Revision as of 20:14, 9 August 2006 editInfrogmation (talk | contribs)Administrators88,165 edits →Jim Garrison← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:34, 9 August 2006 edit undoJoehazelton (talk | contribs)313 edits responding to goetheanNext edit → | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I wonder if those comments could be removed as personal attacks. — ] ] 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | I wonder if those comments could be removed as personal attacks. — ] ] 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
Thank you for locking the page, now we have a still target | |||
to discuss. I will, in the next few days go | |||
line by line and discuss this page. | |||
I am willing to be very nice and hope | |||
the other editors "BE NICE" too. | |||
I have been in contact with ] to help me | |||
in this. Thank you] 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Request for Comment:Clay Shaw == | == Request for Comment:Clay Shaw == |
Revision as of 20:34, 9 August 2006
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.
- March to August 2004: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 1
- September to November 2004: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 2
- November 2004 to February 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 3
- February 2005 to April 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 4
- May 2005 to July 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 5
- August 2005 to October 2005: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 6
- November 2005 to February 2006: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 7
- March 2006 to July 2006: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive8
Peter Roskam
FYI I wonder if those comments could be removed as personal attacks. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for locking the page, now we have a still target to discuss. I will, in the next few days go line by line and discuss this page. I am willing to be very nice and hope the other editors "BE NICE" too.
I have been in contact with User:Jahiegel to help me in this. Thank youJoehazelton 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Request for Comment:Clay Shaw
I'm asking for an Rfc on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment. Ramsquire 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
trying to avoid an edit war
could you take a look at the recent edits of Jojouka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/The_master_musicians_of_Jajouka
I have a couple of users who feel that the commercial link they placed on several different articles is ethical and should not have been removed. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Rsm99833 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the link advertising the CD and I'll be watching the article in case it pops up again. Gamaliel 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Please note my edit history. They're placing the link on other pages as well. Thanks again.Rsm99833 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Gammers
Please unblock Gammers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That is just his last name. Fred Bauder 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Has he provided proof of this? I find it difficult to believe that two days after someone impersonating me on the Joe Scarborough article attempts to restart an edit war there, a Mr. Gammers appears and heads straight for that article (and no others) and makes extremely similar edits. For over a year I've been the victim of a vicious vandal who has attacked me because of my editorial position on this article (see the deleted edits on my user talk page for some examples) and I believe this is the same person attempting to get at me again. Gamaliel 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to have bothered you without researching this more. this edit is good for an indefinite block. Fred Bauder 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Commercial Link
Sorry to bother you again, but I'm on the road (going to Las Vegas) and cannot follow proper protocol. Could you make a call or send this one up for consideration as if it belongs here or not-
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_Degrees_from_Truth&diff=prev&oldid=67578886
Again, sorry for any inconveniences. Have a good weekend. Rsm99833 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Vandalism
When you take it upon yourself to undo the work of two other editors who negotiated and compromised to include something that is based in reality, and not wikiality, then yes, I call that vandalism. The fact is that conservative bloggers DO use that alternate definition all the time. If you go to Conservative Underground and ask what swiftboating means, you will get that answer repeatedly. EECEE felt that blogs were not a reliable source, so I came up with those other three sources. He picked the t-shirt one to use. I'm not going to continue an edit war, but you have your head stuck up a dark hole if you refuse to believe that "swiftboating" means something other than the definition that you approve of. Crockspot 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your little warning about personal attacks is bogus. I made an equivocal statement, the outcome of which is determined by your ability to discern your own bias from reality. Are you going to address my concerns, or are you just going to play wiki games? Crockspot 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, that was an equivocal statement that is only true if you are unable to separate bias from reality. I assume that you ARE able to make that distinction, therefore the statement would not be true. You are well known for using the wiki rules to get your way. I hope you are proud of the fact that you have supressed a bit of valid information about a term that is actually used, and done it within the rules of Misplaced Pages. I would report you for a 3RR violation, but since we both made the same number of edits, I'll let it go. But feel free to continue to post warnings. Crockspot 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well now who is resorting to personal attacks? The fact remains that the alternate definition that I added to the article is widely used among conservative bloggers, and you have supressed it. Your verbal assault on my talk page, as well as your prediction that I will be banned from WP, only confirms to me that you have an agenda to pursue. I have a prediction of my own. The definition that you have called "bullshit" will get back in the article eventually, either through an acceptable publishing, or through a modification of the RS rules. You are not the only one who knows how to work the system around here. I may not have been around as long as you, but I suspect that I am quicker on the uptake. It's been a pleasure getting under your skin. Crockspot
- As I said, that was an equivocal statement that is only true if you are unable to separate bias from reality. I assume that you ARE able to make that distinction, therefore the statement would not be true. You are well known for using the wiki rules to get your way. I hope you are proud of the fact that you have supressed a bit of valid information about a term that is actually used, and done it within the rules of Misplaced Pages. I would report you for a 3RR violation, but since we both made the same number of edits, I'll let it go. But feel free to continue to post warnings. Crockspot 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your little warning about personal attacks is bogus. I made an equivocal statement, the outcome of which is determined by your ability to discern your own bias from reality. Are you going to address my concerns, or are you just going to play wiki games? Crockspot 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you insult and attack everyone in sight, and when someone responds in a way that can be interpreted as even the slightest bit uncivil, you attempt to take the moral high ground. How typical. If you're going to reinact the troll playbook, please don't waste any more of my time. Gamaliel 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just overexaggerating. If you really have looked over my edit history, you will see that I have a civil working relationship with BenBurch, who is a bitter enemy of mine outside of WP, and also worked out a civil compromise with an editor who could have potentially conflicted with me on the Ava Lowery article. If you go back and examine the first interaction between you and I, you will see that YOUR edit history was the first to use the term "bs". Perhaps you should examine your own attitudes, and how they contribute to the attitudes that you receive back. Namecalling is not a good trait for an admin. Crockspot 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent work. You have this tactic down pretty well, so you might actually fool someone. You accuse everyone in sight of bias and vandalism and then you have the chutzpah to attempt to claim the moral high ground. Impressive! Gamaliel 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. (curtsy). Now, can we start getting along? Crockspot 17:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you are sincere about this, sure. You can start by refraining from accusing people of vandalism and bias. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Allrighty then. Consider me being haved. Crockspot 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you are sincere about this, sure. You can start by refraining from accusing people of vandalism and bias. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. (curtsy). Now, can we start getting along? Crockspot 17:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent work. You have this tactic down pretty well, so you might actually fool someone. You accuse everyone in sight of bias and vandalism and then you have the chutzpah to attempt to claim the moral high ground. Impressive! Gamaliel 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just overexaggerating. If you really have looked over my edit history, you will see that I have a civil working relationship with BenBurch, who is a bitter enemy of mine outside of WP, and also worked out a civil compromise with an editor who could have potentially conflicted with me on the Ava Lowery article. If you go back and examine the first interaction between you and I, you will see that YOUR edit history was the first to use the term "bs". Perhaps you should examine your own attitudes, and how they contribute to the attitudes that you receive back. Namecalling is not a good trait for an admin. Crockspot 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you insult and attack everyone in sight, and when someone responds in a way that can be interpreted as even the slightest bit uncivil, you attempt to take the moral high ground. How typical. If you're going to reinact the troll playbook, please don't waste any more of my time. Gamaliel 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh by the way, please refrain from removing messages posted on MY talk page. That really is poor form. Thank you. Crockspot 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hardly. Reverting the edits of blocked users is standard procedure. Gamaliel 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of a user's talk page? Please. Your attempt to hide the information from me failed. Crockspot 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please. *eyeroll* Give up the conspiracy theory. I could have deleted the edit from the page history with my administrative powers and you never would have known it existed. No one is trying to "hide" anything from you. If you want to follow the dubious advise of a blocked user, go for it, but it won't get you anywhere but blocked yourself. Gamaliel 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of a user's talk page? Please. Your attempt to hide the information from me failed. Crockspot 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hardly. Reverting the edits of blocked users is standard procedure. Gamaliel 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How does one archive a discussion?
Looking at the JFK assassination page, I think it is time to do one. But I don't know how. Ramsquire 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
How did you reach your decision? RPJ 23:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I received a message on the top of the page saying "This page is 126 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable." Ramsquire 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Unprotect of my User: and User_talk pages
It's been almost a year. Can you unprotect these now? I promise, I will behave 99% of the time. 67.18.109.218 01:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
VandalSniper
You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
For reverting my user talk page after Tchadienne's edit. I think he has problems and may need help. I doubt that editing Misplaced Pages is good for him just now. Anyway, thanks for your help. --Guinnog 11:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dagmarlife.jpeg)
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Dagmarlife.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kevin 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Jim Garrison
Hi. Thanks for your edits. I edited the Jim Garrison article, including putting back some of the material you removed. The reason was that this version left almost no information at all about the Clay Shaw/Kennedy assasination case, which certainly is what Garrison is most famous for. Making the article more factual and more in line with NPOV is welcome. I encourage you to explain what the specific problems are with material you remove. I think the article needs more info on the famous case. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- See my note at Talk:Jim Garrison. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)