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.
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
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you created the page for New Yorker cartoonist Roz Chast. I think I'm going to do one for Hilton Als, a writer, also at the New Yorker. Do you have any advice? This my first wikipedia attempt. I can read the FAQ section for technical stuff too, but if there are any notes you can give, I appreciate it.
Thank you, David
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back, sucka. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The mainstream media is clearly left-wing biased, and the sources are thus unreliable. I do NOT think that Mr. Hannity would like the opinions of mainstream media, who clearly dislike him, on his article. If the mainstream were truly reliable, they would not be publicly publishing their opinions in such media. I do know that you will dissagree about media bias, as I noticed that you have a whopping huge picture of Barack Obama on your discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRH95 ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Gamaliel. I've noticed you've had previous dealings with the user with the following user discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:12.150.11.25 I bring this up because this user has made repeated and disrespectful edits to their own user discussion page concerning alerts and warnings that have been received because of vandalism and other disruptive edits made using that IP. You can take a look at the history page and see what I'm talking about and notice how recently these edits were made. I attempted to revert two of these edits and was successful with one of them. After that, I'm afraid my Wikipedia skills are limited. If you could be a doll and enlist the assistance of whomever might be able to help sort this IP out, that would be great. I am morally opposed to Wikipedia vandalism because of Wikipedia's stated goals and, while I can see how a student might find it fun (in the grand tradition of defacing textbooks), it especially irks me that this purports to be from a business and the vandalism potentially from an adult old enough to know better. Thank you. 207.193.29.249 ( talk) 06:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi There Gamaliel,
I am writing to you about the Living Things band wikipedia entry, it is full of errors and alot of info missing. Can we hire you to do an accurate wikipedia page for Living Things? Let me know . Thank You..Healer31318:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 ( talk • contribs)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you have Leonard Jeffries on your todo list. I just expanded it quite a lot (some cleanup left). Feel free to take a look and comment. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Re [1]. Although I think your claim of BLP exemption is correct [2] I think you should use the talk page. See Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have just discovered that you have blocked my IP address of: 68.75.25.152. From what Wikipedia has told me. it said that you have blocked me on the basis of: "Personal Attacks and Harassment". I have done neither -- and I quite remember what I have edited on Wikipedia. Please reply ASAP, and give me what you believe I have done wrong or what Wikipedia policies I have violated. I presume you have blocked me in error, and I am requesting to be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthedial93 ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that you are accusing me of Wikipedian crimes that I have not committed. Regardless if I can edit Wikipedia now, I request a proper explanation on what accounts this IP address has violated Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia gave me the reasons, but I request for you to give a further rationale. How have I committed personal attacks or harassed others? ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 11:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed Kay Laurell linked on your article to do list. I just uploaded a number of photos of her (what I could find on LOC plus a few others) to Commons; so a Commons:Category:Kay Laurell already exists for when there's an article. Cheers! -- Infrogmation ( talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
hello, i recently made a change to the tropic of cancer (novel) by henry miller article which was reverted. jacob brussel was sent to prison for three years, not ten as it says in the article. this is from p. 6 of Funny Peculiar by Mikita Brottman, which is available on google books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.61.78 ( talk) 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
my comments and changes to his page were based on this youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ2L1aQy-io
I might not be as skilled in Wikipedia as you, but I think that it should be pointed out that he supports government run health care.
I did not say this is a good or bad thing just a fact.
The information I added could be brushed up a bit but I think you deleting them as vandalism is out of line.
Thank you for your time, BB
That is fine. Then why don't YOU make the contributions more neutral instead of just deleting them? Not everyone that has useful information to contribute knows all the rules.
I think that someone going to Bill Mahers page would like to know his views on health care. Why are you against those facts being on the page? If you don't want to polish up my contributions then let someone else do it.
If I posted on Bob Smith's wikipedia: "Bob Smith is dead, and good thing because I hate that guy." You as a responsible and knowledgeable wikipedian who knows WP:NPOV protocol should investigate if Bob Smith is dead and then take out the I hate that guy part. Not delete the whole thing as vandalism, which would deny everyone that went to Bob Smith's page the knowledge of his death.
thank you, BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.108.233 ( talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok so when are you going to do it?
As it is clear that I am too offensive to help out wikipedia.
BB —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.128.108.233 (
talk) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wrote a brief passage on something by Paul Krugman where he wrote in Fortune magazine a prediction after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and he ended up being wrong. This was not libel. It was placed under the criticism section. My source was cited. Then I find out today that someone deleted it and I get a message from you. I object to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.29.183 ( talk) 22:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I took it to talk. Here are my objections to changes in Enron section, here is my explanation of removal of Japan stuff, and in total I have made more than 10 comments on talk today. -- Vision Thing -- 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How exactly was the article "bias" ? Was it not properly sourced or POV ? Well no, of course not, it was in his own words and reflects an accurate depiction of that communities view of his actions. Does John Aravosis want the transgendered community out of the LGBT ? Yes ! What you are trying to do is make Hitler shoving Jews into ovens into "Helping improve the Jewish community". Ot seems neutral on the surface but is actively distorting fact. I would like to have this arbitrated rather than get in an editing war. If need be the article on the betrayal of the transgender community should be vastly expanded by including the vast number of articles from transgender activists who feel it was a betrayal. DarlieB ( talk) 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"This page in a nutshell: Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
Do you feel " all points of view " were represented ? The transgender community was not represented , the LGBT was not represented at all in your version . Before wiki just means to have it arbitrated. DarlieB ( talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 01:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.
Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d
Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Why was I blocked? I can't even remember the last time I edited a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.59.13 ( talk) 15:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. My name is John Cook, and I am a reporter for Gawker Media (www.gawker.com). I'd like to talk to you about a page you created, if you have a moment. Would you mind e-mailing me a john at gawker dot com? Thanks much.
Best, john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.29.204 ( talk) 02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and sorry for the deletion in the Nina Totenberg article; originally the reference linked to an image of the book, but I cannot see it right now (possibly because I am logging in from outside the U.S.) so I could not check. The anonymous editor who has been so active on that page of late does not seem to have a full grasp of how to do citations or what constitutes appropriate citations, so I wasn't sure. Magidin ( talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean, whether "relatedly, of giving the impression she had been fired because of sexual harassment" applies to the Hunt article in question? (Let me note the sentence right now is a grammatical mess; it doesn't really parse properly). I have not read Hunt's piece, nor have I ever read anything by him; I can give you my take on it if you let me know where I can read them, but I suspect the other editor is not going to consider me a "neutral third party" (I know it's a violation of AGF to say that, but then, he hasn't shown much good faith towards others so far). Magidin ( talk) 20:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, in reply to your comment on the RFC:
Okay, so Op-Ed material that defames is suitable for a BLP? Scribner ( talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Economist called article on Krugman "The one-handed economist" which is a reference to Truman's quote "Give me a one-handed economist! All my economists say, On the one hand on the other." [7] To me it seems obvious that The Economist choose that title to point to Krugman's partisanship. They flat out say: "perhaps the most striking thing about his writing these days is not its economic rigour but its political partisanship". Because of that I don't understand why are you accusing me of "cherry picking". Theme of the whole article is Krugman's partisanship. So on what else should two sentence summary focus if not on that? -- Vision Thing -- 20:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the articles. Okay, I first read Kurtz's piece. I have to say, his paragraph discussing Totenbergs dismissal from the Observer is somewhat misleading; by including the comment "where she says sexual harassment took place" as a clause before "over an allegation [of plagiarism]", it makes it seem that the two are connected; by explicitly saying that Totenberg would neither confirm nor deny if she thought the two were connected, he is essentially creating a "non-confirmation confirmation", so to speak. On to Hunt; Hunt explicitly blames Totenberg for "[leaving] the impression" mentioned above. That seems at least somewhat far-fetched. It would be far more accurate to say "the article left the impression" or "may have left the impression", rather than blame Totenberg for it. He closes by mentioning a separate interview of Totenberg which is not part of the Kurtz article, in which Totenberg pretty flatly claims she "left" and that it was due to sexual harassment. My impression is: Kurtz's piece is at least ambiguous, and can be read as giving the impression that the firing was at connected to the sexual harassment; Hunt is correct on that, though unwarranted in blaming Totenberg for it on the basis only of that column. Though Hunt's column is all about how the Democrats and the GOP have horribly fumbled the Thomas hearings, the stuff about Totenberg is not really part of that (though he claims to be discussing how the media has come out badly as well). In that respect, 71.80.34.146 is correct that (this portion of) Hunt's column is not about Totenberg's reporting at all, it is solely about her being fired. And you are correct that Hunt does not accuse her of anything other than the original lapse and of "leaving [an] impression".
Now, I don't think the current paragraph captures this terribly well either. Kurtz only says "allegations that she had plagiarized part of the story", and effectively blunts that by putting the sexual harassment clause in the middle of that sentence; I don't think this qualifies as "mentioning she was fired over the incident". And there is the separate interview quoted (but not identified) by Hunt. I think that needs to be fleshed out a bit to clarify. It should mention her accusations of sexual harassment; Kurtz's article and potential ambiguity (though I'm hard pressed to figure out how to phrase it properly for Wikipedia); the separate interview quote by Totenberg; then the portion of Hunt's column in which he explicitly claims she is being misleading about the reason for the firing. I can't figure out how to say that the section about Totenberg on that column is really not part and parcel of the rest of the column without engaging in OR, though somehow it seems that should be there somehow. Then again, perhaps it can't. Magidin ( talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You are indeed missing something. The difference is subtle, but distinct. For reference, here is what the editor claimed I said:
And here is my full quote:
The editor is trying to make the case that he was attacked by TharsHammar's comment. The editor uses my truncated words to misrepresent my position as: "Since TharsHammar only attacked teabaggers, and you say you aren't one, then he didn't attack you." That is completely opposite to my actual position. My position, as made clear by my full quote, is Tharshammer didn't make an attack at all. If you look at my actual statement, you'll see that not only did I start it with the assessment that an attack was not made, but I reiterate that point at the end of my statement as well. My comment that "if you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you" does not equate to "and if you are one, then consider yourself attacked", as the editor would like to mislead you into believing. Read it.
I hope that clears things up for you. If his truncation of my words didn't, as you incorrectly assessed, change the meaning of my comment, then certainly the un-truncation of them didn't change the meaning, too. Yet you saw the editor's reaction to my reinserting the true meaning of my comment, and should ask yourself why. Best regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
68.251.0.0/16 I believe that is my IP. Just simply wondering what I said or did to get blocked. The reason said I harrassed someone but never remember doing that. Please help
Toya Honeytdp1@sbcglobal.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkyjrp ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding citations supporting Roesgen's awards, I'm perfectly content with using CNN, Nat'l Geo News and her university newspaper. As it turns out, CNN's bios are indeed fact-checked before being published on their website, and the news stories in the other two sources aren't self-published either, as a certain IP editor would have us believe.
As for the Emmy in particular, her article says it was for a documentary. According to the Emmy Award article, documentaries are handled not by the ATAS, which is where the IP editor kept searching, but by the NATAS. According to that article, documentaries are typically grouped by geographical region, and given Regional Awards. Roesgen's documentary was made in New Orleans, and scrolling down in the list of regional chapters, I found the Suncoast Chapter, covering New Orleans. In the Suncoast Chapter article, there is an external link to their website here where you can find many (but not all) of the Emmy Award winners for that region. You'll find Roesgen's in the year 2000 Documentary section.
In the IP editor's recent diatribe, he appears to have located the Suncoast regional source on his own, although the link he posted is broken. A google search of Susan Roesgen+Emmy+Documentary+New Orleans shows the correct link near the top of the first page. I figured I'd let him edit in his new-found source when his block expires. I prefer the presently existing secondary reliable sources over the Suncoast primary source, as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines, but I don't see any harm in adding a primary source as well. Xenophrenic ( talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Your actions have been used as an example here. Whilst obviously no two cases are alike, I think it may be helpful if you'd consider making any comments on the situation at the talk page. It's a long and drawn out history, but in sum the article was protected during a content dispute. Unfortunately calling one side a POV IP edit warrior in this case isn't in line with reality, as the same content is disputed at another protected article ( Provisional_IRA_campaign_1969–1997) where no IP had edited. Plus the IP's history in this case doesn't show that type of history. And further there are registered accounts with established histories that support the IP edit, thus it's not a classic POV IP case or sock.
Anyhow, one vocal side (who includes the user that used you as an example) wants the disputed content removed from the protected page as the WP:WRONGVERSION was protected. They've dismissed all comments made by various admins and experienced users (TheDJ, Thatcher, Durova, and myself) that the protection policy doesn't take sides and that to get the content removed we need to get some consensus. I'm trying to get comments that are sidetracking any hope for consensus dealt with. Any words on why the situation may be different and not applicable here would be lovely. Thanks. Nja 247 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Other than the two paragraphs that were removed, can the other changes stand? I also hope you don't interpret the edits I've made as POV-pushing or malicious, I'm a deletionist and especially so with bios. I honestly thought of the Village Voice as more tabloidish and the other link was dead. Soxwon ( talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You also got rid of fixes to the Ron Smith quote and to the header for that section that I had made in the Nina Totenberg article... Magidin ( talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't intend to get into an edit conflict with you about the CNN citation on Kathleen Parker. I have a lot of respect for your contributions here. But that really isn't a proper cite. It would need to link to something verifiable in order to be acceptable (a CNN transcript or an article on CNN.com, for instance). Just linking to another wikipedia page and then giving a date that you (or somebody else) saw this information on a show isn't good enough as nobody can verify that information. Please don't remove the cite tag until a better reference can be found. Thanks! -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I can see your point very definitely; might I suggest something to avoid yet another edit war? Let's put that paragraph with a {{undue-section}} tag, and suggest that if it cannot be beefed up with a few more citations within, say, a couple of days or a week, then it should be removed. In any case, the incident with Simpson ought to be mentioned in this section; though it belongs in the section on the Thomas/Hill hearings, it was an accusation of bias. A single sentence would suffice. Magidin ( talk) 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I supported your edit, and appreciate both it and your comments, but your edit has been reverted. ThuranX ( talk) 02:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Levin's fan club is blanking the criticism section again. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. -- BobMifune ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi G - by "clarify" in my edit summary on JFK section I was talking about the motorcade part of the sentence, not the Oswald part :). Actually, I think adding Oswald doesn't clarify as you said in your summary, but instead opens up the door for crazies to add words like "alleged" or "controversy" Look at the history of the article - it generally did not include Oswald's name - or, for that matter, Sirhan's and still doesn't. This is not the place for edit debates about the assassinations - and in my opinion adding Oswald is not needed and is arguing a side of any controversy that remains. So I think it should be out. Happy to discuss, of course. Tvoz/ talk 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
...for further explaining why those two blogs are RS. APK that's not my name 05:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll help you out whenever I can. Cheers!
Soxwon has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hi.
I edited the New York Times article adding 2 sentences regarding the paper's failure to mention the Van Jones controversy. You reverted my edits for both recentism and being a fringe theory. However, the entire section seems to include either topics which recentism would apply. For example, the previous paragraph suggests the paper was a mouthpiece for the Regan Administration's opposition to the Sandinista government in South America. The cite is from a liberal media watchdog organization. The problem is that the Reagan administration hasn't been in office for 20 years, but that criticism is considered relevant. The Recentism rule is supposed to promote relevant material in Wikipedia. If a criticism from 20 years ago is relevant in analyzing bias of the newspaper (despite the fact that the editors, writers, and publishers of the paper have moved on) that fails the same relevency test. I think you are applying a double standard.
Secondly, it appears that by labeling this criticism as a "fringe theory" you have made a value judgment. The addition cited--mind you this is a section critical of the Times--the New York Times blog site. Because the New York Times published the criticism on their own blog site, I don't see how this is a "fringe theory." If the criticism of the Times is good enough for the New York Times to publish, then sure enough its good enough for Wikipedia.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.237.249 ( talk) 05:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you were never made aware of this thread....[ [8]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The user in question has been continuously diruptive, assumes bad faith, removes germane comments. Can you not see that his commnts about motives through out the talk page and low level edit warring are problematic? Perhaps I should rephrase that, do you see a problem with his behaviour?-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 18:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The ref at the bottom of this is busted - the link is 404. Please re-do. -- Y not? 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the semi-protection you placed on that page. I would request, however, that you extend it for considerably longer than just a day. The latest Fox News/World Net Daily slander is certain to draw the anons ranters out of the woodwork for more than just a day, and semi-protection of two weeks or so would be of great benefit. LotLE× talk 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As expected, the vandalism by anonymous editors began again about 30 seconds after the semi-protection expired. In particular, the first thing was changing "nonpartisan" to "partisan" in the lead... the same vandalism that has happened dozens of times before. LotLE× talk 06:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) List of Lulu's recent incivilities in edit summaries (taken from LuLu's contributions page [9]:
Past incivility, same problem, same article:
The parts of WP:CIVILITY that LuLu violated here:
-- Noroton ( talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I must say that I'm a little shocked by this because I don't see anything here to get overly outraged about. I see much more egregious comments on a daily basis. One thing I don't stand for is calling a substantial edit "vandalism", but that warning is nine months old. I won't dredge up old news like that, but if he's still doing that I'll call him on it. I admit he is blunt, especially when it comes to prolonged disputes, but we all get a little exasperated at times. I'll have a word, but I'll be honest, I don't see major violations here. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and semi-protected it again, this time for 1 day. Everyone's going back-and-forth, and that needs to stop. What is needed is discussion on the talk page. Regards, MuZemike 02:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
May I respectfully request you reinstate the section that was wiped out regarding ACORN's advice for setting up a brothel. The entire issue is current and will stick around regardless of the final outcome. If additional references are required I would have appreciated they be added by more experienced editors as I am not a full time document writer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.87.40 ( talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I was quite disappointed to have the changes I worked on earlier tonight stripped out and the page locked. I wanted to include the current distress of ACORN and felt I was being careful in connecting relevant news agencies that would validate the issues. Maybe my wording was less than ideal, but the content I wanted to convey certainly should be attributed to the current and apparently ongoing actions of ACORN. Please reconsider and possible include the context of the issue more completely. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.87.40 ( talk) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you were involved with the Talk:Van Jones discussion regarding blogs, this conversation at WP:RSN may be of interest to you. APK say that you love me 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Derf has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DreamGuy (
talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Derf, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derf. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too good at using Wikipedia, but it was me who added the line that said Billy Collins has never written a children's book. I have reposted it after you took it down. It's important to note, because Harper Collins has a children's book called Daddy's LIttle Boy that is attributed to this Billy Collins and is stocked for sale at his readings, linked to his name on Amazon and BN.com, and in every way is playing off his name. Billy Collins is embarrassed no end that people think he has written this book.
suzannahgilman@gmail.com
76.5.42.243 ( talk) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. I've been emailed an unblock request (see: here) Long => Short: User:ObserverNY is requesting an unblock with the promise to "behave". Please advise if there are any further steps I should be taking here. Thanks and cheers. — Ched : ? 18:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Gamaliel. I had actually gone back and thought about putting back some of the content you restored about the allegations. But looking at it I was concerned about our BLP guidelines. I still have mixed feelings and I certainly understand why you restored it. I thought it was best to leave it short and maintain the sources for anyone that wanted to investigate further. I'm not sure who unproven allegations like that are best dealt with. It seems a bit heavy on innuendo to me and I'm not sure encyclopedic and helpful it is to our readers. Anyway, just wanted to let you know what I was thinking about it. I would certainyl support its being trimmed or at least clarified, but I'm willing to let it go. Cheers. Take care of yourself and thanks for the helpful intervention to calm things on an article discussion page where there was a dispute. It's very frustrating to me that disputes quickly escalate with ad hominem attacks, and I think it's partly a result of the lack of an appropriate mediation mechanism. Those who disagree with my argument come after me and have repeatedly tried to smear and harass me including by filing frivolous reports against me to make it look like I'm disruptive. This is very frustrating and damaging. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Gamaliel,
What do you mean this is completely unsourced? I'm adding this at the request of my very good, Billy Collins, who is annoyed no end about the Daddy's Little Boy book. He is the source. People are always coming up to him with copies of it for him to sign. It's worth noting in the "Works" section that he did not write this book so that this misunderstanding that takes place across the entire country can be cleared up.
Why didn't you question my adding the information about Rollins College and the Winter Park Institute or that Bill Murray is a friend of Billy's? As you see it, those things are completely unsourced as well. They happen to be true and correct.
My email address is suzannahgilman@gmail.com.
Also, the photo of Billy Collins on the Wikipedia entry under his name is NOT in the public domain. Joanne Carney, the photographer, holds the permissions to the photo. She allowed the Library of Congress to use it; that does not entitle the whole world to use it. Whoever uploaded it and said it was unattributed did not look into the matter at all.
A tag has been placed on User talk:119.30.36.33, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Abce2|
This is
not a test 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with stating if "so and so thinks x then they are an idiot" on a talk page of another subject's article is a BLP violation. You are right that it is a non issue so I won't restore it again but am looking for clarification. Cptnono ( talk) 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a bad move on my part, shoulda checked. Soxwon ( talk) 04:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Voina 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! Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
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.
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
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you created the page for New Yorker cartoonist Roz Chast. I think I'm going to do one for Hilton Als, a writer, also at the New Yorker. Do you have any advice? This my first wikipedia attempt. I can read the FAQ section for technical stuff too, but if there are any notes you can give, I appreciate it.
Thank you, David
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back, sucka. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The mainstream media is clearly left-wing biased, and the sources are thus unreliable. I do NOT think that Mr. Hannity would like the opinions of mainstream media, who clearly dislike him, on his article. If the mainstream were truly reliable, they would not be publicly publishing their opinions in such media. I do know that you will dissagree about media bias, as I noticed that you have a whopping huge picture of Barack Obama on your discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRH95 ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Gamaliel. I've noticed you've had previous dealings with the user with the following user discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:12.150.11.25 I bring this up because this user has made repeated and disrespectful edits to their own user discussion page concerning alerts and warnings that have been received because of vandalism and other disruptive edits made using that IP. You can take a look at the history page and see what I'm talking about and notice how recently these edits were made. I attempted to revert two of these edits and was successful with one of them. After that, I'm afraid my Wikipedia skills are limited. If you could be a doll and enlist the assistance of whomever might be able to help sort this IP out, that would be great. I am morally opposed to Wikipedia vandalism because of Wikipedia's stated goals and, while I can see how a student might find it fun (in the grand tradition of defacing textbooks), it especially irks me that this purports to be from a business and the vandalism potentially from an adult old enough to know better. Thank you. 207.193.29.249 ( talk) 06:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi There Gamaliel,
I am writing to you about the Living Things band wikipedia entry, it is full of errors and alot of info missing. Can we hire you to do an accurate wikipedia page for Living Things? Let me know . Thank You..Healer31318:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 ( talk • contribs)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you have Leonard Jeffries on your todo list. I just expanded it quite a lot (some cleanup left). Feel free to take a look and comment. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:AVonEchenbach2.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Re [1]. Although I think your claim of BLP exemption is correct [2] I think you should use the talk page. See Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have just discovered that you have blocked my IP address of: 68.75.25.152. From what Wikipedia has told me. it said that you have blocked me on the basis of: "Personal Attacks and Harassment". I have done neither -- and I quite remember what I have edited on Wikipedia. Please reply ASAP, and give me what you believe I have done wrong or what Wikipedia policies I have violated. I presume you have blocked me in error, and I am requesting to be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthedial93 ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that you are accusing me of Wikipedian crimes that I have not committed. Regardless if I can edit Wikipedia now, I request a proper explanation on what accounts this IP address has violated Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia gave me the reasons, but I request for you to give a further rationale. How have I committed personal attacks or harassed others? ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 11:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed Kay Laurell linked on your article to do list. I just uploaded a number of photos of her (what I could find on LOC plus a few others) to Commons; so a Commons:Category:Kay Laurell already exists for when there's an article. Cheers! -- Infrogmation ( talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
hello, i recently made a change to the tropic of cancer (novel) by henry miller article which was reverted. jacob brussel was sent to prison for three years, not ten as it says in the article. this is from p. 6 of Funny Peculiar by Mikita Brottman, which is available on google books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.61.78 ( talk) 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
my comments and changes to his page were based on this youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ2L1aQy-io
I might not be as skilled in Wikipedia as you, but I think that it should be pointed out that he supports government run health care.
I did not say this is a good or bad thing just a fact.
The information I added could be brushed up a bit but I think you deleting them as vandalism is out of line.
Thank you for your time, BB
That is fine. Then why don't YOU make the contributions more neutral instead of just deleting them? Not everyone that has useful information to contribute knows all the rules.
I think that someone going to Bill Mahers page would like to know his views on health care. Why are you against those facts being on the page? If you don't want to polish up my contributions then let someone else do it.
If I posted on Bob Smith's wikipedia: "Bob Smith is dead, and good thing because I hate that guy." You as a responsible and knowledgeable wikipedian who knows WP:NPOV protocol should investigate if Bob Smith is dead and then take out the I hate that guy part. Not delete the whole thing as vandalism, which would deny everyone that went to Bob Smith's page the knowledge of his death.
thank you, BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.108.233 ( talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok so when are you going to do it?
As it is clear that I am too offensive to help out wikipedia.
BB —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.128.108.233 (
talk) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wrote a brief passage on something by Paul Krugman where he wrote in Fortune magazine a prediction after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and he ended up being wrong. This was not libel. It was placed under the criticism section. My source was cited. Then I find out today that someone deleted it and I get a message from you. I object to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.29.183 ( talk) 22:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I took it to talk. Here are my objections to changes in Enron section, here is my explanation of removal of Japan stuff, and in total I have made more than 10 comments on talk today. -- Vision Thing -- 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How exactly was the article "bias" ? Was it not properly sourced or POV ? Well no, of course not, it was in his own words and reflects an accurate depiction of that communities view of his actions. Does John Aravosis want the transgendered community out of the LGBT ? Yes ! What you are trying to do is make Hitler shoving Jews into ovens into "Helping improve the Jewish community". Ot seems neutral on the surface but is actively distorting fact. I would like to have this arbitrated rather than get in an editing war. If need be the article on the betrayal of the transgender community should be vastly expanded by including the vast number of articles from transgender activists who feel it was a betrayal. DarlieB ( talk) 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"This page in a nutshell: Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
Do you feel " all points of view " were represented ? The transgender community was not represented , the LGBT was not represented at all in your version . Before wiki just means to have it arbitrated. DarlieB ( talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 01:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.
Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d
Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Why was I blocked? I can't even remember the last time I edited a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.59.13 ( talk) 15:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. My name is John Cook, and I am a reporter for Gawker Media (www.gawker.com). I'd like to talk to you about a page you created, if you have a moment. Would you mind e-mailing me a john at gawker dot com? Thanks much.
Best, john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.29.204 ( talk) 02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and sorry for the deletion in the Nina Totenberg article; originally the reference linked to an image of the book, but I cannot see it right now (possibly because I am logging in from outside the U.S.) so I could not check. The anonymous editor who has been so active on that page of late does not seem to have a full grasp of how to do citations or what constitutes appropriate citations, so I wasn't sure. Magidin ( talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean, whether "relatedly, of giving the impression she had been fired because of sexual harassment" applies to the Hunt article in question? (Let me note the sentence right now is a grammatical mess; it doesn't really parse properly). I have not read Hunt's piece, nor have I ever read anything by him; I can give you my take on it if you let me know where I can read them, but I suspect the other editor is not going to consider me a "neutral third party" (I know it's a violation of AGF to say that, but then, he hasn't shown much good faith towards others so far). Magidin ( talk) 20:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, in reply to your comment on the RFC:
Okay, so Op-Ed material that defames is suitable for a BLP? Scribner ( talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Economist called article on Krugman "The one-handed economist" which is a reference to Truman's quote "Give me a one-handed economist! All my economists say, On the one hand on the other." [7] To me it seems obvious that The Economist choose that title to point to Krugman's partisanship. They flat out say: "perhaps the most striking thing about his writing these days is not its economic rigour but its political partisanship". Because of that I don't understand why are you accusing me of "cherry picking". Theme of the whole article is Krugman's partisanship. So on what else should two sentence summary focus if not on that? -- Vision Thing -- 20:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the articles. Okay, I first read Kurtz's piece. I have to say, his paragraph discussing Totenbergs dismissal from the Observer is somewhat misleading; by including the comment "where she says sexual harassment took place" as a clause before "over an allegation [of plagiarism]", it makes it seem that the two are connected; by explicitly saying that Totenberg would neither confirm nor deny if she thought the two were connected, he is essentially creating a "non-confirmation confirmation", so to speak. On to Hunt; Hunt explicitly blames Totenberg for "[leaving] the impression" mentioned above. That seems at least somewhat far-fetched. It would be far more accurate to say "the article left the impression" or "may have left the impression", rather than blame Totenberg for it. He closes by mentioning a separate interview of Totenberg which is not part of the Kurtz article, in which Totenberg pretty flatly claims she "left" and that it was due to sexual harassment. My impression is: Kurtz's piece is at least ambiguous, and can be read as giving the impression that the firing was at connected to the sexual harassment; Hunt is correct on that, though unwarranted in blaming Totenberg for it on the basis only of that column. Though Hunt's column is all about how the Democrats and the GOP have horribly fumbled the Thomas hearings, the stuff about Totenberg is not really part of that (though he claims to be discussing how the media has come out badly as well). In that respect, 71.80.34.146 is correct that (this portion of) Hunt's column is not about Totenberg's reporting at all, it is solely about her being fired. And you are correct that Hunt does not accuse her of anything other than the original lapse and of "leaving [an] impression".
Now, I don't think the current paragraph captures this terribly well either. Kurtz only says "allegations that she had plagiarized part of the story", and effectively blunts that by putting the sexual harassment clause in the middle of that sentence; I don't think this qualifies as "mentioning she was fired over the incident". And there is the separate interview quoted (but not identified) by Hunt. I think that needs to be fleshed out a bit to clarify. It should mention her accusations of sexual harassment; Kurtz's article and potential ambiguity (though I'm hard pressed to figure out how to phrase it properly for Wikipedia); the separate interview quote by Totenberg; then the portion of Hunt's column in which he explicitly claims she is being misleading about the reason for the firing. I can't figure out how to say that the section about Totenberg on that column is really not part and parcel of the rest of the column without engaging in OR, though somehow it seems that should be there somehow. Then again, perhaps it can't. Magidin ( talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You are indeed missing something. The difference is subtle, but distinct. For reference, here is what the editor claimed I said:
And here is my full quote:
The editor is trying to make the case that he was attacked by TharsHammar's comment. The editor uses my truncated words to misrepresent my position as: "Since TharsHammar only attacked teabaggers, and you say you aren't one, then he didn't attack you." That is completely opposite to my actual position. My position, as made clear by my full quote, is Tharshammer didn't make an attack at all. If you look at my actual statement, you'll see that not only did I start it with the assessment that an attack was not made, but I reiterate that point at the end of my statement as well. My comment that "if you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you" does not equate to "and if you are one, then consider yourself attacked", as the editor would like to mislead you into believing. Read it.
I hope that clears things up for you. If his truncation of my words didn't, as you incorrectly assessed, change the meaning of my comment, then certainly the un-truncation of them didn't change the meaning, too. Yet you saw the editor's reaction to my reinserting the true meaning of my comment, and should ask yourself why. Best regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
68.251.0.0/16 I believe that is my IP. Just simply wondering what I said or did to get blocked. The reason said I harrassed someone but never remember doing that. Please help
Toya Honeytdp1@sbcglobal.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkyjrp ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding citations supporting Roesgen's awards, I'm perfectly content with using CNN, Nat'l Geo News and her university newspaper. As it turns out, CNN's bios are indeed fact-checked before being published on their website, and the news stories in the other two sources aren't self-published either, as a certain IP editor would have us believe.
As for the Emmy in particular, her article says it was for a documentary. According to the Emmy Award article, documentaries are handled not by the ATAS, which is where the IP editor kept searching, but by the NATAS. According to that article, documentaries are typically grouped by geographical region, and given Regional Awards. Roesgen's documentary was made in New Orleans, and scrolling down in the list of regional chapters, I found the Suncoast Chapter, covering New Orleans. In the Suncoast Chapter article, there is an external link to their website here where you can find many (but not all) of the Emmy Award winners for that region. You'll find Roesgen's in the year 2000 Documentary section.
In the IP editor's recent diatribe, he appears to have located the Suncoast regional source on his own, although the link he posted is broken. A google search of Susan Roesgen+Emmy+Documentary+New Orleans shows the correct link near the top of the first page. I figured I'd let him edit in his new-found source when his block expires. I prefer the presently existing secondary reliable sources over the Suncoast primary source, as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines, but I don't see any harm in adding a primary source as well. Xenophrenic ( talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Your actions have been used as an example here. Whilst obviously no two cases are alike, I think it may be helpful if you'd consider making any comments on the situation at the talk page. It's a long and drawn out history, but in sum the article was protected during a content dispute. Unfortunately calling one side a POV IP edit warrior in this case isn't in line with reality, as the same content is disputed at another protected article ( Provisional_IRA_campaign_1969–1997) where no IP had edited. Plus the IP's history in this case doesn't show that type of history. And further there are registered accounts with established histories that support the IP edit, thus it's not a classic POV IP case or sock.
Anyhow, one vocal side (who includes the user that used you as an example) wants the disputed content removed from the protected page as the WP:WRONGVERSION was protected. They've dismissed all comments made by various admins and experienced users (TheDJ, Thatcher, Durova, and myself) that the protection policy doesn't take sides and that to get the content removed we need to get some consensus. I'm trying to get comments that are sidetracking any hope for consensus dealt with. Any words on why the situation may be different and not applicable here would be lovely. Thanks. Nja 247 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Other than the two paragraphs that were removed, can the other changes stand? I also hope you don't interpret the edits I've made as POV-pushing or malicious, I'm a deletionist and especially so with bios. I honestly thought of the Village Voice as more tabloidish and the other link was dead. Soxwon ( talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You also got rid of fixes to the Ron Smith quote and to the header for that section that I had made in the Nina Totenberg article... Magidin ( talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't intend to get into an edit conflict with you about the CNN citation on Kathleen Parker. I have a lot of respect for your contributions here. But that really isn't a proper cite. It would need to link to something verifiable in order to be acceptable (a CNN transcript or an article on CNN.com, for instance). Just linking to another wikipedia page and then giving a date that you (or somebody else) saw this information on a show isn't good enough as nobody can verify that information. Please don't remove the cite tag until a better reference can be found. Thanks! -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I can see your point very definitely; might I suggest something to avoid yet another edit war? Let's put that paragraph with a {{undue-section}} tag, and suggest that if it cannot be beefed up with a few more citations within, say, a couple of days or a week, then it should be removed. In any case, the incident with Simpson ought to be mentioned in this section; though it belongs in the section on the Thomas/Hill hearings, it was an accusation of bias. A single sentence would suffice. Magidin ( talk) 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I supported your edit, and appreciate both it and your comments, but your edit has been reverted. ThuranX ( talk) 02:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Levin's fan club is blanking the criticism section again. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. -- BobMifune ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi G - by "clarify" in my edit summary on JFK section I was talking about the motorcade part of the sentence, not the Oswald part :). Actually, I think adding Oswald doesn't clarify as you said in your summary, but instead opens up the door for crazies to add words like "alleged" or "controversy" Look at the history of the article - it generally did not include Oswald's name - or, for that matter, Sirhan's and still doesn't. This is not the place for edit debates about the assassinations - and in my opinion adding Oswald is not needed and is arguing a side of any controversy that remains. So I think it should be out. Happy to discuss, of course. Tvoz/ talk 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
...for further explaining why those two blogs are RS. APK that's not my name 05:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll help you out whenever I can. Cheers!
Soxwon has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hi.
I edited the New York Times article adding 2 sentences regarding the paper's failure to mention the Van Jones controversy. You reverted my edits for both recentism and being a fringe theory. However, the entire section seems to include either topics which recentism would apply. For example, the previous paragraph suggests the paper was a mouthpiece for the Regan Administration's opposition to the Sandinista government in South America. The cite is from a liberal media watchdog organization. The problem is that the Reagan administration hasn't been in office for 20 years, but that criticism is considered relevant. The Recentism rule is supposed to promote relevant material in Wikipedia. If a criticism from 20 years ago is relevant in analyzing bias of the newspaper (despite the fact that the editors, writers, and publishers of the paper have moved on) that fails the same relevency test. I think you are applying a double standard.
Secondly, it appears that by labeling this criticism as a "fringe theory" you have made a value judgment. The addition cited--mind you this is a section critical of the Times--the New York Times blog site. Because the New York Times published the criticism on their own blog site, I don't see how this is a "fringe theory." If the criticism of the Times is good enough for the New York Times to publish, then sure enough its good enough for Wikipedia.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.237.249 ( talk) 05:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you were never made aware of this thread....[ [8]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The user in question has been continuously diruptive, assumes bad faith, removes germane comments. Can you not see that his commnts about motives through out the talk page and low level edit warring are problematic? Perhaps I should rephrase that, do you see a problem with his behaviour?-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 18:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The ref at the bottom of this is busted - the link is 404. Please re-do. -- Y not? 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the semi-protection you placed on that page. I would request, however, that you extend it for considerably longer than just a day. The latest Fox News/World Net Daily slander is certain to draw the anons ranters out of the woodwork for more than just a day, and semi-protection of two weeks or so would be of great benefit. LotLE× talk 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As expected, the vandalism by anonymous editors began again about 30 seconds after the semi-protection expired. In particular, the first thing was changing "nonpartisan" to "partisan" in the lead... the same vandalism that has happened dozens of times before. LotLE× talk 06:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) List of Lulu's recent incivilities in edit summaries (taken from LuLu's contributions page [9]:
Past incivility, same problem, same article:
The parts of WP:CIVILITY that LuLu violated here:
-- Noroton ( talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I must say that I'm a little shocked by this because I don't see anything here to get overly outraged about. I see much more egregious comments on a daily basis. One thing I don't stand for is calling a substantial edit "vandalism", but that warning is nine months old. I won't dredge up old news like that, but if he's still doing that I'll call him on it. I admit he is blunt, especially when it comes to prolonged disputes, but we all get a little exasperated at times. I'll have a word, but I'll be honest, I don't see major violations here. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and semi-protected it again, this time for 1 day. Everyone's going back-and-forth, and that needs to stop. What is needed is discussion on the talk page. Regards, MuZemike 02:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
May I respectfully request you reinstate the section that was wiped out regarding ACORN's advice for setting up a brothel. The entire issue is current and will stick around regardless of the final outcome. If additional references are required I would have appreciated they be added by more experienced editors as I am not a full time document writer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.87.40 ( talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I was quite disappointed to have the changes I worked on earlier tonight stripped out and the page locked. I wanted to include the current distress of ACORN and felt I was being careful in connecting relevant news agencies that would validate the issues. Maybe my wording was less than ideal, but the content I wanted to convey certainly should be attributed to the current and apparently ongoing actions of ACORN. Please reconsider and possible include the context of the issue more completely. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.87.40 ( talk) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you were involved with the Talk:Van Jones discussion regarding blogs, this conversation at WP:RSN may be of interest to you. APK say that you love me 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Derf has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DreamGuy (
talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Derf, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derf. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too good at using Wikipedia, but it was me who added the line that said Billy Collins has never written a children's book. I have reposted it after you took it down. It's important to note, because Harper Collins has a children's book called Daddy's LIttle Boy that is attributed to this Billy Collins and is stocked for sale at his readings, linked to his name on Amazon and BN.com, and in every way is playing off his name. Billy Collins is embarrassed no end that people think he has written this book.
suzannahgilman@gmail.com
76.5.42.243 ( talk) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. I've been emailed an unblock request (see: here) Long => Short: User:ObserverNY is requesting an unblock with the promise to "behave". Please advise if there are any further steps I should be taking here. Thanks and cheers. — Ched : ? 18:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Gamaliel. I had actually gone back and thought about putting back some of the content you restored about the allegations. But looking at it I was concerned about our BLP guidelines. I still have mixed feelings and I certainly understand why you restored it. I thought it was best to leave it short and maintain the sources for anyone that wanted to investigate further. I'm not sure who unproven allegations like that are best dealt with. It seems a bit heavy on innuendo to me and I'm not sure encyclopedic and helpful it is to our readers. Anyway, just wanted to let you know what I was thinking about it. I would certainyl support its being trimmed or at least clarified, but I'm willing to let it go. Cheers. Take care of yourself and thanks for the helpful intervention to calm things on an article discussion page where there was a dispute. It's very frustrating to me that disputes quickly escalate with ad hominem attacks, and I think it's partly a result of the lack of an appropriate mediation mechanism. Those who disagree with my argument come after me and have repeatedly tried to smear and harass me including by filing frivolous reports against me to make it look like I'm disruptive. This is very frustrating and damaging. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Gamaliel,
What do you mean this is completely unsourced? I'm adding this at the request of my very good, Billy Collins, who is annoyed no end about the Daddy's Little Boy book. He is the source. People are always coming up to him with copies of it for him to sign. It's worth noting in the "Works" section that he did not write this book so that this misunderstanding that takes place across the entire country can be cleared up.
Why didn't you question my adding the information about Rollins College and the Winter Park Institute or that Bill Murray is a friend of Billy's? As you see it, those things are completely unsourced as well. They happen to be true and correct.
My email address is suzannahgilman@gmail.com.
Also, the photo of Billy Collins on the Wikipedia entry under his name is NOT in the public domain. Joanne Carney, the photographer, holds the permissions to the photo. She allowed the Library of Congress to use it; that does not entitle the whole world to use it. Whoever uploaded it and said it was unattributed did not look into the matter at all.
A tag has been placed on User talk:119.30.36.33, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Abce2|
This is
not a test 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with stating if "so and so thinks x then they are an idiot" on a talk page of another subject's article is a BLP violation. You are right that it is a non issue so I won't restore it again but am looking for clarification. Cptnono ( talk) 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a bad move on my part, shoulda checked. Soxwon ( talk) 04:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Voina 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! Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)