16 May 2024 |
No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online |
Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you. Rock on.
Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user and remember the most important rule on Wikipedia.
Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11 | 2/11-6/11 | 7-11/1-13 | 2-13/06-13
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your semi-protection of Eiffel Tower. Bearian ( talk) 16:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC) |
Please join the
Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history! |
Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 15:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Mig ( talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The articles cited show Glenn Greewald defending terrorism against Israel. Please restore. The Nbaka is a major lie ( talk) 17:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that the edit-warring IP is now unblocked and has reverted again, with a message on the talk page. I've responded, but I don't see any rational discussion happening any time soon. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 08:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The changes you proposed (using surname only) have now been made. Gerald Ryder ( talk) 05:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwin Bryant (alcalde), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Whig Party and Drover ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your eyes on the David Gorski article. Good edit to remove the vacation photo. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 21:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John W. Dwinelle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yerba Buena ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove others' talk-page comments, as you did at the bulletin board on edit protection. Please review talk page policy.
If you have concerns, you are welcome to raise them civilly. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
On 4 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edwin Bryant (alcalde), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that had the Donner Party received the warning from Edwin Bryant, they might have avoided being stranded in the mountains? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edwin Bryant (alcalde). 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Albums considered the greatest ever has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
RocketLauncher2 (
talk) 01:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lee Harvey Oswald may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of John W. Dwinelle 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! BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Why are you adding authorlinks to Nico Pitney when no article exists? Wouldn't it be better to create the article first and then add author links? — Diiscool ( talk) 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Got your message, Gamaliel, and I agree with the sentiments presented. But I think I can also be accused of throwing similar remarks back at him. Maybe not as frequently as he does, but still... For example, I`ve made pointed remarks that it is unfortunate for the pro-conspiracy side that he is largely in charge of presenting their case. I`ve even suggested the `conspirators` are posing as him to make the case seem silly and untenable... But, notwithstanding that, I will back you up on this. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I brought up some issues at Template:Did you know nominations/Nico Pitney. SL93 ( talk) 01:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
On 10 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John W. Dwinelle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John W. Dwinelle (pictured) helped establish the University of California, the right of black children to attend public school, and San Francisco's claim to much of the land within its borders? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John W. Dwinelle. 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. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I will be removing that redlink the next time I see an edit to that article if it continues to be a redlink. I think you know why. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For erasing POV cruft. Bearian ( talk) 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you for this! TheSeven ( talk) 10:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I want to reference a talk page discussion that involved Brandon from the JFK conspiracies article. Unfortunately, all the old talk between late 2007 and early 2013 is missing from the archive link on the talk page. Is there an easy way to get those restored and linked? Thanks! Joegoodfriend ( talk) 20:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added my thoughts to the thread about Brandon. I never forget a slight. :) By the way, in case you were wondering, Joe Goodfriend is my real name. Take care and thanks. Joegoodfriend ( talk) 02:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
On 15 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nico Pitney, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nico Pitney. 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. |
Allen3 talk 12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, I believe a copyright agreement is a legal document, the source is a log of that document having cross checked many other artists and writers year of birth with the copyright log they all come up correct with wiki articles accept the Lana Del Rey article it's the only one of many that I have cross checked that isn't correct. Apparently it is quite common for celebrities to change their birth year particularly to make them younger therefore this information would be put out across all their biographical information and published but it doesn't mean it is correct, I thought Wiki was about factual information not preferred information. Thanks Deneuve15 ( talk) 17:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply; you stated "It's not a legal document, it's a web catalog" - it is an on line catalogue of a legal document; a copyright agreement and is the only way to cite that information in an on-line format. It is also not an unnamed document it clearly states who made the copyright claim, what the claim is for and when it was made.
You also stated "all sorts of issues involving personal interpretations, misreadings, and original research" would arise from using a primary source.
What wiki says about primary sources;
The secondary source I added was a newspaper publication.
Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
I did reference 2 secondary sources that backed up the primary source.
The primary source did not effect large blocks of material.
I was taking a specific fact from the primary source.
The secondary sources that are currently being used in the article are not backing up the primary source.
The secondary sources I used that were reverted, did back up the primary source.
Did you or have you checked the sources before deciding to edit the article. It may not be a matter for wikipedia to uncover if a source is incorrect but wiki should have the facts correct if the sources are available that show the sources are correct. Deneuve15 ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I meant the sources I added as I added secondary sources that back up the primary source. Given that the specific part of the article is about Elizabeth Woolridge Grant and not the persona Lana Del Rey shouldn't Elizabeth Woolridge Grant's real year of birth be used. As the sources you cite and the sources previously cited relate only to the persona Lana Del Rey which is not actually relevant in the context of that section of the article, hence why I edited using a 'relevant' source. Deneuve15 ( talk) 21:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You made this edit; [Edit deleted for space and formatting considerations] You state to see the link, there is no link. You also cite "Lana Del Rey" but the persons year of birth in question is Elizabeth Woolridge Grant's. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Gamaliel ( talk) 23:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You posted: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Gibson (political commentator). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I created a new section in the talk page for John Gibson so I am doing what I can to avoid an edit war. User Fat&Happy has done two reversions that are not justified as I explained on the talk page. So it is not me who is engaging in an edit war, it is the other user. The articles referenced are from verified, reliable sources and support Gibson's claim. The article is very one-sided, so what I added is not only accurate but help give the article a more neutral POV. Finally, I hope you pointed this out to user Fat&Happy. I have reached out.
I now see that you made a reversion. I'm done editing here and trying to support neutrality. RickW7x2 ( talk) 22:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Freedom Trail, 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. Tim! ( talk) 06:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Smart Set, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parisienne ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi-I noticed you reverted the edits I made in the Edwin Sabin article and changed them back. My apologies for any misunderstandings, faulty edits, etc., on my part. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 17:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
On 21 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edwin L. Sabin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Edwin L. Sabin wrote the first seriously researched biography of frontiersman Kit Carson? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edwin L. Sabin. 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. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Oswaldneworleans.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 07:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Roger Revelle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regarding Roger Revelle, you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts. My minor corrections were to point out that Revelles own paper basically states that "global warming" was not proven and that further research was necessary, In other words he wrote it to get more funding. Before he died he even stated that his theory was wrong, but because Al Gore had so much invested in the Global Warming lie and was prepared to make $Billions, he tried to convince people Revelle was delusional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exton1 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Racism WP:FORUMI feel like an abuse of the talk page is going on and on. Can you please reflect on it as your closing the talk page has been reverted by two editors having a dialog that has nothing to do with improving the article. but a fringe debate about Affirmative action.-- Inayity ( talk) 15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Recently you unprotected multiples countries, but you removed the protection of them. Could you restore the indefinite move-protection (sysop) of: South Africa, Slovakia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, India and Vietnam? Some (if not all) are widely visible and have had page-move vandalism sometime in the past. Thank you. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
These articles have become frequently edited, and vandalism became persistent. Care to check them? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You recently blocked this user after an ANI report. FYI, I have now opened an SPI on this user here. Regards -- Taroaldo ✉ 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea of what your posting about, I am a new user and have just registered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbob Williams ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't post correctly. But as her son, I did want to correct a few mistakes and add a few details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by stonito ( talk • contribs)
Remember this one? I have a draft on my sandbox here if you want to look at it. If you think it's OK, please unblock it so I can paste it in. Thanks! § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The edit war is not being moved forward by me but by NbySB. Please see here: Most recent comments on the BLP Noticeboard.--Bing Norton 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton ( talk • contribs)
On 2 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marion Talley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the time of her much-heralded 1926 debut, 19-year-old Marion Talley (pictured) was the youngest prima donna to perform at the Metropolitan Opera? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marion Talley. 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. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I am distressed that you appear (to me) to be taking on face value User:Carolmooredc's assertion that people are deleting reliable sources simply because (on her account) they don't like them or are seeking to be disruptive.
Carol added text to the Rothbard article cited by a reliable secondary source. As I argue on the Rothbard page, I consider the added text to be off-topic and synthesis. (I don't see how a discussion of which fringe groups Barnes inspired relates to Rothbard's praise of Barnes's work.) The only thing that Carol's reliable source was used to source was this (in my view) off-topic, SYN assertion, (the (in my view, redundant and OR) parts about Rothbard I deleted were not cited by the removed RS in question.) That's why I deleted the passage containing the source. (I also have no idea how to delete text without deleting the source, which is something I need to learn. Full disclosure: I am a noob, who appreciated and profited from your (and Carol's) discussion of synthesis regarding another user's edits on the ANI.) Steeletrap ( talk) 06:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You are one of 6 or 7 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I am posting this message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. I want to share with you a general problem with the articles being discussed on User:carolmooredc's BLPN. As you may have noticed, all of the BLPs User:carolmooredc believes are being "trashed" by allegedly "biased editors" such as myself are scholars at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. An examination of their Wikipedia entries shows that most citations for the academic work of these scholars are either from themselves or other Mises Institute scholars/publications, such as LewRockwell.com. (for some of the more egregious examples of this, see: Ralph Raico, Joseph Salerno, and William L. Anderson.) They constitute in this regard a walled garden, in which most or all "RS" for each scholar are Mises fellows, who tend to be praiseful of their colleagues. This leads to non-neutral entries featuring inflated characterizations of the prominence and importance of the scholarly contributions of Misesians.
Another big problem with Mises-related citations having such prominence in BLPs, regarding a subject's contributions as an economist, is that the economic methodology promoted by Mises Institute scholars is literally unscientific. That is to say, they categorically reject the application of the scientific method to economics -- an application which characterizes all mainstream social science -- and instead apply preconceived generalizations to their analysis of the economy. Senior Mises Scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe has summarized this distinction between the methodology the "Austrian economists" of the Mises Institute and mainstream economists in a clear and lucid manner:.
"It is this assessment of economics as an a priori science, a science whose propositions can be given a rigorous logical justification, which distinguishes Austrians, or more precisely Misesians, from all other current economic schools. All the others conceive of economics as an empirical science, as a science like physics, which develops hypotheses that require continual empirical testing. And they all regard as dogmatic and unscientific Mises's view." [ http://mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp (1), emphases mine -- steele)
Per the words of Professor Hoppe, the "Misesian" approach to economics represents a rejection of economics as an "empirical science", which makes the Mises view fall under the guidelines of WP:Fringe. Thus, putting so much weight on the Misesian view in judging the contributions of Mises scholars to economics is in my judgment at odds with WP:NPOV.
I know this is a lot to digest, but I thought it would be helpful for you to understand this context. I look forward to your feedback and counsel. Steeletrap ( talk) 09:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, please take this off my talk page. Take concerns about WP:FRINGE to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I request that further messages here be limited to two sentences each AND include either a link to a relevant article talk page discussion (where the matter can be discussed in depth) or a relevant diff that I can examine. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read my comments at WP:ANEW regarding the report you filed against Niteshift. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The Internet Barnstar | ||
For your incredibly quick and high-quality work on Lavabit. I was planning on writing the article myself tonight, but it was already written by the time I got back from dinner. IronGargoyle ( talk) 22:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC) IronGargoyle ( talk) 22:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks! The last day or so hasn't been particularly pleasant for me on Wikipedia, so this is really good to hear. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the article Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner and Thomas from Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 8 (Nov., 1989), pp. 4-10 . . . I will put it to good use . . . many smiles Stmullin ( talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Responded to on Persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh. Judicatus | Talk 21:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I was following the Jay Sadguru Swami article and related disputes and I was wondering if I could get your input. There are two main sects of the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism. The original Swaminarayan Sampraday and BAPS. The original sect has a version of the aarti that is posted and the current article is referring to from Professor Williams Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism [1]. The Baps sect has slightly changed this and here is the dispute that Anastomoses and mainly Kapil.xerox keepstrying to cover up for whatever reasons: The arti sung in BAPS Swaminarayan mandirs is claimed to be an original manuscript of the composition by Muktanand Swami and is different from the aarti sung in mandirs of the Swaminarayan Sampraday. [2]. This is a true and if you read the two aartis, you see there are subtle differences between the two. How are you suppose to note that they are simply different on Wikipedia without it being reverted by people who think they own this site. I appreciate you help in this matter.
Sageorsun ( talk) 03:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
long discussion of article content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here is the original version that the wiki article is referring to: (Bold words are what is in the original manuscript and BAPS for some reason changed them) Charaña Saroja Tamārā, Vandu Kara Jodi; (2) Charañe Shisha Dharyāthi (2) Duhkha Nākhyā Todi… Jaya Sadguru Swai -2 With folded hands I pay my obeisances to the Lotus Feet of Shree Shajanada Swami. One’s all miseries are gone by simply surrendering to His Lotus Feet. Nārāyaña Narabhrātā Dvijakula Tanu Dhāri; (2) Pāmara Patita Uddhāryā (2) Agañita Naranāri... Jaya Sadguru Swami -3 The Divine brothers Nara-Narayan Dev has taken birth in the brahmin family as human beings. He is the liberator of helpless and fallen souls, uncountable men and women. This is should be noted in the article. There are two main sects of the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism. The original Swaminarayan Sampraday and BAPS. This is an important item to be noted because the two sects have always been in bitter disputes so changing certain words helps BAPS to maybe differentiate them I don't know. The fact is that both are different and there has to be a reason why. BAPS does not have a reason but the differences are published therefore is not original research. This is from http://londonmandir.baps.org/worship/swaminarayan-arti/ and it is the BAPS Version. The bolded text is what baps changed from the original sect. Charana-saroj tamara vandu kar jodi, Prabhu vandu kar jodi; Charane chitta dharyathi (x2), dukh nakhya todi… Prabhu Jay Sadguru Swami. I offer with folded hands my obeisance unto your lotus feet; And by offering my mind unto your lotus feet, you have torn asunder all my miseries Narayan sukh-data dvija-kula tanu dhari, prabhu dvija-kula tanu dhari; Pamar patit udharya (x2), aganit nar-nari… Prabhu Jay Sadguru Swami O Narayan, the bestower of bliss! You took birth in a brahmin family as a human being, And elevated innumerable abject and fallen men and women So can we add this information to the article? |
Some editor is abusing their power and deleting all my work. Please help me to understand why this is happening my account. I cannot even post this comment through my own acccount because it has been blocked. I have requested an appeal. I am at a large university with many adherents of the swaminarayan faith here. I have not edit-warred, created multiple accounts or made any disruptive edits. Check my history, I engaged on the talk pages and those were reversed as well. What is wrong? I do not understand why Bbb23 blocked this account. Please Help. My account is Sageorsun. 141.217.174.126 ( talk) 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I bet by tomorrow this IP wil be blocked. Not only did I not do anything wrong here, users at this institution are being blocked. Your help is greatly appreaciated.
141.217.174.126 ( talk) 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
On 17 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lavabit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the owner of the Lavabit e-mail service said he can't legally disclose the reasons for its mysterious closure, which occurred soon after Edward Snowden's use of the service was disclosed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lavabit. 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. |
Alex Shih Talk 12:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
On 17 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lavabit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the owner of the Lavabit e-mail service said he can't legally disclose the reasons for its mysterious closure, which occurred soon after Edward Snowden's use of the service was disclosed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lavabit. 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. |
Alex Shih Talk 12:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ``` Buster Seven Talk 04:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the paper 'Integrating tipping points into climate impact assessments'. PhilMacD ( talk) 11:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Not that I really care whether the quote is real or not, can you offer a link so my internets can see what has been verified by your internets? †TE† Talk 17:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The comments on the article talk page are regularly deleted. So, any "collaboration" isn't possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.247 ( talk) 04:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
On 30 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amy Salerno, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Judge Amy Salerno scolded jurors in her courtroom this month for what she considered to be an incorrect not guilty verdict? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Salerno. 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. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You and Brandon seem to be having a fun time. Are you going to start a TALK subject? Would it helped if I started one as a 3rd party? Joegoodfriend ( talk) 23:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words about my recent successful GA, FA, TFA contributions to Everything Tastes Better with Bacon.
I really appreciate it.
It's nice to know that my quality improvement projects on this website are appreciated and acknowledged.
Thanks again,
— Cirt ( talk) 00:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Harvey Oswald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luis Alvarez ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Per this history, you could be seen as your involved protection of the pages related to this issue. I ask you to unprotect, as it is clear that this is not unambiguously correct as required for you to perform the protection per WP:INVOLVED. Participate in the discussion, fine. Don't save it as your preferred version while it's ongoing and not very clear what the outcome will be. ~ Charmlet -talk- 22:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gamaliel, for your work on the Ana Rosa Núñez page! I'm very eager to read more of her work. Timathom ( talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Gamaliel - many thanks for your wonderfully courteous request concerning an edit. Perhaps my memory has slipped, but I don't recall ever having even looked at this site until right no, let alone edited it. On the other hand, it'd sure be odd if my handle appeared and I wasn't there; what might be happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certayne ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Your reasons for reversing my edit are almost certainly disingenuous, and I suspect you're hiding behind a bogus claim of improper citation as cover for an agenda, not an honest assessment of my edit. However, it's easier to just play along. I will put in some citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.43.251 ( talk) 03:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:RealClearPolitics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — v/r - T P 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I could say a lot more, but I'm going to bury the hatchet for the moment. Explain, objectively, why you think Trent Lott's lobbying activity merits no mention in the lead, when Jim Talent, Denny Rehberg, Howard Dean, Paul G. Kirk, Don Nickles, Connie Mack IV, and John Breaux - to name a few edits among all the recent ones - do have that mention, and when Lott has been a registered lobbyist for longer than almost all of them and has been a more prominent lobbyist than almost all of them. 68.180.101.240 ( talk) 02:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel, Just wondering what you are thinking regarding the IP that is vandalizing the Coates BLP. He has obviously read all our warnings on his user talk page because he/she posted a confrontational response on my user talk page. [1] But then a few minutes later he/she reinserted the same content. You have protected the page, which gives some protection to the subject but I'm wondering what your strategy is with the IP. So far, in communications with both you and I they have been argumentative and shown no indication that they are willing to stop the disruptive behavior or adapt to WP's guidelines and cultural norms. I think you are a good editor and Admins have to make difficult judgement calls in situations like this and you are demonstrating a lot of patience with this IP. I already gave him a final warning, so if I had tools I would have already issued a brief block, which might have been the wrong thing. So kudos to you for your patience (which is in short supply on WP) , but just for myself as a learning opportunity could you explain to me what your approach is here? Thanks so much, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
On 24 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Librarian (painting), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Giuseppe Arcimboldo's painting The Librarian (pictured) is thought to be a portrait of historian Wolfgang Lazius? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Librarian (painting). 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You obviously watch the MAIG page like a hawk and remove any information that paints them in a poor light. Talk about biased attitudes. I'm not going to debate pro or con with you since you obviously hold all the cards here Mr. Editor; so enjoy being in control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobriant74 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is an article you should read that will help you interact with other editors on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Heres a tip for you, enjoy! http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Nice-Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobriant74 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
On 26 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Randolph Greenfield Adams, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that librarian Randolph Greenfield Adams wrote a notorious 1937 essay called "Librarians as Enemies of Books"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Randolph Greenfield Adams. 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) 14:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Gamaliel. I write you because you're an admin who cares about preventing vandalism. After a highly disappointing finale episode to the once critically acclaimed Showtime TV series Dexter, there has been considerable vandalism of the Wikipedia entry of showrunner (i.e. the main writer and director) Scott Buck, who took over the show in Seasons 6-8. For instance, see this edit ( 1), which changes Buck's title to "showruiner" and falsely claims that the Seasons for which he was in charge were negatively received. In fact, the cited metacritic source indicates that Seasons 6-8 received mostly positive reviews, even if much less positive than earlier, universally acclaimed seasons. ( 2)
This is all part of a systematic effort to vandalize Buck's page launched by disappointed Dexter fans on reddit. ( 3) ( 4) Thus we have every reason to fear the vandalism will be ongoing.
I hope all that makes sense. In light of all of it, could you protect this BLP page for a few weeks until the fans cool down? I think the series finale sucked too so I have no bias towards buck; but these edits are just egregious. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked closely at a copy of this elsewhere on the net and with my schoolgirl French gradually realised its target isn't Baartman, it's the British. Baartman engages the viewer with a long-suffering expression as her onlookers' comments display what, to the French, are typically British foibles - obsession with large cuts of meat, wearing ludicrous/indecent clothing, envy of superior sexuality etc. She was a gift to cartoonists. There's another (British) caricature where she's used to deride a politician of the day who also had a fairly ample behind. RLamb ( talk) 09:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be violating Wikipedia's most important rule by repeatedly reverting to a text that omits the insertion of "allegedly" to qualify the statement (in the Ruth Paine entry) that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the rifle that was found in the Texas School Book Depository after the President was assassinated. The citations for this allegation are many, but they are also biased inasmuch as they all derive from argumentative texts that deny that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Since no one was ever tried for the President's murder and since the evidence has been contested for decades in books written by lawyers, academics, scientists, doctors and others, your refusal to permit any acknowledgement of the fact that the evidence is in dispute violates the principle of objectivity. Crypto23 ( talk) 12:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Greeting, Gamaliel. I just created my first Wikipedia entry, for the Property and Freedom Society. Unfortunately, I screwed up and created as the "Property and freedom society" (with improper lower-case). Can you fix this? Many thanks. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Hate to be a bother like that, but after reading through the chapter that you were gracious enough to provide the missing pages for, I'm realizing I am not sure that page 336 was only bibliography or if it actually had text. Would you be so kind as to check and upload it if does include text and not just the start of the bibliography? Circéus ( talk) 03:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I am writing because my IP adress 69.165.128.0/19 was blocked. The reason given is vandalism. I didn't do any vandalism, actually I am quite new to editing and have edited only a few articles so far. Please could you clarify and unblock? Thanks, Arpabogar ( talk) 20:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Arpad
Greetings, Gamaliel. On the ANI thread I wrote about User:Binksternet ( 1), Can you, in your capacities as disinterested admin, "hat" the "proposal" sub-thread regarding whether to do a topic ban on Binksternet? ( 2) Whatever its merits, this position is a far cry from my original complaint, and serves to distract from and obscure it. Ditto for the thread regarding the alleged "belitting" of Srich and Binkster by Miles ( 3). Steeletrap ( talk) 01:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. With all due respect, this DYK which appeared on September 28
was pretty terrible. And it's your baby.
It's terrible because Mr Grunwald is (as far as I can tell from his article) is a senior national correspondent at Time magazine and has written two books, and on this rests such notability (as opposed to notoriety) as he has. In presenting him to the world at one of the most-viewed web pages in the universe, we (you) chose to ignore that and instead focus on a stupid tweet he made. Of which he's ashamed, since Grunwald later tweeted his regrets: "It was a dumb tweet. I'm sorry. I deserve the backlash." Emphasis added. The spirit of WP:BLP weeps.
It's your baby because of this edit at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Grunwald.
User:Miyagawa, who actually promoted the hook, is not responsible because (if I understand DYK procedure correctly, which I've taken a fair amount of trouble to do) promoting an article is a purely mechanical step; like an XfD closer, User:Miyagawa isn't allowed to intrude his own judgement into the process but rather simply assesses the judgement of others.
As to those others, there were eight besides you, seven of whom didn't approve the proposal. No one rejected it either, but a couple at least made vague noises in the direction of BLP considerations. The one other editor who approved it did so pretty much in passing, and this was followed by further objections (although not in the BLP vein).
Your edit, coming at the end, summing up and indicating that all previous objections had been addressed, is certainly the key event in causing this dreadful entry to appear on our main page. You could have said "Hold it. This is wrong. This person isn't our enemy and there's no reason to do a driveby character assassination here. Let's restart the process with something that doesn't violate WP:BLP, such as Did you know that Time magazine senior national correspondent Michael Grunwald has written two books? or something. Rejected."
But you didn't. You're an admin for chrissakes. WP:BLP is one of our core policies, and the very first sentence is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (Note "any" -- there's no exclusion for the main page.) Admins need to be familiar with our core policies. It's important!
I know you're only human and we all make mistakes, but DYK is dynamite. Unlike normal article edits, edits to the main page can't be undone -- once a DYK's appeared, it's out there. And there's no time or allowance for a lengthy or well-attended review of the matter. That's why you need to be really really careful. I hope you will be in future, and that this doesn't indicate a "Meh, whatever" attitude toward WP:BLP, because that would be a problem. Herostratus ( talk) 18:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give a reason for your support of posting the Doctor Who item to ITN; generally to be considered an opinion needs more than a simple "support" or "oppose" with it. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 01:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to give you some background in the spirit of WP:BRD:
I had re-inserted the link you removed from the L. Fletcher Prouty page after I added the entry to the spam-whitelist so that the link could be used in article. My action on the spam-whitelist was after discussion on both the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist pages. Those discussions, in turn, were initiated in response to communications from the website representative on OTRS.
The site is still blacklisted except for that one link, and those who participated in the admittedly brief discussions did not have a problem including it. I judged that to be a rough consensus, therefore I added it.
Please note this was a compromise determined after demands in OTRS to de-blacklist the entire site. The initial spam-blacklist proposal was to leave blacklisted only the attack page that caused the site to be blacklisted in the first place, but then changed to white-listing just the main index page of the site and leaving the rest of the site blacklisted. The prouty.org representative agreed to that (reluctantly) although no guarantees were made that the link would be retained in the article.
I do not believe the link's presence does any harm, and the site does have useful information about the subject. Please consider adding it back — this would also relieve overworked OTRS volunteers from from responding to further complaints. Thanks. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 01:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As you may know,
VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to
your preferences and choosing the item, "
MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable
". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at
Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you,
Whatamidoing (WMF) (
talk) 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't delete the "economist" thing, I just relegated it to the end of the lede (still a somewhat prominent position relative to the rest of the article). The reason for that is that the article, and his notable contributions, mostlyr elate to political theory or activism, not economics. Steeletrap ( talk) 00:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel. In this instance, I must agree with Steeletrap this seems a reasonable edit. There are sources which call MR an economist, but there are also sources which call him a political theorist, anarchist activist, etc. The lede should reflect the weight of the content in the article, and despite a lot of complaining and even warring over various issues none of the Rothbard editors has added content which establishes "economist" as being more than a marginal part of his adult activities or contributions. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. In the article on Weekly Standard, the neoconservative label is already noted in the opening paragraph extensively. It doesn't need to be made twice including in the opening sentence when most reliable independent sources call it conservative. You seem to be pushing a point of view and trying to slant this encyclopedia's coverage of article subjects. That would be inappropriate. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 22:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Gamaliel, I think I tried to choose "Ahithophel" as my handle, but it was taken. ... Oh well.
I think the third paragraph of the article (the way it is at present) is incredibly biased. It reads as follows: "During his time at MSNBC, Olbermann established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining note for his pointed criticism of right-wing or conservative politicians and public figures. Though he has been described as a "liberal", he has resisted being labelled politically, stating "I'm not a liberal. I'm an American." The problem with any edit (including my earlier one) is that Olbermann is either (a) naïve in thinking he is not a liberal, or (b) disingenuous in pretending not to be a liberal, when it is clear he is liberal. As a result, letting him be naïve/deceptive biases the article in his favour, while calling him "disingenuous" (while true) slants it against him. The easiest solution would be to delete everything in the paragraph after "public figures" (so I'll do that now).
The way in which the sentence is incredibly biased can be seen if we change the names around a bit. Example #1: "Sean Hannity established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticism of left-wing or liberal politicians and public figures. Though he has been described as a "conservative", he has resisted being labeled politically, stating "I'm not a conservative. I'm an American." (O'Reilly may be a better example as Hannity admits to being a conservative, while O'Reilly resists the conservative label and claims to be Independent, but on the partisanship scale Olbermann and Hannity would be similar as O'Reilly is not conservative on every issue and occasionally criticizes those on the right, while Olbermann is virtually always far-left and Hannity is virtually always far-right.)
Or, to use more examples from more offensive historical characters than Olbermann and Hannity or O'Reilly: "Though Eugene Terreblanche has been called a white supremacist in South Africa, he disputes the charge, stating, "I'm not a white supremacist, I'm an Afrikaaner." "Though Khaled Mashaal has been called a terrorist in Israel, he disputes the charge, stating, "I'm not a terrorist, I'm just a freedom fighter." "Though Joseph Stalin has been called a communist in Russia, he disputes the charge, stating, "I'm not a communist, I'm a Russian." "Though Adolf Hitler has been called a fascist in Germany, he disputes the charge, stating, "I'm not a fascist, I'm a German."
Anyway, the worst kind of bias in a biography of a political commentator or figure is the kind that is hard to spot by the casual reader. Generally (like in this one) it shows up when the author of the biography explicitly states (or else arranges the material in such a way as to imply or give the impression) that someone who is clearly on the left or the right may really be mislabeled and actually be a non-partisan.
So, in short, it is incredibly biased to say (or arrange the article to imply) "X has earned his name criticizing Y-wing politicians and has been called a Z-wing commentator, but he disputes the charge saying I am just an American is biased." It's biased if we say X=Hannity (or O'Reilly), Y=Left and Z=Right. And it's biased if we say X=Olbermann, Y=Right and Z=Left. Irenaeus7 ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
On 25 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shen Zhurong, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Shen Zhurong is considered the Father of Library Science in China? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shen Zhurong. 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 an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I hardly understand why quoting legal documents about a public figure is not neutral. There are half a dozen lies and misleading one sided opinions on the page about the Ku Klux Klan why can the truth not be told about Morris Dees? It is after all my 1st amendment right to list a FACT is it not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf28382 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi-some of your articles might turn up in some form on WikiProject Wisconsin and that is the main project I pay attention to. For example your article J.R.E. Lee showed up in the University of Wisconsin alumni category that I look at. There are several University of Wisconsin campuses including Madison so I made the change to reflect this. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello I was wondering if you could help me with editing a article for swaminarayan:
The Criticism section has been discussed and here is a suggested expansion. Any input would be helpful.
Several decades after formation of the movement, Swami Dayananda (1824–1883) questioned the acceptance of Swaminarayan as the Supreme Being and was disapproving towards the idea that visions of Swaminarayan could form a path to attaining perfection. Accused of deviating from the Vedas, his followers were criticised for the illegal collection of wealth and the "practice of frauds and tricks." [3] In the views of Swami Dayananda, published as early as 1875, it was a "historical fact" that Swaminarayan decorated himself as Narayana in order to gain followers. [4] Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world. [5]
Swaminarayan initiated reforms in both relationships without totally abolishing sex discrimination or caste differentiation. The interpretation and application of Swaminarayan’s reform raise two hotly debated issues of contemporary social ethics, the position of women society and the role of caste. [6] However, while "many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles", Swaminarayan himself, despite considerable criticism from those in his own contemporary society who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women," insisted that education was the inherent right of all people. [7] According to Professor David Hardiman, "Swaminarayan's actions have propagated a vicious form of patriarchy that subjugates women." [8] After traveling throughout India, he was reported to vomit even if approached by even the shadow of a women." [9] [10] Practices set forth by him seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible. [11] Professor Williams states, “No women are trustees of the religion nor do they serve on any managing committees of the major temples. Thus all the wealth and institutions are effective under the control of men.” [12] Concepts of pollution associated with the menstrual cycle lead to the exclusion of women from the temples and daily worship. [13] In case of widows, he directed those who could not follow the path of chastity to remarry. For those who could, he lay down strict rules which included them being under the control of male members of the family. This may seem regressive; however it gave them "a respected and secure place in the social order" of the time. [14] He also directed male devotees not to listen to religious discourses given by women. Swaminarayan restricted widows "to live always under the control of male members of their family and prohibited them from receiving instruction in any science from any man excepting their nearest relations." [15] [16]
In relation to caste, as already suggested, the Swaminarayan order was and is predominantly conservative. Caste Divisions are scarely effaced by membership of the order and Harijans were formly excluded from Swaminarayan temples. [17] Swaminarayan's sect dismissed caste as irrelevant to the soul's status before god though in practice, caste distinctions remained visible among them though reduced in complexity. [18] He would eat along with the Rajput and Khati castes but not any lower. [19] He established separate places of worship for the lower population where they were considerable. [20] In the Shikshapatri, he wrote do not take food or water from a person of a lower caste. Members of a lower caste are prohibited from wearing a full sect mark (tilak chandlo) on their forehead. [21] Even now, however, for the vast majority of Gujarat's lower-caste, Untouchable and tribal population, the sect is out of bounds. [22]
If you can help me out. It would be very beneficial as I dont want to make mistakes. I put it on the talk page too but I have been getting attacked their so I am seeking outside help. Watch this for me. Thank you
Bluespeakers ( talk) 16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I may need your support as that same user is trying to block me. I really used all the tools I had to get help and this user is obsessed with me. I am afraid that I will get blocked and a moderator might just do it. If you can check my history and note that I have not done anything malicious would help. They are trying to make me guily by association. I am trying to do the right thing in a correct way. I am not a sock. Just picking up where my friend got a little overboard. I explained it where it is needed on the site but I know that you are an ally and know that I have not done any malicious content. I got accused for disagree with a patroller of that article who did not like when someone stood up.
Bluespeakers ( talk) 19:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I wanted to request your help. I explained it in detail and I cannot seem to get a moderator to understand that these people are controlling the article and ganging up on people that do not agree with their positive only portrayal of their religious group. I have posted my rebuttal on this link [ [3]] and these people really do not want certain information up. fter I posted the links that supported what was already being deleted and they still had a problem with that so I sought out help.
They want to group me with other socks who I personally know who made mistakes and where angry at the conclusion of their research. I am just picking up where they were blocked of because I can. At the end of the day, I have not done anything wrong, sought out help and remained civil. Please keep and eye out and see that the correct approach is taken. I was reading the pillars of Wikipedia and it is so sad that vandals come in and want to manipulate the site for their own benefit.
Please I beg you to take a look and see that I have no ill intention. I just want to make sure that the right unbiased information is being upheld. I swear this is not my purpose to bother you on Wikipedia but I am so taken back that I would get this severe resistance from group members that want to make sure that articles are only portrayed in a certain way. I am so sorry for taking your time. I can only imagine the stuff that you deal with on a constant basis with bigger topics. I am contacting moderators who have assisted people I know in the past. Thank you
Bluespeakers ( talk) 02:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)\
Bluespeakers ( talk) 13:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. I saw all your contributions on the Swaminarayan article and clearly no response has been given by other users because I believe those group of users are waiting for my account to be blocked. I have been requesting help and responding to all allegations but they have a team that they belong to and they control the articles. They belong to the group Wikipedia:WikiProject Swaminarayan. They commonly patrol the articles and agree with each other for the sake of keeping the article the way they want denouncing systematically anyone who disagrees. As soon as discussions about the recent rape allegations came out about their sect, they have been extra controlling and quick to remove that information. They have a administrator Bbb23 that has block my partners in the past (I agree the went overboard but still I will make sure they appeal their cases) and I want to make sure that I get a fair case. This is really getting out of control and their ganging up on users is something that needs to be investigated.
I now stated on all the people that I have asked help from: I also want to know that I am apart of an ongoing sock investigation and I am currently fighting. Here is the link /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Swamifraud. I do not want this to affect your ability to assist in this article so after reading some of the accusing parties attacks, I am displaying. Please take a look at the articles above and contribute because there are many people patrolling the articles making sure that their religious group is only being portrayed in a certain way.
Please let me know if I need to do anything else.
Bluespeakers ( talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
On 31 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Henry Reason, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Howard University librarian Joseph Henry Reason was the first African-American to be nominated for president of the American Library Association? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Henry Reason. 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I strongly agree with your reversion of the creationist stuff. He's written a lot about it, but it needs secondary discussion. (I thought there were a couple SS; will look through the archives and make sure they're good ones (i.e. by scientists)) I strongly disagree with the mass deletion of the blogs. You'll find that all those blogs are written by experts (Professors of econ) who qualify for the exception under WP:SPS. Murphy's own remarks fall under WP:Aboutself. I ask you to reread the diffs and revert the latter stuff. Steeletrap ( talk) 04:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I have just been placed under "notice" on the Austrian Economics sanctions page by User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge ( 1), for re-adding the blogs stuff to the article. The "BLP" violating content s/he removed ( 2) consisted of Murphy documenting his own predictions/methodologies through use of his blog (per WP:ABOUTSELF) and UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong criticizing those predictions/methodologies on his blog.
Please intervene. We can question weight or whatever, but self-sourced documentation of one's theories/predictions and expert criticism of those theories/predictions is not BLP violation; thus, the notice (which is the next step to a ban) should be removed in any case. But if AQFT, an involved editor on these pages who I believe isn't even an admin, wasn't even allowed to make the notice, s/he should be subject to sanctions or a notice. I can't imagine that any user -- esp. involved ones -- is allowed to make a notice, as that would soon result in a flood of dubious "notices" on the sanctions page. Steeletrap ( talk) 22:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you want me to delete or add something more in this Template:Did you know nominations/Imtiaz Ali Taj? Thanks.-- Nvvchar. 12:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
On 4 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. R. E. Lee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that President J. R. E. Lee was able to secure higher salaries for teachers and administrators at Florida A&M University despite Governor Cone's statement that "no Negro was worth $4000 a year"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J. R. E. Lee. 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tupaia (navigator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia ( 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) 09:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I think page protection is warranted. This is dragging on and on, and now we're well into 3RR territory. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. But I'm not the person to do that; I really dislike wiki lawyering. 03:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is an excellent suggestion [4]. But it seems to have brought the thread back on the article talk page. I think resolving the discussion to conclusion on one page or another is the best course of action, but the damn cats, they won't go where I want to herd them! Binkster has done an article revision too. So how do we close this? Would posting your idea on the RSN help? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Thomas DeSaille Tucker 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! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
On 20 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas DeSaille Tucker, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sierra Leone-born Thomas DeSaille Tucker was the first president of what would become Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas DeSaille Tucker. 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 16:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Harvey Oswald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secret Service ( 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, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
On 21 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred C. Cole, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Fred C. Cole supported efforts to desegregate Tulane University while he was an administrator? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fred C. Cole. 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I did not mean to start an edit war. I was immediately "reverted". Accused of "leaning to conspiracy theory", which I most certainly was not, I did undo the revert. I then went to the Talk section to defend my edit when it was again reverted by you.
We must stick to the facts otherwise we lose credibility. Therefore, I request that you leave my adapted wording which leaves the appropriate room for doubt. It is not conspiracy theory. Numerous sources exist which all indicate a seriously flawed "investigation", malfeasance and (unfortunately) deceitful behavior on the part the of the WC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4eyes ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
On 22 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis R. St. John, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that librarian Francis R. St. John was awarded the Legion of Merit for reorganizing the Army Medical Library? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis R. St. John. 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) 00:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel.
Could you please set up a proper Wiki mediation to resolve the issue of my carefully worded contribution to the Jack Ruby page that continues to be "reverted"? "Fat&Happy" is the latest to have reverted it. He did not posted in Talk first. Have you scolded him for this?
For the record, I never intended to start a war here and am quite frankly more than a little surprised and disappointed at the reaction here. Also, I have clearly included a reference. Would you like more? Perhaps you could tell me how many references are needed before my contribution will be considered valid?
As previously stated, if Wikipedia allows the blind parroting of "Oswald assassinated JFK", it is doing a great disservice to the reader who has a right to be informed. Not disinformed. 50 years after the incident, as you should know (and I'm quite surprised that apparently you and other contributers here don't), much information has come to light which points to the fact that Oswald did not assassinate JFK. We may never know what role he played exactly. However, it is (or should be) clear now that the statement "Oswald assassinated JFK" is a deceptive untruth.
I eagerly await your reply.
Thank you in advance.
4eyes ( talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes
Strange thing. I wanted to do a minor edit on a page I had been working on, and did not log in. I have done this before with a problem, but now it said my IP was blocked by you. I checked my IP using "What's my IP" and compared the blocked IP to my own and only the first 5 digits were the same.
Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedawg ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Email sent Livedawg ( talk) 00:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
"A matter for history, not law."
Isn't that rather imperiously stated?
The man was never convicted of anything; he was only charged. He merely has been accused post-mortem by a blue ribbon panel. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 21:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
discussion
Thanksgiving to you, "more informal" veteran admin with a background of
Library and information science, for quality article contributions to biographies, including
Barbara Bel Geddes and
Lee Harvey Oswald, for
tips for the angry new user and the reminder of
the most important rule. for "discussion would be the first thing to come to mind", - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
If that source that I said on the noticeboard is reliable, but it doesn't meet context, does that mean that the adult part should be removed from the article The Simpsons? I would remove it myself, but the user AmericanDad86 will re-add it to prove points that he is right, in which he is already starting to be disruptive. I mean, discussing the matter with him is like talking to a small child about it over and over, and it never understands it. What exactly should I do? Blurred Lines 17:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
→ 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...
The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
16 May 2024 |
No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online |
Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you. Rock on.
Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user and remember the most important rule on Wikipedia.
Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11 | 2/11-6/11 | 7-11/1-13 | 2-13/06-13
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your semi-protection of Eiffel Tower. Bearian ( talk) 16:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC) |
Please join the
Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history! |
Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 15:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Mig ( talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The articles cited show Glenn Greewald defending terrorism against Israel. Please restore. The Nbaka is a major lie ( talk) 17:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that the edit-warring IP is now unblocked and has reverted again, with a message on the talk page. I've responded, but I don't see any rational discussion happening any time soon. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 08:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The changes you proposed (using surname only) have now been made. Gerald Ryder ( talk) 05:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwin Bryant (alcalde), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Whig Party and Drover ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your eyes on the David Gorski article. Good edit to remove the vacation photo. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 21:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John W. Dwinelle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yerba Buena ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove others' talk-page comments, as you did at the bulletin board on edit protection. Please review talk page policy.
If you have concerns, you are welcome to raise them civilly. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
On 4 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edwin Bryant (alcalde), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that had the Donner Party received the warning from Edwin Bryant, they might have avoided being stranded in the mountains? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edwin Bryant (alcalde). 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Albums considered the greatest ever has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
RocketLauncher2 (
talk) 01:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lee Harvey Oswald may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of John W. Dwinelle 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! BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Why are you adding authorlinks to Nico Pitney when no article exists? Wouldn't it be better to create the article first and then add author links? — Diiscool ( talk) 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Got your message, Gamaliel, and I agree with the sentiments presented. But I think I can also be accused of throwing similar remarks back at him. Maybe not as frequently as he does, but still... For example, I`ve made pointed remarks that it is unfortunate for the pro-conspiracy side that he is largely in charge of presenting their case. I`ve even suggested the `conspirators` are posing as him to make the case seem silly and untenable... But, notwithstanding that, I will back you up on this. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I brought up some issues at Template:Did you know nominations/Nico Pitney. SL93 ( talk) 01:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
On 10 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John W. Dwinelle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John W. Dwinelle (pictured) helped establish the University of California, the right of black children to attend public school, and San Francisco's claim to much of the land within its borders? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John W. Dwinelle. 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. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I will be removing that redlink the next time I see an edit to that article if it continues to be a redlink. I think you know why. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For erasing POV cruft. Bearian ( talk) 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you for this! TheSeven ( talk) 10:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I want to reference a talk page discussion that involved Brandon from the JFK conspiracies article. Unfortunately, all the old talk between late 2007 and early 2013 is missing from the archive link on the talk page. Is there an easy way to get those restored and linked? Thanks! Joegoodfriend ( talk) 20:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added my thoughts to the thread about Brandon. I never forget a slight. :) By the way, in case you were wondering, Joe Goodfriend is my real name. Take care and thanks. Joegoodfriend ( talk) 02:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
On 15 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nico Pitney, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nico Pitney. 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. |
Allen3 talk 12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, I believe a copyright agreement is a legal document, the source is a log of that document having cross checked many other artists and writers year of birth with the copyright log they all come up correct with wiki articles accept the Lana Del Rey article it's the only one of many that I have cross checked that isn't correct. Apparently it is quite common for celebrities to change their birth year particularly to make them younger therefore this information would be put out across all their biographical information and published but it doesn't mean it is correct, I thought Wiki was about factual information not preferred information. Thanks Deneuve15 ( talk) 17:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply; you stated "It's not a legal document, it's a web catalog" - it is an on line catalogue of a legal document; a copyright agreement and is the only way to cite that information in an on-line format. It is also not an unnamed document it clearly states who made the copyright claim, what the claim is for and when it was made.
You also stated "all sorts of issues involving personal interpretations, misreadings, and original research" would arise from using a primary source.
What wiki says about primary sources;
The secondary source I added was a newspaper publication.
Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
I did reference 2 secondary sources that backed up the primary source.
The primary source did not effect large blocks of material.
I was taking a specific fact from the primary source.
The secondary sources that are currently being used in the article are not backing up the primary source.
The secondary sources I used that were reverted, did back up the primary source.
Did you or have you checked the sources before deciding to edit the article. It may not be a matter for wikipedia to uncover if a source is incorrect but wiki should have the facts correct if the sources are available that show the sources are correct. Deneuve15 ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I meant the sources I added as I added secondary sources that back up the primary source. Given that the specific part of the article is about Elizabeth Woolridge Grant and not the persona Lana Del Rey shouldn't Elizabeth Woolridge Grant's real year of birth be used. As the sources you cite and the sources previously cited relate only to the persona Lana Del Rey which is not actually relevant in the context of that section of the article, hence why I edited using a 'relevant' source. Deneuve15 ( talk) 21:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You made this edit; [Edit deleted for space and formatting considerations] You state to see the link, there is no link. You also cite "Lana Del Rey" but the persons year of birth in question is Elizabeth Woolridge Grant's. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Gamaliel ( talk) 23:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You posted: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Gibson (political commentator). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I created a new section in the talk page for John Gibson so I am doing what I can to avoid an edit war. User Fat&Happy has done two reversions that are not justified as I explained on the talk page. So it is not me who is engaging in an edit war, it is the other user. The articles referenced are from verified, reliable sources and support Gibson's claim. The article is very one-sided, so what I added is not only accurate but help give the article a more neutral POV. Finally, I hope you pointed this out to user Fat&Happy. I have reached out.
I now see that you made a reversion. I'm done editing here and trying to support neutrality. RickW7x2 ( talk) 22:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Freedom Trail, 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. Tim! ( talk) 06:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Smart Set, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parisienne ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi-I noticed you reverted the edits I made in the Edwin Sabin article and changed them back. My apologies for any misunderstandings, faulty edits, etc., on my part. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 17:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
On 21 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edwin L. Sabin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Edwin L. Sabin wrote the first seriously researched biography of frontiersman Kit Carson? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edwin L. Sabin. 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. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Oswaldneworleans.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 07:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Roger Revelle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regarding Roger Revelle, you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts. My minor corrections were to point out that Revelles own paper basically states that "global warming" was not proven and that further research was necessary, In other words he wrote it to get more funding. Before he died he even stated that his theory was wrong, but because Al Gore had so much invested in the Global Warming lie and was prepared to make $Billions, he tried to convince people Revelle was delusional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exton1 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Racism WP:FORUMI feel like an abuse of the talk page is going on and on. Can you please reflect on it as your closing the talk page has been reverted by two editors having a dialog that has nothing to do with improving the article. but a fringe debate about Affirmative action.-- Inayity ( talk) 15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Recently you unprotected multiples countries, but you removed the protection of them. Could you restore the indefinite move-protection (sysop) of: South Africa, Slovakia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, India and Vietnam? Some (if not all) are widely visible and have had page-move vandalism sometime in the past. Thank you. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
These articles have become frequently edited, and vandalism became persistent. Care to check them? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You recently blocked this user after an ANI report. FYI, I have now opened an SPI on this user here. Regards -- Taroaldo ✉ 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea of what your posting about, I am a new user and have just registered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbob Williams ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't post correctly. But as her son, I did want to correct a few mistakes and add a few details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by stonito ( talk • contribs)
Remember this one? I have a draft on my sandbox here if you want to look at it. If you think it's OK, please unblock it so I can paste it in. Thanks! § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The edit war is not being moved forward by me but by NbySB. Please see here: Most recent comments on the BLP Noticeboard.--Bing Norton 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton ( talk • contribs)
On 2 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marion Talley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the time of her much-heralded 1926 debut, 19-year-old Marion Talley (pictured) was the youngest prima donna to perform at the Metropolitan Opera? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marion Talley. 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. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I am distressed that you appear (to me) to be taking on face value User:Carolmooredc's assertion that people are deleting reliable sources simply because (on her account) they don't like them or are seeking to be disruptive.
Carol added text to the Rothbard article cited by a reliable secondary source. As I argue on the Rothbard page, I consider the added text to be off-topic and synthesis. (I don't see how a discussion of which fringe groups Barnes inspired relates to Rothbard's praise of Barnes's work.) The only thing that Carol's reliable source was used to source was this (in my view) off-topic, SYN assertion, (the (in my view, redundant and OR) parts about Rothbard I deleted were not cited by the removed RS in question.) That's why I deleted the passage containing the source. (I also have no idea how to delete text without deleting the source, which is something I need to learn. Full disclosure: I am a noob, who appreciated and profited from your (and Carol's) discussion of synthesis regarding another user's edits on the ANI.) Steeletrap ( talk) 06:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You are one of 6 or 7 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I am posting this message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. I want to share with you a general problem with the articles being discussed on User:carolmooredc's BLPN. As you may have noticed, all of the BLPs User:carolmooredc believes are being "trashed" by allegedly "biased editors" such as myself are scholars at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. An examination of their Wikipedia entries shows that most citations for the academic work of these scholars are either from themselves or other Mises Institute scholars/publications, such as LewRockwell.com. (for some of the more egregious examples of this, see: Ralph Raico, Joseph Salerno, and William L. Anderson.) They constitute in this regard a walled garden, in which most or all "RS" for each scholar are Mises fellows, who tend to be praiseful of their colleagues. This leads to non-neutral entries featuring inflated characterizations of the prominence and importance of the scholarly contributions of Misesians.
Another big problem with Mises-related citations having such prominence in BLPs, regarding a subject's contributions as an economist, is that the economic methodology promoted by Mises Institute scholars is literally unscientific. That is to say, they categorically reject the application of the scientific method to economics -- an application which characterizes all mainstream social science -- and instead apply preconceived generalizations to their analysis of the economy. Senior Mises Scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe has summarized this distinction between the methodology the "Austrian economists" of the Mises Institute and mainstream economists in a clear and lucid manner:.
"It is this assessment of economics as an a priori science, a science whose propositions can be given a rigorous logical justification, which distinguishes Austrians, or more precisely Misesians, from all other current economic schools. All the others conceive of economics as an empirical science, as a science like physics, which develops hypotheses that require continual empirical testing. And they all regard as dogmatic and unscientific Mises's view." [ http://mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp (1), emphases mine -- steele)
Per the words of Professor Hoppe, the "Misesian" approach to economics represents a rejection of economics as an "empirical science", which makes the Mises view fall under the guidelines of WP:Fringe. Thus, putting so much weight on the Misesian view in judging the contributions of Mises scholars to economics is in my judgment at odds with WP:NPOV.
I know this is a lot to digest, but I thought it would be helpful for you to understand this context. I look forward to your feedback and counsel. Steeletrap ( talk) 09:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, please take this off my talk page. Take concerns about WP:FRINGE to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I request that further messages here be limited to two sentences each AND include either a link to a relevant article talk page discussion (where the matter can be discussed in depth) or a relevant diff that I can examine. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read my comments at WP:ANEW regarding the report you filed against Niteshift. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The Internet Barnstar | ||
For your incredibly quick and high-quality work on Lavabit. I was planning on writing the article myself tonight, but it was already written by the time I got back from dinner. IronGargoyle ( talk) 22:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC) IronGargoyle ( talk) 22:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks! The last day or so hasn't been particularly pleasant for me on Wikipedia, so this is really good to hear. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the article Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner and Thomas from Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 8 (Nov., 1989), pp. 4-10 . . . I will put it to good use . . . many smiles Stmullin ( talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Responded to on Persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh. Judicatus | Talk 21:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I was following the Jay Sadguru Swami article and related disputes and I was wondering if I could get your input. There are two main sects of the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism. The original Swaminarayan Sampraday and BAPS. The original sect has a version of the aarti that is posted and the current article is referring to from Professor Williams Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism [1]. The Baps sect has slightly changed this and here is the dispute that Anastomoses and mainly Kapil.xerox keepstrying to cover up for whatever reasons: The arti sung in BAPS Swaminarayan mandirs is claimed to be an original manuscript of the composition by Muktanand Swami and is different from the aarti sung in mandirs of the Swaminarayan Sampraday. [2]. This is a true and if you read the two aartis, you see there are subtle differences between the two. How are you suppose to note that they are simply different on Wikipedia without it being reverted by people who think they own this site. I appreciate you help in this matter.
Sageorsun ( talk) 03:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
long discussion of article content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here is the original version that the wiki article is referring to: (Bold words are what is in the original manuscript and BAPS for some reason changed them) Charaña Saroja Tamārā, Vandu Kara Jodi; (2) Charañe Shisha Dharyāthi (2) Duhkha Nākhyā Todi… Jaya Sadguru Swai -2 With folded hands I pay my obeisances to the Lotus Feet of Shree Shajanada Swami. One’s all miseries are gone by simply surrendering to His Lotus Feet. Nārāyaña Narabhrātā Dvijakula Tanu Dhāri; (2) Pāmara Patita Uddhāryā (2) Agañita Naranāri... Jaya Sadguru Swami -3 The Divine brothers Nara-Narayan Dev has taken birth in the brahmin family as human beings. He is the liberator of helpless and fallen souls, uncountable men and women. This is should be noted in the article. There are two main sects of the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism. The original Swaminarayan Sampraday and BAPS. This is an important item to be noted because the two sects have always been in bitter disputes so changing certain words helps BAPS to maybe differentiate them I don't know. The fact is that both are different and there has to be a reason why. BAPS does not have a reason but the differences are published therefore is not original research. This is from http://londonmandir.baps.org/worship/swaminarayan-arti/ and it is the BAPS Version. The bolded text is what baps changed from the original sect. Charana-saroj tamara vandu kar jodi, Prabhu vandu kar jodi; Charane chitta dharyathi (x2), dukh nakhya todi… Prabhu Jay Sadguru Swami. I offer with folded hands my obeisance unto your lotus feet; And by offering my mind unto your lotus feet, you have torn asunder all my miseries Narayan sukh-data dvija-kula tanu dhari, prabhu dvija-kula tanu dhari; Pamar patit udharya (x2), aganit nar-nari… Prabhu Jay Sadguru Swami O Narayan, the bestower of bliss! You took birth in a brahmin family as a human being, And elevated innumerable abject and fallen men and women So can we add this information to the article? |
Some editor is abusing their power and deleting all my work. Please help me to understand why this is happening my account. I cannot even post this comment through my own acccount because it has been blocked. I have requested an appeal. I am at a large university with many adherents of the swaminarayan faith here. I have not edit-warred, created multiple accounts or made any disruptive edits. Check my history, I engaged on the talk pages and those were reversed as well. What is wrong? I do not understand why Bbb23 blocked this account. Please Help. My account is Sageorsun. 141.217.174.126 ( talk) 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I bet by tomorrow this IP wil be blocked. Not only did I not do anything wrong here, users at this institution are being blocked. Your help is greatly appreaciated.
141.217.174.126 ( talk) 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
On 17 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lavabit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the owner of the Lavabit e-mail service said he can't legally disclose the reasons for its mysterious closure, which occurred soon after Edward Snowden's use of the service was disclosed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lavabit. 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. |
Alex Shih Talk 12:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
On 17 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lavabit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the owner of the Lavabit e-mail service said he can't legally disclose the reasons for its mysterious closure, which occurred soon after Edward Snowden's use of the service was disclosed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lavabit. 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. |
Alex Shih Talk 12:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ``` Buster Seven Talk 04:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the paper 'Integrating tipping points into climate impact assessments'. PhilMacD ( talk) 11:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Not that I really care whether the quote is real or not, can you offer a link so my internets can see what has been verified by your internets? †TE† Talk 17:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The comments on the article talk page are regularly deleted. So, any "collaboration" isn't possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.247 ( talk) 04:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
On 30 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amy Salerno, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Judge Amy Salerno scolded jurors in her courtroom this month for what she considered to be an incorrect not guilty verdict? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Salerno. 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. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You and Brandon seem to be having a fun time. Are you going to start a TALK subject? Would it helped if I started one as a 3rd party? Joegoodfriend ( talk) 23:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words about my recent successful GA, FA, TFA contributions to Everything Tastes Better with Bacon.
I really appreciate it.
It's nice to know that my quality improvement projects on this website are appreciated and acknowledged.
Thanks again,
— Cirt ( talk) 00:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Harvey Oswald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luis Alvarez ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Per this history, you could be seen as your involved protection of the pages related to this issue. I ask you to unprotect, as it is clear that this is not unambiguously correct as required for you to perform the protection per WP:INVOLVED. Participate in the discussion, fine. Don't save it as your preferred version while it's ongoing and not very clear what the outcome will be. ~ Charmlet -talk- 22:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gamaliel, for your work on the Ana Rosa Núñez page! I'm very eager to read more of her work. Timathom ( talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Gamaliel - many thanks for your wonderfully courteous request concerning an edit. Perhaps my memory has slipped, but I don't recall ever having even looked at this site until right no, let alone edited it. On the other hand, it'd sure be odd if my handle appeared and I wasn't there; what might be happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certayne ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Your reasons for reversing my edit are almost certainly disingenuous, and I suspect you're hiding behind a bogus claim of improper citation as cover for an agenda, not an honest assessment of my edit. However, it's easier to just play along. I will put in some citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.43.251 ( talk) 03:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:RealClearPolitics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — v/r - T P 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I could say a lot more, but I'm going to bury the hatchet for the moment. Explain, objectively, why you think Trent Lott's lobbying activity merits no mention in the lead, when Jim Talent, Denny Rehberg, Howard Dean, Paul G. Kirk, Don Nickles, Connie Mack IV, and John Breaux - to name a few edits among all the recent ones - do have that mention, and when Lott has been a registered lobbyist for longer than almost all of them and has been a more prominent lobbyist than almost all of them. 68.180.101.240 ( talk) 02:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel, Just wondering what you are thinking regarding the IP that is vandalizing the Coates BLP. He has obviously read all our warnings on his user talk page because he/she posted a confrontational response on my user talk page. [1] But then a few minutes later he/she reinserted the same content. You have protected the page, which gives some protection to the subject but I'm wondering what your strategy is with the IP. So far, in communications with both you and I they have been argumentative and shown no indication that they are willing to stop the disruptive behavior or adapt to WP's guidelines and cultural norms. I think you are a good editor and Admins have to make difficult judgement calls in situations like this and you are demonstrating a lot of patience with this IP. I already gave him a final warning, so if I had tools I would have already issued a brief block, which might have been the wrong thing. So kudos to you for your patience (which is in short supply on WP) , but just for myself as a learning opportunity could you explain to me what your approach is here? Thanks so much, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
On 24 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Librarian (painting), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Giuseppe Arcimboldo's painting The Librarian (pictured) is thought to be a portrait of historian Wolfgang Lazius? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Librarian (painting). 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You obviously watch the MAIG page like a hawk and remove any information that paints them in a poor light. Talk about biased attitudes. I'm not going to debate pro or con with you since you obviously hold all the cards here Mr. Editor; so enjoy being in control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobriant74 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is an article you should read that will help you interact with other editors on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Heres a tip for you, enjoy! http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Nice-Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobriant74 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
On 26 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Randolph Greenfield Adams, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that librarian Randolph Greenfield Adams wrote a notorious 1937 essay called "Librarians as Enemies of Books"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Randolph Greenfield Adams. 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) 14:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Gamaliel. I write you because you're an admin who cares about preventing vandalism. After a highly disappointing finale episode to the once critically acclaimed Showtime TV series Dexter, there has been considerable vandalism of the Wikipedia entry of showrunner (i.e. the main writer and director) Scott Buck, who took over the show in Seasons 6-8. For instance, see this edit ( 1), which changes Buck's title to "showruiner" and falsely claims that the Seasons for which he was in charge were negatively received. In fact, the cited metacritic source indicates that Seasons 6-8 received mostly positive reviews, even if much less positive than earlier, universally acclaimed seasons. ( 2)
This is all part of a systematic effort to vandalize Buck's page launched by disappointed Dexter fans on reddit. ( 3) ( 4) Thus we have every reason to fear the vandalism will be ongoing.
I hope all that makes sense. In light of all of it, could you protect this BLP page for a few weeks until the fans cool down? I think the series finale sucked too so I have no bias towards buck; but these edits are just egregious. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked closely at a copy of this elsewhere on the net and with my schoolgirl French gradually realised its target isn't Baartman, it's the British. Baartman engages the viewer with a long-suffering expression as her onlookers' comments display what, to the French, are typically British foibles - obsession with large cuts of meat, wearing ludicrous/indecent clothing, envy of superior sexuality etc. She was a gift to cartoonists. There's another (British) caricature where she's used to deride a politician of the day who also had a fairly ample behind. RLamb ( talk) 09:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be violating Wikipedia's most important rule by repeatedly reverting to a text that omits the insertion of "allegedly" to qualify the statement (in the Ruth Paine entry) that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the rifle that was found in the Texas School Book Depository after the President was assassinated. The citations for this allegation are many, but they are also biased inasmuch as they all derive from argumentative texts that deny that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Since no one was ever tried for the President's murder and since the evidence has been contested for decades in books written by lawyers, academics, scientists, doctors and others, your refusal to permit any acknowledgement of the fact that the evidence is in dispute violates the principle of objectivity. Crypto23 ( talk) 12:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Greeting, Gamaliel. I just created my first Wikipedia entry, for the Property and Freedom Society. Unfortunately, I screwed up and created as the "Property and freedom society" (with improper lower-case). Can you fix this? Many thanks. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Hate to be a bother like that, but after reading through the chapter that you were gracious enough to provide the missing pages for, I'm realizing I am not sure that page 336 was only bibliography or if it actually had text. Would you be so kind as to check and upload it if does include text and not just the start of the bibliography? Circéus ( talk) 03:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I am writing because my IP adress 69.165.128.0/19 was blocked. The reason given is vandalism. I didn't do any vandalism, actually I am quite new to editing and have edited only a few articles so far. Please could you clarify and unblock? Thanks, Arpabogar ( talk) 20:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Arpad
Greetings, Gamaliel. On the ANI thread I wrote about User:Binksternet ( 1), Can you, in your capacities as disinterested admin, "hat" the "proposal" sub-thread regarding whether to do a topic ban on Binksternet? ( 2) Whatever its merits, this position is a far cry from my original complaint, and serves to distract from and obscure it. Ditto for the thread regarding the alleged "belitting" of Srich and Binkster by Miles ( 3). Steeletrap ( talk) 01:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. With all due respect, this DYK which appeared on September 28
was pretty terrible. And it's your baby.
It's terrible because Mr Grunwald is (as far as I can tell from his article) is a senior national correspondent at Time magazine and has written two books, and on this rests such notability (as opposed to notoriety) as he has. In presenting him to the world at one of the most-viewed web pages in the universe, we (you) chose to ignore that and instead focus on a stupid tweet he made. Of which he's ashamed, since Grunwald later tweeted his regrets: "It was a dumb tweet. I'm sorry. I deserve the backlash." Emphasis added. The spirit of WP:BLP weeps.
It's your baby because of this edit at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Grunwald.
User:Miyagawa, who actually promoted the hook, is not responsible because (if I understand DYK procedure correctly, which I've taken a fair amount of trouble to do) promoting an article is a purely mechanical step; like an XfD closer, User:Miyagawa isn't allowed to intrude his own judgement into the process but rather simply assesses the judgement of others.
As to those others, there were eight besides you, seven of whom didn't approve the proposal. No one rejected it either, but a couple at least made vague noises in the direction of BLP considerations. The one other editor who approved it did so pretty much in passing, and this was followed by further objections (although not in the BLP vein).
Your edit, coming at the end, summing up and indicating that all previous objections had been addressed, is certainly the key event in causing this dreadful entry to appear on our main page. You could have said "Hold it. This is wrong. This person isn't our enemy and there's no reason to do a driveby character assassination here. Let's restart the process with something that doesn't violate WP:BLP, such as Did you know that Time magazine senior national correspondent Michael Grunwald has written two books? or something. Rejected."
But you didn't. You're an admin for chrissakes. WP:BLP is one of our core policies, and the very first sentence is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (Note "any" -- there's no exclusion for the main page.) Admins need to be familiar with our core policies. It's important!
I know you're only human and we all make mistakes, but DYK is dynamite. Unlike normal article edits, edits to the main page can't be undone -- once a DYK's appeared, it's out there. And there's no time or allowance for a lengthy or well-attended review of the matter. That's why you need to be really really careful. I hope you will be in future, and that this doesn't indicate a "Meh, whatever" attitude toward WP:BLP, because that would be a problem. Herostratus ( talk) 18:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give a reason for your support of posting the Doctor Who item to ITN; generally to be considered an opinion needs more than a simple "support" or "oppose" with it. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 01:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to give you some background in the spirit of WP:BRD:
I had re-inserted the link you removed from the L. Fletcher Prouty page after I added the entry to the spam-whitelist so that the link could be used in article. My action on the spam-whitelist was after discussion on both the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist pages. Those discussions, in turn, were initiated in response to communications from the website representative on OTRS.
The site is still blacklisted except for that one link, and those who participated in the admittedly brief discussions did not have a problem including it. I judged that to be a rough consensus, therefore I added it.
Please note this was a compromise determined after demands in OTRS to de-blacklist the entire site. The initial spam-blacklist proposal was to leave blacklisted only the attack page that caused the site to be blacklisted in the first place, but then changed to white-listing just the main index page of the site and leaving the rest of the site blacklisted. The prouty.org representative agreed to that (reluctantly) although no guarantees were made that the link would be retained in the article.
I do not believe the link's presence does any harm, and the site does have useful information about the subject. Please consider adding it back — this would also relieve overworked OTRS volunteers from from responding to further complaints. Thanks. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 01:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As you may know,
VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to
your preferences and choosing the item, "
MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable
". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at
Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you,
Whatamidoing (WMF) (
talk) 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't delete the "economist" thing, I just relegated it to the end of the lede (still a somewhat prominent position relative to the rest of the article). The reason for that is that the article, and his notable contributions, mostlyr elate to political theory or activism, not economics. Steeletrap ( talk) 00:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel. In this instance, I must agree with Steeletrap this seems a reasonable edit. There are sources which call MR an economist, but there are also sources which call him a political theorist, anarchist activist, etc. The lede should reflect the weight of the content in the article, and despite a lot of complaining and even warring over various issues none of the Rothbard editors has added content which establishes "economist" as being more than a marginal part of his adult activities or contributions. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. In the article on Weekly Standard, the neoconservative label is already noted in the opening paragraph extensively. It doesn't need to be made twice including in the opening sentence when most reliable independent sources call it conservative. You seem to be pushing a point of view and trying to slant this encyclopedia's coverage of article subjects. That would be inappropriate. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 22:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Gamaliel, I think I tried to choose "Ahithophel" as my handle, but it was taken. ... Oh well.
I think the third paragraph of the article (the way it is at present) is incredibly biased. It reads as follows: "During his time at MSNBC, Olbermann established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining note for his pointed criticism of right-wing or conservative politicians and public figures. Though he has been described as a "liberal", he has resisted being labelled politically, stating "I'm not a liberal. I'm an American." The problem with any edit (including my earlier one) is that Olbermann is either (a) naïve in thinking he is not a liberal, or (b) disingenuous in pretending not to be a liberal, when it is clear he is liberal. As a result, letting him be naïve/deceptive biases the article in his favour, while calling him "disingenuous" (while true) slants it against him. The easiest solution would be to delete everything in the paragraph after "public figures" (so I'll do that now).
The way in which the sentence is incredibly biased can be seen if we change the names around a bit. Example #1: "Sean Hannity established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticism of left-wing or liberal politicians and public figures. Though he has been described as a "conservative", he has resisted being labeled politically, stating "I'm not a conservative. I'm an American." (O'Reilly may be a better example as Hannity admits to being a conservative, while O'Reilly resists the conservative label and claims to be Independent, but on the partisanship scale Olbermann and Hannity would be similar as O'Reilly is not conservative on every issue and occasionally criticizes those on the right, while Olbermann is virtually always far-left and Hannity is virtually always far-right.)
Or, to use more examples from more offensive historical characters than Olbermann and Hannity or O'Reilly: "Though Eugene Terreblanche has been called a white supremacist in South Africa, he disputes the charge, stating, "I'm not a white supremacist, I'm an Afrikaaner." "Though Khaled Mashaal has been called a terrorist in Israel, he disputes the charge, stating, "I'm not a terrorist, I'm just a freedom fighter." "Though Joseph Stalin has been called a communist in Russia, he disputes the charge, stating, "I'm not a communist, I'm a Russian." "Though Adolf Hitler has been called a fascist in Germany, he disputes the charge, stating, "I'm not a fascist, I'm a German."
Anyway, the worst kind of bias in a biography of a political commentator or figure is the kind that is hard to spot by the casual reader. Generally (like in this one) it shows up when the author of the biography explicitly states (or else arranges the material in such a way as to imply or give the impression) that someone who is clearly on the left or the right may really be mislabeled and actually be a non-partisan.
So, in short, it is incredibly biased to say (or arrange the article to imply) "X has earned his name criticizing Y-wing politicians and has been called a Z-wing commentator, but he disputes the charge saying I am just an American is biased." It's biased if we say X=Hannity (or O'Reilly), Y=Left and Z=Right. And it's biased if we say X=Olbermann, Y=Right and Z=Left. Irenaeus7 ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
On 25 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shen Zhurong, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Shen Zhurong is considered the Father of Library Science in China? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shen Zhurong. 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 an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I hardly understand why quoting legal documents about a public figure is not neutral. There are half a dozen lies and misleading one sided opinions on the page about the Ku Klux Klan why can the truth not be told about Morris Dees? It is after all my 1st amendment right to list a FACT is it not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf28382 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi-some of your articles might turn up in some form on WikiProject Wisconsin and that is the main project I pay attention to. For example your article J.R.E. Lee showed up in the University of Wisconsin alumni category that I look at. There are several University of Wisconsin campuses including Madison so I made the change to reflect this. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello I was wondering if you could help me with editing a article for swaminarayan:
The Criticism section has been discussed and here is a suggested expansion. Any input would be helpful.
Several decades after formation of the movement, Swami Dayananda (1824–1883) questioned the acceptance of Swaminarayan as the Supreme Being and was disapproving towards the idea that visions of Swaminarayan could form a path to attaining perfection. Accused of deviating from the Vedas, his followers were criticised for the illegal collection of wealth and the "practice of frauds and tricks." [3] In the views of Swami Dayananda, published as early as 1875, it was a "historical fact" that Swaminarayan decorated himself as Narayana in order to gain followers. [4] Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world. [5]
Swaminarayan initiated reforms in both relationships without totally abolishing sex discrimination or caste differentiation. The interpretation and application of Swaminarayan’s reform raise two hotly debated issues of contemporary social ethics, the position of women society and the role of caste. [6] However, while "many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles", Swaminarayan himself, despite considerable criticism from those in his own contemporary society who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women," insisted that education was the inherent right of all people. [7] According to Professor David Hardiman, "Swaminarayan's actions have propagated a vicious form of patriarchy that subjugates women." [8] After traveling throughout India, he was reported to vomit even if approached by even the shadow of a women." [9] [10] Practices set forth by him seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible. [11] Professor Williams states, “No women are trustees of the religion nor do they serve on any managing committees of the major temples. Thus all the wealth and institutions are effective under the control of men.” [12] Concepts of pollution associated with the menstrual cycle lead to the exclusion of women from the temples and daily worship. [13] In case of widows, he directed those who could not follow the path of chastity to remarry. For those who could, he lay down strict rules which included them being under the control of male members of the family. This may seem regressive; however it gave them "a respected and secure place in the social order" of the time. [14] He also directed male devotees not to listen to religious discourses given by women. Swaminarayan restricted widows "to live always under the control of male members of their family and prohibited them from receiving instruction in any science from any man excepting their nearest relations." [15] [16]
In relation to caste, as already suggested, the Swaminarayan order was and is predominantly conservative. Caste Divisions are scarely effaced by membership of the order and Harijans were formly excluded from Swaminarayan temples. [17] Swaminarayan's sect dismissed caste as irrelevant to the soul's status before god though in practice, caste distinctions remained visible among them though reduced in complexity. [18] He would eat along with the Rajput and Khati castes but not any lower. [19] He established separate places of worship for the lower population where they were considerable. [20] In the Shikshapatri, he wrote do not take food or water from a person of a lower caste. Members of a lower caste are prohibited from wearing a full sect mark (tilak chandlo) on their forehead. [21] Even now, however, for the vast majority of Gujarat's lower-caste, Untouchable and tribal population, the sect is out of bounds. [22]
If you can help me out. It would be very beneficial as I dont want to make mistakes. I put it on the talk page too but I have been getting attacked their so I am seeking outside help. Watch this for me. Thank you
Bluespeakers ( talk) 16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I may need your support as that same user is trying to block me. I really used all the tools I had to get help and this user is obsessed with me. I am afraid that I will get blocked and a moderator might just do it. If you can check my history and note that I have not done anything malicious would help. They are trying to make me guily by association. I am trying to do the right thing in a correct way. I am not a sock. Just picking up where my friend got a little overboard. I explained it where it is needed on the site but I know that you are an ally and know that I have not done any malicious content. I got accused for disagree with a patroller of that article who did not like when someone stood up.
Bluespeakers ( talk) 19:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I wanted to request your help. I explained it in detail and I cannot seem to get a moderator to understand that these people are controlling the article and ganging up on people that do not agree with their positive only portrayal of their religious group. I have posted my rebuttal on this link [ [3]] and these people really do not want certain information up. fter I posted the links that supported what was already being deleted and they still had a problem with that so I sought out help.
They want to group me with other socks who I personally know who made mistakes and where angry at the conclusion of their research. I am just picking up where they were blocked of because I can. At the end of the day, I have not done anything wrong, sought out help and remained civil. Please keep and eye out and see that the correct approach is taken. I was reading the pillars of Wikipedia and it is so sad that vandals come in and want to manipulate the site for their own benefit.
Please I beg you to take a look and see that I have no ill intention. I just want to make sure that the right unbiased information is being upheld. I swear this is not my purpose to bother you on Wikipedia but I am so taken back that I would get this severe resistance from group members that want to make sure that articles are only portrayed in a certain way. I am so sorry for taking your time. I can only imagine the stuff that you deal with on a constant basis with bigger topics. I am contacting moderators who have assisted people I know in the past. Thank you
Bluespeakers ( talk) 02:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)\
Bluespeakers ( talk) 13:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. I saw all your contributions on the Swaminarayan article and clearly no response has been given by other users because I believe those group of users are waiting for my account to be blocked. I have been requesting help and responding to all allegations but they have a team that they belong to and they control the articles. They belong to the group Wikipedia:WikiProject Swaminarayan. They commonly patrol the articles and agree with each other for the sake of keeping the article the way they want denouncing systematically anyone who disagrees. As soon as discussions about the recent rape allegations came out about their sect, they have been extra controlling and quick to remove that information. They have a administrator Bbb23 that has block my partners in the past (I agree the went overboard but still I will make sure they appeal their cases) and I want to make sure that I get a fair case. This is really getting out of control and their ganging up on users is something that needs to be investigated.
I now stated on all the people that I have asked help from: I also want to know that I am apart of an ongoing sock investigation and I am currently fighting. Here is the link /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Swamifraud. I do not want this to affect your ability to assist in this article so after reading some of the accusing parties attacks, I am displaying. Please take a look at the articles above and contribute because there are many people patrolling the articles making sure that their religious group is only being portrayed in a certain way.
Please let me know if I need to do anything else.
Bluespeakers ( talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
On 31 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Henry Reason, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Howard University librarian Joseph Henry Reason was the first African-American to be nominated for president of the American Library Association? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Henry Reason. 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I strongly agree with your reversion of the creationist stuff. He's written a lot about it, but it needs secondary discussion. (I thought there were a couple SS; will look through the archives and make sure they're good ones (i.e. by scientists)) I strongly disagree with the mass deletion of the blogs. You'll find that all those blogs are written by experts (Professors of econ) who qualify for the exception under WP:SPS. Murphy's own remarks fall under WP:Aboutself. I ask you to reread the diffs and revert the latter stuff. Steeletrap ( talk) 04:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I have just been placed under "notice" on the Austrian Economics sanctions page by User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge ( 1), for re-adding the blogs stuff to the article. The "BLP" violating content s/he removed ( 2) consisted of Murphy documenting his own predictions/methodologies through use of his blog (per WP:ABOUTSELF) and UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong criticizing those predictions/methodologies on his blog.
Please intervene. We can question weight or whatever, but self-sourced documentation of one's theories/predictions and expert criticism of those theories/predictions is not BLP violation; thus, the notice (which is the next step to a ban) should be removed in any case. But if AQFT, an involved editor on these pages who I believe isn't even an admin, wasn't even allowed to make the notice, s/he should be subject to sanctions or a notice. I can't imagine that any user -- esp. involved ones -- is allowed to make a notice, as that would soon result in a flood of dubious "notices" on the sanctions page. Steeletrap ( talk) 22:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you want me to delete or add something more in this Template:Did you know nominations/Imtiaz Ali Taj? Thanks.-- Nvvchar. 12:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
On 4 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. R. E. Lee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that President J. R. E. Lee was able to secure higher salaries for teachers and administrators at Florida A&M University despite Governor Cone's statement that "no Negro was worth $4000 a year"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J. R. E. Lee. 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tupaia (navigator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia ( 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) 09:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I think page protection is warranted. This is dragging on and on, and now we're well into 3RR territory. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. But I'm not the person to do that; I really dislike wiki lawyering. 03:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is an excellent suggestion [4]. But it seems to have brought the thread back on the article talk page. I think resolving the discussion to conclusion on one page or another is the best course of action, but the damn cats, they won't go where I want to herd them! Binkster has done an article revision too. So how do we close this? Would posting your idea on the RSN help? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Thomas DeSaille Tucker 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! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
On 20 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas DeSaille Tucker, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sierra Leone-born Thomas DeSaille Tucker was the first president of what would become Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas DeSaille Tucker. 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 16:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Harvey Oswald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secret Service ( 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, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
On 21 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred C. Cole, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Fred C. Cole supported efforts to desegregate Tulane University while he was an administrator? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fred C. Cole. 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I did not mean to start an edit war. I was immediately "reverted". Accused of "leaning to conspiracy theory", which I most certainly was not, I did undo the revert. I then went to the Talk section to defend my edit when it was again reverted by you.
We must stick to the facts otherwise we lose credibility. Therefore, I request that you leave my adapted wording which leaves the appropriate room for doubt. It is not conspiracy theory. Numerous sources exist which all indicate a seriously flawed "investigation", malfeasance and (unfortunately) deceitful behavior on the part the of the WC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4eyes ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
On 22 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis R. St. John, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that librarian Francis R. St. John was awarded the Legion of Merit for reorganizing the Army Medical Library? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis R. St. John. 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) 00:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel.
Could you please set up a proper Wiki mediation to resolve the issue of my carefully worded contribution to the Jack Ruby page that continues to be "reverted"? "Fat&Happy" is the latest to have reverted it. He did not posted in Talk first. Have you scolded him for this?
For the record, I never intended to start a war here and am quite frankly more than a little surprised and disappointed at the reaction here. Also, I have clearly included a reference. Would you like more? Perhaps you could tell me how many references are needed before my contribution will be considered valid?
As previously stated, if Wikipedia allows the blind parroting of "Oswald assassinated JFK", it is doing a great disservice to the reader who has a right to be informed. Not disinformed. 50 years after the incident, as you should know (and I'm quite surprised that apparently you and other contributers here don't), much information has come to light which points to the fact that Oswald did not assassinate JFK. We may never know what role he played exactly. However, it is (or should be) clear now that the statement "Oswald assassinated JFK" is a deceptive untruth.
I eagerly await your reply.
Thank you in advance.
4eyes ( talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes
Strange thing. I wanted to do a minor edit on a page I had been working on, and did not log in. I have done this before with a problem, but now it said my IP was blocked by you. I checked my IP using "What's my IP" and compared the blocked IP to my own and only the first 5 digits were the same.
Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedawg ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Email sent Livedawg ( talk) 00:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
"A matter for history, not law."
Isn't that rather imperiously stated?
The man was never convicted of anything; he was only charged. He merely has been accused post-mortem by a blue ribbon panel. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 21:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
discussion
Thanksgiving to you, "more informal" veteran admin with a background of
Library and information science, for quality article contributions to biographies, including
Barbara Bel Geddes and
Lee Harvey Oswald, for
tips for the angry new user and the reminder of
the most important rule. for "discussion would be the first thing to come to mind", - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
If that source that I said on the noticeboard is reliable, but it doesn't meet context, does that mean that the adult part should be removed from the article The Simpsons? I would remove it myself, but the user AmericanDad86 will re-add it to prove points that he is right, in which he is already starting to be disruptive. I mean, discussing the matter with him is like talking to a small child about it over and over, and it never understands it. What exactly should I do? Blurred Lines 17:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
→ 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...
The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)