about your edit summary here. By "no reason given", do you mean something in an edit summary, or language worked into the content? Also about "loaded", can you be a little more specific? An anon editor originally added the bit into the Criticism section, Gothean reverted, and I reinserted in a different location, and changed one word to "attack", based on Gothean's objection in his summary. I think this issue is includable in the article, but I agree that it could use a different presentation, and it would be even better if there was a reliable secondary source commenting on the issue. (There may be one, I just haven't had a chance to do some digging yet.) Also, a reminder on something else. No one seems to want to touch the RfC that I posted above with a ten foot pole. I would really appreciate comments from editors other than those who are directly involved in the dispute, and you seem to be one that we all would like to hear from. Just looking for an opinion, not a "ruling". Brain dead today, the RfC is a different article (Drudge Report), anyway, there is an issue at SBVT, but it isn't an RfC. - Crockspot 18:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

About the SBVT article? Sorry, I've been distracted by other stuff recently. I'll try to stop by today.

I'm not familiar with what led up to the edit that I removed but the problems I have are twofold:

• "False accuser"? Though it seems likely true based on what little I know of the case, has this been definatively established? As I'm sure you agree we should adhere to the highest standards of accuracy when it comes to living persons. Would it not simply be better just to mention her name and leave it at that?
• Why should this particular issue be included? MMFA comments on dozens of issues every week. Why is this notable or important enough to be mentioned there? We should not cherrypick.

I hope that's clear. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In a press conference yesterday, the state AG referred to the defendants as "innocent" as he was announcing the dismissal of the case. But yes, it could be more neutrally worded. I believe it is notable because MM was dead wrong in their assessment of the situation. MM claims to be a media watchdog, but they are just as succeptable to error as anyone. Like I said, I didn't make the original inclusion, but it seems like every time Matt Drudge prints something that turns out to be wrong, there are legions of editors adding it to his articles, and I've had great difficulty in getting those statements tossed. - Crockspot 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they can be wrong just as much as anyone else. But unless there is some particular significance about this specific error (or any error added to the Drudge article) it shouldn't be included. --Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okiedokie. I'll investigate further sourcing, and see if I can come up with something acceptable, if not, no biggie. It's not something I feel that strongly about either way. I just wanted to make sure I understood your concerns. - Crockspot 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Earth Day

Happy Earth Day! __earth ^(Talk) 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage

Thanks for catching that...I reverted to the wrong version obviously. Sorry about that. El hombre de haha 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's an easy mistake to make. I've done it plenty of times. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

I guess you watch for IP edits that are unexplained. Thanks. This allows me to avoid undertaking the revert you did here. -- Yellowdesk 02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Reid

I'd love to know what exact changes made to Harry Reid were inacurate or in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I'd like to make the changes so they conform to the policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spalvisak (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Lee Harvey Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker

Hello, I am Judyth Vary Baker. Quite awhile ago, I wrote that your information about me basically led people to a screed by John McAdams, who has written many pages about me, although he never interviewed me. He never even spoke to me on the phone. You replied that while the article about me relied visibly on McAdams' information,there were no copyright infringements. That's not the point. The point is accuracy, and your sending inquirers to a prejudiced resource (McA attacked me on the Internet before he could spell my name correctly). I wish to offer correct information for the Wikipedia article about me. For example, almost everything is written as "she claims," -- even saying "she claims" that "she was" a "star" science student. Not a claim: a fact. I'm asking you to allow me to send you corrections. I note that the article mentions dispute and asks for evidence. Fair enough, but I'm a person on the move: I've written Wikipedia and never received an answer. There are Internet sources showing some of my files, such as at JFKMurderSolved.com, where living witnesses verify having seen me with Lee in a romantic relationship, for example.

I ask you to refer readers to Edward Haslam's new book, "Dr. Mary's Monkey" --the chapters "The Witness" and another chapter on my story -- which provide evidence concerning my earliest training in cancer research. Please direct readers to at least these sources, who have actually contacted me personally, met with me, and seen the physical evidence. McAdams relied on secondhand reports. He even had to remove one libelous false account. Yes, I will be happy to work with you to get the Wikipedia article corrected, if you will contact me within the next few days before I leave again for Europe. Additional films and documentaries are planned in the future, and I hope that the Wikipedia article will update more aspects of my life story from 'claims' to facts, and not present hearsay, but facts, so that history can be trusted in Wikipedia's hands. --please forgive any typos...I have eye problerms, which is why I wrote before in caps, and why I blink on YouTube's "The Love Affair" the banned History Channel Documentaries. Imagine, banned! The 'historians' hired by The History Channel declared the three new documentaries by Nigel Turner were inaccurate, etc. Yet neither they nor History Channel people EVER contacted ME. They simply declared that the documentaries were to be banned. The truth can set us free only if the truth is known. --- Best Regards--

Judyth Vary Baker (you can verify my identity through howpl@aol.com and dank@xs4all.nl... some claim to be 'the real Judyth Vary Baker' and promote misinfo and factoids to muddy the waters.. I have no control over these characters!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.236.65.127 (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I have fixed the troublesome sentence that read that you "claimed" to have been a science student.

You can post any corrections you wish on the talk page of the article where all editors watching that article can examine them and act accordingly. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FNC

Just wanted to drop a note lamenting my departure (maybe temporary) from Talk:Fox News Channel. I've considered you on of the good guys, and I've always appreciated other editors who have tried to keep things right. It seems to have deteriorated to the point of insanity, and I wish you luck (if you retain interest). So much for starie decisis -- possibly a fundamental flaw of wikipedia (WP:CCC not withstanding). If there is meaningful effort let me know and I'll be glad to offer my opinion, but I will no longer lead the charge. Hope we run into each other on other articles -- it was always a pleasure. /Blaxthos 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the wolves have taken over with the probably unintented help of an admin. I quit the article last night as well. Now there's an intro that doesn't jibe with the sources, and basically marginalizes anyone with an opinion of the subject. But hey. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

welles screenplay

Hello, this is ambabeuf. Yesterday I added a reference book on the Orson Welles page. It's a book that prints Welles' script for The Other Side of the Wind. The ISBN is 2-86642-442-5. It was published in 2005 by the International Film Festival of Locarno in collaboration with Cahiers du cinema. It presents both English and French versions of the text. It also includes articles by Stefan Drössler, Oja Kodar, Bill Krohn and others, and an interview with Peter Bogdanovich. I think anybody interested in the work of Orson Welles might like to know such book exists. I am not one of the authors nor do I have anything to do with its publishing. It's not covert advertising. I'm just a Welles fan who happens to have the book open in front of him, borrowed from a university library. I don't understand why you have eliminated the reference. I'd appreciate some explanation. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ambabeuf (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I was reverting vandalism which identified Welles as a "janitor" and the son of "Ben Dover". I guess your edit got caught in the crossfire, sorry. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 13:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gannon

Can we agree that the dKospedia link in the EL section should be removed? It's a wiki, and their main page states an editorial policy of POV... There isn't anything that I see there that isn't already better covered here anyway. - Crockspot 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Crockspot about removing the dKospedia link. Secondly, Gamaliel, I am willing to call a truce and retract the accusation of you verbally harassing me, if you will talk to me, and discuss our disagreements on Jeff Gannon. I honestly do not know what your disagreement is. I cannot fathom why you would disagree with changing verbiage to be more objective, and to make it clear that some things are unproven allegations. Please help me out here. I will grant you that I got frustrated, and lashed out in frustration. I am sorry for that. Will you please explain why you feel the need to revert every single edit I make, and what your disagreement is? Sdth 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Please cease your trolling on my user page, and you rpersonal attacks on me at Wolf Blitzer Isarig 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the one calling me a vandal. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my Edits

Gamaliel, I made several edits today, in small increments, so that each edit could be evaluated on an individual basis. I tried very hard to make each edit an improvement on the NPOV nature of the Jeff Gannon article. I will be glad to civilly discuss any edits with which you disagree. Sdth 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Itsabeautifulday.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Itsabeautifulday.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No longer orphaned. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "claim"

Gamaliel, of course you can use "claim" when someone makes an unproven accusation. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Sheila Jackson Lee made an unproven accusation against Gannon. There is no proof whatsoever that her claim is true. That's quite a bit different from quoting Gannon when defending himself against UNPROVEN accusations. I am courteously asking for your feedback as to why you think what you think, and will politely discuss it with you. Sdth 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "stated", and reworded the last part a little to sound more NPOV- Crockspot 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Plame

There is no proof that Plame was undercover, and no proof that her status was illegally leaked. Fitzgerald did not prosecute the person (Armitage) who "leaked" her status as a CIA employee, and he knew that Armitage was the "leaker". So it's very fair to say "allegedly" and "perhaps". Your thoughts? Sdth 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The source that I cited does state "undercover CIA operative" as fact, and further clarifies that there was no crime committed, so I'm fine with calling her the UCO. - Crockspot 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because the source cited says fact, does not mean it's fact. I could have my own blog and state something as fact, but without proof, that would not make it fact. Many news organizations have make retractions. So, just because someone says it is fact, does not make it so. I'm still not understanding what is wrong with "allegedly" when there are MANY who dispute that she was undercover, and we have no proof that she was undercover. Help me out here, please. Sdth 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that notably holds that she was not undercover, I might reconsider, and we could present that view. I've seen that view (and held it myself) on blogs, but we can't use those as RS. The source I provided shows that no crime was committed. That's the important point. Bear in mind that this is not the Plame affair article, so we need to not get off on a side path over the merits of the Plame case. I was just trying to cut that part down to the bare essentials, and make it accurate and neutral. - Crockspot 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried a more minimalist version, just the bare undisputed facts. We should probably move further discussion to the article's talk page. - Crockspot 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gannon and alleged pornography

I am really confused. Why do you feel so strongly that these unproven accusations against Gannon have to be stated as fact, when in reality, they are also unproven accusations? What is wrong with saying "alleged" and "may have"? Sdth 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dellcomicslogo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dellcomicslogo.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Dellcomicslogo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dellcomicslogo.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I have a bone to pick with you

Why would you: 1)Revert a gramatically incorrect sentence; 2)remove NPOV language; 3)add BULLDOG in bold, contrary to the MOS, in the intro, when that name can be worked into the controversy section, where it properly belongs? Do you really WANT this article to look like it was written by a couple of warring twelve-year-old partisans, or were you not paying particularly close attention to what you were editing? And point of fact, I dispute the claim that Gannon had "no journalistic background", so being in dispute, and having previously provided a source for some journalistic background, I think you are misusing WP's voice there. I think it's healthy that you and I keep each other honest here. I truly want to improve the article, and make it less POV from both angles. - Crockspot 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• First, I missed the grammar edit, whatever it was, so sorry about that.

• Second, alternate names and aliases are always put in bold in their first appearance in the article, as per the MoS. If you think it should be in the controversy section, why didn't you put it there?

• Third, that two week seminar and working for your high school newspaper does not make you a journalist. If so, I have more journalistic training than Gannon, seriously, and there is no way anyone would consider me a professional journalist. The sentence said "lack of a significant journalistic background", not "no journalistic background" in any case. Would changing it to "lack of a significant professional journalistic background" be acceptable to you? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't care what it says, as long as it is attributed, and not in Wikipedia's voice. Let's parse it, and maybe you'll understand why I'm having a problem with it:

Guckert then came under public scrutiny, in particular for his lack of a significant journalistic background[2][3] and his alleged involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name Bulldog, he resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005.

So after Bulldog, there's a comma, and the sentence continues on... Mangled sentence structure. That's the easy one. As for the message, what I am reading is that at the time that he came under scrutiny (Feb 2005?), he lacked significant journalistic background, and came under scrutiny particularly for that "fact". However, a Google news archive advanced search shows that he published many articles with Talon News under the Jeff Gannon byline, going back as far as April 2003. (See Talk:Jeff Gannon#Talon News articles by Gannon, which I have not even completed listing his Talon articles to, there are about as many yet to list.) This includes a three-part interview with Joe Wilson, published in Oct/Nov 2003, which is cited in the article, and mentioned in many of the other sources cited. He was also named in a March 2004 WaPo article as a reporter, and was the subject of an article, again as a reporter, in September 2004. (See Talk:Jeff Gannon#2004.) So even if I stipulated that he had never put pen to paper before his first Talon article, he then spent almost two years attending press conferences and writing and publishing articles, some of significant notability, like the Wilson pieces, before the time that he "came under public scrutiny". I would call almost two years immersed in the Washington press corps fairly significant journalistic experience. For Wikipedia to make that editorial statement, only to have it contradicted by the reliable sources we have, does not make WP look very credible. WP:ATT calls for statements such as this to be attributed, and I agree with that policy. - Crockspot 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a twofer article I just found from 2003, Les Kinsolving asking a "deferential" question, and then referencing Gannon as a reporter.
• Kinsolving, Les (2003-07-23). "Shooting of Uday, Qusay illegal?". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved 2007-05-16.

Image:Mrt4.jpg

Hello, Gamaliel. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Mrt4.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 6. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT!

If u look at most pages, they are already vandalized...go after them.

Jon Gnagy page

Hello Gamaliel, the page is cnow completely re-written at your request: Talk:Jon Gnagy/Temp -- although the original page at http://www.tseymour.com/Bio.html is not copyrighted, and permission to use the text was received from the founders of that bio page, Jon Gnagy's daughter and son-in-law. Still, I completely agree that the text as it was lacked a neutrality that should be required of a Wikipedia entry, and hopefully my re-do can be judged as satisfactory. Trackway 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I misread the notice, unfortunately, and redid the page ... realizing afterwardss that I was to wait for a resolution .... I hope this doesn't hinder a resolution Trackway 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on George W Bush discussion page

Gamaliel, I know that you probably don't care for me, but I'm really not a bad person. I just noticed that someone from this IP address (70.72.196.49) just deleted the entire discussionpage for George W. Bush, and replaced it with this: "Gorge [sic] is a dummy". I reverted that edit. Can you do something about that IP address? Thank you! Sdth 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like the user has already been blocked, but only for an hour. Entire edit history (four edits) is vandalism/blanking. - Crockspot 21:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)