September to November 2004
Just now, I too have deleted the "asses of evil" image. Whoever restores it again will have an RfC filed against them by me. Rex071404 04:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier today: See RfC here regarding this.
Finally got some time to update them. All done now... RTC 03:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Most of the images I have placed on were images taken by me with my digital camera. Most are standard images that anyone could go out and re-take. The one of Paul Cullen is for example in the aisle of St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral in Dublin (I am about five minutes walk away from the 'Pro' right now. I could step in and take another shot of the statue!). I don't know which category suits my situation. I suppose I could be regarded as the copyright holder, in which case I wave all claims on them and grant their ownership to the wikipedia community.
Some are adjusted versions of other people's pictures. I chased up owners and all allowed completely free usage (having had the rules regarding images on wikipedia and the implications of allowing images to be used here explained to them) or said that the images were out of copyright or in a tiny minority of cases were of unknown copyright that due to the age of the image was 99.9% to be out of copyright in any case. To be doubly sure I adjusted and cropped some of the images so that they ceased in any way to be identifiable with the original photographs but became basic generic images. In so far as I could be regarded as the copyright holder of these "new" images I again wave any claim to copyright and grant it to wikipedia and the community in perpetuity. I hope that clarifies matters.
BTW lurv the asses of evil stuff above. Oops I suppose that has bme in trouble with Rex too. Boo hoo! FearÉIREANN 17:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That was my mistake - I acknowledge it and apologize.
[[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 20:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I am new to this and am not a registered user yet so do not know another way to send you a comment. This is re: the entries on David Brock & The American Spectator. I am 100% positive the quote from the Brock article on Anita Hill in the magazine is "a bit nutty, and a bit slutty" (actual quote is: "So Hill may be a bit nutty, and a bit slutty, but is she an outright liar?") because I checked it in the original magazine article. I believe the quote is the same in the Real Anita Hill book, but I do not have the book on hand to check so I will not argue that at at this time. It is true that the quote has been widely reportered as having "little" in it, but that error spread uncontrollably in the age of Nexis after Andrew Sullivan and others quoted it incorrectly.
Thank you for your edits! User:207.69.137.201
Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. You should get on AIM sometime...we're supposed to have a meetup on Saturday and we haven't even fucking decided on a place. It looks like it's going to be us and Jimbo, which is just fine by me. Mike H 03:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Pardon the impersonality; I'm pasting this on every Wikiuser's page who lives in eastern Florida. We're scheduling a Wikimeet this Saturday, September 11. Jimbo still has to decide the place but he's looking into Panera Bread locations here in Tampa. Please post on User:Jimbo Wales and tell us if you're interested in coming. Thanks! Mike H 18:38, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, Rex just reverted your revert. I was generous and gave him 24 hours to responsd precisely to avoid any claim of his that he didn't have enough time. Now, let's assume he uses that 24 hours and then posts a response. OK, fine. But then you and I feel his argument is weak and without merit. He could then just say, "My argument is not weak and without merit. It is upon you to prove otherwise. Until then, the langauge stays in."
OK, so then we call in a mediator and go through a big rigamoral to get this resolved in a favor. OK, fine. But it doesn't seem fair to me that he can keep making these kinds of edits and force us to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to prove him wrong.
I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. What do you propose we do? -- Nysus 18:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, after seeing Rex's last few edits, my patience is finally beginning to wear thin. Following up on your suggestion to seek out coalitions, I'd like to formally enter into some kind of pact with you to monitor Rex's behavior and fight against his clearly disruptive editing style. This isn't going to be a pleasant task. I'd much rather be writing articles. But I think for the sake of the integrity of the articles we are collaborating on, we have a duty to try to put a stop to his malicious efforts. And we should reach out to others to join us. Hopefully, if he sees that it's not just one person against him but five or six, he will begin to realize his behavior needs to change. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to attack or "gang up" on Rex. I'm just finally getting tired of trying to reason with him all by myself. As we have seen, the effort leads nowhere. Frankly, if I can't find others to join me, well, I'll probably leave these article behind and starte editing non-controversial stuff like you. But it would be a real shame if I guy like Rex succeeds in putting a stop to our honest attempts to produce good work. -- Nysus 01:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I'm glad to see you and Wolfman intervening to reign in some of the more, uh, enthusiastic contributors at teh Killian memos page. A few days ago, I rather undiplomatically attempted an intervention in the Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy article, which resulted in a great deal of rudeness and my decision not to directly involve myself in this stuff more. But I'm glad to see you trying to keep them honest. john k 22:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, what is your e-mail or a way outside of WP i can contact you? -- kizzle 22:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Please do so with a reference to the quoting party (in this case you). I refer to this edit
[1] by you, which I have deleted. You have been warned. The next stop is an Arbitration request against you. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 02:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The full name of
Stolen Honor Documentary is a perfectly valid Wiki link. I do not agree that the short name of
Stolen Honor is as informative to the readers in regards to telling tham what the link actually goes to. I did not agree to the "redirect" which the other party imposed in creating the new short name and I'd rather not get in any battles to revert that. Instead, where appropriate, I am going to simply use the longer name. This is one fo those appropriate occassions. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 15:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand how I am supposed to make the distiction between his important and unimportant influences. Perhaps some of them don't make sense right now because I have not finished the section on him as a musician (I am still gathering information). I don't see the point of you deleting all of his influences unless you are going to make the decsion on which ones are important and unimporant. If you are not going to do this I think we should revert the list back. I also don't understand why you think that linking to the list of web comics is a invalid see also link. ZaQ 00:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice note. So he's not supposed to list me there? I saw that he'd been trying to remove that perfectly legitimate text, and he goes and calls me a vandal. But I'm not the type to be swayed that easily. Sahara 01:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You have a lot of nerve siding with an obvious sockpuppet. Also, did you even READ the idiotic punctuation that Sahara keeps injecting? Suffice it to say, you are blinded by your own bile and spite - unable to get past your hatred of me enough to even see what's going on. Shame on you! [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 01:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Uh did you READ the edit history of Sahara? [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 02:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have answered you at
Stolen Honor talk page. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 02:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, would you accept mediation with me? I believe, based on your overt hostility, that the issue is now ripe. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 02:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My issue is that you are overtly hostile to me, going out of your way to compound difficulties rather than difuse them. Take a cue from Wolfman. He and I differ greatly, but he is not hostile to me (nor me with him). [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 03:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Will you agree to mediation with me, yes or no? [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 23:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes or no, will you accept mediation aimed at hashing out our differences / resolving our inter-editor problems? [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 01:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Unless and until you stop trying to stoke the fires of hostility, I am going to relatiate when and where appropriate. Your cheap shot at the VfD page was a low blow. Until you agree to seek peace, I am not going to unilaterally declare it nor will I let you stomp on me or my edits. I am offering to try to seek peace with you via mediation. If you refuse, any subsequent hostility between us, is 100% your fault. Three strikes and you're out: Yes or no, will you agree to mediation with me? [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 06:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm.. it appears that any "hashing out" must occur now, here in this page - so here goes: What about you and your mysterious appearance on pages I am editing? for example
Eights and aces? Over a simply typo (Eight instead of Eights), you kept reverting rather than simply fixing the page! Hmmmm....? And why won't you follow the JML precendent which we have all been forced to follow (on other pages such as TfT)? On TfT, you supported the exclusion of links I wanted included, yet on
Stolen Honor you turn around and demand the
Media Matters link be included, yet it fails the TfT test - in that it's not about the documentary, but about Sherwood himself. And that "moonie" stuff you kept trying to jam in, that's about
Carlton Sherwood himself, not about
Stolen Honor, the documentary. It's one thing to mention "he also wrote a book about Unification Church" as a snippet of his background on the documentary page, it's entirely something else to try to bring controversy about that onto a page for a topic for which it has no bearing. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 15:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're stepping on my toes and I don't know why. The name of the stamp series, so far as I know is American Comic-strip Classics and while I'm tediously plodding along trying to enter the information in 20 different articles you change the name of the article I'm working on and referring to. Why is that? I'm pretty informal too, but gee. Ortolan88 02:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Changed the name back to the proper name of the stamp series. Unless you can show that the stamp series is named something else, please don't redirect again. Ortolan88 02:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okay, but you were still stepping on my toes, a little warning or explanation on a talk page would have been polite. Your jumping in without warning or clarification is why I took it personally. How's about you fix the first ten incorrect references and I'll finish the last ten? Ortolan88 03:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Tnx! Ortolan88 03:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dear Gamaliel:
I do have new information on Lee Oswald. Systematic distortion of my testimony and history does not change that fact, only that you have been led to believe nothing new is added by my testimony. That's not true. But you won;t hear that from the keepers of the Official version, that Lee oswald did it alone.
Please contact me quickly at elect63@xs4all.nl ASAP as that account will soon close. I have very little time, as I'm finishing my dissertation on a topic in British Literature, on a deadline at present, but I believe your work is important and would like to give you first-hand information for your W. article, if you weill be so kind as to consider it.
Sure, I've been attacked, sometimes viciously. The film by Nigel Turner, The Love Affair, was censored off The History Channel after five shows. It was originally scheduled for nine years. Segments seven, eight and nine were secretly purchased and are being with-held from the American public by the LBJ family and friends'coalition. But the fact is, I'm still alive, unlike many other witnesses, and because I have the evidence, and have decided to speak out, the inevitable attacks have occurred that I knew would occur. Had I stated that Lee Oswald was the Lone Gunman, I'd be wined and dined and rich. But because I tell the truth, I'm maligned and lied about. Through contacts with honest investigators, however, the facts ARE coming out.
Best regards,
Judyth Vary Baker
loved Lee Oswald, an innocent man please disregard any typos, I have eye problems...
You ruined the entire Rube Goldberg page on this website you ignorant lutefisk. What do you think you are doing? You made every single thing a link that there is no link directing to anywhere else. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? NOW I HAVE TO SPEND ALL MY TIME FIXING IT YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!
Dear Anonymous Idiot,
I'm sorry adding those links caused you so much distress. If I had known the effect it would have on you I would have done it sooner. Gamaliel 17:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi,can you sign your objection to Shakespearean authorship? As they are so close to my own, I'd hate to see them ignored for lack of a name. Filiocht 10:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Nice picture: do you think there are more Irish writers at the same source? Filiocht 08:29, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
No problem. Did you find any? I don't think there are any. I think I uploaded pics of all the writers on their occupation index, and I think Colum was the only Irish one. However, that index is sadly incomplete and probably indexes only about a quarter of the people in the collection. Gamaliel 19:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Gamaliel. Would you accept a nomination for adminship? [[User:Neutrality| Neutrality ( hopefully!)]] 00:02, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my edit on this VfD overwrote yours (I'm not sure why it did, it's been doing that recently instead of giving me an "edit conflict" message like it should.) our changes were substantially the same, I think, except I kept the "Imp Catcher" and "Romeo & Juliet (quest)" that had been added (essentially the same thing, individual quests from the same MMORPG) and I added a note explaining that 3vruna had added the extra listings himself. (I also replied to a conveniently unsigned top-level post from 3vruna where he effectively cast a second "keep" vote.) In any case, I wish the software *had* told me of the edit conflict as it was supposed to -- am I the only one who's been getting weird results with that? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi there I have made changes to the Opposition to Castro will you reconsider your vote. If you do not think that satisfy the NPOV policy please help me do so. It is hard for me to not have a POV on the matter. I love democracy and the Internet and this great country we live in. Thanks and regards! SilentVoice 23:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you have another look at Opposition to Castro? I'm not sure what it was like when you looked at it (I gather is started out very POV), but at this point it looks to me like the nucleus of a good article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
"Hamilton," Do stay out of my talk page. I am a newbie here (along with several others) and made a simple mistake when I added a comment about documented evidence fact to the JFK assassination discussion page then tagged an incorrect button, instead of saving my comment to the JFK ass. discussion page. You may now delete this. You are aware that the 80%/20%, 4:1 ratio is against your possibly keeping up with us. (what with all the other 1-6+ hours total you waste per day average on wikipedia 12.220.116.188 23:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic| Mgm| (talk)]] 08:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel: I agree with your assessment of this article. It seems the main problem is one of presentation - it needs to be tighened a great deal, and better organized - plus there are several facts and principal allegations which are missing. I would be happy to help you with this; however, I believe biases should be revealed first. I assume from your writing that you believe that LHO acted alone in the assassination; I do not. However, I'm willing to work with you and respect your viewpoint if you respect mine. I suspect that we will conclude with something that neither of us is entirely happy with, but it's not necessary that we "solve" the mystery together in this article. If you wish to proceed, perhaps we could trade emails. - Scooter 22:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excerpt:
2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.
3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.
4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.
5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.
For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Final decision. -- mav 05:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey there. Somewhat belated, but I'd intended to thank you for creating articles on most of the Librarians of Congress. A neat little subject that few people know much about. Isomorphic 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your reversion of Harlan Ellison. This was not done in bad faith. Rather, it was added by a person whom we suspect may have actually been Harlan Ellison. Until the matter is cleared up, please leave the text as is. We are in contact with Mr. Ellison regarding the incident and hope to resolve it soon. Danny 21:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you everyone. My reign of terror will commence shortly. Gamaliel 23:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. anthony 警告 23:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Rosyth_Primary_School: what makes something encyclopedic if not notablity or verifiability? These are the two main reasons for deleation on VfD. The bellman 09:48, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
Thank your for increasing the number of entries in List of songs whose title includes a phone number by 50%! I was beginning to wonder if my idea for this article was complete nuts. (Now I think it's only mostly nuts.) ☺ — Jeff Q 10:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
September to November 2004
Just now, I too have deleted the "asses of evil" image. Whoever restores it again will have an RfC filed against them by me. Rex071404 04:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier today: See RfC here regarding this.
Finally got some time to update them. All done now... RTC 03:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Most of the images I have placed on were images taken by me with my digital camera. Most are standard images that anyone could go out and re-take. The one of Paul Cullen is for example in the aisle of St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral in Dublin (I am about five minutes walk away from the 'Pro' right now. I could step in and take another shot of the statue!). I don't know which category suits my situation. I suppose I could be regarded as the copyright holder, in which case I wave all claims on them and grant their ownership to the wikipedia community.
Some are adjusted versions of other people's pictures. I chased up owners and all allowed completely free usage (having had the rules regarding images on wikipedia and the implications of allowing images to be used here explained to them) or said that the images were out of copyright or in a tiny minority of cases were of unknown copyright that due to the age of the image was 99.9% to be out of copyright in any case. To be doubly sure I adjusted and cropped some of the images so that they ceased in any way to be identifiable with the original photographs but became basic generic images. In so far as I could be regarded as the copyright holder of these "new" images I again wave any claim to copyright and grant it to wikipedia and the community in perpetuity. I hope that clarifies matters.
BTW lurv the asses of evil stuff above. Oops I suppose that has bme in trouble with Rex too. Boo hoo! FearÉIREANN 17:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That was my mistake - I acknowledge it and apologize.
[[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 20:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I am new to this and am not a registered user yet so do not know another way to send you a comment. This is re: the entries on David Brock & The American Spectator. I am 100% positive the quote from the Brock article on Anita Hill in the magazine is "a bit nutty, and a bit slutty" (actual quote is: "So Hill may be a bit nutty, and a bit slutty, but is she an outright liar?") because I checked it in the original magazine article. I believe the quote is the same in the Real Anita Hill book, but I do not have the book on hand to check so I will not argue that at at this time. It is true that the quote has been widely reportered as having "little" in it, but that error spread uncontrollably in the age of Nexis after Andrew Sullivan and others quoted it incorrectly.
Thank you for your edits! User:207.69.137.201
Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. You should get on AIM sometime...we're supposed to have a meetup on Saturday and we haven't even fucking decided on a place. It looks like it's going to be us and Jimbo, which is just fine by me. Mike H 03:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Pardon the impersonality; I'm pasting this on every Wikiuser's page who lives in eastern Florida. We're scheduling a Wikimeet this Saturday, September 11. Jimbo still has to decide the place but he's looking into Panera Bread locations here in Tampa. Please post on User:Jimbo Wales and tell us if you're interested in coming. Thanks! Mike H 18:38, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, Rex just reverted your revert. I was generous and gave him 24 hours to responsd precisely to avoid any claim of his that he didn't have enough time. Now, let's assume he uses that 24 hours and then posts a response. OK, fine. But then you and I feel his argument is weak and without merit. He could then just say, "My argument is not weak and without merit. It is upon you to prove otherwise. Until then, the langauge stays in."
OK, so then we call in a mediator and go through a big rigamoral to get this resolved in a favor. OK, fine. But it doesn't seem fair to me that he can keep making these kinds of edits and force us to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to prove him wrong.
I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. What do you propose we do? -- Nysus 18:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, after seeing Rex's last few edits, my patience is finally beginning to wear thin. Following up on your suggestion to seek out coalitions, I'd like to formally enter into some kind of pact with you to monitor Rex's behavior and fight against his clearly disruptive editing style. This isn't going to be a pleasant task. I'd much rather be writing articles. But I think for the sake of the integrity of the articles we are collaborating on, we have a duty to try to put a stop to his malicious efforts. And we should reach out to others to join us. Hopefully, if he sees that it's not just one person against him but five or six, he will begin to realize his behavior needs to change. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to attack or "gang up" on Rex. I'm just finally getting tired of trying to reason with him all by myself. As we have seen, the effort leads nowhere. Frankly, if I can't find others to join me, well, I'll probably leave these article behind and starte editing non-controversial stuff like you. But it would be a real shame if I guy like Rex succeeds in putting a stop to our honest attempts to produce good work. -- Nysus 01:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I'm glad to see you and Wolfman intervening to reign in some of the more, uh, enthusiastic contributors at teh Killian memos page. A few days ago, I rather undiplomatically attempted an intervention in the Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy article, which resulted in a great deal of rudeness and my decision not to directly involve myself in this stuff more. But I'm glad to see you trying to keep them honest. john k 22:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, what is your e-mail or a way outside of WP i can contact you? -- kizzle 22:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Please do so with a reference to the quoting party (in this case you). I refer to this edit
[1] by you, which I have deleted. You have been warned. The next stop is an Arbitration request against you. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 02:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The full name of
Stolen Honor Documentary is a perfectly valid Wiki link. I do not agree that the short name of
Stolen Honor is as informative to the readers in regards to telling tham what the link actually goes to. I did not agree to the "redirect" which the other party imposed in creating the new short name and I'd rather not get in any battles to revert that. Instead, where appropriate, I am going to simply use the longer name. This is one fo those appropriate occassions. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 15:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand how I am supposed to make the distiction between his important and unimportant influences. Perhaps some of them don't make sense right now because I have not finished the section on him as a musician (I am still gathering information). I don't see the point of you deleting all of his influences unless you are going to make the decsion on which ones are important and unimporant. If you are not going to do this I think we should revert the list back. I also don't understand why you think that linking to the list of web comics is a invalid see also link. ZaQ 00:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice note. So he's not supposed to list me there? I saw that he'd been trying to remove that perfectly legitimate text, and he goes and calls me a vandal. But I'm not the type to be swayed that easily. Sahara 01:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You have a lot of nerve siding with an obvious sockpuppet. Also, did you even READ the idiotic punctuation that Sahara keeps injecting? Suffice it to say, you are blinded by your own bile and spite - unable to get past your hatred of me enough to even see what's going on. Shame on you! [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 01:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Uh did you READ the edit history of Sahara? [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 02:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have answered you at
Stolen Honor talk page. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 02:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, would you accept mediation with me? I believe, based on your overt hostility, that the issue is now ripe. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 02:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My issue is that you are overtly hostile to me, going out of your way to compound difficulties rather than difuse them. Take a cue from Wolfman. He and I differ greatly, but he is not hostile to me (nor me with him). [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 03:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Will you agree to mediation with me, yes or no? [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 23:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes or no, will you accept mediation aimed at hashing out our differences / resolving our inter-editor problems? [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 01:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Unless and until you stop trying to stoke the fires of hostility, I am going to relatiate when and where appropriate. Your cheap shot at the VfD page was a low blow. Until you agree to seek peace, I am not going to unilaterally declare it nor will I let you stomp on me or my edits. I am offering to try to seek peace with you via mediation. If you refuse, any subsequent hostility between us, is 100% your fault. Three strikes and you're out: Yes or no, will you agree to mediation with me? [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 06:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm.. it appears that any "hashing out" must occur now, here in this page - so here goes: What about you and your mysterious appearance on pages I am editing? for example
Eights and aces? Over a simply typo (Eight instead of Eights), you kept reverting rather than simply fixing the page! Hmmmm....? And why won't you follow the JML precendent which we have all been forced to follow (on other pages such as TfT)? On TfT, you supported the exclusion of links I wanted included, yet on
Stolen Honor you turn around and demand the
Media Matters link be included, yet it fails the TfT test - in that it's not about the documentary, but about Sherwood himself. And that "moonie" stuff you kept trying to jam in, that's about
Carlton Sherwood himself, not about
Stolen Honor, the documentary. It's one thing to mention "he also wrote a book about Unification Church" as a snippet of his background on the documentary page, it's entirely something else to try to bring controversy about that onto a page for a topic for which it has no bearing. [[User:Rex071404|
Rex071404
]] 15:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're stepping on my toes and I don't know why. The name of the stamp series, so far as I know is American Comic-strip Classics and while I'm tediously plodding along trying to enter the information in 20 different articles you change the name of the article I'm working on and referring to. Why is that? I'm pretty informal too, but gee. Ortolan88 02:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Changed the name back to the proper name of the stamp series. Unless you can show that the stamp series is named something else, please don't redirect again. Ortolan88 02:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okay, but you were still stepping on my toes, a little warning or explanation on a talk page would have been polite. Your jumping in without warning or clarification is why I took it personally. How's about you fix the first ten incorrect references and I'll finish the last ten? Ortolan88 03:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Tnx! Ortolan88 03:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dear Gamaliel:
I do have new information on Lee Oswald. Systematic distortion of my testimony and history does not change that fact, only that you have been led to believe nothing new is added by my testimony. That's not true. But you won;t hear that from the keepers of the Official version, that Lee oswald did it alone.
Please contact me quickly at elect63@xs4all.nl ASAP as that account will soon close. I have very little time, as I'm finishing my dissertation on a topic in British Literature, on a deadline at present, but I believe your work is important and would like to give you first-hand information for your W. article, if you weill be so kind as to consider it.
Sure, I've been attacked, sometimes viciously. The film by Nigel Turner, The Love Affair, was censored off The History Channel after five shows. It was originally scheduled for nine years. Segments seven, eight and nine were secretly purchased and are being with-held from the American public by the LBJ family and friends'coalition. But the fact is, I'm still alive, unlike many other witnesses, and because I have the evidence, and have decided to speak out, the inevitable attacks have occurred that I knew would occur. Had I stated that Lee Oswald was the Lone Gunman, I'd be wined and dined and rich. But because I tell the truth, I'm maligned and lied about. Through contacts with honest investigators, however, the facts ARE coming out.
Best regards,
Judyth Vary Baker
loved Lee Oswald, an innocent man please disregard any typos, I have eye problems...
You ruined the entire Rube Goldberg page on this website you ignorant lutefisk. What do you think you are doing? You made every single thing a link that there is no link directing to anywhere else. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? NOW I HAVE TO SPEND ALL MY TIME FIXING IT YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!
Dear Anonymous Idiot,
I'm sorry adding those links caused you so much distress. If I had known the effect it would have on you I would have done it sooner. Gamaliel 17:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi,can you sign your objection to Shakespearean authorship? As they are so close to my own, I'd hate to see them ignored for lack of a name. Filiocht 10:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Nice picture: do you think there are more Irish writers at the same source? Filiocht 08:29, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
No problem. Did you find any? I don't think there are any. I think I uploaded pics of all the writers on their occupation index, and I think Colum was the only Irish one. However, that index is sadly incomplete and probably indexes only about a quarter of the people in the collection. Gamaliel 19:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Gamaliel. Would you accept a nomination for adminship? [[User:Neutrality| Neutrality ( hopefully!)]] 00:02, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my edit on this VfD overwrote yours (I'm not sure why it did, it's been doing that recently instead of giving me an "edit conflict" message like it should.) our changes were substantially the same, I think, except I kept the "Imp Catcher" and "Romeo & Juliet (quest)" that had been added (essentially the same thing, individual quests from the same MMORPG) and I added a note explaining that 3vruna had added the extra listings himself. (I also replied to a conveniently unsigned top-level post from 3vruna where he effectively cast a second "keep" vote.) In any case, I wish the software *had* told me of the edit conflict as it was supposed to -- am I the only one who's been getting weird results with that? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi there I have made changes to the Opposition to Castro will you reconsider your vote. If you do not think that satisfy the NPOV policy please help me do so. It is hard for me to not have a POV on the matter. I love democracy and the Internet and this great country we live in. Thanks and regards! SilentVoice 23:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you have another look at Opposition to Castro? I'm not sure what it was like when you looked at it (I gather is started out very POV), but at this point it looks to me like the nucleus of a good article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
"Hamilton," Do stay out of my talk page. I am a newbie here (along with several others) and made a simple mistake when I added a comment about documented evidence fact to the JFK assassination discussion page then tagged an incorrect button, instead of saving my comment to the JFK ass. discussion page. You may now delete this. You are aware that the 80%/20%, 4:1 ratio is against your possibly keeping up with us. (what with all the other 1-6+ hours total you waste per day average on wikipedia 12.220.116.188 23:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic| Mgm| (talk)]] 08:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel: I agree with your assessment of this article. It seems the main problem is one of presentation - it needs to be tighened a great deal, and better organized - plus there are several facts and principal allegations which are missing. I would be happy to help you with this; however, I believe biases should be revealed first. I assume from your writing that you believe that LHO acted alone in the assassination; I do not. However, I'm willing to work with you and respect your viewpoint if you respect mine. I suspect that we will conclude with something that neither of us is entirely happy with, but it's not necessary that we "solve" the mystery together in this article. If you wish to proceed, perhaps we could trade emails. - Scooter 22:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excerpt:
2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.
3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.
4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.
5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.
For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Final decision. -- mav 05:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey there. Somewhat belated, but I'd intended to thank you for creating articles on most of the Librarians of Congress. A neat little subject that few people know much about. Isomorphic 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your reversion of Harlan Ellison. This was not done in bad faith. Rather, it was added by a person whom we suspect may have actually been Harlan Ellison. Until the matter is cleared up, please leave the text as is. We are in contact with Mr. Ellison regarding the incident and hope to resolve it soon. Danny 21:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you everyone. My reign of terror will commence shortly. Gamaliel 23:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. anthony 警告 23:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Rosyth_Primary_School: what makes something encyclopedic if not notablity or verifiability? These are the two main reasons for deleation on VfD. The bellman 09:48, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
Thank your for increasing the number of entries in List of songs whose title includes a phone number by 50%! I was beginning to wonder if my idea for this article was complete nuts. (Now I think it's only mostly nuts.) ☺ — Jeff Q 10:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)