Jump to content

User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 17

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

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

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


DYK nomination of Kathleen Cody (actor)

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Kathleen Cody (actor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added some suggestions to the DYK page. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a few problems. Could you see my comments at the nomination's entry? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

[edit]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

DYK nomination of Fay Ajzenberg-Selove

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Fay Ajzenberg-Selove at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Number 57 21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I've now marked it as good to go. Cheers, Number 57 21:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Mulcaire

[edit]

Please don't suddenly redirect pages while people are discussing what to do. It's very rude. Please join the talk page discussion instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised by this reaction. You know that BLP (a policy you created if I am not mistaken) requires immediate enforcement. It's inappropriate to call someone rude for enforcing your own policy. Gamaliel (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC

[edit]

I hope you're keeping track of everyone else too. Or observing the bad faith discussion being conducted by TFD. Do I see you warning any of them? No. And why would I? You have a demonstrated dislike of conservatives. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are other users on that page calling other editors dicks and buffoons? If so, please indicate who they are and I will have the same conversation with them regardless of their political persuasion. And if you continue with juvenile name calling, we will have this conversation again, regardless of your political persuasion, whatever it is. You can imagine whatever else you want about this interaction, but this is an official warning about your behavior on that page. If you think it is inappropriate you are welcome to post on a relevant noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kathleen Cody (actor)

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Controversies - RfC

[edit]

As you are actively involved in the current discussion, your consideration as to the editorial conduct inre the deletion of recently added comments/responses to the recently-listed RfC is solicited and would be appreciated. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've responded on that page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate both your consideration and response. While I'm not sure that there's a real need for differentiating "involved" and "uninvolved" (except perhaps as some kind of placebo), there remains one bit of unfinished business that requires attention...Kmh's notion that an RfC placement editor can arbitrarily decide just who can and cannot contribute to an RfC. It's a WILD notion that I can't ever recall having been actually entertained inre any RfC I've ever seen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it doesn't really solve any need, it just seemed a quick way to make everybody happy. As you said, a good placebo. I do agree that trying to restrict RFCs is generally a bad idea unless particular editors are being especially disruptive, but I think the placebo has blunted any further impulse of editors to "improve" the RFC by moving around comments. It looks like everyone is content with this arrangement so I think I'll leave it be and let everyone get back to content discussion as it seems to have started up again. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...it just seemed a quick way to make everybody happy.
It was...and my compliments and appreciation for your solomon-esque resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bondi

[edit]

Hey G, this thing with the dog has to be one of the most trivial additions I've ever seen. And located in "Early career?" WHAT? I repeat: is this the best we can do the Atty Genl of the State of Florida? Even if it was on the front page this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. For Pete's sake this is exactly why educators think WP is a joke. It's embarassing. – Lionel (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a resident of Florida and lived in the county where Bondi worked as Assistant State Attorney. This "trivia" was a large front page story here. You may think it's a joke, the media here disagreed. When there's a 7000 character Wikipedia article about a guy posting underwear pictures on Twitter, this small paragraph hardly spells the doom of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

DYK for Fay Ajzenberg-Selove

[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call!

[edit]

We edit conflicted here; I was adding the note myself but you beat me to it. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial

[edit]

Hello, I believe that this article is misleading and does not adhere to an academical standard. Especially the heavy bias in favor of the political pressure group ADL does not help to get an adequate description. Please consider these data:

My suggestion would be to bring this matter up at Talk:Holocaust denial. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Reinhold and Ruth Benesch

[edit]

NW (Talk) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion

[edit]

Hey,

FYI, some previous edits you made to Michele Bachmann have become the subject of a conversation here. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mal Stevens

[edit]

I want to commend your expansion of the Mal Stevens entry. Great job.== SLY111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.91.55 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Joan Berkowitz

[edit]

Thanks for the article Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

Bachmann

[edit]

On this reinstatement: I think you'd better participate in the talk page discussion. (No need to respond here or on my talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to your message on my talk page is on my talk page. ¶ But that was then; this is now: Arzel misses your voice in the conversation. (And I do too.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Georgine Darcy

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

Joe Wilson

[edit]

I have added a section to the talk page on Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) which might interest you. Googlemeister (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Kneeland Townsend

[edit]

The Phelps Association membership directory lists a member with the entrant's name, Yale Class of 1871, but the fraternity link you found is as outstanding as it plain. Your link generates many questions for me. I write to state I did not intend to pass on incorrect information to users of wikipedia, no sir, and I wouldn't enter an edit war given you appear to have all your ducks in a row.68.173.89.63 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)SLY111, nee SLY131.[reply]

I have no interest in an edit war. If you have questions, you are welcome to pose them here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reclusive conservative billionaires, anyone?

[edit]

Thank you for catching that close paraphrasing at Tennessee Center for Policy Research. I had drafted that article in userspace some time ago, and before I moved it to article space I did skim it for potential issues I might have failed to fix earlier, but obvious I overlooked that reclusive billionaire! Thanks also for the DYK review. --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was really a minor thing barely worth mentioning, but I wanted to be thorough since it was a political article and those tend to attract heat. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the potential for "heat" is one of the reasons the article languished in my user space, while I researched some related topics (notably State Policy Network) in order to try to make sure I was not misunderstanding/misrepresenting TCPR. By the time I got back to it, I didn't remember which snippets of text might have been copy-pasted while I was compiling information. Thanks again for your careful reading. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion

[edit]

Stop telling me Welcome to Wikipedia. I have been here for 4 years, and I did leave my comments in the edit summary. --Andy0093 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should know better. Take it to the talk page or the BLP noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Malcolm Venville

[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Marcott

[edit]

Would this quote be appropriate on a wikipedia? Amanda Marcotte: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?" It would appear that she did post this on her blog. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a general question, sort of

[edit]

I like the quote on your user page: "When I am asked to look into cases of "admin abuse" and I choose to do so, I generally find myself astounded at how nice we are to complete maniacs, and for how long." - Jimbo Wales

which brings me around to my question (after a preliminary remark): I was reading the entry for Michele Bachmann and was surprised at how sanitized, for lack of a better word, it is. I went to the discussion page, and it gave me the flavor of what goes on with some of the more controversial personalities. But still, to leave out the crazy on Bachmann really, for me anyway, takes away from the credibility of wikipedia. Surely, this sort of problem is recognized by all parties....or maybe not. My question is this: are there any plans to address ways of dealing with telling the truth about a contoversial figure without appearing to be a complete whitewash of the subject? I have noticed that many of the articles on living (and even some dead!) public figures are truly cringeworthing in this respect.


Thank you.

24.125.236.149 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Janicejstraub@aol.com[reply]

Thanks for your comment. This has been a matter of considerable frustration as I believe that we have a duty to fully document matters, warts and all, and that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy prohibits such whitewashing. But there are two factions to contend with. First, Wikipedians who strongly believe in protecting living persons at all costs. This is a noble goal, but they take it too far, seeking to "protect" people by fighting the documentation of their own words and actions. And second, political ideologues who seek to whitewash political articles of anything negative or "controversial" and have learned to successfully game Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, I don't see things changing in the near future. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

DYK for Jane Rice

[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Babette Rosmond

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pauline Ashwell

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You're awesome

[edit]

That's it, basically. Just having a good time reading your incredibly diplomatic responses to Rodchen's various attempts to make Wikipedia more "politically balanced" by deleting massive chunks of cited, sourced facts and wanted to tell you I like your style, dude. Osiriscorleone (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have to warn you, though, I tend to balance it out by occasionally flying off the handle. Gamaliel (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for George Crile, Jr.

[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Márquez quotation

[edit]

Hello from 75.27.41.134 !

In The Fragrance of Guava, a collection of conversations between Gabriel García Márquez and Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, first published in 1982, Márquez describes Neruda as "the greatest poet of the 20th century — in any language." That is the original source of that statement, which has been quoted, unsourced, by the Washington Post, by All Things Considered on NPR, and most recently, in the New Directions paperback edition of Love Poems. But how exactly to cite that original source in a Wikipedia article, I will leave to you, the established editor.

¡ Buena suerte from 75.27.41.134 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.134 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¡Gracias! I'll add it to the article right away. Gamaliel (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¡ Soy una persona rigorista ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.134 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republican party edit war

[edit]

You appear to be WP:edit-warring at Republican Party (United States) over something that is the subject of ongoing debate, please stop and take your position to the talk page instead. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

DYK for Ralph Delahaye Paine

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shearwater DYK nom

[edit]

I think I've answered your questions at Template talk:Did you know/Shearwater (schooner). Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, and if I can answer any other questions, please let me know. And, yes, Citation # 1, is not the best way to do things, but finding a better way that everybody at Wikiproject:NRHP can agree on is quite difficult. Smallbones (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for finding the photo and helping with the Schlechten photographers article. Montanabw(talk) 19:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EEP!

[edit]

Check out [1] I think the Museum of the Rockies has copyrighted the image you used of Albert Schlechten (damn!) Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they can try copyrighting it, but legally it's been pretty much established that anything before 1923 is fair game. Gamaliel (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be safe, I put in a fair use rationale and I also requested deletion from Commons. We won't be able to use it at DYK, but we can keep it in the article (all of which sucks, but I've fought and lost some of these, so not worth the fight, IMHO, though if you want to push the issue, I'll step back and eat popcorn while watching (grin). I reuploaded it here as File:Albert Schlechten1.jpg. What the problem is here is, I think, that the image itself may not have been published prior to 1923, or if it was, the Schlechten family kept the copyright until they sold the image to the Museum. If we could prove it was in a book prior to 1923 or published on a postcard, etc., I'd agree with you, but it may have been sitting in Chris's attic for 30 years, for all we know. I have to say that I am VERY grateful for your help and support on the article, that's for sure. With all the other wiki-drama in my wiki-life at the moment, this was a breath of fresh (mountain) air! Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that didn't even occur to me. This is why I'm not a lawyer, I guess. Thanks for noticing and correcting my error. If it was indeed unpublished, according to this, it's not public domain until 2031. I don't see much benefit in fighting the matter as long as we can keep some kind of picture in the article itself under fair use. It's a wonderful photo and it would be a shame if we were unable to use it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did do the whole fair use thing, then someone else went and deleted it. What a pain in the butt. See [2] I asked them to please restore the fair use version, but oh well. That cornell site is cool! Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same guy who deleted the one you uploaded here also removed the deletion request you added to my commons upload. So I guess we can just use the commons pic. Gamaliel (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for now, until someone starts screaming about copyright violations (which would be sure to happen if the photo showed up on the main page in a DYK). Sigh. But it could be years. I gave it my shot. Thanks anyway for finding it and recommending its use! Montanabw(talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilson undo

[edit]

I see your point about CNS not being the most reliable source. I found this this press release from HHS which verifies the part of the claim that Affordable Care Act fund are expanding community health centers, and code § 51c.303 (v) 3 which verifies the statement that "that health centers are required to provide primary health care to all residents of the health center's service area". (I found the code section via a hrsa.gov page.) These links are both official government sites. Would adding these references sufficiently document the edit?

209.159.37.194 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe he is correct as the article states that "HR 3200 expressly excludes undocumented aliens". Neither of these sources mentions Wilson and we can't assemble a defense of Wilson or any other person from primary sources. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from what I can find HR 3200 does indeed exclude undocumented aliens from the Health Insurance Exchanges, the Insurance Premium Credits, and Medicaid/CHIP. I do not believe there is a general clause that covers all funds in general. It may also be that the law does include that, but there is no specific provision to require an immigration status check in these clinics or otherwise enforce it. Certainly the President may have believed the provisions were sufficient, even if they're not, to keep funds from going to illegals, so it wouldn't have been a "lie" but a mistake. That's why I put my addition on the "reflected his view" part. Anyway, I read your link about Synthesis of published materials and will drop the subject until/unless a more reliable source is found.

209.159.37.194 (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom for Lewis A. Lapham

[edit]

Hi Gamaliel, I have reviewed your nomination for Lewis A. Lapham at Template talk:Did you know/Lewis A. Lapham and there are still some issues. Could you take a look at my comments at the nomination page and reply there? (BTW, I found an image that could be used to illustrate the article with a Non-free biog pic license [image is from Golf Digest]) If you get OTRS permission from the owner of the blog, this appears to be a childhood picture of the subject (blog here) Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a headshot at Yale, but I didn't use it because it was post-1923. But the golfing pic is a good idea, and it shows him and his father, so I'll upload that one. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

DYK for Lewis A. Lapham

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thomas F. Darcy

[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William A. Caldwell

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vineyard Gazette DYK

[edit]

Please see my comment at the review page [3]. Basically I'm having trouble finding the info that it is the only paid subscription newspaper. I'm not doubting that it's true but can't find it in the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for E.R. Shipp

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Siena poll

[edit]

Sorry, it looks like I stepped on your reversion of the deletion of this short paragraph. I didn't think I was in edit mode all that long; it didn't stop the undo operation and I didn't get any edit conflict warnings. I just changed the wording slightly – "found that" seemed a bit WTAish, like "reported", in context. It does seem to need a bit more clarity ("ranked 15th out of 43" ...what? Penmanship? Golfing skills?) but anything I can think of gets too wordy (and "top president" is questionable anyway – I read it as "best", but some might dispute that interpretation, especially with things like "luck" and "background" factored in. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't even notice. Don't have any issue with your improvements. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what's 'talk' vs. 'discussion'?

[edit]

Gamaliel,

I checked the 'discussion' page prior to reverting the change, and didn't see anything to support 'consensus'.

PoqVaUSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoqVaUSA (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

DYK for Vineyard Gazette

[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Lee Grahn birthdate/Gale publications

[edit]

Hello, You might think Gale is 'undisputed' in terms of what they publish, but, I hate to tell you that I worked for a TV/Radio station for 10 years and routinely filled out request forms from them and other publishers asking for information on our producers, hosts, etc. The information is only as good as the person who supplies it, and if the production company or whomever is sent the request either wants certain information disseminated, or what they have is what's been given to them for many years, the 'error' intentional or not, is perpetuated. You should leave birth date information blank if you won't accept what I've supplied which shows 1956 as a birth date. I gave you a direct link to a yearbook for 1976 (it does not allow a direct link to individual pages so you have to either page through it or put a name in a search box) which shows she wasn't a part of that class. If Gale has '1958' but they don't list their source, you just don't question it because it's easier to toe the line that they are always 100% correct. I'm not quite sure how you expect a person to prove something that's not there. You can't prove a negative. If the 1974 yearbook ever comes online and it shows her in that graduating class, would you then accept that as proof? In the meantime - you should just not list a birth date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, but you don't have any real evidence disputing Gale. There are any number of reasons why she may be absent from a particular year book. Maybe she skipped or was held back a year. Maybe she was sick on picture day. The year book doesn't prove or disprove a particular birth date. Gamaliel (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gale does not prove or disprove a particular birth date. They do not cite sources. As I've explained above, or, they could simply glean information off of the internet. If you apply logic to them, they can't and don't possibly fact-check the thousands of dates they have in there. If you want to apply a higher standard to them, I would say they would need to obtain a copy of a birth certificate for every person listed in there, that would be undisputed. As it stands you know that they don't, and they don't cite where they get their information from. If you apply logic to what you say about a yearbook, they do in fact list a person's name if there is no picture. If she was held back a year she would have been in the junior class and she was not. nor the sophomore nor freshman. She was quoted in articles as not wanting to reveal her age as it would be a detriment to females' success in Hollywood. So there is documented motive to make it a later birth date. yet, you choose to list it. I know and have seen sources which indicate it is 1956 (not 57, not 58, not 59. not 55 etc) and it is unbelievable to me that simply because you have a self-annointed cannot-possibly-be-wrong 'source' that you would list a date. You don't have any real evidence to to support Gale's date. As soon as classmates.com gets an older yearbook with her listing, I am going to post it with 'graduated from Niles North High School class of 1974'. You can then leave the birth date but it will look dubious and conflicting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters about Gale, what matters is two things: 1) Gale is generally a reliable and accurate source and 2) You have no sources disputing Gale. If you know of sources which cite a different birthdate, please produce them. A yearbook which does not mention her date of birth is not such a source. You can theorize that if she is or is not in a particular yearbook, that must mean something regarding her date of birth, but that is just conjecture and not a source. This isn't about Gale being infallible, this is about throwing out a perfectly good source based on conjecture. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already did: http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&formname=name&qf=nancy&qmi=&qn=grahn&qcs=&focusfirst=1 And I get the response 'it's unreliable' and 'how do we even know which one refers to her'. Take your pick. They're all either 55 or older. The one in California that has the correct middle name is 55. This is not a common name.

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?ti=0&indiv=try&db=uspublicrecords3&h=68137885

[Private information redacted - G]

U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 1 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Original data: Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings

Description: The U.S. Public Records Index is a compilation of various public records spanning all 50 states in the United States from 1950 to 1993. Entries in this index may contain the following information: name, street or mailing address, telephone number, birth date or birth year.

However, none of this is deemed 'acceptable'. You may not want 'original research' but when it clearly conflicts with an old printed directory that doesn't list sources, and it is one-click accessible, you can't see the forest for the trees,as they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then if the yearbook isn't the issue, why bring it up at all? If the issue is the matter of these database searches, then don't sidetrack it with an unrelated issue. So now that we are talking about this, Wikipedia simply doesn't employ public records in this manner. We use secondary sources. And the world is a big place. What information do you have that the particular NLG you selected from the search results is the actress? Because she lives in California? It's a big state. To employ this source is to build a pile of conjectures and assumptions. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um - regardless of their accuracy, the phone numbers and address should likely be redacted from this page...Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, I've redacted it. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'We' are not sidetracked at all with this issue - it arose because 'ponyo' kept reverting the page to the other versions and calling then unreliable and the like. I surely wish that your 'experts' or 'editors' or whatever you are called would read the history here before making comments. They also need to become a lot more familiar with 'primary sources' before making judgments and comments regarding these. The method in which you are operating is archaic and is leading to inaccuracies. Your lack of understanding in how these 'primary sources' work, as well as the sources you actually use, Gale, is frustrating to put it mildly. I'm going to say it one more time - the 'grahn' @ the various LA-area address is the only Nancy Lee Grahn in that area. - it's an extremely uncommon name. Gale and the like are simply GIGO - if this wasn't so frustrating because I'm dealing with this I'd be thinking this was funny. In any case, I've put a link to a production, already listed on the Grahn page for years, dating 1973-1974. I certainly hope there's no issue with THAT because it's the theater company's web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself occupied with other matters today so this will hopefully be my last comment on the matter. You were the one who brought up the yearbook here, not Ponyo, so you can't blame him or her for sidetracking a discussion you started. I'm sorry that you disagree with Wikipedia's prohibition on original research and preference for secondary sources, but these matters are really outside the scope of this individual article. Perhaps you should visit the Village Pump and campaign for policy changes. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ponyo was being less than detailed about the reasons for continually reverting the text, dismissing my sources, and the yearbook was an ADDITION to the information already presented; not a sidetrack (BTW I will post links or pics when the 73, 74 yearbooks become available - take them down or not, they are infinitely more accurate than an outdated, non-referenced, directory). I can't help it if you didn't read the original exchange. 'Preferences for secondary sources' should not be used at all if in a look at original sources they are proven to be wrong. Birth dates don't 'need' to be in this article and it is frustrating that you chose to re-insert it - it's simply a wrong date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emails to Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[edit]

I don't understand how this section is relevant on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)

I'm kinda new to this whole thing but it seems to me like this section violates: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NPOV

This is a minor quarrel between two politicians. If every one of these was to be put on wikipedia, the site would be filled with minor quarrels.

Or am I missing something?

Thank you for your time, I know you're busy DaffyBridge (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bugging you but there is one more caveat. The guy who keeps adding these minor quarrels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ktr101) has "Very liberal" as his political status. I don't see how this is a neutral point of view.
Thanks again DaffyBridge (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how that makes a difference. Should only conservatives be able to edit this article? Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. It's just that its a very minor story and (imho) Ktr101 has an agenda. I don't see why it should be included in the page (see first message). If every one of these minor quarrels were to be included in every politicians wiki, there would be no room for substance. I can find 10 stories just like this, but I don't think any should be on wikipedia. Also, on the discussion page, 3 other people thought this was WP:NOTNEWS and Ktr101 was the only one who continued to put it back on the page. Thats why I mention his politics. (FWIW, I have no real opinion about whether the information should be included or not) DaffyBridge (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but you still haven't answered my question. DaffyBridge (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DaffyBridge is relatively new to Wikipedia and very interested in doing a good job with editing and understanding the workings of WP. Toward that end, DaffyBridge contacted me about the revisions to the article. I, too, am now curious about why the edit was reverted with only, "disagree" in the edit summary. Consensus on the discussion page seems to favor deletion of the material yet, you chose to revert the edit. Are there reasons you would like to share on the discussion page? I think it would help editors out if they understood your reasoning. Cheers!  :) Wikipelli Talk 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to all, but I've found myself in the middle of a serious matter today (see WP:ANI) so I'll have to stop by this article and discuss this matter in depth at another time. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can give it a look? DaffyBridge (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on the subject? I'm inclined to remove the material, but, out of courtesy, I'm wondering what your thoughts are ... Wikipelli Talk 22:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep bugging you about this, but I still haven't heard back. I don't see how this content is encyclopedic. It seems like WP:NOTNEWS to me. DaffyBridge (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing edit summary

[edit]

This isn't really germane to the discussion at ANI, which I've just begun looking into, so I'm mentioning it here. The revision deletion tool was probably a better option here, instead of deleting the entire article and restoring it without that edit summary. That way only the edit summary is removed, transparency is greater, and review of those actions by other admins is easier. Not that a big of a deal, just thought I'd mention it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of at tool (or I'd forgotten about it), but I will definitely use this next time this situation comes up. Thank you! Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Re your zealous link removals eg [4] as "rm dubious conspiracy/attack websites": Oh come now. The top two links you removed are transcripts of Garrison's own words at his most famous trial. Seems relevant to me. And wouldn't anything sympathetic towards the subject of the article by nature have to be from the "Conspiracy" viewpoint? -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text can be found at any number of websites, I imagine. There's no need to link to a ridiculous attack website like prouty.org. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some context to explain why I've labeled it such. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. If you can find the text of Garrison's remarks at other sites you find less objectionable, I encourage you to add them to the article as substitutes. As I mentioned at the above link, I disagree with your removing any link to prouty . org from the Fletcher Prouty article. I still don't understand why you call it "a ridiculous attack website" and feel the need to blacklist it from your comments, and a quick skim of that website doesn't seem to support your characterization. That's of course quite a different issue from whether the opinions Prouty states are "crackpot". I'm not sure how we can aspire to informative NPOV in articles about people whose notability is heavily connected to their fringe opinions while censoring what those opinions are according to the subject's own words. Sheesh, Wikipedia has links to the text of "The Turner Diaries" and "Mein Kampf" -- how is Prouty somehow in a very much worse separate category? BTW -- I'm glad to see you found a nice use for my cupcake chicken photo :-) Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it were Prouty's own website, I would agree. But it's not Prouty, Prouty is dead and some other guy is using his name for his own purposes and to libel a number of living people, including myself. So if you followed the link I provided above I'm not sure why you are confused as to why I label it "a ridiculous attack website". It's because it's a cesspool of cranks who attack people. And thanks for the photo, it's one of my favorite pics created by Wikipedians. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

Re:Roberto Arango

[edit]

Hi Gamaliel, it is nice to hear from you. I will try to find out his date of birth, but since the situation is such a huge political embarassment to his party and the people of Puerto Rico, I don't know if anyone will be willing to say anything about him. The ironic thing is that, according to what I have been told, this person who had such an influential position in the government of Puerto Rico and who with his acts embarassed Puerto Rico and it's people before the world, is not even Puerto Rican. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is one observation. If I find out his date-of-birth and post it, some one will come along and post a "citation needed" and maybe even delete or revert it as "original research". What do you think about my observation? Tony the Marine (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If it's not published somewhere like a Senate Directory, then we should keep it out for that reason. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Conover

[edit]

First, this isn't a criticism or a complaint, just a matter of curiosity on my part. I had noticed the photo of Willis Conover on your user page along with your caption. The caption made me believe that there was something controversial that he was known for, but after reading the article about him (and other sources), I didn't see that he was a controversial figure. Is there something you were alluding to that should be included in the article about him? Thanks. --rogerd (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I just happened to notice this section heading in my watchlist -- now I'm curious too! (My Dad was a newsman for the Voice of America, so Willis Conover was a steady presence in my musical upbringing.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had an interesting story to justify everyone's curiosity, but there's not much to it. To me, in this picture Conover is the epitome of suave jazz cool, and I thought it would be amusing to juxtapose that with contemporary bravado in the form of rap lyrics. Gamaliel (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am an old fart, so I am not up to speed on rap. --rogerd (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore

[edit]

Would you be so kind to explain (here) why you removed Peter Schweizer's book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy? I'm not a big fan of using sources like Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations and Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man but I'm not sure my personal displeasure excludes them from consideration. Wikispan (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tetrabiblos

[edit]

Just a note to let you know that I think I've addressed your concerns regarding the DYK nomination of Tetrabiblos; left a comment at the nomination page as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I've left a big green checkmark on the nomination page. Gamaliel (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Martin's Book

[edit]

Orlady (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

DYK for Clare Turlay Newberry

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

Paul Krugman talk page

[edit]

There are a lot of comments on there that are more forum-like than mine, including critiques of George Bush and the Wall Street Journal. Surprisingly, you left those comments in place. Please don't edit talk pages so that they reflect your own political beliefs.--AntigrandiosËTalk 18:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I was more concerned with the BLP violation. A forum-like comment I probably won't remove just for that; a forum-like comment that solely exists to attack the subject of the article I will always remove. If there are other forum-like comments you feel that should also be removed, feel free to point them out and I will remove them as well. I have removed your comment a second time. If you wish it to remain, please point out how it contributes to the improvement of the Wikipedia article or seek a dissenting opinion on the BLP noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are comments about Dumble U and the WSJ that can be found easily, but you convinced me. Can't really argue with any of your points.--AntigrandiosËTalk 02:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Threads missing after move

[edit]

Hey Gamaliel. thanks for the re-name on Ali Sina (activist). However, I noticed that the old contents of the talk page didn't make into the new article's talk. How does one rescue the old comments? Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 20:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow you. It looks like everything is intact at Talk:Ali Sina (activist). Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I can't link it, as I can't find the old page, but the discussion page I was looking at yesterday had a very long and recent thread regarding the content. I'll dig around. The Interior (Talk) 20:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find it, but unless I was hallucinating yesterday, something must have been lost in the move. The Interior (Talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the page histories of all the talk pages that are now redirects and also looked for any deleted edits. I couldn't find anything and there would be a record in the deletion history if there were edits deleted as a result of the move or for any other reason. Perhaps this discussion was on a different page? Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies, Gamaliel. I was watching two pages to do with similar content, and it was the other I was thinking about. Sorry for sending you on a wild goose chase. The Interior (Talk) 22:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem. It was easy to check. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McGinniss

[edit]

Hello Gamaliel,

I'm not going to revert your recent edit because I don't think that material belongs in the article's lead. However, material in the lead doesn't need to be referenced if it is reliably referenced later in the body of the article. As of now, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have all criticized this book quite harshly, all on the sort of grounds that ought to disqualify it as a reliable source here. See my comments on the McGinness article's talk page, as well as on the Sarah Palin talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I tend to agree, but I also think it's best to cite in the lead when there's controversial material involving a BLP. My objection was mostly to the weasly-ness of the wording, as well as UNDUE, of course. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we do agree, and I take your point about contentious material in the lead. So I will move on by saying, best regards to you this evening (or whatever time of day it is where you live). Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robin de la Condamine

[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Martin Hosking bio page

[edit]

Hello - I am trying to edit the Martin Hosking bio page to make it more closely adhere to the Wiki guidelines on bio's of living individuals. I am adding some information to his earlier career (I dont see why this would keep being removed) and I am removing the detailed information about the controversy RedBubble had with regards to displaying a particular artists work. This information is related to RedBubble the company and it does not seem entirely relevant that it is on Hoskings bio page - unless that is the norm for all CEO's profiled on Wikipedia. And it is presented in a biased manner that is outdated. I would appreciate constructive feedback rather than having this perspective summarily removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaboedshaw (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

File:Frwlpenguin.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Frwlpenguin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blpn - Paul Krugman

[edit]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman (2) - hi, an edit of yours has been mentioned in this report at the BLP noticeboard, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]

Hello, Gamaliel. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Avana Ivan.
Message added 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Commander (Ping Me) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Beer Party

[edit]

Back in 2005, you contributed to the deletion discussion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft Beer Party. I believe consensus has changed since then and this article is no longer notable by our guidelines. I have renominated the article for deletion, and your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft Beer Party (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

Neighbours - long-running

[edit]

Hi. Instead of edit warring over the inclusion of "long-running" on the Neighbours page, please can you comment on this thread that I created with the intention of preventing such warring? Thank you. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought the anon's changes were controversial, as they were on many other articles. If the editors there agree with the anon, I have no problem with that. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Drnopenguin.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Goldfingerpenguin.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

Question

[edit]

Hi. I am Jivesh. I saw the information you added to "Say My Name". Is "Single Ladies" on that list? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be through the rest of the list today, so we'll see. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do let me know when you finish. By the way, are you a fan of Beyonce? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at the whole list and "Single Ladies" doesn't appear to be on it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And any other song by Beyonce? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Excitement!

[edit]

Hey Gamaliel, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article Mr. Excitement! in the New Articles list-- The layout of the article makes it very clear. Kind regards and happy editing! Amy Z (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Velino Herrera

[edit]

Orlady (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?

[edit]

According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.

When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Had a cupcake. My wife went on a cupcake cooking binge at 1:00 AM (note that I'm complaining - they were good!)

Reply to your message about copyrighted images

[edit]

Hi,

First, thanks for the time you give to this.

Just wanted to say that it was my first time editing in Wikipedia and I thought a pic from a wiki page will have met the guidelines. I read that you don't have a problem with any image as long as it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. I'll see if I can come up with one.

Regards, Vali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vali ace (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Why you changed and Put 'Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)', his unknown picture to the Google..the 100 boook listing in googlw wikipedia..?

Please stop uploading his unknown image of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)..moreover..He was shown the statueless,Image less GOD..

Please dont do this..i kindly request it.,... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.53.252 (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing anything, I didn't put the picture there. If you want to replace it, discuss it at Talk:The 100. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Gamaliel/Archive 17! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

Clinton L. Hare

[edit]

Gamaliel, thanks for dropping that reference to the Yale Quarter-century record at Clinton L. Hare. I've used it to pull an image and significantly develop the article with a few tidbits from elsewhere. Take a look when you get a chance and let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks again. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I'm impressed with the expansion. If you can think of a good hook you should submit it to DYK. Gamaliel (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Hi, im new to wiki, i see your an admin, would like some guidance and to make new friends.

Tara1717 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you enjoy it here. If you have any questions please let me know. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gamaliel

[edit]

As you did a little work on this, I'm letting you know that the Tetrabiblos page has been submitted for a FA review request (see box on talk page). Cheers, -- Zac Δ talk! 11:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit]

DYK for George Arthur Plimpton

[edit]

Orlady (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Re Real Estate (album)

[edit]

Hi Gamaliel, first I apologise for unwarranted comment in Days (album) talk page. Thanks for expanding it. Both albums from Real Estate, have a warning in its infobox about moving reviews into article space. Could you visit and fix it? Being a newbie, I don't want to mess code and screw things round. Thanks.--DR998 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit]

)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit]

Bare URLS

[edit]

Hello. I've noticed some of the citations you added for Strange Mercy and w h o k i l l are bare URLS. I just thought I should let you know. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll use that ref you formatted on Strange Mercy for future edits. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Madmenflight1.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Madmenflight1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

[edit]

MSU Interview

[edit]

Dear Gamaliel,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Courtesy Notification

[edit]

As I was intent on changing my position to a simple Keep in your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy petition, I have asked the closing admin to consider re-opening the AfD to accommodate that position change. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

[edit]

Library catalog

[edit]

Thanks. Could you copy this over to my new post at WP:RSN where I moved this when I realised the RS issues needed to be solved first? Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, missed the note that the discussion was moving to a different board. Maybe the BLPN discussion should be closed? Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

[edit]

'A cover up'

[edit]

I'd read your comment regarding VUW being engaged in 'a cover up' as irony. Given that this has now been copied to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Catalog_entry_withdrawn and seems to have been taken literally (by guess who ;-) ), could you please clarify this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm Oh, dear lord, how could anyone take that seriously? At least now I think we have definitve proof that we are being trolled. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Frank Noel

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Earle Bunker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Moore (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) 10:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

[edit]

Steven Landsburg

[edit]

Steven Landsburg page - I see that 24.93.31.196 has modified a direct quote I inserted to make it look more favorable to Landsburg. And when I went to 24.93.31.196's talk page, I see that you are dealing with a similar situation. I looked 24.93.31.196 up, and his only edits to Wikipedia have been in the last few days to this article. That IP address is in Rochester. Hmmm :-) Trudyjh (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting.... Usually these types of things die down in a few days once the anon realizes that his/her changes won't stick. We'll just have to keep an eye on the article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

[edit]

Babette Rosmond

[edit]

I happened to be reading about my mother, the author Babette Rosmond this morning, and was rather flummoxed to see that you mention she had been married to the science fiction writer Leonard Lake before her marriage to my father, Henry Stone (he had no middle initial J by the way). You know a great deal more about Mom that either my brother Jim or I do. Remarkable. How do you know so much and more importantly, how in the world would you know that she had been married to Mr. Lake? Fascinating. Totally fascinating.

Thanks for your help. Really appreciate it. Yours, Gene Stone

(See my own entry, or check out www.genestone.com. I followed in my mother's writerly footsteps. I wonder, if indeed she was married to Leonard Lake, if they had any children) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.5.251 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. The information about Leonard Lake (as well as the middle initial J) comes from the book Partners in Wonder: Women and the Birth of Science Fiction 1926–1965 by Professor Eric Davin of the University of Pittsburgh. I read Professor Davin's book last year so I don't recall what his source was (if he offered any) for this information. You might want to contact Professor Davin to find out where he got this information or get him to correct the errors in his book. I found a web page which has contact information for him. Please let me know the result of your conversation with Professor Davin so we can update the article accordingly. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

[edit]

Dispute resolution survey

[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Gamaliel. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

[edit]

reverted

[edit]

There is no personal attack in this diff - I have reverted your removal - Youreallycan 21:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Youreallycan. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Richard F. Cebull

[edit]

Please see WP:NPA. You don't get to use the talk page to slander other editors. If you have complaints about other editors, please word them in a civil manner and/or bring them to the appropriate noticeboard. If you persist in reinserting personal attacks on that talk page, you will be blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the notice on the top of this page. You have done a great deal of hard work on this project but you also have a long history of overreacting and lashing out in an uncivil manner. I know you are a reasonable person when you are doing the former, and that's the person I'd prefer to deal with. If you are willing to be reasonable, I suggest we both take the rest of the day off from the article and revisit this when tempers have cooled. Gamaliel (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • - Its not a personal attack - you deserved a fish and you were edit warring -you already had a edit warring template and now you continue on the talkpage - please stop -Youreallycan 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks like you are determined to be unreasonable. I've blocked you for an hour so you can reconsider your decision to keep this uncivil. In that time I won't edit the article either. I don't understand why you think namecalling and accusations are appropriate behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

<not involved in dispute> Gamaliel, it appears when looking that you may be involved in a content dispute. I suggest that you unblock and carry it forward to ANI if you think that something more is needed. Please consider,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely inappropriate block Gamaliel, I strongly advise you to unblock him ASAP, you are clearly involved and your block will no doubt make things even worse--Jac16888 Talk 21:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem unblocking immediately if he stops reinserting personal attacks. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. He has a long history of personal attacks and incivility. My involvement is immaterial in clear cut cases of core policy violations. Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give you a few minutes to undo a terribly bad decision by you. You are both involved and that was not a personal attack. Otherwise, I'll undo it myself and we'll talk at WP:ANI (where we will likely end up anyway).--v/r - TP 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the exact same thing, A trout and a comment about being partisan are a long long way from a personal attack--Jac16888 Talk 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the trout, I earn plenty of them. The namecalling I don't consider acceptable. Whatever happened to NPA and CIVIL? Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the offending comment is him calling you partisan? i.e. either a fervent Obama supporter or a paramilitary force? Surely in an impressive 7 years as a sysop you have been called much much worse --Jac16888 Talk 22:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've heard much much worse, including comments about sexual acts involving my parents. It wasn't the severity of the comment itself, but the fact that a editor feels he can libel myself and everyone else on the page as a way of opening the discussion while simultaneously complaining that 'he' is the one being attacked. That coupled with the fact that he's a long-term editor who feels that he can be completely uncivil with zero provocation with impunity, and that is pretty much every frustrating thing about Wikipedia rolled into one single person. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind some friendly advice, why not just leave it alone? Unwatch Richard F. Cebull, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and User talk:Youreallycan and forget about it for a while, there are plenty of other people aware of it now, the article won't fall apart without you :D. Go find something different to do, try and find something to remind you how enjoyable wikipedia can be, you could whack some trolls, do some gnome work, if you're feeling brave I know of a particularly terrible article in dire need of assistance.--Jac16888 Talk 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that brave, but I am off to greener wikipastures for now. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I would say it's not really immaterial. Not only would any involvement cloud your judgement, but it also needs to be seen to be uninvolved. There are rare cases that involved admins can take action, very rare. This wasn't one, per WP:INVOLVED WormTT · (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty clear what the consensus here is, and I will unblock. I won't stand for the namecalling, however, and I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that the attacks directed at myself and others remain deleted from the page, however minor the editors here feel those attacks may be. Also, thanks to everyone here for your level-headed input. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NPA and CIVIL are still in effect, but you need to find someone disassociated with the issue to determine if they really are personal attacks. Let's be honest, have you never said anything that was taken out of context or in a way you didn't intend. Also, I'm not lenient on civility violations at all, but you're really letting the minor of all minor comments get to you. If it is a civility issue, it only barely scratches the surface and is on the level of what is to be expected with disagreements. Besides, trouts are usually used in a humorous way with someone you respect. --v/r - TP 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I told YRC, I have a great deal of respect for his hard work in the past, but he is hardly expressing any respect for any other editor on that page. I'd see the trout with respect had it not been coupled with accusations and namecalling. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you two just need to take some time apart. Now YRC is talking about an Arbcase which might be a little much for this. Just keep WP:INVOLVED in mind from now on. Also, this is inappropriate because now you're guilty of bad behavior too by issue an involved block. I think you both should just back off for a little while until tensions cool and then get together and just talk about what happened and why it escalated and try to understand each other.--v/r - TP 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, why was it inappropriate? I was trying to be polite and civil. Or was it the fact that I posted at all and not the content? I have no problem keeping away from him as long as he does the same. I am a firm believer in walking away from wikiproblems for a cooling off period. In fact, the block was a clumsy attempt to do that very thing, and my comment that you link to was an attempt to do that very thing you suggest in your last sentence. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is only inappropriate because now your guilty of a wrong involving him to. So it's like if one of my kids pushed the other and the second kid hit the first and then said "Pushing is wrong". You see what I mean? Now, if it was "I'm sorry I hit you, but pushing me is wrong too" then that would've been different. My suggestion involves time to cool off for both of you. Even if you're ready to talk, he might not be.--v/r - TP 22:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I won't initiate any further interaction with him. Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

offer GF

[edit]

I am not a person that holds simple grudges from mistaken issues and I was quickly unblocked and moving forward am prepared to hold no bad feelings and leave the whole minor storm in a teacup in the past. - Regards - Youreallycan 22:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, and the feeling is mutual. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are awesome, perfect ending for this whole thing.--v/r - TP 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William M. Gallagher

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2012 Pulitzer Prize (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to John Moore, David Jackson, John Hill and David Wood
Massoud Hossaini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to National Geographic
Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Patrick Farrell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

[edit]

Babette Rosmond

[edit]

Hello again. My brother and I hired a private detective to look into the possibility that my mother was married to Leonard Lake. Here's what he has to say: "I can say without a doubt you're mother was NOT married to Leonard M. Lake. They were in a brief relationship that never went anywhere and became very good friends. Lake was married in May of 42', and courted and dated his wife for a little over two years. They met in 1939. So he was already involved in a relationship when they co-authored the story. There is absolutely no record in county, city or state that you're mother was ever married before your dad. " Would it be possible to correct the marriage mention? I've also passed this information on to Eric Leif Davin. Thanks, Gene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.5.251 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

[edit]

Transpiration

[edit]

Hi you might want to protect Transpiration article and block 86.63.8.129.--thanks, Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

[edit]

Non-free rationale for File:Proswell.jpeg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Proswell.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

[edit]

Nomination of Albums considered the greatest ever for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Albums considered the greatest ever is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albums considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tgeairn (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Moonraker (book cover).jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lonesome1928.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Lonesome1928.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

[edit]

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan

[edit]

I'd like to notify you, as a previous blocking administrator, that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U, which mentions your block, can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

[edit]

Well done

[edit]
This user helped promote Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul to good article status.

You created the article, and now it's a GA. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

[edit]

ITN

[edit]

Kindly refrain from unilaterally adding content. There is a process at ITNC for these things and there is also an update requiement. Furhter when added a note needs to be places on ITNC. Youre always welcome to contribute and be a part of ITNC (dont recall seeing you tere)(Lihaas (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

The page was updated and there was consensus on the discussion page. I fail to see anything unilateral here. Gamaliel (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

[edit]

Proposed deletion of Rudolf Alexander Schröder

[edit]

The article Rudolf Alexander Schröder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

No English reference.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I am One of Many (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Christopher Haun

[edit]

(X! · talk)  · @353  ·  12:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

[edit]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for the kind words in reviewing my DYK submission! -- kosboot (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Jordan 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!

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 48th Street Theatre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Chase (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) 11:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Elizabeth Jordan

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For you're well-researched, well written new article on the 48th Street Theatre. Fantastic work!! oknazevad (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I had a lot of fun writing that article because so many different things happened there. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Thanks

[edit]
This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks! It's been a while since I've worked on that article, it's good to know it's still being improved by capable hands. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

[edit]

re: RSN discussion

[edit]

I agree with you about your suggestion to merge to the list, but I've linked to two AFD's which were closed as "keep", and I suspect that merging them would result in an edit war. As for the Atlantium article, it was carefully guarded by a COI editor. The "ruler" of that entity was a very active editor here on Wikipedia, User:Gene Poole, who apparently stopped editing in 2011, after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interactions between micronations was closed as "delete". Take a look at his contribs; he was a near-SPA with over 7,800 (still live) edits (and a whole bunch of deleted edits on related topics). Almost every time any type of discussion is initiated on a micronation-related article, that book gets mentioned, which is why I am trying to pin down a definitive answer. I don't want to eradicate micronations from Wikipedia, but I would like to reduce a substantial amount of the fanwanking which currently exists. List of micronations is better than it has been in the past; there is only one redlink, about 10 redirects, and only one "fictional micronation" (naturally, it's from Family Guy), but it's also been semi-protected for two years because of the constant stream of drivel which was dumped there before. Horologium (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It's an old story on Wikipedia. The passionate ideologues take control and the rest of us cede the articles to them, weary of the constant struggle. If this particular COI editor is currently inactive, perhaps now is the time to trim back some of the fancruft. I'll try an experiment with the Atlantium article and see what happens. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_17&oldid=1251201447"