This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
22 July 2024 |
|
Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you.
Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user and remember the most important rule on Wikipedia.
Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11 | 2/11-6/11 | 7-11/1-13 | 2-13/06-13 | 6-13/11-13
Archives: no archives yet ( create) |
|
→ Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 07:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Klas August Linderfelt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --CeeGee 07:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
The work you have done on famous librarians is a huge contribution to the discipline and will be a resource of great meaning over time. Kmccook ( talk) 13:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC) |
There is currently a RFC discussion about the content with the sources that the user AmericanDad86 has been adding, and you have been requested to make a comment about this, since you have responded to this discussion that had happened recently. Blurred Lines 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
I reverted your recent move as a violation of the "rough" consensus, determined in the talk page. I advise you to create a move request before moving it again. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Eugene S. Matthews at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - Kieran ( talk) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, you can't just keep removing something ultimately sourced to video testimony from a witness, given to a UK mainstream TV channel (one of only 4 at the time...) and broadcast repeatedly between 1988 and 2003 without anyone complaining. (And the 2003 issues are unrelated.) Podiaebba ( talk) 16:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems like this is an issue that's really spreading out of control, it's touched upon a few of my editing areas too. Any suggestions on how to handle it? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
On 7 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eugene S. Matthews, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Florida politician Eugene S. Matthews sold his newspaper and fled Dunnellon after phosphate mine owners threatened him for reporting on their mistreatment of lease convicts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eugene S. Matthews. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand you have access to some published info that is not available on the net for this type of info. General web sources that are not reliable including IMDb state Leigh-Allyn Baker's birthdate is April 3, 1972, and that is likely correct, but I can't find a reliable source to support that. I would appreciate any help you can provide. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, the above userspace hasn't touched since 2005. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST it should probably go. Any strong feelings about it? Beerest 2 talk 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The results show you missed by a small amount: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013#Results. I wish to tell you I voted for you and I hope you run again. Best wishes! Binksternet ( talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott ( talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
On 16 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Klas August Linderfelt, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Klas August Linderfelt was erased from the official list of American Library Association Presidents following his arrest for embezzlement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Klas August Linderfelt. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I drew your name from a hat—well, not really, that's a lie. The truth is I thought of you directly after I noticed today that there were no comments from an uninvolved person at this COIN discussion. I would hate for the discussion to be archived without having somebody in authority say something pithy. The case has COI and BLP aspects. If you get a chance, can you chime in? Thanks in advance. Binksternet ( talk) 21:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
So even naming Ruth's father (William) is too much for you? Why not delete the mentions of her mother for a lack of a citation as well? There are numerous "facts" noted in the article that have never made it beyond official allegations. Should those also be removed, or do they serve an important propagandistic function? What are you, a social media spook? Finding a citation for her father is easy work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.147.59 ( talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Russell? Please cite your source.
Oswald may or may not have studied at DLI, I didn't say he did. Read more closely. That it has been been investigated, including by the Warren Commission, is an important point. The sources are all good. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.147.59 ( talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Klas August Linderfelt for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott ( talk) 01:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I see no neutral point of view on Media Matters. It is all bias. That is why I put a fair and balanced addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheplola ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of you undoing my edits on Media Matters. I am citing my edits and it is not copyrighted. How can the truth be told about anything on Wikipedia if people keep editing very thing out that other people put in? Seems like to me that every snot nose liberal who lives in their moms basement runs this web site. A person can not rely on Wikipedia as being truthful. I guess that is why my professors in college said that anything cited from Wikipedia would be accepted. Hope you like my new edit. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheplola ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of The Entry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile ( talk) 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Because the user Bullšhit is the key also did vandalism, please reblock with account creation disallowed. Thanks! Thewikiguru1 ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
As you intervened on his talk page before, could you please explain to user:Mouh2jijel what is WP:DISCUSS? I invited him by 3 times to discuss the map issue without any response from his side, and today he simply reverted my edit (again), and again without giving any axplaination on diff's commentary? Isn't that case a user who simply refuses to WP:DISCUSS and to seek for a WP:CONS, then a WP:DISRUPT case? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
--
Omar-toons (
talk)
10:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess that was unnecessary. Chain pullers are going to pull chains. Not much you can do. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 18:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I really don't appreciate you proposing on a public noticeboard that I be given a 1 RR restriction on an article where I did a BLP enforcement and I have only ever made ONE edit and the second article I have made ZERO edits...and you don't even have the courtesy to notify me directly, and you label me as an edit warrior with the rest of them...retract it now.-- MONGO 03:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You hatted off my complaint at AN/I after you commented?-- MONGO 20:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
"Thank you for your comment, and not just because it is the most sensible reaction in a sea of hysteria." Moi? "Sea of hysteria"? Malstrøm is probably a better term. In any event, your comment has brightened my day. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Do not do that again, the lot is in quotation marks, hence fine under both the law and policy. It also serves to show what blatant cherry picking is. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Klas August Linderfelt for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott ( talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be alot of this going on by one particular user. Is this harassment or instigation? (also... what, exactly, did I do to warrant getting this treatment? why is this permitted to happen?) Wodenhelm ( Talk) 04:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, did you mean to say "far from the only problem"? — Steve Summit ( talk) 03:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Because of your demonstrated interest in JFK assassination conspiracies, I invite you to watchlist the biography Malcolm "Mac" Wallace which was created a couple of months ago. It's already seen a bunch of uncited conspiratorial text added to it, which I removed. Best... Binksternet ( talk) 17:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel, you were notified that there were issues with this nomination over two weeks ago, but haven't yet responded. Please do so soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to look over Gordon Novel. There may be some coatracking of fringe theories going on, especially in the Waco section. LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!
The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Hello Gamaliel, I found out that you are one of the English Wikipedia Administratos and I've decided to write to you about one irritant user, it's User:Dag13. Please visit his page and review it, I'm really interesting if it is forbidden or not to behave like him. I don't know maybe I also violated some rules, but maybe. If you found out, tell me about them I'll be pleased, I am not well in English Wikipedia rules, but I think what he does it's excessive and trespass. Thank you. -- g. balaxaZe Ⴋ 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel. I'm deeply concerned about your participation on the WP:RSN dispute about Paul Krugman. I think that AQFK was correct when he pointed out which parts of the diff in question are speaking to the BLP subject and not to the subject's economics:
You've stated that
I believe this contradicts WP:BLP:"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I would like to ask you to reconsider this part of the WP:BLP policy. Perhaps the diff can be rephrased to remove the specific parts that speak about the living subject and only cover his economics? Specifically, DeLong's accusation that Murphy is refusing to rethink and the part about Murphy's reaction. It is deeply concerning because you are a sysop and WP:BLP is a core policy. I'm not sure that the interpretation you've given in your comment above is compatible with adminship. Thanks.--v/r - T P 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I am eager to learn, should I include a possibly controversial statement of fact in the future.
An edit was removed from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
I wished to know if you considered the statement about Charlie Rangel to be possibly libelous, or that it would be libelous towards Melanie Sloan. I guess I made the mistake of using that website vernacular as they call people corrupt constantly. Perhaps the words to describe Mr Rangel should be unethical as their are numerous references to that on Wikipedia.
I certainly don't wish to cause any libel issues for Wikipedia.
Here is an example of something I might add, this is paraphrased shortened and does not use the quote as this letter is too long anyway.
"Ms. Sloan made an appearance on the Daily Show where she complained about the people who were hired to draw up redistricting plans as a blight against democracy. Ms. Sloan made no mention of the lawmakers who were the actual people who made redistricting possible."
Thank you Carey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthepr ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you please take a look on user:Mouh2jijel's warring on the article SNVI? I tried (again, as it was the case on Languages of Morocco) to start a discussion [4] [5] with him but, given his answer, it seems that he doesn't understand anything from what I say... plus this ridiculous revert of my contrib on the article: that could be considered as vandalism.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
--
Omar-toons (
talk)
13:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I was quite startled to learn that my IP address had been banned (I received the message Editing from 76.10.128.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by Gamaliel for the following reason(s): Long-term pattern of vandalism: Cabbit vandal // This block has been set to expire: 02:25, 1 March 2014). Not entirely sure what this meant, I searched for the puzzling phrase "Cabbit vandal," which led me to this link: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28773860-Teksavvy-IPs-banned-from-editing-on-wikipedia-. There, someone seems to have had the same trouble as I did. I'm not really an expert on internet matters, so I have to assume that the statement from someone on that page that many users have been blocked is true. Teksavvy is a large provider and it seems possible that a large ban applied to it might make it difficult for many users to make edits.
I discovered I could sign in as a user and therefore need not worry, but figured I should bring this to your attention. Certainly it wasn't me who did any vandalizing, nor do I think it was the person who posted on that webpage. If a ban on a third person prevents at least two other people from making edits, shouldn't it be changed or honed down in some way to make certain it affects only the guilty party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Querenciazine ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for hiding the abusive terms from the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel; Please do also hide the similar terms from the history page of Excel Central School. - Vaikunda Raja ( talk) 04:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I have restored your edits HERE to the previous version, per WP:NOCONSENSUS. I understand your copyright concerns, but the matter was brought up for discussion and discussed over several days HERE and after that discussion plus the 7 day wait period no consensus was reached. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 06:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you undid my removal of a section in which accusations of anti-semitism against L. Fletcher Prouty were made. The reason I elected to remove the text was that it presented no solid evidence against Prouty, just guilt by degrees of association (e.g. he gave a speech to an organization that has alleged anti-semitic connections). It strikes me that something better than that is required for an accusation of a serious charge like anti-semitism to be given space on wikipedia. You countered that the text was "well sourced". I'm not at all sure I agree, but it doesn't matter. Well source innuendo is still just innuendo. There is no direct evidence in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.126.218 ( talk) 09:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was reading the Raw Story and then going through the comments. While doing so I saw that all the pro gun comments were removed. All of them. I went to another story and saw the same. Different commentators but still all removed. It made for horrible reading and how do you have a discussion if all the comments on one side are removed? Below you can see that it seemed to be a fairly polite discussion with the exception of the anti gun comments. "gun humper" was allowed to say as was all the other negative comments. I think they should be called on it as they wrote and took credit on a big story about censorship in China, and then they do it.
Below is the thread and the links to 2 different pages. Again anyone can see every pro gun comment is gone. Thanks Walter
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/28/chicago-14-year-old-shoots-himself-with-gun-dad-gave-him-for-christmas/ Avatar gnocchi datenutloaf • 9 hours ago But par for the course with these gun humpers. 4 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. − Avatar gnocchi Vetala Valo • 8 hours ago Um, because this is an internet discussion board? Did no one explain to you how this works?
And in your universe, what, exactly, would constitute "helping the situation"? Because you don't seem to want any laws keeping guns out of the hands of children, so how would someone "help the situation"? It seems odd that "gun humper" is ok while every opposing post is wrong. On another story you can again see every opposing comment is deleted while rude and insulting comments in response are allowed http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/27/west-virginia-gun-enthusiast-kills-two-men-without-warning-in-mix-up-over-property-line/#comment-1220076157 Michael Confoy MarkS • a day ago − Nut, moron, idiot, lunatic... 8 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Shang Tseezy Paul Erna • a day ago a man just killed two men for attending to their OWN property, and you say nobody needs to worry? LMAO 17 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar PirateCafe Paul Erna • 16 hours ago The article is not about kids, it's about a sniper who murdered two, with a scoped rifle from his window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA8:2380:5118:A1F6:57AB:5A0C ( talk) 04:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It shows a bias that was posted on wiki and removed at their urging — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA8:2380:5118:A1F6:57AB:5A0C ( talk) 05:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add that putting down the truth that anyone can see by looking at the page/ling is not calling them out.
The page is the source.
Re your last are you saying if there is a hurricane it can't be posted until someone writes about it first?
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could you look at this article - it's currently under attack with IP users adding Citation Needed after almost every name and fact. I think it needs protection. Regards Denisarona ( talk) 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You've marked the first sentence of the article on Dublin Core. The sentence reads: The Dublin Core metadata terms are a set of vocabulary terms which can be used to describe resources for the purposes of discovery. Perhaps I'm too close to it, but that sentence is perfectly clear to me. So perhaps you can explain what isn't clear to you? Then we can find a different wording. Thanks. LaMona ( talk) 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel - isn't it better to use news sources like NYT instead of opinion pieces like Salon? Reading /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, it says opinion pieces should rarely be used. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahp48 ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
As you close in on 10 years of editing, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for all of your contributions, particularly some of the work I have seen from you at the resource request board, which I recently discovered ... your work has helped a lot of people. In short, your 10 years of contributions have vastly improved our encyclopedia. Thank you. Go Phightins ! 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
For this week's excellent "In the news" article in the Signpost -- Pine ✉ 19:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.
While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.
The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.
Issues you might consider:
The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.
Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.
P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of James Tiptree, Jr. Award winners, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hild ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The Diligent Librarian Barnstar | ||
For exemplary performance at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) |
It's great to see an editor who actually IMPROVES edits they have a problem with instead of just mindlessly reverting them. I thought your edit was very well written and covered the issue as succinctly as possible while still including the main points. It will be interesting to see how long your improvements last. There's an editor who calls herself Researchfairy who edits nothing but Kitty Kelley and related articles and removes anything critical and adds only pro-Kelley references, that are often promotional in nature. Dozens of well sourced facts have been removed over the years. At first I didn't care but she's removed so much material that it was time to step in. My respect for wikipedia decreases when I see articles that look they're written by publicists. I also don't like articles that look like hit pieces. That's why I'm so grateful that moderate neutral editors like you have the judgement, fairness, and writing skills to achieve the perfect balance. Keep up the great work! Lastitem ( talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your newspaper link. So I have two goodies:
You can pick either to replace your broken link WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Please include here a reference to this request , in order to validate it and resolve. Yours truly: -- Antur ( talk) 14:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit notes on the edit history page for President Obama. I did not understand the comment from the other editor on WP:POV since my edit was mostly quoting material from the Washington Post editor's point of view regarding the President's approach to "Ukraine&Crimea". I have added the extra sources as you had requested. My original thought was to keep this edit as short as possible. Here are the added sources you requested;
Any follow-up comment you might have short or long would be appreciated. FelixRosch ( talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove the tag. I guess it was just an instinctual thing and outlived its usefulness. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Some guidance please. I saw you touched this page to fix a redirect/move issue. I came across this page in new page patrol, where the user had created a new article under the different name, rather than moving the article. I nominated for speedy since almost all the refs are hosted by the group itself. The creator replied to me with User_talk:Gaijin42#Shorenstein_Center_on_Media.2C_Politics_and_Public_Policy . Now, I admit the foundation could possibly be notable, but there are no real sources included. The editor has a clear WP:COI (a google of the user name reveals someone deeply involved with Harvard Kennedy School and Journalism). They also don't seem to understand that WP:N still applies to non-profits. But the bigger issue is copyvio and WP:NPOV - major sections of the article are copied directly from the foundations website, and the parts that aren't are written in peacock marketing fluff. The center may be notable, but if we delete the copyvio, and puffery, there won't be much left. On the other hand, I don't want to WP:BITE too hard etc. Can you give me some direction as to what you think should happen? Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit at Dreams from My Real Father, please remember that items within quotations should not generally be linked (see WP:LINKSTYLE). I understand the rationale for this recommendation is that the interpretation implied by the wikilink is not an actual part of the quotation, and thus the wikilink could constitute OR. I also realize there may be occasional common-sense exceptions to this general guideline. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Pritzker Prize winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Years ago, when the community decided organize special main page content for April Fools' Day, it was explicitly agreed upon that while we might tweak the underlying processes slightly (e.g. by relaxing DYK's update window rule), we wouldn't compromise our encyclopedic standards.
It's one thing to quote someone else's ungrammatical, all-caps writings and quite another to present Wikipedia's voice in that manner. If the latter is an intrinsic "part of the joke", said joke is inappropriate for our main page. —
David Levy
03:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
We all regret some of our early work here at Wikipedia. Perhaps this is one? I hate to bother you, but can you please fix the issues that were tagged? Bearian ( talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure you know that we don't normally add a string of refs to the Lede. Usually we don't want any in the Lede, as everything there is supposed to be covered in the body first. I am going to remove your label, as it adds no new information. I have checked only half of the refs you added, and so far only found one instance where the term "conspiracy" appears. This was what it said:
I find it disheartening that we would seek to "pigeonhole" human beings at an encyclopedia, rather than give a full account. The New York Times review of this man and his documentary doesn't mention his questioning of 911, and doesn't call him names. Why can't we be classy like the NYT? Why does Wikipedia sound like a tabloid? This bothers me. In one account where Ruppert is questioned about the CT label, he says "I don't involve myself in conspiracy theory, I deal in conspiracy fact". I would hope any coverage of this label as it relates to him does so in a neutral and balanced way. I am willing to help construct the section, if you need.
This bit of history on the term "conspiracy theorist" might be of interest to you: From Esquire "Conspiracy theorists”... is a loaded term... in its current weaponized form, [the phrase is] an invention of the CIA. That body, when widespread skepticism of the Warren Commission's findings first emerged, sent a memo, number 1035-960, to all its bureaus giving specific instructions for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists." Prior to that, "conspiracy" simply meant to make plans between two or more people. petrarchan47 t c 23:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! I see you're quite active at WP:RX, which we recently grouped under the broader Wikipedia Library project to help editors access sources and do better research. I'm looking for a few coordinators to take the lead on some research-related initiatives, including keeping things tidy at WP:RX and possibly at a new research desk, or with curating research guides. Would you be interested? It's a volunteer position and we could talk about what kind of projects and time would work for you. Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Josephus Nelson Larned at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rlendog ( talk) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know about it. Thank you for telling me! WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
On 29 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Josephus Nelson Larned, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that American librarian Josephus Nelson Larned (pictured) sat at a desk opposite Mark Twain when they both wrote for the Buffalo Express? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Josephus Nelson Larned. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The article Josephus Nelson Larned you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Josephus Nelson Larned for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 03:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel,
Recently, an editor posted a DRN report about an edit conflict you were having with the user. Please see
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mark_Levin . I would like to hear your side of the story before the resolution process begins among volunteers. I have already stated my opinion on the dispute and am ready to close the dispute after hearing your argument. Thank you. --
JustBerry (
talk)
00:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I have closed the dispute already; Lowercase sigmabot III should be archiving the discussion in the next day. JustBerry ( talk) 23:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
On 29 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Supersisters, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jane Pauley, Margaret Mead, and Gloria Steinem were Supersisters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Supersisters. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Portions of this article have been turned into a foreign language in the past few edits. Could an admin please roll back the changes. Thanks. Nathan121212 ( talk) 20:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Portions of this article have been turned into a foreign language in the past few edits. Could an admin please roll back the changes. Thanks. Nathan121212 ( talk) 20:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
22 July 2024 |
|
Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you.
Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user and remember the most important rule on Wikipedia.
Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11 | 2/11-6/11 | 7-11/1-13 | 2-13/06-13 | 6-13/11-13
Archives: no archives yet ( create) |
|
→ Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 07:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Klas August Linderfelt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --CeeGee 07:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
The work you have done on famous librarians is a huge contribution to the discipline and will be a resource of great meaning over time. Kmccook ( talk) 13:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC) |
There is currently a RFC discussion about the content with the sources that the user AmericanDad86 has been adding, and you have been requested to make a comment about this, since you have responded to this discussion that had happened recently. Blurred Lines 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
I reverted your recent move as a violation of the "rough" consensus, determined in the talk page. I advise you to create a move request before moving it again. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Eugene S. Matthews at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - Kieran ( talk) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, you can't just keep removing something ultimately sourced to video testimony from a witness, given to a UK mainstream TV channel (one of only 4 at the time...) and broadcast repeatedly between 1988 and 2003 without anyone complaining. (And the 2003 issues are unrelated.) Podiaebba ( talk) 16:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems like this is an issue that's really spreading out of control, it's touched upon a few of my editing areas too. Any suggestions on how to handle it? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
On 7 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eugene S. Matthews, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Florida politician Eugene S. Matthews sold his newspaper and fled Dunnellon after phosphate mine owners threatened him for reporting on their mistreatment of lease convicts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eugene S. Matthews. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand you have access to some published info that is not available on the net for this type of info. General web sources that are not reliable including IMDb state Leigh-Allyn Baker's birthdate is April 3, 1972, and that is likely correct, but I can't find a reliable source to support that. I would appreciate any help you can provide. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, the above userspace hasn't touched since 2005. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST it should probably go. Any strong feelings about it? Beerest 2 talk 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The results show you missed by a small amount: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013#Results. I wish to tell you I voted for you and I hope you run again. Best wishes! Binksternet ( talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott ( talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
On 16 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Klas August Linderfelt, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Klas August Linderfelt was erased from the official list of American Library Association Presidents following his arrest for embezzlement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Klas August Linderfelt. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I drew your name from a hat—well, not really, that's a lie. The truth is I thought of you directly after I noticed today that there were no comments from an uninvolved person at this COIN discussion. I would hate for the discussion to be archived without having somebody in authority say something pithy. The case has COI and BLP aspects. If you get a chance, can you chime in? Thanks in advance. Binksternet ( talk) 21:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
So even naming Ruth's father (William) is too much for you? Why not delete the mentions of her mother for a lack of a citation as well? There are numerous "facts" noted in the article that have never made it beyond official allegations. Should those also be removed, or do they serve an important propagandistic function? What are you, a social media spook? Finding a citation for her father is easy work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.147.59 ( talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Russell? Please cite your source.
Oswald may or may not have studied at DLI, I didn't say he did. Read more closely. That it has been been investigated, including by the Warren Commission, is an important point. The sources are all good. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.147.59 ( talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Klas August Linderfelt for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott ( talk) 01:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I see no neutral point of view on Media Matters. It is all bias. That is why I put a fair and balanced addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheplola ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of you undoing my edits on Media Matters. I am citing my edits and it is not copyrighted. How can the truth be told about anything on Wikipedia if people keep editing very thing out that other people put in? Seems like to me that every snot nose liberal who lives in their moms basement runs this web site. A person can not rely on Wikipedia as being truthful. I guess that is why my professors in college said that anything cited from Wikipedia would be accepted. Hope you like my new edit. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheplola ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of The Entry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile ( talk) 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Because the user Bullšhit is the key also did vandalism, please reblock with account creation disallowed. Thanks! Thewikiguru1 ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
As you intervened on his talk page before, could you please explain to user:Mouh2jijel what is WP:DISCUSS? I invited him by 3 times to discuss the map issue without any response from his side, and today he simply reverted my edit (again), and again without giving any axplaination on diff's commentary? Isn't that case a user who simply refuses to WP:DISCUSS and to seek for a WP:CONS, then a WP:DISRUPT case? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
--
Omar-toons (
talk)
10:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess that was unnecessary. Chain pullers are going to pull chains. Not much you can do. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 18:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I really don't appreciate you proposing on a public noticeboard that I be given a 1 RR restriction on an article where I did a BLP enforcement and I have only ever made ONE edit and the second article I have made ZERO edits...and you don't even have the courtesy to notify me directly, and you label me as an edit warrior with the rest of them...retract it now.-- MONGO 03:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You hatted off my complaint at AN/I after you commented?-- MONGO 20:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
"Thank you for your comment, and not just because it is the most sensible reaction in a sea of hysteria." Moi? "Sea of hysteria"? Malstrøm is probably a better term. In any event, your comment has brightened my day. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Do not do that again, the lot is in quotation marks, hence fine under both the law and policy. It also serves to show what blatant cherry picking is. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Klas August Linderfelt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Klas August Linderfelt for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott ( talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be alot of this going on by one particular user. Is this harassment or instigation? (also... what, exactly, did I do to warrant getting this treatment? why is this permitted to happen?) Wodenhelm ( Talk) 04:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, did you mean to say "far from the only problem"? — Steve Summit ( talk) 03:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Because of your demonstrated interest in JFK assassination conspiracies, I invite you to watchlist the biography Malcolm "Mac" Wallace which was created a couple of months ago. It's already seen a bunch of uncited conspiratorial text added to it, which I removed. Best... Binksternet ( talk) 17:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel, you were notified that there were issues with this nomination over two weeks ago, but haven't yet responded. Please do so soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to look over Gordon Novel. There may be some coatracking of fringe theories going on, especially in the Waco section. LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!
The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Hello Gamaliel, I found out that you are one of the English Wikipedia Administratos and I've decided to write to you about one irritant user, it's User:Dag13. Please visit his page and review it, I'm really interesting if it is forbidden or not to behave like him. I don't know maybe I also violated some rules, but maybe. If you found out, tell me about them I'll be pleased, I am not well in English Wikipedia rules, but I think what he does it's excessive and trespass. Thank you. -- g. balaxaZe Ⴋ 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel. I'm deeply concerned about your participation on the WP:RSN dispute about Paul Krugman. I think that AQFK was correct when he pointed out which parts of the diff in question are speaking to the BLP subject and not to the subject's economics:
You've stated that
I believe this contradicts WP:BLP:"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I would like to ask you to reconsider this part of the WP:BLP policy. Perhaps the diff can be rephrased to remove the specific parts that speak about the living subject and only cover his economics? Specifically, DeLong's accusation that Murphy is refusing to rethink and the part about Murphy's reaction. It is deeply concerning because you are a sysop and WP:BLP is a core policy. I'm not sure that the interpretation you've given in your comment above is compatible with adminship. Thanks.--v/r - T P 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I am eager to learn, should I include a possibly controversial statement of fact in the future.
An edit was removed from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
I wished to know if you considered the statement about Charlie Rangel to be possibly libelous, or that it would be libelous towards Melanie Sloan. I guess I made the mistake of using that website vernacular as they call people corrupt constantly. Perhaps the words to describe Mr Rangel should be unethical as their are numerous references to that on Wikipedia.
I certainly don't wish to cause any libel issues for Wikipedia.
Here is an example of something I might add, this is paraphrased shortened and does not use the quote as this letter is too long anyway.
"Ms. Sloan made an appearance on the Daily Show where she complained about the people who were hired to draw up redistricting plans as a blight against democracy. Ms. Sloan made no mention of the lawmakers who were the actual people who made redistricting possible."
Thank you Carey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthepr ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you please take a look on user:Mouh2jijel's warring on the article SNVI? I tried (again, as it was the case on Languages of Morocco) to start a discussion [4] [5] with him but, given his answer, it seems that he doesn't understand anything from what I say... plus this ridiculous revert of my contrib on the article: that could be considered as vandalism.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
--
Omar-toons (
talk)
13:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I was quite startled to learn that my IP address had been banned (I received the message Editing from 76.10.128.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by Gamaliel for the following reason(s): Long-term pattern of vandalism: Cabbit vandal // This block has been set to expire: 02:25, 1 March 2014). Not entirely sure what this meant, I searched for the puzzling phrase "Cabbit vandal," which led me to this link: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28773860-Teksavvy-IPs-banned-from-editing-on-wikipedia-. There, someone seems to have had the same trouble as I did. I'm not really an expert on internet matters, so I have to assume that the statement from someone on that page that many users have been blocked is true. Teksavvy is a large provider and it seems possible that a large ban applied to it might make it difficult for many users to make edits.
I discovered I could sign in as a user and therefore need not worry, but figured I should bring this to your attention. Certainly it wasn't me who did any vandalizing, nor do I think it was the person who posted on that webpage. If a ban on a third person prevents at least two other people from making edits, shouldn't it be changed or honed down in some way to make certain it affects only the guilty party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Querenciazine ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for hiding the abusive terms from the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel; Please do also hide the similar terms from the history page of Excel Central School. - Vaikunda Raja ( talk) 04:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I have restored your edits HERE to the previous version, per WP:NOCONSENSUS. I understand your copyright concerns, but the matter was brought up for discussion and discussed over several days HERE and after that discussion plus the 7 day wait period no consensus was reached. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 06:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you undid my removal of a section in which accusations of anti-semitism against L. Fletcher Prouty were made. The reason I elected to remove the text was that it presented no solid evidence against Prouty, just guilt by degrees of association (e.g. he gave a speech to an organization that has alleged anti-semitic connections). It strikes me that something better than that is required for an accusation of a serious charge like anti-semitism to be given space on wikipedia. You countered that the text was "well sourced". I'm not at all sure I agree, but it doesn't matter. Well source innuendo is still just innuendo. There is no direct evidence in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.126.218 ( talk) 09:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was reading the Raw Story and then going through the comments. While doing so I saw that all the pro gun comments were removed. All of them. I went to another story and saw the same. Different commentators but still all removed. It made for horrible reading and how do you have a discussion if all the comments on one side are removed? Below you can see that it seemed to be a fairly polite discussion with the exception of the anti gun comments. "gun humper" was allowed to say as was all the other negative comments. I think they should be called on it as they wrote and took credit on a big story about censorship in China, and then they do it.
Below is the thread and the links to 2 different pages. Again anyone can see every pro gun comment is gone. Thanks Walter
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/28/chicago-14-year-old-shoots-himself-with-gun-dad-gave-him-for-christmas/ Avatar gnocchi datenutloaf • 9 hours ago But par for the course with these gun humpers. 4 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. − Avatar gnocchi Vetala Valo • 8 hours ago Um, because this is an internet discussion board? Did no one explain to you how this works?
And in your universe, what, exactly, would constitute "helping the situation"? Because you don't seem to want any laws keeping guns out of the hands of children, so how would someone "help the situation"? It seems odd that "gun humper" is ok while every opposing post is wrong. On another story you can again see every opposing comment is deleted while rude and insulting comments in response are allowed http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/27/west-virginia-gun-enthusiast-kills-two-men-without-warning-in-mix-up-over-property-line/#comment-1220076157 Michael Confoy MarkS • a day ago − Nut, moron, idiot, lunatic... 8 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Shang Tseezy Paul Erna • a day ago a man just killed two men for attending to their OWN property, and you say nobody needs to worry? LMAO 17 •Reply•Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar PirateCafe Paul Erna • 16 hours ago The article is not about kids, it's about a sniper who murdered two, with a scoped rifle from his window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA8:2380:5118:A1F6:57AB:5A0C ( talk) 04:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It shows a bias that was posted on wiki and removed at their urging — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA8:2380:5118:A1F6:57AB:5A0C ( talk) 05:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add that putting down the truth that anyone can see by looking at the page/ling is not calling them out.
The page is the source.
Re your last are you saying if there is a hurricane it can't be posted until someone writes about it first?
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could you look at this article - it's currently under attack with IP users adding Citation Needed after almost every name and fact. I think it needs protection. Regards Denisarona ( talk) 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You've marked the first sentence of the article on Dublin Core. The sentence reads: The Dublin Core metadata terms are a set of vocabulary terms which can be used to describe resources for the purposes of discovery. Perhaps I'm too close to it, but that sentence is perfectly clear to me. So perhaps you can explain what isn't clear to you? Then we can find a different wording. Thanks. LaMona ( talk) 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel - isn't it better to use news sources like NYT instead of opinion pieces like Salon? Reading /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, it says opinion pieces should rarely be used. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahp48 ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
As you close in on 10 years of editing, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for all of your contributions, particularly some of the work I have seen from you at the resource request board, which I recently discovered ... your work has helped a lot of people. In short, your 10 years of contributions have vastly improved our encyclopedia. Thank you. Go Phightins ! 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
For this week's excellent "In the news" article in the Signpost -- Pine ✉ 19:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.
While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.
The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.
Issues you might consider:
The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.
Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.
P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of James Tiptree, Jr. Award winners, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hild ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The Diligent Librarian Barnstar | ||
For exemplary performance at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) |
It's great to see an editor who actually IMPROVES edits they have a problem with instead of just mindlessly reverting them. I thought your edit was very well written and covered the issue as succinctly as possible while still including the main points. It will be interesting to see how long your improvements last. There's an editor who calls herself Researchfairy who edits nothing but Kitty Kelley and related articles and removes anything critical and adds only pro-Kelley references, that are often promotional in nature. Dozens of well sourced facts have been removed over the years. At first I didn't care but she's removed so much material that it was time to step in. My respect for wikipedia decreases when I see articles that look they're written by publicists. I also don't like articles that look like hit pieces. That's why I'm so grateful that moderate neutral editors like you have the judgement, fairness, and writing skills to achieve the perfect balance. Keep up the great work! Lastitem ( talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your newspaper link. So I have two goodies:
You can pick either to replace your broken link WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Please include here a reference to this request , in order to validate it and resolve. Yours truly: -- Antur ( talk) 14:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit notes on the edit history page for President Obama. I did not understand the comment from the other editor on WP:POV since my edit was mostly quoting material from the Washington Post editor's point of view regarding the President's approach to "Ukraine&Crimea". I have added the extra sources as you had requested. My original thought was to keep this edit as short as possible. Here are the added sources you requested;
Any follow-up comment you might have short or long would be appreciated. FelixRosch ( talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove the tag. I guess it was just an instinctual thing and outlived its usefulness. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Some guidance please. I saw you touched this page to fix a redirect/move issue. I came across this page in new page patrol, where the user had created a new article under the different name, rather than moving the article. I nominated for speedy since almost all the refs are hosted by the group itself. The creator replied to me with User_talk:Gaijin42#Shorenstein_Center_on_Media.2C_Politics_and_Public_Policy . Now, I admit the foundation could possibly be notable, but there are no real sources included. The editor has a clear WP:COI (a google of the user name reveals someone deeply involved with Harvard Kennedy School and Journalism). They also don't seem to understand that WP:N still applies to non-profits. But the bigger issue is copyvio and WP:NPOV - major sections of the article are copied directly from the foundations website, and the parts that aren't are written in peacock marketing fluff. The center may be notable, but if we delete the copyvio, and puffery, there won't be much left. On the other hand, I don't want to WP:BITE too hard etc. Can you give me some direction as to what you think should happen? Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit at Dreams from My Real Father, please remember that items within quotations should not generally be linked (see WP:LINKSTYLE). I understand the rationale for this recommendation is that the interpretation implied by the wikilink is not an actual part of the quotation, and thus the wikilink could constitute OR. I also realize there may be occasional common-sense exceptions to this general guideline. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Pritzker Prize winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Years ago, when the community decided organize special main page content for April Fools' Day, it was explicitly agreed upon that while we might tweak the underlying processes slightly (e.g. by relaxing DYK's update window rule), we wouldn't compromise our encyclopedic standards.
It's one thing to quote someone else's ungrammatical, all-caps writings and quite another to present Wikipedia's voice in that manner. If the latter is an intrinsic "part of the joke", said joke is inappropriate for our main page. —
David Levy
03:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
We all regret some of our early work here at Wikipedia. Perhaps this is one? I hate to bother you, but can you please fix the issues that were tagged? Bearian ( talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure you know that we don't normally add a string of refs to the Lede. Usually we don't want any in the Lede, as everything there is supposed to be covered in the body first. I am going to remove your label, as it adds no new information. I have checked only half of the refs you added, and so far only found one instance where the term "conspiracy" appears. This was what it said:
I find it disheartening that we would seek to "pigeonhole" human beings at an encyclopedia, rather than give a full account. The New York Times review of this man and his documentary doesn't mention his questioning of 911, and doesn't call him names. Why can't we be classy like the NYT? Why does Wikipedia sound like a tabloid? This bothers me. In one account where Ruppert is questioned about the CT label, he says "I don't involve myself in conspiracy theory, I deal in conspiracy fact". I would hope any coverage of this label as it relates to him does so in a neutral and balanced way. I am willing to help construct the section, if you need.
This bit of history on the term "conspiracy theorist" might be of interest to you: From Esquire "Conspiracy theorists”... is a loaded term... in its current weaponized form, [the phrase is] an invention of the CIA. That body, when widespread skepticism of the Warren Commission's findings first emerged, sent a memo, number 1035-960, to all its bureaus giving specific instructions for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists." Prior to that, "conspiracy" simply meant to make plans between two or more people. petrarchan47 t c 23:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! I see you're quite active at WP:RX, which we recently grouped under the broader Wikipedia Library project to help editors access sources and do better research. I'm looking for a few coordinators to take the lead on some research-related initiatives, including keeping things tidy at WP:RX and possibly at a new research desk, or with curating research guides. Would you be interested? It's a volunteer position and we could talk about what kind of projects and time would work for you. Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Josephus Nelson Larned at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rlendog ( talk) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know about it. Thank you for telling me! WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
On 29 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Josephus Nelson Larned, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that American librarian Josephus Nelson Larned (pictured) sat at a desk opposite Mark Twain when they both wrote for the Buffalo Express? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Josephus Nelson Larned. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The article Josephus Nelson Larned you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Josephus Nelson Larned for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 03:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel,
Recently, an editor posted a DRN report about an edit conflict you were having with the user. Please see
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mark_Levin . I would like to hear your side of the story before the resolution process begins among volunteers. I have already stated my opinion on the dispute and am ready to close the dispute after hearing your argument. Thank you. --
JustBerry (
talk)
00:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I have closed the dispute already; Lowercase sigmabot III should be archiving the discussion in the next day. JustBerry ( talk) 23:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
On 29 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Supersisters, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jane Pauley, Margaret Mead, and Gloria Steinem were Supersisters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Supersisters. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Portions of this article have been turned into a foreign language in the past few edits. Could an admin please roll back the changes. Thanks. Nathan121212 ( talk) 20:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Portions of this article have been turned into a foreign language in the past few edits. Could an admin please roll back the changes. Thanks. Nathan121212 ( talk) 20:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)