Jump to content

User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost
6 November 2024

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 Wikipedia.

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

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

→Σσς. (Sigma) 07:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


DYK nom: Klas August Linderfelt

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Klas August Linderfelt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --CeeGee 07:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The work you have done on famous librarians is a huge contribution to the discipline and will be a resource of great meaning over time. Kmccook (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Gamaliel (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Simpsons

[edit]

There is currently a RFC discussion about the content with the sources that the user AmericanDad86 has been adding, and you have been requested to make a comment about this, since you have responded to this discussion that had happened recently. Blurred Lines 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

[edit]
Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adlai Stevenson II

[edit]

I reverted your recent move as a violation of the "rough" consensus, determined in the talk page. I advise you to create a move request before moving it again. --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Eugene S. Matthews

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Eugene S. Matthews at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -Kieran (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby

[edit]

Seriously, you can't just keep removing something ultimately sourced to video testimony from a witness, given to a UK mainstream TV channel (one of only 4 at the time...) and broadcast repeatedly between 1988 and 2003 without anyone complaining. (And the 2003 issues are unrelated.) Podiaebba (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unreliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were the topic of the witness testimony the price of tea in China, you would get your ass handed to you on a plate at RSN for such a ludicrous claim. Were the testimony supportive of the official view, I somehow think you wouldn't complain about the sourcing. As it is, let's see what happens at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Central_Independent_Television. Podiaebba (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the resulting discussion will be enjoyable and pleasant. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JFK conspiracy theories

[edit]

It seems like this is an issue that's really spreading out of control, it's touched upon a few of my editing areas too. Any suggestions on how to handle it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has always been out of control. I've been taking a machete to JFK conspiracy theories for as long as I've been on Wikipedia, which is coming up on a decade soon. It grows back almost as quickly as you can hack at it. All you can do is keep hacking, unfortunately. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All you can do is keep hacking - with all due respect, and bearing in mind the garbage that is out there and how hysterically some push it, that doesn't exactly sound like you're prioritising the following of WP policy in order to document facts regardless of what version(s) they support. Personally, despite our current tangle, I don't think there's any particular version that's proven beyond reasonable doubt, and I'm happy to use WP as a tool to shed light on the whole complex morass. Example: Bill Hunter (journalist) - a brief article which manages with good sources (and without excessively harping on claim and counter-claim) to suggest that the death is unlikely to be suspicious, as some allege. Podiaebba (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I view it as prioritizing reliable sources and mainstream viewpoints. When you say you are against conspiracy theories (or pseudoscience or climate change denialism or creationism) in the context of Wikipedia the response has often been that this sort of stance is a violation of NPOV or some other policy. But it is consistent with Wikipedia policy because policy itself prohibits presenting these sorts of things in the way some advocates would prefer they be presented. Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're actually saying. I also don't see the point in being "against conspiracy theories" as if it was like being against astrology. Conspiracies happen all the time (cf organised crime) and governments carry out covert activities all the time (cf Snowden or the CIA's admission of sponsoring the 1953 Iran coup, or the various attempts to assassinate Castro). Once upon a time it was "conspiracy theory" that the CIA worked with the Mafia to try to assassinate Castro; now it's proven. Seeing conspiracy everywhere is liable to make you hopelessly confused, paranoid, defeated and a bit nuts; seeing them nowhere is just not paying enough attention. Unfortunately, humans are not really wired to be neutral and open-minded; we have confirmation bias. So we mostly end up picking authorities that seem credible, and then working additional information to fit what we think. And the internet exacerbates that by making it much easier to get groupthink where a choir is just preaching to itself... that's why I think Wikipedia should do more to document these, as far as possible, because although the arguments over sourcing etc may be a pain, it's better to have them than a self-congratulatory echo chamber. Podiaebba (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of brevity we say "conspiracy theory" when we mean something like "it's clear the weight of the evidence in this case makes the idea of conspiracy a fringe viewpoint" or to refer to only the fringiest of theories like 911 truther theories and not all potential scenarios involving a literal conspiracy. Obviously some actual conspiracies have existed, but as someone once quipped, we don't call those conspiracy theories, we call that history. I do think that Wikipedia should document conspiracy theories as a phenomenon, but they should not be presented alongside real, factual evidence from mainstream sources, as per WP:FRINGE. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that short-hand is misleading and dismissive, and the very term is generally used as a substitute for explaining why a particular theory of conspiratorial activity is implausible, badly evidenced, or provably wrong. Also, the general dismissive attitude to "conspiracy theories" easily becomes a dismissive attitude to any specific piece of historical evidence that happens to support one, instead of treating it on its own terms. This is unscientific at best, especially for cases (like the current issue of the Ruby phone call) where the evidence doesn't require any conspiracy to exist if it's true. Podiaebba (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand this from our perspective just as you want me to understand this from ours. Many of us have been dealing with these articles for a very long time, and in that time we have been subject to a constant barrage of often very rude conspiracy theorists who demand that we accept their pet theory, and if we don't, we're shills or sheep who can't handle the Truth, etc. So we have no interest in having this long discussion with every argumentative theorist that comes along, but we are willing to discuss this with editors who are willing to be mostly reasonable about it. In regards to the evidence, we are obligated to consider reasonably sourced evidence, and I feel like we've done exactly that. Are we dismissive of the evidence you've presented? Yes, but after we've examined the evidence and your sources, and that fulfills our obligation to the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eugene S. Matthews

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need well-referenced birth info for Leigh-Allyn Baker

[edit]

I understand you have access to some published info that is not available on the net for this type of info. General web sources that are not reliable including IMDb state Leigh-Allyn Baker's birthdate is April 3, 1972, and that is likely correct, but I can't find a reliable source to support that. I would appreciate any help you can provide. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time I can find a celebrity birthdate in the Gale Biography in Context database, but unfortunately this person isn't included there. Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, thanks for checking. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gamaliel/Gale

[edit]

Hey, the above userspace hasn't touched since 2005. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST it should probably go. Any strong feelings about it? Beerest 2 talk 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've long forgotten about it. How did you even find it? Gamaliel (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

[edit]

Not this year, but don't stop trying

[edit]

The results show you missed by a small amount: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013#Results. I wish to tell you I voted for you and I hope you run again. Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. Gamaliel (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Klas August Linderfelt

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Klas August Linderfelt

[edit]

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you

[edit]

I drew your name from a hat—well, not really, that's a lie. The truth is I thought of you directly after I noticed today that there were no comments from an uninvolved person at this COIN discussion. I would hate for the discussion to be archived without having somebody in authority say something pithy. The case has COI and BLP aspects. If you get a chance, can you chime in? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Paine

[edit]

So even naming Ruth's father (William) is too much for you? Why not delete the mentions of her mother for a lack of a citation as well? There are numerous "facts" noted in the article that have never made it beyond official allegations. Should those also be removed, or do they serve an important propagandistic function? What are you, a social media spook? Finding a citation for her father is easy work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.147.59 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete mention of her mother. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald and DLI

[edit]

Russell? Please cite your source.

Oswald may or may not have studied at DLI, I didn't say he did. Read more closely. That it has been been investigated, including by the Warren Commission, is an important point. The sources are all good. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.147.59 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used your own source: http://books.google.com/books?id=GDKvanJwbDsC. Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Klas August Linderfelt

[edit]

The article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Klas August Linderfelt for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

[edit]

Media Matters

[edit]

I see no neutral point of view on Media Matters. It is all bias. That is why I put a fair and balanced addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheplola (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters Edits

[edit]

I am sick and tired of you undoing my edits on Media Matters. I am citing my edits and it is not copyrighted. How can the truth be told about anything on Wikipedia if people keep editing very thing out that other people put in? Seems like to me that every snot nose liberal who lives in their moms basement runs this web site. A person can not rely on Wikipedia as being truthful. I guess that is why my professors in college said that anything cited from Wikipedia would be accepted. Hope you like my new edit. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheplola (talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of The Entry

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of The Entry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User

[edit]

Hi, Because the user Bullšhit is the key also did vandalism, please reblock with account creation disallowed. Thanks! Thewikiguru1 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody beat me to it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user:Mouh2jijel on Languages of Morocco

[edit]

Hello,

As you intervened on his talk page before, could you please explain to user:Mouh2jijel what is WP:DISCUSS? I invited him by 3 times to discuss the map issue without any response from his side, and today he simply reverted my edit (again), and again without giving any axplaination on diff's commentary? Isn't that case a user who simply refuses to WP:DISCUSS and to seek for a WP:CONS, then a WP:DISRUPT case? Thanks in advance.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If user:Mouh2jijel continues to revert without discussion, I will take action. But there's no hurry, I want to give him a chance to respond. In the meantime, feel free to revert him as long as you do not violate the 3RR. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Languages_of_Morocco&diff=prev&oldid=587332336 you simply reverted my edit (All time), as you are innocent — Mouh2jijel [Talk] 17:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the page Talk:Languages of Morocco to discuss this edit. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

[edit]

I guess that was unnecessary. Chain pullers are going to pull chains. Not much you can do.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That apology was no apology. Instead, you personally attacked me as a "chain puller". Fact is, you're part of a gang of editors fighting tooth and nail to keep strongly-sourced material out of the article, and your repeated personal attacks against me are just part of your technique. It's so obvious that it's hard not to laugh. MilesMoney (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apology was to Gamaliel, not to you. I had never heard of Geller until this issue was raised on the BLP board. I've no interest her positions. I do however care about BLP being followed. If the material you seek to add is strongly-sourced as you claim it is, then it should be a trivial matter to get others to form a consensus.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be, except that you're dragging your feet to resist these sources. MilesMoney (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, go to RSN. That's what it's there for.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's already at BLPN. MilesMoney (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retract your proposal against me immediately

[edit]

I really don't appreciate you proposing on a public noticeboard that I be given a 1 RR restriction on an article where I did a BLP enforcement and I have only ever made ONE edit and the second article I have made ZERO edits...and you don't even have the courtesy to notify me directly, and you label me as an edit warrior with the rest of them...retract it now.--MONGO 03:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like I've made a mistake you can ask me in a civil matter to reconsider the issue. It's laughable that my modest proposal would inspire such chest-beating, and if there's going to be any retracting, let's start with your accusation a few days ago that I was an "involved admin" for posting one comment to an RFC. So, try again. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imposing the same sanctions on editors enforcing BLP as those violating it isn't a "modest proposal". It's idiocy that subverts WMF mandates as well as en-wiki policy. When you see a bundle of experienced editors responding with anger, you should be sensible enough to recognize the possibility that you've done something really, really stupid and offensive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I see here is two hotheads overreacting, joined on ANI by a third guy who has been using Wikipedia as a political battleground for years. 1RR is pretty harmless since editors shouldn't be revert warring anyway, and any genuine BLP enforcement would have been covered by WP:NOT3RR. Gamaliel (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it...its about REVENGE! You propose on a public noticeboard that I be put on a 1RR restriction for one BLP enforcement revert on an article I have only ever made that one edit to. You propose I also be put on 1RR for an article I have never made any edits to!? You fail to inform me that you are proposing these sanctions on a public noticeboard...you label me as an edit warrior in your section heading...you want ME to be civil? Trust me...under the circumstances I am being civil...its your proposal that's not civil, so retract it and then we can discuss the other issue.--MONGO 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revenge? Are you nuts? You either fail reading comprehension or you are more paranoid than Arzel. I couldn't give a shit about your ridiculous and inappropriate comment on ANI, I shrugged it off and forgot about it until you charged in here punching horses, then I remembered it because of your hypocrisy and the disparity in our reactions. I just threw together a list of everybody who was reverting. The idea that it's some kind of enemies list is literally insane. While I should have realized that what I thought was a harmless and minor proposal might slight the feelings of those listed, I also didn't anticipate the hysterical overreaction or the idea that some people would think I was trying to turn this into my own personal Night of the Long Knives. Give me some fucking credit here, if I wanted revenge, you think I'd do it with a 1RR restriction?Gamaliel (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Above you want me to retract a comment about how you may have been involved in a block you did...right? You bring this up in the midst of this discussion...its an unrelated matter to this discussion, but you're asking me to retract that as if that will help you retract your moronic proposal that I be put on a 1RR restriction for one edit made to make an article BLP compliant? You insult the editors there at AN/I that also are insulted by your proposal, saying they are having a "hysterical reaction" and that they are "approaching this article with a battleground mentality"...you've been an admin here a really long time...maybe its time you put yourself up for a new Rfa and see if the community still trusts you. The events of this past week on your part make it harder than ever to do so, least that's true for me. Your callousness is not going unobserved....and I'm not impressed with your line in the sand either. You made a stupid block and now a stupid proposal...be an adult and admit it.--MONGO 05:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal was a well-intentioned bad idea that I've already withdrawn. No need to strike moronic, perhaps it was moronic, lord knows I've had plenty of moronic ideas before. I stand by that block. There is no "line in the sand"; I only pointed out your comment of last week regarding that block to point out your hypocrisy. If you think one block and one withdrawn proposal make me unfit to be an administrator, you are already aware of the steps you need to take if you seriously believe that and aren't just looking for ways to attack me because I hurt your feelings. If you have something constructive to discuss, I'm willing to discuss it, let's do so, but please, "be an adult" and dispense with your sinister hintings and loud chestbeating. Gamaliel (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've both been here a nearly a decade, and as far as I know, these two events are about the only encounters we have had that might be construed as negative. I'll be more cautious about what I might post at a noticeboard if you will extend me the same courtesy. If you feel the same about it, then surely achive this matter.--MONGO 05:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should restate my point in less combative terms: I made what I thought was a reasonable comment on ANI about a number of editors without realizing the full implications of my words or the possibility that others might take offense at what I considered an innocuous suggestion. I was not trying to label any editor an "edit warrior", though I think some of those others listed clearly are. I was trying to point out to you that you've done the same thing. I can't speak to your motivations, but I'm assuming your comment was well-intentioned and that you didn't realize that you were essentially accusing me of a serious policy violation. Since we're both reasonable folks when we're not pissed off we should endeavor to fully think through the implications of our noticeboard statements regarding other editors. I know we have a difference of opinion regarding that block, but if you seriously think that I've acted inappropriately in as an administrator regarding that block or anything else, I'd sincerely like to hear your civil thoughts on the matter in public or private. Other perspectives are always useful, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Gamaliel (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to be adults who admit things we did wrong, you could start by admitting that your edit was not BLP related. Everything you removed was directly about Rasmussen and sourced reliably. You just didn't want it there, so you wrapped yourself in the BLP flag of virtue and edit-warred to whitewash the article. BLP is one of our most sensitive policies, so it's despicable when it's abused to justify POV-pushing. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is about do no harm...you seem to relish doing the opposite. That article seems to be protected now, on what you might feel is the wrong version. It's up to you to convince others that what you say is right and should be in the article. My adage with all BLP's is that anything negative should be treated with extreme dubiousness and if included needs to be sourced impeccably.--MONGO 05:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harm in reporting the reliably sourced truth. Nobody denies that Rasmussen was the president of the OGCMA when the incident occurred, and made the statements attributed to him. None of the facts of the incident are in dispute. There's no possible way there could be a BLP violation here, so when you claimed to be whitewashing the article in support of this policy, you were not speaking the truth. I'd like you to admit this.
As for it being negative, I can show you right-wing blogs that defended Rasmussen and called him a hero for standing up to the gay agenda. It's only negative to those who do not share Rasmussen's ideology. To those who do, it's a huge positive. Calling it negative and hiding it reveals a battlefield mentality.
Wikipedia policy doesn't make special exceptions on this basis. When there are ample reliable sources, as is the case here, we are not only allowed to say "negative" things, we're obligated to by WP:NPOV. Anyone who claims BLP to violate NPOV is violating both. This means you. MilesMoney (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how you happened upon any article talk page to make this post? [1]. I found no economic issues there, nothing to indicate you are a philologist anywhere, yet you jump in specifically to attack me on a totally unrelated page? Cheers. If you are stalking my edits, please stop -- that is the sort of behaviour which would get me agreeing with others at AN/I, and likely would get Gamaliel "piling on" to boot. Collect (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Also your "edit" at [2], just in case the stalking is unclear. Collect (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I do find edit stalking objectionable. But let's WP:AGF and assume this is a one time thing. Were more articles involved, then we'd have a problem that could be brought to ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You hatted off my complaint at AN/I after you commented?--MONGO 20:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. All of this from a proposal that was withdrawn? Gamaliel, I will repeat a recommendation – "hat this section". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only after it became a dumping ground to rehash the complaints from Talk:Gun control. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There surely was an absolutely uninvolved admin that could have closed it like Quadell or anybody.--MONGO 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out to you yesterday, I have no involvement in the article Gun control. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen you state that you do feel that MilesMoney editing is problematic, but also that you have opposed some of the sanctions against him that have been proposed. I'm trying to get around it, but I have to honestly say that you aren't neutral in this matter over MilesMoney...I know I am not neutral as I believe that he is a waste of time and he and a cadre of others are wrecking articles. I just think it would have been better had another admin hatted it.--MONGO 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also supported other sanctions against him, namely a topic ban on Austrian economics, and proposed a sanction that had his name at the top of the list. Hatting wasn't intended to head off a sanction against him, it was intended to cut off the entirety of the archives of Talk:Gun control spilling into ANI. If you are perceiving some kind of favoritism, you're mistaken. My dog in this fight is that I object to singling out one problematic editor in a group of troublesome editors for sanctions. That's unfair and only emboldens and endorses the problematic behavior of the other editors. My objection to these recent sanctions is that they are too narrow. The failure of my botched proposal was to cast the net far too wide. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you about the need for numerous sanctions, but I still perceive that MilesMoney is the worst of the lot. In light of yesterday, I would have preferred you not hatted off my complaint yourself is all.--MONGO 23:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

[edit]

"Thank you for your comment, and not just because it is the most sensible reaction in a sea of hysteria." Moi? "Sea of hysteria"? Malstrøm is probably a better term. In any event, your comment has brightened my day. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Lumping good editors in with bad editors is always a bad idea, so thank you for helping me see that. Though the problem is, as always, is that all the editors involved are utterly convinced that they are the good editor and that they are going to make the bad editor see that even if they have to beat the shit out of them. Okay, that was a little hyperbole, but you get the idea. I realize that we disagree that MM is the key problem here, but that aside, what are you thoughts about what to do about this situation. Gamaliel (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gamaliel: I'm one of the editors you listed, without informing, in your now-closed proposal for sanctions. I didn't get a chance to comment before you retracted your proposal. I'm confused as to why I was included on your list. Did you have a specific complaint about my editing? I've been active on the relevant talk pages, and leading an effort to try to find consensus. I don't believe one could construe my reversions as anything other than an attempt to both address BLP concerns and reflect talk page consensus. I don't think it's fair to list me in a proposed sanction without any explanation, and without notifying me. As for your comment above about "all editors involved are utterly convinced that they are the good editor..." that again, although intentionally hyperbolic on your part, strikes me as an offensive swipe at my editing, since you've apparently lumped me in with a group of other editors without examining my particular edits. If you have a problem with my edits, I welcome constructive feedback, but please do not lump me in with other editors without explanation. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Safehaven86, Thank you for your comment. Your concerns are exactly why I withdrew my proposal. With my proposal, I did not intend to pass judgment on individual editors or edits, I just listed everyone who was reverting. I was looking at it like the 3RR, it stops everyone, regardless of the quality of their edits. I didn't realize that instead of being seen taking a neutral view of all the reverts, editors saw my proposal as a taking a negative view of all reverts and the editors who made them. I apologize for lumping you in with everyone. I actually have no idea who you are, beyond the fact that you edited one or both of the articles in question. If I do ever have a problem with any editing you have done, I will let you know in an appropriate manner, with specific references to the edits in question. I hope my well-intentioned but mistaken proposal does not inhibit you in any way from editing those articles or any other in a constructive fashion. Gamaliel (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation and apology. I see that you were acting in good faith to attempt to address a recurring issue (for which there are no easy solutions). I understand where you were coming from with your proposal. No hard feelings, and happy editing to you. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamaliel, even though I share many of the same concerns these other editors have expressed, I'm not here to pile on. I just wanted to pop in and congratulate you for your willingness to do an about-face when the circumstances called for it. That takes guts. A lot of people are too insecure to do such a thing. Roccodrift (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate your comment. Gamaliel (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

[edit]

Do not do that again, the lot is in quotation marks, hence fine under both the law and policy. It also serves to show what blatant cherry picking is. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darkness Shines, do not post the full text of a copyrighted article on Wikipedia again. The link is available. It is not necessary to post the entire thing, and posting the full text is a copyright violation. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a copyvio, it is in quotation marks. Read the policy. Remove a post of mine again in violation of TPG will result in a trip to ANI, so stop now. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like a pretty clear-cut copyvio to me. I don't see how throwing in some quotation marks constitutes a defense. Roccodrift (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Darkness Shines, please provide me a link to the policy which allows you to post the full text of copyrighted articles on Wikipedia. Otherwise I will continue to act to enforce Wikipedia policy and US law regarding copyright violations. Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Both of you need to read WP:COPYVIO. BTW ANI for ciolation of TPG. Darkness Shines (talk)
I read it. It doesn't appear to support what you did, or the reasoning you present here. Perhaps you should show us the relevant section of the policy that supports your actions. Roccodrift (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

[edit]

Your GA nomination of Klas August Linderfelt

[edit]

The article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Klas August Linderfelt for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signature outrage

[edit]

There seems to be alot of this going on by one particular user. Is this harassment or instigation? (also... what, exactly, did I do to warrant getting this treatment? why is this permitted to happen?) Wodenhelm (Talk) 04:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Gamaliel, but... See WP:SIGAPP and the second paragraph, starting with the header: Images of any kind must not be used in signatures for the following reasons: Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall having addressed you. And is that what I said? I could have sworn I was discussing user behavior. Wodenhelm (Talk) 04:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address me, but it seemed curious for you to ask Gamaliel like this. I assume he'll answer when he gets a chance as well.
You did ask 'what, exactly, did I do to warrant getting this treatment?' - so my answer is perfectly on point. Your signature is in violation of the signature policy in that it contains those images.
I think it also grabbed attention because one of them is the confederate flag, but that is only politically incorrect, not actionable.
Did anyone warn you on your talk page to remove the image, per the signature policy? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently yes, but rudely, until Gamaliel did. That is unfortunate that they were somewhat rude, but also unfortunate that you chose to reject the message. This part is really not optional. It causes server problems and there's no real easy workaround. Images are not allowed in signatures; they are not prohibited by technical measures, but you aren't allowed to have them. Please comply with this. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have comprehension issues, I'm going to repeat myself: I am not discussing signatures. I am discussing user behavior. I'm going to let Gamaliel, and only Gamaliel, handle this. Now, stay out of my conversation with someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

typo?

[edit]

In this edit, did you mean to say "far from the only problem"? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I did. Thank you! Gamaliel (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelatedly, thanks for this comment. I do wish there was less of that "chest beating" around here. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I always live by those words, but I think it's something we all need to be reminded of from time to time. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. I was glad of the reminder, myself. (Now, if only the later posters in this poor thread had gotten the memo. Alas, the textbook example continues...) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. I'm baffled that people are getting so worked up about this. Maybe because it's so black and white that it's easy to rattle sabers over it, while more complicated but more serious issues are harder to investigate and easier to ignore. Gamaliel (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JFK conspiracy stuff

[edit]

Because of your demonstrated interest in JFK assassination conspiracies, I invite you to watchlist the biography Malcolm "Mac" Wallace which was created a couple of months ago. It's already seen a bunch of uncited conspiratorial text added to it, which I removed. Best... Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's always room on my watchlist for one more of these. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/The Entry

[edit]

Gamaliel, you were notified that there were issues with this nomination over two weeks ago, but haven't yet responded. Please do so soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Novel

[edit]

You may want to look over Gordon Novel. There may be some coatracking of fringe theories going on, especially in the Waco section. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a close look at it this week. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

[edit]

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

[edit]
Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Question

[edit]

Hello Gamaliel, I found out that you are one of the English Wikipedia Administratos and I've decided to write to you about one irritant user, it's User:Dag13. Please visit his page and review it, I'm really interesting if it is forbidden or not to behave like him. I don't know maybe I also violated some rules, but maybe. If you found out, tell me about them I'll be pleased, I am not well in English Wikipedia rules, but I think what he does it's excessive and trespass. Thank you. --g. balaxaZeႫ 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgi Balakhadze:, can you give me some links to particular edits by this user that you find problematic? Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, but main problem I have with his point of view, maybe you know that Georgia has two self independence proclaimed regions Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region (South Ossetia). I know that Wikipedia represent current facts and not only official views (majority of the world countries recognaising them as part of Georgia except Russia and several countries), but he everywhere and always trying to promote secessionist view, creating new maps, where Abkhazia and Souht Ossetia are without rest of Georgia, and map where Georgia is without these regions and puting them in articles about this regions, I think this is not NPOV and always trying to prevent them. And now he is doing everything opposite what I do.--g. balaxaZeႫ 20:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check his Czech Wikipedia page cs:User:Dag13, there is shown what he is trying --g. balaxaZeႫ 20:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't really know anything about these geographical issues so I'm not really in any position to judge if he is acting inappropriately with map links or other content. If there are behavioral issues, I can take a look at those. My suggestion would be to report the problem to WP:ANI, with links to relevant edits. That way a number of different administrators, including some with relevant background knowledge, can examine the situation. I can assist you with this if you wish. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

[edit]

Hello Gamaliel. I'm deeply concerned about your participation on the WP:RSN dispute about Paul Krugman. I think that AQFK was correct when he pointed out which parts of the diff in question are speaking to the BLP subject and not to the subject's economics:

Here's the diff in question.[3]
"University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong sharply criticized Murphy's reaction to the bet. Citing data indicating that CPI never reached 3% (well short of the 10% Murphy needed to win the bet), DeLong criticized Murphy for 'refusing to rethink or modify any of his analytical' positions in spite of (what DeLong perceives to be) overwhelming evidence against them."
This is a clear violation of two key content policies, WP:BLP and WP:V. It should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis NOT mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've stated that

I am aware of WP burden, but it is irrelevant here as this is a noticeboard regarding WP:RS and not a discussion about article consensus. Wikipedia policy is quite clear, as is what I have been saying, and I'm not quite sure why you are misunderstanding it or are unwilling to discuss that beyond repeatedly invoking policies you well know we are both aware of. An opinion about economic matters is not a claim about a living individual, no matter how many times you invoke Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this contradicts WP:BLP:"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I would like to ask you to reconsider this part of the WP:BLP policy. Perhaps the diff can be rephrased to remove the specific parts that speak about the living subject and only cover his economics? Specifically, DeLong's accusation that Murphy is refusing to rethink and the part about Murphy's reaction. It is deeply concerning because you are a sysop and WP:BLP is a core policy. I'm not sure that the interpretation you've given in your comment above is compatible with adminship. Thanks.--v/r - TP 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. If I criticize AQfK for refusing to reconsider her/his view on the Murphy article, that is not a personal claim about AQfK. That is a criticism and an opinion. The relevant factual assertion, that Murphy predicted double-digit inflation and was way off the mark, is sourced to Murphy. DeLong offers opinions rather than facts. Steeletrap (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question in that discussion was, for me, "Can this be a reliable source?" and not "Can this source be used in this specific way in this specific article with this specific wording?" Answering yes to the former is not answering yes to the latter, nor is it an endorsement of any possible proposed wording or usage. I can understand why you would co-inflate the two questions, as AQFK did during the discussion because he was unable or unwilling to discuss the matter beyond chanting BLP over and over again, and so we were unable to truly engage the more complicated issues with the latter question. I also may have glossed over the issue in my responses, as I was focused on the former question. But I also believe you have not read or not paid sufficient attention to the discussion, because where you say "Perhaps the diff can be rephrased to remove the specific parts that speak about the living subject and only cover his economics?", if you go back and read the full discussion, you will notice that I made a statement that I consider roughly the equivalent to this.
I do appreciate you making you comments here and not on a public noticeboard, but this is still a public space and it is troubling that you would choose to bring up your concerns in this manner in a public way. I don't know you well, but my initial impression has been that you are a good, fair-minded editor and administrator, so I'm especially concerned that you would choose to do this in such a way. Having a different interpretation than you regarding a sub-sub-clause of a policy, even an important one, does not make one unsuited for adminship, and your statement is all the more troubling giving that I don't think our opinions on this policy interpretation are all that different. Admins are allowed to have different opinions and even be boneheadedly wrong on occasion. What is important is that they have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, as I'm sure you did when you posted this comment here. And perhaps you will agree that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia that you refrain from making irresponsible public comments about your fellow administrators in the future. Gamaliel (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel, this is a public project. I doubt you'll find a lot of support on this project to a request not to be criticized on-wiki. But I'll keep your personal preference in mind for the future. If you're saying that you were speaking generally to whether a WP:SPS can be used as a source then okay. I'm not sure it can be used in this particular case for particular parts of the diff, though. But that's neither here nor there. If your comments were generalized in nature then that makes me feel quite a bit better. Thanks.--v/r - TP 20:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the message you've gotten from my response was "I don't want to be criticized", then you have misunderstood. Criticism is part of the job, and of life, and no one could realistically expect to be free of it, nor should they wish to, as criticism can be valuable at times. And I hoped that my specific criticism would be of some value to you, so let me reiterate it since I have apparently been unclear: It is irresponsible, inappropriate, and uncivil for an editor and an administrator to claim or imply that another administrator is unsuited for the job because of a minor difference of interpretation regarding a sub-sub-clause of a policy. Naturally, you are more than welcome to criticize that interpretation itself, as you have also done. In this case I think we both realize that our interpretations are not that different in general terms, whatever we may think of the specific edits in question. But a discussion of the specific edits is something that at this point I am content to leave to others. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel, I hope the discussion regarding Murphy has been instructive. You have seen a good-faith argument -- i.e. that expert opinions on facts (Murphy's failed prediction/unwillingness to consider his methodology) established by other sources aren't "sources about living persons" in the sense the ban on SPS refers to -- characterized as a willful attempt to violate policy and smear Murphy with false accusations. (Note also that we 'vandals' and 'POV-pushers' acquiesced and removed DeLong's blog from the article.) I encourage you to carefully examine similar allegations of "biased editing" by SPECIFICO and me. Our "biased editing" basically amounts to adding (generally critical or neutral) mainstream sources to articles while removing (ideologically connected) fringe sources, whose tone is praiseful and sometimes explicitly worshipful. Users such as Bink and Carol, who don't understand what differentiates mainstream economics sources from fringe, mistake this for TE. Steeletrap (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics

[edit]

Dear Sir,

I am eager to learn, should I include a possibly controversial statement of fact in the future.

An edit was removed from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

I wished to know if you considered the statement about Charlie Rangel to be possibly libelous, or that it would be libelous towards Melanie Sloan. I guess I made the mistake of using that website vernacular as they call people corrupt constantly. Perhaps the words to describe Mr Rangel should be unethical as their are numerous references to that on Wikipedia.

I certainly don't wish to cause any libel issues for Wikipedia.

Here is an example of something I might add, this is paraphrased shortened and does not use the quote as this letter is too long anyway.

"Ms. Sloan made an appearance on the Daily Show where she complained about the people who were hired to draw up redistricting plans as a blight against democracy. Ms. Sloan made no mention of the lawmakers who were the actual people who made redistricting possible."

Thank you Carey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthepr (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can add this if you cite the factual information to a reliable source. The second sentence is problematic as it seems to be your opinion about her remarks, and this would violate our neutral point of view policy. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

[edit]

user:Mouh2jijel (again), on SNVI

[edit]

Hello,

Could you please take a look on user:Mouh2jijel's warring on the article SNVI? I tried (again, as it was the case on Languages of Morocco) to start a discussion [4][5] with him but, given his answer, it seems that he doesn't understand anything from what I say... plus this ridiculous revert of my contrib on the article: that could be considered as vandalism.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the article and I've asked him to start using edit summaries. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Omar-toons (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Could you please take a look on this edit: it is simply and purely a WP:VANDALISM!
This user has to be prevented from editing, since he likely refuses to stop reverting and start discussing these issues by himself.
--Omar-toons (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are frustrated, but I can't just block him at this point, nor do I wish to. I have asked him again to engage in discussion and I am prepared to lock the SNVI article if he continues to refuse to discuss. Gamaliel (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block Bans (Teksavvy.ca)

[edit]

I was quite startled to learn that my IP address had been banned (I received the message Editing from 76.10.128.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by Gamaliel for the following reason(s): Long-term pattern of vandalism: Cabbit vandal // This block has been set to expire: 02:25, 1 March 2014). Not entirely sure what this meant, I searched for the puzzling phrase "Cabbit vandal," which led me to this link: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28773860-Teksavvy-IPs-banned-from-editing-on-wikipedia-. There, someone seems to have had the same trouble as I did. I'm not really an expert on internet matters, so I have to assume that the statement from someone on that page that many users have been blocked is true. Teksavvy is a large provider and it seems possible that a large ban applied to it might make it difficult for many users to make edits.

I discovered I could sign in as a user and therefore need not worry, but figured I should bring this to your attention. Certainly it wasn't me who did any vandalizing, nor do I think it was the person who posted on that webpage. If a ban on a third person prevents at least two other people from making edits, shouldn't it be changed or honed down in some way to make certain it affects only the guilty party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Querenciazine (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, if we could narrow it down to just block the guilty party, we already would have, but his frequent changes of IP addresses make these blocks necessary. Since this particular vandal doesn't seem to have struck in a while, I will remove this block, but it may be necessary to block this range again. These blocks, however, should not prevent you from editing while logged in to your Wikipedia account. Gamaliel (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting abusive terms

[edit]

Thanks for hiding the abusive terms from the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel; Please do also hide the similar terms from the history page of Excel Central School. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

En mi Viejo San Juan

[edit]

Gamaliel, I have restored your edits HERE to the previous version, per WP:NOCONSENSUS. I understand your copyright concerns, but the matter was brought up for discussion and discussed over several days HERE and after that discussion plus the 7 day wait period no consensus was reached. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: Consensus does not override Wikipedia policy. Per the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." This is a policy matter, not an article content dispute. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights:
  • "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed."
  • "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems."
I will be removing the lyrics again as a copyright violation. Please do not insert them again. If you disagree with my interpretation of policy, please do not reinsert the lyrics but bring the matter up in another forum, such as WP:ANI. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please AGF. Thanks for the reminder, but I am quite familiar with the policy - that we interpret it differentky is a different story - and it's not my intent to violate it any more than it is yours. That said, I still disagree with your view, becuase we don't know what are the entire contents of the lyrics. However, granted: let's play conservative and in favor of the rights of the author and assume the previous lyrics are the entire song. We could then display a portion of the lyrics - say the 1st stanza? How have these cases been treated in teh past? Even if we assumed the 3 previous stanzas were the full song (something still unknown), I would think one significnatly smaller portion of the song can be argued as FU in much the same manner that we use, say, low resolution pics under FU. (The song falls under US CR law) What has been the practice under such scenario? Mercy11 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGF? I assume your edits were well intentioned and made in good faith, and if I gave a reason for you to think that I thought differently, I apologize. I assumed you were unaware of the policy since you wanted to quote what I thought were the full lyrics. I have no objection to quoting a single stanza or the chorus, but that large quotation seems inappropriate given the short length of the article and seems to me to fall under the "extensive quotation" policy prohibition. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L. Fletcher Prouty and anti-semitism

[edit]

Hi, you undid my removal of a section in which accusations of anti-semitism against L. Fletcher Prouty were made. The reason I elected to remove the text was that it presented no solid evidence against Prouty, just guilt by degrees of association (e.g. he gave a speech to an organization that has alleged anti-semitic connections). It strikes me that something better than that is required for an accusation of a serious charge like anti-semitism to be given space on wikipedia. You countered that the text was "well sourced". I'm not at all sure I agree, but it doesn't matter. Well source innuendo is still just innuendo. There is no direct evidence in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.126.218 (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is included in that section is undisputed, well-sourced factual information. There is no accusation that Prouty is anti-Semitic. We should present all available information to the reader and the reader can decide what he or she thinks about Prouty and anti-Semitism. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is your opinion, you should permit the addition of Prouty's response, found at [blacklisted website redacted]. Curiously, not only is the response not included, but the website is blocked and cannot be cited. A strange way to present "all available information".
Well, I appreciate you revealing your real agenda without wasting our time with a lot of preliminary discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if we mutually assume good faith and not accuse the other of having an agenda. If you think that I am here to remove some particular site from a blocked list, I am not. My original act was to remove some inappropriate innuendo from a wikipedia page. If you won't permit it to be removed, it seems to me that you ought to permit the right of reply from the accused party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.126.218 (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the accusation? There is no accusation of antisemitism, only neutral, factual information. To my knowledge, Prouty did not deny any of these facts. Gamaliel (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to hear you describe the information as "neutral". The inclusion of a section entitled "Associations with anti-Semitic organizations", and the allusions therein, quite clearly casts negative aspersions on Prouty's character, as any one of us would appreciate if such a section were included in a wikipedia page about us. Prouty was quite possibly a crank, but that does not mean that any attack on his credibility, no matter how offensive and fallacious, is therefore justified and appropriate for a forum like wikipedia.
Claims to the effect that he once gave a speech to an organization whose leader was associated with anti-semitism, especially when concerning a person who lived into his 80s and gave hundreds of speeches to all kinds of groups up until his death, is a poor piece of evidence, amounting to nothing better than the Association fallacy. Claims that the rights to his conspiratorial book on the CIA "The Secret Team" were resold to a publisher that also publishes books on holocaust denial, no matter how well sourced, are also instances of the same fallacy. Firstly, it is unclear that the rights were resold *by Prouty*, as opposed to the previous rights holders Prentice-Hall. And in any case, though the Noontide Press should be criticized for publishing books on holocaust denial, it is not in-keeping with the standards of wikipedia to infer (or insinuate) the views of one author from the views of other authors publishing under the same press.
Since I don't want to accidentally defend anti-semitism I searched an online copy of "The Secret Team" for the terms "Jew" (0 instances) "Zion" (/zionist/zionism) (0 instances) and "Israel" (/Israeli... 5 instances: one concerning an attempt by America to keep secrets from the Russians, the French and the Israelis; one concerning the recovery of arms from various campaigns behind the Iron curtain, including the Israeli campaign in the Sinai, and 3 times over the space of a couple of paragraphs criticizing the British over Suez.)
You said that, to your knowledge, Prouty did not dispute any of these allegations. With respect to the claim that Prouty "served on the advisory board for the [Liberty] Lobby's Populist Action Committee", and with respect to the accuracy of the Esquire article cited as a source, Prouty responded "Esquire magazine published an article, in which they just made up these things, I've never written for Liberty Lobby. I've spoken as a commercial speaker, they paid me to speak and then I left. They print a paragraph or two of my speech same as they would anybody else, but I've never joined them. I don't subscribe to their newspaper, I never go to their own meetings, but they had a national convention at which asked me to speak and they paid me very, very well. I took my money and went home and that's it. I go to the meeting, I go home, I don't join."
The phrasing "Prouty was a featured speaker at the 1990 convention of the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby" creates the impression that anti-semitism was the openly stated, principal aim of the Liberty Lobby. In fact the organization described itself as a conservative and constitutionalist organization and was a registered lobby with congress, lending plausibility to Prouty's claim that he only "learned later" that they were "completely opposed to" the views of Holocaust memorial groups to whom he also (claimed to) give speeches.
Unfortunately, all the sources I have unearthed for Prouty's response are secondary, except for [blacklisted website redacted], which is on the wikipedia block list. I have no idea of the history or reason for that, but I wrote to the webmaster of [blacklisted website redacted] to see if he could direct me to a different source for the quote. He responded that he doesn't remember the original source for sure, but he thinks it was something Prouty wrote for [blacklisted website redacted] itself, possibly in response to an email. This gives us something of a problem, since it seems equally remiss whether we include the text from what I assume wikipedia has deemed a problematic source or omit it and leave Prouty with no right of reply to defamatory allusions made on his own wikipedia page. I suggest that since the "evidence" amounts to a few brittle associations, we remove the section entirely. Failing that, I suggest that we include a passage to the effect that, according to [blacklisted website redacted], Prouty responded in this way, and leave it to the reader to decide whether [blacklisted website redacted] is reliable.
I would add that the remarks reported on [blacklisted website redacted] seem in-keeping with the denials made by Prouty in the Esquire article itself. "When questioned, Prouty, the intelligence expert, pleaded ignorance. He had not known of Carto's Nazi leanings, he insisted; nor had he been aware that one of his fellow advisory-board members had been the leader of the Mississippi Ku Klux Klan, nor that the Committee itself was the successor to a Lobby-sponsored political party that in 1988 had nominated former KKK chieftain David Duke its presidential candidate." According to the Esquire article, "Prouty assured [Oliver Stone] ... that he was neither a racist nor an anti-Semite ("I never met a Jew I didn't like," said Prouty) but merely a writer in need of a platform".
Apologies for the long response. 24.10.126.218 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the Esquire article contains material you think addresses this matter, I do not object to using it to source an appropriate edit. Gamaliel (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the flexibility. I will edit the section appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.126.218 (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

[edit]

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

[edit]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Story

[edit]

Hi, I was reading the Raw Story and then going through the comments. While doing so I saw that all the pro gun comments were removed. All of them. I went to another story and saw the same. Different commentators but still all removed. It made for horrible reading and how do you have a discussion if all the comments on one side are removed? Below you can see that it seemed to be a fairly polite discussion with the exception of the anti gun comments. "gun humper" was allowed to say as was all the other negative comments. I think they should be called on it as they wrote and took credit on a big story about censorship in China, and then they do it.

Below is the thread and the links to 2 different pages. Again anyone can see every pro gun comment is gone. Thanks Walter 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/28/chicago-14-year-old-shoots-himself-with-gun-dad-gave-him-for-christmas/ Avatar gnocchi datenutloaf • 9 hours ago But par for the course with these gun humpers. 4 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. − Avatar gnocchi Vetala Valo • 8 hours ago Um, because this is an internet discussion board? Did no one explain to you how this works?

And in your universe, what, exactly, would constitute "helping the situation"? Because you don't seem to want any laws keeping guns out of the hands of children, so how would someone "help the situation"? It seems odd that "gun humper" is ok while every opposing post is wrong. On another story you can again see every opposing comment is deleted while rude and insulting comments in response are allowed http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/27/west-virginia-gun-enthusiast-kills-two-men-without-warning-in-mix-up-over-property-line/#comment-1220076157 Michael Confoy MarkS • a day ago − Nut, moron, idiot, lunatic... 8 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Shang Tseezy Paul Erna • a day ago a man just killed two men for attending to their OWN property, and you say nobody needs to worry? LMAO 17 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar PirateCafe Paul Erna • 16 hours ago The article is not about kids, it's about a sniper who murdered two, with a scoped rifle from his window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA8:2380:5118:A1F6:57AB:5A0C (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum to call out websites for removing comments. Gamaliel (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shows a bias that was posted on wiki and removed at their urging — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA8:2380:5118:A1F6:57AB:5A0C (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. It was removed because it is not cited to a reliable source. All material in Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I wanted to add that putting down the truth that anyone can see by looking at the page/ling is not calling them out. The page is the source. Re your last are you saying if there is a hurricane it can't be posted until someone writes about it first?

Exactly. We can't add our own impressions or observations. See No original research. Gamaliel (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

[edit]

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

[edit]

Hi, could you look at this article - it's currently under attack with IP users adding Citation Needed after almost every name and fact. I think it needs protection. Regards Denisarona (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have protected the article but someone beat me to it. I will watchlist the article in case the IP returns. Please be sure not to violate the 3RR regardless of whether or not you are in the right. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

Ambiguity on Dublin Core

[edit]

You've marked the first sentence of the article on Dublin Core. The sentence reads: The Dublin Core metadata terms are a set of vocabulary terms which can be used to describe resources for the purposes of discovery. Perhaps I'm too close to it, but that sentence is perfectly clear to me. So perhaps you can explain what isn't clear to you? Then we can find a different wording. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: thanks for your note. "For the purposes of discovery" is the particular part of the sentence which seems incredibly vague to me. The rest of it I'm fine with. Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. "Discovery" is library-speak... I'll try to find a better wording. LaMona (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salon.com

[edit]

Gamaliel - isn't it better to use news sources like NYT instead of opinion pieces like Salon? Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, it says opinion pieces should rarely be used. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahp48 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salon is generally considered a reliable source by the criteria at WP:RS. Not as good as the New York Times, of course, but perfectly acceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
As you close in on 10 years of editing, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for all of your contributions, particularly some of the work I have seen from you at the resource request board, which I recently discovered ... your work has helped a lot of people. In short, your 10 years of contributions have vastly improved our encyclopedia. Thank you. Go Phightins! 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I really appreciate this. You rock. Gamaliel (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

[edit]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Signpost Barnstar
For this week's excellent "In the news" article in the Signpost --Pine✉ 19:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed on using special characters

[edit]

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Screenshot of the Insert menu in VisualEditor
The "insert" pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the '⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽' tool.
Screenshot of Special Characters tool
This is the ⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽ inserter as it appears on many wikis. (Some may have customized it.) Your feedback on this tool is particularly important.

Issues you might consider:

  • How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
  • Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
  • How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
    • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
    • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
    • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
  • The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
  • Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
  • Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of James Tiptree, Jr. Award winners, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hild (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]
The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
For exemplary performance at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :)
Thank you! Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

[edit]

thank you so much for your help with the George Carpozi research

[edit]

It's great to see an editor who actually IMPROVES edits they have a problem with instead of just mindlessly reverting them. I thought your edit was very well written and covered the issue as succinctly as possible while still including the main points. It will be interesting to see how long your improvements last. There's an editor who calls herself Researchfairy who edits nothing but Kitty Kelley and related articles and removes anything critical and adds only pro-Kelley references, that are often promotional in nature. Dozens of well sourced facts have been removed over the years. At first I didn't care but she's removed so much material that it was time to step in. My respect for wikipedia decreases when I see articles that look they're written by publicists. I also don't like articles that look like hit pieces. That's why I'm so grateful that moderate neutral editors like you have the judgement, fairness, and writing skills to achieve the perfect balance. Keep up the great work! Lastitem (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, I appreciate it. It's always gratifying when we can resolve conflicts on Wikipedia like reasonable people. Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

[edit]

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

[edit]
Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi! I noticed your newspaper link. So I have two goodies:

You can pick either to replace your broken link WhisperToMe (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was very thoughtful. Gamaliel (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome :) - Did you get the e-mail about the additional Diario Reforma requests? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

[edit]

Username in spanish wikipedia

[edit]

Please include here a reference to this request , in order to validate it and resolve. Yours truly: --Antur (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request was made by me on March 7. Gracias. Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Antur (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your notes on President Obama page.

[edit]

Thanks for your edit notes on the edit history page for President Obama. I did not understand the comment from the other editor on WP:POV since my edit was mostly quoting material from the Washington Post editor's point of view regarding the President's approach to "Ukraine&Crimea". I have added the extra sources as you had requested. My original thought was to keep this edit as short as possible. Here are the added sources you requested;

On 12 March 2014, USA Today in an article titled "Obama set to meet Ukraine PM as Crimea referendum nears" reported that; "Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk will visit the White House on Wednesday as President Obama searches for a way to head off the crisis in Ukraine that is testing U.S.-Russia relationship. Yatsenyuk's meeting with Obama comes just days before a hastily scheduled referendum in the Crimean region of Ukraine to decide whether the region will become part of Russia," (USA Today, 12 March 2014). Previously the Ukrainian government had become locked in a debate concerning whether the alignment of their country would be more oriented towards the European Union or towards Russia, with President Obama in discussion with leaders of the European Union. USA Today reported that; "Obama has called Sunday's scheduled vote in Crimea 'unconstitutional,' but at the same time the White House has sought to focus attention on the fact that the Russians have a vested interest in what happens in the Ukraine." Putin has argued that if Crimea is viewed as an autonomous state with rights of sovereignty then there is constitutionality, to which USA Today reports that; "The president (Obama) has made that argument twice in phone calls (of unconstitutionality) with Russian President Vladimir Putin since Russia's military incursion into Crimea," (USA Today, 12 March 2014). It was reported that Obama's meeting with Ukraine's Yatsenyuk did not allow Russian reporters to the press conference after Yatsenyuk had put in a request for one billion dollars in foreign aid for the Ukraine from the United States (RTVI, 12 March 2014, transcript of newscast of Yekaterina Andreev.)
On 2 March 2014, The Washington Post questioned the realism of Kerry's endorsement of President Obama's foreign policy when applied to issues of Russian interventionism in the Ukraine and Crimea during February and March of 2014 stating that, "Kerry displayed this mindset (of President Obama) on ABC's 'This Week' Sunday when he said, of Russia's invasion of neighboring Ukraine, 'It's a 19th century act in the 21st century.'"(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html) The Washington Post essay by its Editorial Board moderated its position of intervention in both the Ukraine and Syria as still requiring realism contrary to Kerry stating that: "But it's also true that, as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can't pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan -- these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that's harmful to U.S. national security, too."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html) The same Washington Post article also put into question the more general foreign policy of President Obama which was characterized as "a world in which 'the tide of war is receding' and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html)

Any follow-up comment you might have short or long would be appreciated. FelixRosch (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

[edit]


Letty Pogrebin NPOV tag

[edit]

It's OK to remove the tag. I guess it was just an instinctual thing and outlived its usefulness. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

[edit]

Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy

[edit]

Some guidance please. I saw you touched this page to fix a redirect/move issue. I came across this page in new page patrol, where the user had created a new article under the different name, rather than moving the article. I nominated for speedy since almost all the refs are hosted by the group itself. The creator replied to me with User_talk:Gaijin42#Shorenstein_Center_on_Media.2C_Politics_and_Public_Policy . Now, I admit the foundation could possibly be notable, but there are no real sources included. The editor has a clear WP:COI (a google of the user name reveals someone deeply involved with Harvard Kennedy School and Journalism). They also don't seem to understand that WP:N still applies to non-profits. But the bigger issue is copyvio and WP:NPOV - major sections of the article are copied directly from the foundations website, and the parts that aren't are written in peacock marketing fluff. The center may be notable, but if we delete the copyvio, and puffery, there won't be much left. On the other hand, I don't want to WP:BITE too hard etc. Can you give me some direction as to what you think should happen? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the following post to the user, rather that doing any immediate deletions or noms, lets see what happens User_talk:Leightonwalter#Shorenstein_Center Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I thought the botched page move was the extent of the problems, but it seems that the copy pasta issues date back to 2007 thanks to the suspiciously named User:Shorenstein. There's no question that the Shorenstein_Center is notable, but obviously we shouldn't tolerate copyvio and PR fluff. Leightonwalter seems like a reasonable editor so far so there's no reason not to keep doing what you've been doing (and quite well, I might add), adding appropriate tags and helping out Leightonwalter with the mechanics of editing. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest in this page. I'm still working on it, and will continue to improve its content. I've been talking with Gaijin42, and specifically asked what was/wasn't appropriate for links, in particular ones to the Harvard Kennedy School that confirm titles, etc. I was told they could be there, but you seem to indicate that they perhaps shouldn't be. I have pulled out five or six links to Harvard bios when external links exist (that should help) and will do another pass. A basic question: Should I in no case link to the organization being written about other than a single link to their site? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. By the way, I'm happy to work with other editors by way of my "talk" page rather than notices being put on the article I'm actively working on. Thanks much as always. Leightonwalter (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Leightonwalter:, the problem isn't the links to Harvard, they are acceptable. The problem is when an article is overly reliant on links to itself, its own website or articles by its own institution. The solution is to include links to third-party sources in addition to the Harvard links. Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking text in quotations

[edit]

Hi. Regarding your edit at Dreams from My Real Father, please remember that items within quotations should not generally be linked (see WP:LINKSTYLE). I understand the rationale for this recommendation is that the interpretation implied by the wikilink is not an actual part of the quotation, and thus the wikilink could constitute OR. I also realize there may be occasional common-sense exceptions to this general guideline. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the guideline, but there are situations such as this one where such links provide necessary context for the reader, especially the non-US reader. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

[edit]

Category:Pritzker Prize winners

[edit]

Category:Pritzker Prize winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Years ago, when the community decided organize special main page content for April Fools' Day, it was explicitly agreed upon that while we might tweak the underlying processes slightly (e.g. by relaxing DYK's update window rule), we wouldn't compromise our encyclopedic standards.
It's one thing to quote someone else's ungrammatical, all-caps writings and quite another to present Wikipedia's voice in that manner. If the latter is an intrinsic "part of the joke", said joke is inappropriate for our main page. —David Levy 03:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the community takes itself way too seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

[edit]

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was a very classy move to thank everyone involved. Whatever reservations editors had about your RFA, it's clear they weren't about how you interact with other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Credico

[edit]

We all regret some of our early work here at Wikipedia. Perhaps this is one? I hate to bother you, but can you please fix the issues that were tagged? Bearian (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even remember who this guy is. Looks like I wrote a three sentence stub about him 8 years ago. I'll take a look but an editor who actually knows who he is is better suited to clean this up. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Bearian (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

[edit]

The "conspiracy theorist" label

[edit]

Hi, I'm sure you know that we don't normally add a string of refs to the Lede. Usually we don't want any in the Lede, as everything there is supposed to be covered in the body first. I am going to remove your label, as it adds no new information. I have checked only half of the refs you added, and so far only found one instance where the term "conspiracy" appears. This was what it said:

If you wanted to pigeonhole Michael Ruppert, reducing him to a genre of contemporary human begin, then it’s obvious what you’d call him. You’d say that he’s a conspiracy theorist

I find it disheartening that we would seek to "pigeonhole" human beings at an encyclopedia, rather than give a full account. The New York Times review of this man and his documentary doesn't mention his questioning of 911, and doesn't call him names. Why can't we be classy like the NYT? Why does Wikipedia sound like a tabloid? This bothers me. In one account where Ruppert is questioned about the CT label, he says "I don't involve myself in conspiracy theory, I deal in conspiracy fact". I would hope any coverage of this label as it relates to him does so in a neutral and balanced way. I am willing to help construct the section, if you need.

This bit of history on the term "conspiracy theorist" might be of interest to you: From Esquire "Conspiracy theorists”... is a loaded term... in its current weaponized form, [the phrase is] an invention of the CIA. That body, when widespread skepticism of the Warren Commission's findings first emerged, sent a memo, number 1035-960, to all its bureaus giving specific instructions for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists." Prior to that, "conspiracy" simply meant to make plans between two or more people. petrarchan47tc 23:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the use of numerous refs was necessary, since you have repeatedly referred to this matter as being a dispute about the Daily Mail. Please check the refs again. I checked them all personally, twice. You seem to have some personal objections to the phrase, but it is widely used by reliable sources, and that is what we must model Wikipedia after, and not our personal feelings. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you have ignored my other points. Should you not create a section in the body to discuss this? Secondly, really realiable sources like the NYT do not stoop this low, and instead gives the reader an educated, thoughtful summary of the man. I wish Wikipedia was happy to do something similar rathe than a knee-jerk label. If you did add a section in the body, it could be mentioned in the Lede per WP:LEDE. Also his own reaction could be mentioned, like in this PBS article. I am unsure why you point the finger at me and ignore the Esquire article (not written by me, btw). I do see from your user page that this is somewhat of a mission for you. WP is not meant for activism. petrarchan47tc 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only activism is projected onto the issue by you. My take is very simple. Multiple sources, including sources like NPR considered just as reliable as the New York Times, label him such, so we are bound to follow the path of those reliable sources. I've ignored things like the Esquire article because any meta-discussion regarding the term itself, while interesting, is beyond the scope of the Ruppert article. If you or the author of the Esquire article feel the term is misused by the mainstream media, the Ruppert article is not the place to fight the battle against that misuse. You do raise a good point about his reaction, and we should incorporate that into the body of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

[edit]

Notice of RfC and request for participation

[edit]

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation

[edit]

There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping, Gamaliel. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Exchange: Wikipedia Library Research Coordinator?

[edit]

Hi there! I see you're quite active at WP:RX, which we recently grouped under the broader Wikipedia Library project to help editors access sources and do better research. I'm looking for a few coordinators to take the lead on some research-related initiatives, including keeping things tidy at WP:RX and possibly at a new research desk, or with curating research guides. Would you be interested? It's a volunteer position and we could talk about what kind of projects and time would work for you. Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your timing is excellent, I've just wrapped up a major non-Wikipedia project today. I'm not familiar with the workings of the Wikipedia Library outside of RX, but I am interested in bringing library know-how to use on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear more about what you had in mind. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Josephus Nelson Larned

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Josephus Nelson Larned at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

[edit]

I didn't know about it. Thank you for telling me! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Josephus Nelson Larned

[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

[edit]

American politics arbitration evidence

[edit]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Josephus Nelson Larned

[edit]

The article Josephus Nelson Larned you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Josephus Nelson Larned for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

[edit]

WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard

[edit]

Hello Gamaliel,

Recently, an editor posted a DRN report about an edit conflict you were having with the user. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mark_Levin . I would like to hear your side of the story before the resolution process begins among volunteers. I have already stated my opinion on the dispute and am ready to close the dispute after hearing your argument. Thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Gamaliel. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.
Message added 23:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have closed the dispute already; Lowercase sigmabot III should be archiving the discussion in the next day. JustBerry (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Supersisters

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

[edit]

Portions of this article have been turned into a foreign language in the past few edits. Could an admin please roll back the changes. Thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

[edit]

Portions of this article have been turned into a foreign language in the past few edits. Could an admin please roll back the changes. Thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_20&oldid=1144618669"